Tree-sitter lawsuit cost nearly a quarter-million
July 10, 2006

Treesitters defending Red Hill Valley.

The final bills are in for the city's lawsuit against the Red Hill tree-sitters. A report going to city council this week reveals that $244,421.94 has been paid to the outside law firm of Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson for the "application for finding of contempt".

The city lawsuit was launched in November 2004 when the council adopted the following motion: "That the City commence a Court Action against all identifiable individuals who, during the summer of 2004, participated in activities in contravention of the City's Injunction Order, seeking to have them held in contempt of Court."

City officials indicated that "seven or eight individuals" would be charged, but their names were not revealed for nearly seven months after the council decision. The original proposed recommendation also included the phrase "also seeking to recover damages from them in regard to costs incurred by the City as a result of their activities". That was deleted in a 3-2 vote of the public works committee, but confusion persisted until May 2005 when the city issued a press release 'correcting' a Spectator report that said damages of $345,000 were being sought.

The injunction order, obtained by the city in September 2003, barred access to most of the valley. Hundreds contravened the injunction - including some city councillors and about 200 people who marched into the forbidden zone behind Anglican canon Paddy Doran in November 2003.

The legal action, when it began in May 2005, focused on seven individuals apparently associated with a 104-day tree-sit that had ended early the previous September. About 200 people who had attended a literary festival in support of the tree-sitters in the restricted section of the valley were not charged.

A negotiated agreement with five of the seven defendants resulted in no fines in return for their agreement to continue to avoid visiting the restricted valley zone. A sixth successfully defeated the accusations in court.

Charges proceeded against Nathan Clark, the young man who had spent all 104 days on a desk-sized hanging platform. He apparently left the city soon after he came down from the tree and was never served with the legal papers, but was convicted in absentia and fined $10,000.

The costs of the lawsuits bring total legal charges associated with the expressway to nearly $7 million - including $2,583,000 for "injunction issues", $1,677,00 for "legal counsel" and $2,688,000 for "actions against [the] federal government."

The latter amount includes nearly $155,00 paid so far in the city's lawsuit against 64 federal staff and four former cabinet ministers who are alleged to have "abused their public office by engaging in targeted malice towards the City's completion of the Expressway" by using environmental assessment "in an unprecedented, illegal and unconstitutional manner in order to achieve that objective."

Council recently accepted a recommendation from Gowlings lawyer David Estrin that they seek a mediated settlement to the $75 million suit. In a lengthy presentation to councillors in November 2004, Estrin suggested the city could not lose this case. See CATCH transcript at http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/council/council_041124.htm#estrin.