Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LT to Mr. Lorne v. Halyn, November 8, 2013

LT to Mr. Lorne v. Halyn, November 8, 2013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,879|Likes:
Published by dlebray
Letter from the counsel of Mayor Naheed Nenshi to the counsel of Mr. Cal Wenzel and Shane Homes Limited regarding a potential lawsuit.

Note: this letter is no longer considered private and confidential as it has been released by Mayor Nenshi's office.
Letter from the counsel of Mayor Naheed Nenshi to the counsel of Mr. Cal Wenzel and Shane Homes Limited regarding a potential lawsuit.

Note: this letter is no longer considered private and confidential as it has been released by Mayor Nenshi's office.

More info:

Published by: dlebray on Nov 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Bennett
Jones
Munaf Mohamed
Direct Line:
403,298.4456
e-mail:
moharnedm@bennettjones.com
Our
ile
No.: 1762-1
November
8,
013
VIA
EMAIL
Mr.
oran
V.
Halyn
Sugimoto
ompany
Barristers olicitors
204,
635
37th
Ave
NE
Calgary
AB
T1Y
Z6
Dear
Mr.
Halyn:
Bennett Jones
LLP
4500
Bankers
all
East,
855 2nd
Street
SW
Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2P
4K7
Tel:
403.298.3100
Fax:
403.265.7219
PRIVATE
ONFIDENTIAL
Re:
Demand
rom
Cal
Wenzel
and Shane
Homes
imited
We
re
counsel
for
his
Worship,
Mayor
Naheed
K.
Nenshi
and
have
been
provided with
your
correspondence
dated
October
31, 013.
The
Mayor
s
disappointed
with the
inflammatory
language
and
hyperbole
contained in
your
letter.
Set
out
below
is
the
Mayor's
response
to
the
accusations
made
by
your
clients.Distilling
the
rhetoric
in
your
etter
it
appears
that
Mr.
Wenzel
and
Shane
Homes
Limited
claim
that
they
have been
landered
in three
ways:
1.
Mr.
Wenzel
s
said to
have
broken
he
law;
2.
Mr.
Wenzel
old others
during
his secret
meeting
how
o
break
the
law;
and
3.
Mr.
Wenzel's
ecret
meeting
was
eferred
to
as
a
scene out
of
he
movie
The
Godfather
and
Mr.
Wenzel
onsiders
that
he
was
eferred
to
as the
Godfather.In
respect
of
the
first
two
matters,
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
your
clients
review
the
Local
Authorities
Election
Act,
RSA
2000,
c.L-21
( LAEA ). The
LAEA
now
sets
out (as
of
February 3,
2010)
pecific rules
for
municipal
election
finance
and
contribution
disclosure.
It
sets
out
maximum
contribution
amounts
in
Section
147.2(1).
For
ease
of
reference
that
provisionprovides:
Limitations
on
Contributions
147.2(1)
Campaign
contributions
by
any
person,
corporation, trade
union
or
employee
rganization
to
a
andidate
shall
not
exceed
$5,000.00
n
any
year.
www bennettjones com
WSLegal\071762
00001
9726415v2
 
November
,
2013
Page
Two
In
addition,
the
LAEA
lso defines
the
scope
of
Campaign
contribution for
the
purposes
of
he
Act.
Again,
or
ease
of
eference
I set
out
that
provision
below:
Definitions
147.1(1)
In
this
Part,
 A)
Campaign
Contribution
means
any
money,
ersonal
property,
real
property
or
service
that
is
provided
to
or
for
the
benefit
of a
andidate
or
the
candidate's
election
campaign
without
fair
market
value
compensation
from
that
candidate
but
does not
include
services
provided
by a
volunteer
who
voluntarily
performs
the
services
and
receives
no
compensation,
directly
or
indirectly,
in
relation
to
the
services
or
time
spent
providing the
services.
On
plain
reading
of
he
LAEA,
Campaign
Contribution
would
include
any
goods and
services
that
are
provided
to
the candidate
at less
than
fair
market
value
compensation
from
the candidate,including things
donated
to
be
used
during
the
campaign
by
the
candidate.
By
ontrast,
the
exception
for services
provided
by a
volunteer
appears
to
contemplate
services
(and
not
goods)
that
are
performed
ersonally
by
a
olunteer
and
may
ot
have
separate
fair
market
alue.
Indeed,
a
review
of
Hansard
Debates
at
the reading
of
ill
203, which
amended
the
LAEA
o include the
maximum
limits
on
campaign
contributions in
Alberta
municipal
elections,
the
Honourable
Mr.
Lukaszuk of
Edmonton
Castle
Downs
made
the following
comment
on
the
definition
of
contributions for
the
purposes
of
ampaign
expenses:
So
if
somebody
gives
you
an
office
to
use
for
the duration
of
he
campaign,
hatactually
has
a
market
value.
You
hould
declare
it
as
a
donation.
That's
what
we
do
in
provincial
elections.
Returning
to
the
secret
meeting
convened
by
Mr.
Wenzel of
is
colleagues
and
supporters,
I
quote
below
verbatim
the statements
made
by
Mr.
Wenzel:
Cal
Wenzel:
 Druh
Farrell
In case
anyone
doesn't
know
she
doesn't
like
me
and
I
don't
particularly
like
her.
I
had
13
rucks
out
last
election
delivering
signs
and
assembling
them
and
I
got
called
by
Druh
in
the
elections
because
they
said
I d
given
$5,000
in
cash
so
therefore
my
rucks
that
were
out
delivering
put
me
ver
the
$5,000
imit
so
they
were
going
to
take
us
o
court.
So
Druh
and
I don't
see
eye
o
eye
obviously.
Now,
one
of
the things
you
know,
when
you're
looking
at getting
rid
of
anincumbent
you
know,
uch
as
Druh
Farrell
or
Pincott,
the candidates
that
you
know,
Kevin
Taylor
and
James
Maxim,
re
suggesting
that
they
need
somewhere
n
the area
of
150,000
o
$250,000
in
their
campaign
funds.
Now
hat
could
be
maybe
a
ittle
bit
less,
because Chris
has
promised
every United
truck
to
be
made
vailable
and
he's
going
to
print
the signs
on
heir
computers,
and
so
you
know, maybe
he
can
get
by
vv
WSLega1\071762\00001\9726415v2
 
November
,
2013
Page
Three
with $125,000.
 
That's
how
much
money
these
guys
think
they
need.
Now
he otherthing
is,
keep
in
mind you
can
only
send
them
$5,000
per
year,
and
that
means
you've
35
days
o
send
in
this year's
tranche
and
then next
year
you
can
end
in
an
additional.
So
t s
really
quite
important
that
you
know,
hat
you
et
on
hat.
So
how
much
does
t
really
cost
you?
So
if
we
have
to
sit
here
and
say,
you
know,
we
have
to
fund
maybe
ten
candidates
here
for
$5,000
hat s
$50,000
this
year
and$50,000
next
year.
Keeping
in
mind,
n
order to bring
Preston
on
board, eleven
of
us
put
up
$100,000
o
a
million
one.
So
ts
not
like
we
aven't
put
up
our
money,
you
know,
nd
we're
going
to
be
there
to
put
it
up
again
and
yet we're
also
supporting
thecandidates.
So
ll
leave
you
with
that.
As
your
clients
are
probably
aware,
ustification is
a
complete defence
to
any
claim
of
alleged
defamation.
That
is,
truth
is
a
complete answer.
The
law
provides
that
it
is
sufficient
if
the
substance
of
he
allegation
is
justified.
Based
upon
the
definition
of Campaign
Contribution
it
is
difficult
to
understand
how
Mr.
Wenzel's
confession
to
a
group
secretly called
to
a
meeting
that
he
had
donated
$5,000
and
then
in
addition
 
had
thirteen
trucks
out
delivering
signs
and
assembling
them
would
not
be
a
lear
violation
of
he
law. Indeed,
t
would
appear
that
Mr.
Wenzel
s
fortunatethat
he
was
not pursued
or prosecuted
under
Section 147.2(5)
for
contravening
the
LAEA
In
addition,
during
the
course
of
his
statements to
his
various
friends
during
that
meeting,
he
was
clearly
explaining to
them
how
hey could
provide
services
such
as
every United
truck
or
printing
signs for the candidates
as
a
way
to obviate
the
$5,000
limit.
That,
reasonably
construed,
again
would
be
a
iolation
of
he
LAEA
Therefore,
your
etter
is
accurate
that
Mr.
Wenzel
did
not
admit
to
breaking
the
law.
However,
based
on
his
confessions
in
the
meeting,
t
is
difficult
to
understand
how
he
did
not break
the
law.In
addition
to
the
defence
of
ustification,
all
three
allegations
(i.e.
the accusation
of
breaking
the
law,
telling
others
how
to,
and
the reference
to
the
Godfather)
attract
the
protection
of
qualifiedprivilege.
This defence
protects
statements
made
in
the
protection
of
the public
interest
and
infurtherance
of
a
duty
to
the
public.
In
this
context, the
importance
of
he
communication
outweighs
any
potential
harm
to
a
laintiff.
The
interview
given
by
Mayor
Nenshi
o the
CBC
as
done
in the
course
of a
public
debate during
an
election
campaign.
t
is
without
doubt
in the public
interest
for
there
to
be
a
full
airing
and
debate
about
policy
issues
from
a
mayoral
candidate.
As
such,
a
qualified
privilege attaches
to
all
of
he statements
made
by
he
Mayor
during
his
interview.Thirdly,
aside
from
ustification
and
qualified privilege,
the statements
made
by
the
Mayor
of
which
Mr.
Wenzel
now
complains
are
fair
comment.
The comments
made
by
the
Mayor
regarding
Mr.
Wenzel's
secret
meeting
were
based
upon
fact
as recorded
and
published
by
an
attendee
at that
meeting.
The
matter
at
issue,
an
attempt
by
Mr.
Wenzel
and
his
friends
to
drum
up
electoral
support
(financial
and
otherwise)
or
like-minded
candidates
is
also
a
matter
of
mportant
public
interest.
The
question
is
thus
whether
any
person could
honestly
express those opinions
on
the
proved
facts?
Speaking
rankly,
t
is
difficult
to
understand
how
any
easonable
person
would
not.
vv
WSLega1\071762\00001\9726415v2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->