1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 13, 17, 20, 26, 58, 71 and 73 of the statement of defence. 2. The plaintiff has no knowledge with respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 57, 64, 65, 6667, 68 and 90 of the statement of defence. 3. The plaintiff denies all of the remaining allegations contained in the statement of defence. 4. The allegations contained in paragraphs 95, 104, and 111 of the statement of defence are improper pleadings as they contain improper, irrelevant, scandalous and prejudicial allegations and ought to be struck.

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 5. The changes to the plaintiff’s employment contract, and specifically the provision with respect to contracting out the functions of the Auditor General’s office violated the defendant’s own internal human resources policy. In a report to Council the Chief Administrative Officer admitted as much: “The recruitment advertisement for the Auditor General position highlighted the existence of an existing staff complement, indicating that the incumbent must “Furnish leadership to [their] audit team and external auditors in the execution of internal audit, program and risk assessment.” Should Council accept the Panel’s recommendations, the expected duties of the Auditor General would be amended from those advertised during the recruitment process. Notwithstanding the deviation from the strict requirements of the job posting and the City’s standard practices undertaken in this recruitment, the panel recommends that changes to the position be discussed with the applicant recommended by the Audit Committee and that the position be offered to the applicant. Furthermore, the above-noted deviation from approved Human Resources practices for this recruitment process will result in a need to revisit current procedures. Future postings will clarify the requirement for professional designation or registration within the Province of Ontario, as well as how to consider equivalencies obtained from other jurisdictions. These same equivalencies will also be made available to existing internal staff.”

THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 6. Contrary to what is pleaded in paragraph 32 of the statement of defence the plaintiff was not required to prepare a Request for Proposal. The second contract of employment provided that the plaintiff was “initiate a process for the outsourcing of the AGO’s office/staff”. 7. The plaintiff completed that requirement of the second employment contract. 8. On July 5, 2011 the plaintiff sent an e-mail to the Mayor of the defendant which stated in part:

“My employment contract reads as follows: “In order to satisfy Council’s direction you are to initiate a process for the outsourcing of the AGO’s office/staff, develop a charter for the AGO’s office, and the Audit Committee together with the associated protocols in the first 90 days”. The 90 day mark would be July 17th.
Based on our discussion, I believe you are in agreement I have satisfied my obligations already as all processes have been initiated (please advise if I am incorrect). I have provided you with drafts of the RFP and the three charters - the protocols will be provided shortly (they are being finalized).”

9. The Mayor, responding under the pseudonym Paul Edwards responded, on July 8, 2011 as follows: “Agreed... Based on our discussion, I believe you are in agreement and I will
communicate to council that you have satisfied your obligations as all processes have been initiated and are subject to final approval and direction on the 27th by the AAC and shortly thereafter council.”

10. No final approval or direction was ever forthcoming from City Council and accordingly the RFP process was never completed. 11. A draft RFP and supporting documents was prepared and never considered by Council. WORK PLAN 12. Contrary to the allegations contained in paragraph 43 the steps described by the defendant in creating an proper audit work plan are not accurate nor do they accurately reflect appropriate professional standards. 13. The plaintiff carefully and completely adhered to the appropriate standards described in the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing in preparing the work plan. 14. The work plan was never delivered to council as it was never approved or discussed by the Audit Advisory Committee.

15. At no time, on not one single occasion, did any member of the Audit Advisory Committee or any one else who had seen drafts of the work plan and charters, raise any concerns with its adequacy or its compliance with any audit standards. 16. Not once did any person associated with the defendant express any concern to the plaintiff about “friction with almost everyone he came into contact with on Council and within the administration”. 17. The Audit Advisory Committee, on August 5, 2011, approved all the plaintiff’s reports, charters and protocols and recommended that Council approve them. The matter was never considered by Council. PRE-TERMINATION CONDUCT 18. Contrary to the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the statement of defence it was the Vice-Chair of the Audit Advisory Committee who offered to the plaintiff a severance package of 9 months severance pay. The plaintiff never mentioned getting more money than the contract provided for and only mentioned the difficulties in finding replacement employment. 19. Contrary to the allegations in paragraph 55 of the statement of defence, the plaintiff’s frustrations stemmed from the inactivity of the defendant’s Council and the Audit Advisory Committee and the obvious reluctance of all the actors to let the plaintiff carry out his functions. 20. The plaintiff’s predecessor and Angela Berry, who had been carrying out the functions of the Auditor General, experienced the same frustrations as the plaintiff so much so that the predecessor quit and Ms. Berry took a leave of absence.

21. With respect to paragraph 60 of the statement of defence there is no policy with respect to the disclosure of “personal information” of the kind the plaintiff requested and the complaint filed by Ms. Berry was always in the possession, power or control of the defendant. 22. The investigator is a member of a law firm in the City of Windsor regularly retained by the plaintiff for employment related matters and the complaint was easily available to the defendant. 23. The allegations with respect to the plaintiff’s pre-termination conduct are of recent fabrication intended only to justify the plaintiff’s unlawful termination. None of the matters referred to in the statement of defence were ever discussed with the plaintiff by anyone associated with the defendant. POST-TERMINATION CONDUCT 24. The plaintiff was dismissed from his employment on Tuesday, January 31, 2012. 25. On February 2, 2012 the Windsor Star reported that a “city hall source” told the Windsor Star that the plaintiff was terminated because he refused to outsource his office and because there had been complaints from senior city staff about his conduct. 26. The plaintiff went to the media to refute the allegations reported in the Windsor Star in order to protect his reputation. 27. The only persons who could have disclosed the information to the Windsor Star were members of the defendant’s senior administration, members of the Audit Advisory Committee or members of Council. Therefore, contrary to the allegations contained in paragraphs 85 and 86 the defendant did not act with discretion nor did it respect the privacy of the plaintiff.

28. The defendant continued to make public allegations regarding the plaintiff’s job performance which were baseless and false and which had never been previously discussed with the plaintiff. Often the defendant’s contact with the media was gratuitous and not in response to anything that the plaintiff said in public. Furthermore, five members of Council took it upon themselves to speak to the Windsor Star, anonymously disparaging the reputation of the plaintiff. 29. The public release of the plaintiff’s statement of claim was done in furtherance of the plaintiff’s attempts to set the record straight and protect his hard earned reputation and was followed by the public release of the defendant’s statement of defence.

Date: April 13, 2012 DUCHARME FOX, LLP Barristers and Solicitors 800 University Avenue West Windsor ON N9A 5R9 JAMES H. COOKE Tel: (519) 259-1818 Fax: (519) 259-1830 LSUC#: 25733P Lawyers for the Plaintiff TO: MCTAGUE LAW FIRM LLP Barristers and Solicitors 455 Pelisser Street Windsor, ON N9A 6Z9 GEORGE W. KING Tel: 519-255-7332 LSUC #22322J Lawyers for the Defendants

Langlois v. City of Windsor




James H. Cooke Ducharme Fox LLP 800 University Ave. West Windsor, ON N9A 5R9 P- 519-259-1818 F- 519-259-1830

Law Society Member Number – 25733P

Fax – Defendant’s Lawyer – 519-255-4360

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful