Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Update: Mayor Morris vs. 3 Aurora Citizens Lawsuit

Posted by auroracitizen on October 22, 2010

On Friday October 22, in the face of a motion to strike her claim as government action infringing the Charter, Phyllis Morris is amending her claim for defamation to be brought in her personal capacity, rather than as Mayor of Aurora.

It is unknown whether taxpayers of Aurora will continue to fund the claim, or whether the personal lawsuit will now be funded personally. Aird & Berlis continues to act on behalf of Phyllis Morris.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association had filed a letter with the Court indicating that the matter of the Mayor’s lawsuit raised significant civil liberty concerns.

21 Responses to “Update: Mayor Morris vs. 3 Aurora Citizens Lawsuit”

  1. David M. said

    “Canada’s lousy mayors: When municipal politics matter more than ever, why do so many cities end up with bad mayors?”

    I see our Mayor and her lawsuit has been mentioned on the third page of the comments.

  2. Can't Say said

    I was asked earlier this week by a current councillor if I was someone who participated in blogs and what my name was. Hmmmmmmm…

    • Anonymous said

      What prompted them to ask that? Because of the points being brought up in a conversation with them?

    • Thanks Will Be Given Come October said

      Why do people that don’t vote always complain about the actions of some politicians?

      Why do some politicians that don’t blog always complain about the actions of people?

    • Anonymous said

      I was told a forensic audit would be a waste of money…

    • Can't Say said

      To Anonymous @ October 24, 8:54 am

      Yes, this person was critical of information being posted about them. I suspect that they were looking to fill in the real names behind the bloggers. Maybe looking to add more to the list of enemies of the state.

  3. Anonymous said

    I found the following quote for a course I am taking. It struck a chord with me. Does it remind you of anyone?

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
    An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

    Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

    Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

    Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

    Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)

    Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

    Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

    Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

    Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

    Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted

    Some of the language in the criteria above is based on or summarized from:

    American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, Text Revision (DSM IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    The text in italics is based on:

    Sam Vaknin. (2003). Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited, fourth, revised, printing. Prague and Skopje: Narcissus Publication.

    For the exact language of the DSM IV criteria – please refer to the manual itself !!!

    next: Diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    • STOP THE PRESS! said

      This just in:


    • Anonymous said

      Good Post.

      May also want to add “Megalomania is a word defined as: [1]

      A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
      An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions”

      During the three years Ms. Morris sat out Aurora Politics after a failed run at Mayor, she was a regular contributor to the Era Banner and Aurora Cable where she systematically assassinated Tim Jones’ character. Jones took it as part of the job and sued NO ONE!
      Now that she is on the receiving end, Ms. Morris’ true character emerges.
      Karma is a bitch Phyllis!

  4. Citizen of Titipu said

    For the last four years, I became convinced that Gilbert & Sullivan were alive and living in Aurora. It is my hope that on Tuesday they will finally be laid to rest and that this comic opera will finally end.

  5. Wasn’t there a similar case in GTA few years ago?

    We all know that mayor’s political career would be over if she was using my, yours, everyone’s in Aurora money to sue. I am hoping that things will calm down, all this is unnecessary. Especially not now during the elections.

  6. Anonymous said

    I think Phyllis has one more lawsuit forthcoming in the next few weeks… she will probably need to sue for a bigger severance as her career opportunities in many sectors will probably be very limited

  7. Running out of Time said

    “Phyllis Morris is amending her claim for defamation to be brought in her personal capacity, rather than as Mayor of Aurora”.

    Might just as well do it now rather than wait until next Tuesday

  8. Down to the wire said

    I think we need more people like Stephanie on Council

  9. Anonymous said

    If it’s in her “personal capacity”, why would we be expected to provide the funding?

  10. Anonymous said

    If Council had to approve pursuing the lawsuit, would they not have had to meet to change to scope of the suit? Or If Ms. Morris is pursuing this personally now, would Council not have to vote to withdraw their action against the residents?

  11. A single elderly person said

    Are we safer now?

    • One who cares said

      Dear Single Elderly Person:

      Yes, you and I and everyone in Aurora are safer now. We no longer have to be afraid of the mayor and her supporters.

      Our community has come alive, we have become engaged, each one with the other. The fact that we are presently outraged at the behaviour of the few will soon become the joy of the many.

      The wicked spell will be broken, the foul air will be gone. Our community will be returned to its rightful owners – the residents, young and old – everyone.

  12. Stephanie said

    Either our Mayor is a public figure or she’s not. She can’t have it both ways: public figure when the cameras are out, but private citizen when criticized for such conduct? In Kosmopoulos v. Constitution Insurance Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2, Wilson J. said: “There is a persuasive argument that ‘those who have chosen the benefits of [one’s position] must bear the corresponding burdens ‘. . . He should not be permitted to ‘blow hot and cold’ at the same time.”

    I came across something tonight. From Wikipedia []:

    “Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant’s position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be “libel-proof”, since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.”

    I found this interesting because, for me, the comments I have read on this blog have not made me think any less of Mayor Morris — on the contrary, Mayor Morris’ own actions have done more than sufficient damage to her reputation.

    I formed my opinions by living in Aurora, observing the actions of the Mayor and council, watching council meetings and comparing the Mayor’s conduct to her words — long before I discovered this blog.

    Ironically, this lawsuit is exactly the sort of conduct that prompts me to form a strong negative opinion of her.

    To claim that the blog or blog owners have caused this issue is insulting to the people who express their opinions here. It’s easy to blame a spotlight that highlights your flaws, but to claim that the spotlight itself is responsible for the flaws? Ridiculous.

    Finally, as the esteemed Lord Denning said:

    “It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest.” [Blackburn (No.2) Ex parte; R v. Metropolitan Police(1968) 2 All E.R. 319, at p. 320.]

    Okay, I’m done.

    • Tim the Enchanter said

      Well said Stephanie.

      I think a couple of quotes apply to the Morris regime and the pending election.

      “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
      Lord Acton

      “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

      Oh, and perhaps a third less-famous quote may be considered apropos.

      “That St. Kitts woman really pisses me off!”

      Buenas noches amigos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: