Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Aurora and our Alleged Defamation Case Has Been the Subject of Considerable Debate

Posted by auroracitizen on August 16, 2011

More pundits are weighing in on the important subject — and they have consistently agreed with decision of the courts. This is reflected both in the media and with the numerous legal experts/commentators who have commented.

When it comes to political speech, freedom to express your opinion is paramount.

Generally it is accepted that making a defamatory comment about a politicians personal life seems to be widely accepted as out-of-bounds.

However, expressing a dissenting opinion about the conduct or actions of a politician is a right that needs to be protected.

Consider — the folks who have been named in the lawsuit and have been forced to finance the protection of their own good names and protect the rights of all Canadians to speak openly without fear of retaliation have themselves been attacked. Yet, when former Mayor Phyllis Morris launched a lawsuit, they were not accused of making any defamatory comments themselves.

Former Mayor Phyllis Morris just “thinks” they know who the anonymous posters are. And she turned the financial might of the Town of Aurora against 3 private citizens. Citizens just like you. Imagine if it was you who disagreed with former Mayor Morris.

But rather than buckling under, they have stood firm in their belief that Canadians have a right to criticize politicians. It’s part of our democracy — something many of our parents have fought and died for. Something worth fighting for again – this time in a Canadian court room — at personal expense

Here are a few more articles

Innovation Law Blog, University of Toronto
The Innovation Law Blog is an intellectual property and technology blog produced by the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy and the University of Toronto Technology and Intellectual Property Group (TIP Group). The blog features weekly editorials by University of Toronto law students and frequent pointers to news and outside commentary on intellectual property and related subjects.

This comparative is very interesting since it starts to demonstrates the difference in law between a comment that is truly defamatory — or simply hurts the feelings of a politician. A key difference many Morris supporters fail to acknowledge.

Centre for Innovation Law and Policy / TIP Group
LINK: http://innovationlawblog.org/2011/08/the-legality-of-online-anonymity-two-cases/

Striking a legal balance in anonymous online postings
Ontario court tackles free speech versus defamation, By Michael Geist, Ottawa Citizen Special

In this article, published in the Ottawa Sun and Montreal Gazette, the author makes the argument that before demanding that names be released, the onus is on the plaintiff to actually make a case that the posts were defamatory.

The court was therefore not asked to determine whether the posts at issue were in fact defamatory. Rather, it simply faced the question of whether it should order the disclosure of personal information about the posters themselves so that Morris could proceed with a defamation lawsuit.

The court rightly identified the core question as balancing “the competing interests of privacy, the public interest in promoting the administration of justice by providing the Plaintiff with the information sought to pursue her claim and the underlying values of freedom of expression and political speech.”

Moreover, the court emphasized that the posts involved political speech, which is particularly deserving of protection.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/internet/Striking%20legal%20balance%20anonymous%20online%20postings/5193062/story.html

ARMA International, Association focused on Records Management, Information Technology and Information Security

In this blog, referring to the Gazette articles they commented.

The Ontario Superior Court ruling in the case of Phyllis Morris vs. auroracitizen.ca provided a reminder of the value of court oversight in cases seeking the disclosure of personal information.

They also provided a good definition of what constitutes a prima facie case — something that is essential to understanding the decision.

It ruled that since Morris did not identify the specific defamatory words, she failed to establish a prima facie case [according to Law.com, a case in which “the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial”] of defamation.

In plain English — that means Morris never established that she had actually been defamed. She just wanted names.

Had she proven defamation — they matter might have been different — but she neither stated what she felt had defamed her, nor did she actually provide any supporting evidence herself. Instead she let former Aurora staff member solicitor Christopher Cooper be the only person to provide any statement of any kind.

Read more: http://www.arma.org/policy/policy/canadianpolicybrief/11-08-10/Former_Mayor_Fights_for_Disclosure_of_Personal_Information.aspx

Phyllis Morris would like everyone to believe that she was defamed. That has never been proven. Nor has she even pled the words (as noted in the recent decision)

Phyllis Morris would like people to believe that the 3 defendants are bad people — yet this lawsuit was launched without even alleging that they had made any for the defamatory postings.

This case will be very important in establishing internet law for political postings and clearly people across the country are watching. It is unfortunate that 3 local citizens have been forced to fund this ground-breaking defence of our democratic right to free speech against a politician who was prepared to use town funds — your taxes hard at work — to fight this battle.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media | 4 Comments »

Globe & Mail Weights In

Posted by auroracitizen on August 5, 2011

Why faceless sniping deserves protection

Globe & Mail: Ivor Tossell, Aug 3, 2011

LINK: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/ivor-tossell/why-faceless-sniping-deserves-protection/article2118151/

Posted in Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media | 4 Comments »

More Media Coverage

Posted by auroracitizen on July 31, 2011

Court grapples with legalities of anonymous online postings
Michael Geist, Internet law Columnist, Sunday July 31, 2011, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1032104–geist-court-grapples-with-legalities-of-anonymous-online-postings

Posted in Code of Ethics, Election 2010, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | 1 Comment »

Morris Launches Appeal

Posted by auroracitizen on July 30, 2011

We received word yesterday that Morris and her legal team have officially submitted the paperwork in support of their appeal.

The primary basis for their appeal is that it conflicts with the original Spence decision. Of interest, many legal pundits would suggest that Spence was the one who got it wrong.

Does this mean that if the Brown judgment is upheld — that Morris will concede that Spence was wrong?

October 27 appears to be the date Morris will ask the courts to hear her appeal — if they agree, then the actual appeal will be heard at a later date.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | 3 Comments »

CCLA Publishes Court Findings

Posted by auroracitizen on July 28, 2011

LINK: http://ccla.org/2011/07/25/ontario-court-protects-political-speech-and-internet-anonymity/

Ontario Court Protects Political Speech and Internet Anonymity

July 25th, 2011

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently issued a decision on a motion brought by the former mayor of the municipality of Aurora.  The former mayor has sued some of her former constituents for defamation based on comments posted on a local Aurora blog which are critical of her work in office.

As part of her lawsuit, she brought a motion asking the Court to order the known parties to reveal identifying information about an anonymous blogger(s).  The CCLA intervened in this case to argue that a high threshold should be met before the Court should order the release of this kind of information.  The Court should pay particular attention to whether there is a prima facie case of defamation established (i.e. whether, on the surface, a case of defamation can be made out), and should weigh and balance the concerns about freedom of expression and privacy with the interests in obtaining disclosure.  CCLA argued that the rights of citizens to comment on and criticize the performance of their public officials is crucial in a democracy, and civil defamation suits should not be used as a means of silencing this kind of expression.

The Superior Court has found that the former mayor is not entitled to the identifying information she was seeking because she had not established a prima facie case of defamation.  The former mayor had not laid out the particular statements she alleged were defamatory and, as a result, the Court held that they could not determine whether her case was, on its surface, sufficient to establish defamation.  The Court also noted that the bloggers in this case had a reasonable expectation of anonymity since they did not have to identify themselves in order to participate in the blog.  The CCLA is pleased that the Court has taken the concerns of privacy and political speech seriously.

Read the CCLA’s factum here.

Read the Superior Court’s decision here.

Posted in Code of Ethics, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | Leave a Comment »

The Justice Brown Judgement

Posted by auroracitizen on July 28, 2011

For those interested in reading the Justice Brown judgment in full — it can be read here.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc3996/2011onsc3996.html

Posted in Code of Ethics, Election 2010, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | 1 Comment »

Court of Public Opinion Offers Verdict on Morris Lawsuit

Posted by auroracitizen on July 27, 2011

There has been a flurry of news articles about our wee town as a result of the decision by Judge Brown on the Phyllis Morris defamation lawsuit. In case you might have missed some, they are listed below.

If you see additional articles please add them as comments and we will add the new articles to this post. Don’t forget to check out the comments on the articles. They are also an interesting read.

Why faceless sniping deserves protection
Ivor Tossell, Aug 3, 2011, Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/ivor-tossell/why-faceless-sniping-deserves-protection/article2118151/

Court grapples with legalities of anonymous online postings
Michael Geist, Internet law Columnist, Sunday July 31, 2011, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1032104–geist-court-grapples-with-legalities-of-anonymous-online-postings

EDITORIAL, National Post: Right balance on online free speech
Thursday Jul. 28, 2011, Page A1
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Right+balance+online+free+speech/5169848/story

Morris ruling could set precedent: lawyer
Jeremy Grimaldi, July 27, Era Banner
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1049287–morris-ruling-could-set-precedent-lawyer

OPINION: Jesse Kline: No pity for spineless politicians who don’t respect free speech
Wednesday July 27, National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/27/jesse-kline-no-pity-for-spineless-politicians-who-dont-respect-free-speech/

Aurora ex-mayor’s critics can remain anonymous
Gloria Er-Chua, Staff Reporter, Tuesday July 26, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1030974–aurora-ex-mayor-s-critics-can-remain-anonymous

Aurora critics can remain anonymous, judge rules
Reporter Megan O’Toole, Tuesday July 26, National Post
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/25/online-critics-of-former-aurora-mayor-can-remain-anonymous-judge/

Who was that masked man? Court protects anonymity of Internet users
David Elder, July 26, 2011, Strikeman Elliott Blog: Canadian Technology & IP Law
http://www.canadiantechnologyiplaw.com/2011/07/articles/privacy/who-was-that-masked-man-court-protects-anonymity-of-internet-users/

Aurora Bloggers Fight Being ‘Silenced’
Reporter Megan O’Toole, Wednesday June 15, National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Aurora+Bloggers+Fight+Being+Silenced/4947382/story.html

Locally, The Auroran has also covered this issue and you can look up via the “current issue” or “past issues” link http://www.theauroran.com/

Morris motion thrown out
The Auroran, Week of July 26. Front Page and page 8,

Posted in Code of Ethics, Election 2010, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Media | 11 Comments »

It Ain’t Over Til It’s Over

Posted by auroracitizen on July 23, 2011

Many folks have asked whether the AuroraCitizen has stopped publishing because of the lawsuit. In short — the answer is NO. Sort of.

The AuroraCitizen has not stopped because we are prevented from publishing because of the lawsuit — but because the time taken to deal with issues of the lawsuit needed to come from somewhere — and the options were time with family and the need to work and generate income. Family and work came ahead of writing a blog.

However, we did want to provide you with an update on the recent decision by Madame Justice Brown — which obviously we are all very pleased with.

Let us start from the end and work back.

First, the Judge ruled that “The Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie test and accordingly, I dismiss the motion.” This means that Phyllis Morris failed to convince the Judge that there was a basis for the complaint. The Judge’s decision is clear and unequivocal.

Secondly, Judge Brown ruled, “the public interest favouring disclosure clearly does not outweigh the legitimate interest in freedom of expression and the rights of privacy of the persons sought to be identified.” Canada still remains a democracy — even if Phyllis Morris has a different opinion.

Third, “The plaintiff in this defamation action has failed to set forth the specific words complained of as being defamatory. The jurisprudence clearly establishes that in actions of libel and slander, the precise words complained of are material and should be put forth in as much particularity as possible in the pleading itself, ideally verbatim or at a minimum, with sufficient particularity to allow the Defendant to respond“. She further adds, “it is not the role of the court to parse the impugned articles and blogs be it to attempt to determine by divination  or divine inspiration, which statements it should asses in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.” For regular watchers of this case, you will recall that this same issue was raised in the motion by the Defendants in the Spence decision. In that motion, Morris argued that she didn’t have to be specific. Justice Spence left her some leeway on the particulars but did require her to crystallize the claim. Judge Brown, in the matter of Freedom of Expression, rightly held Morris to the full standard as established by law.

Judge Brown also noted that, “the Plaintiff did not provide evidence in support of this submission, nor did she provide any affidavit evidence in support of this motion.” Rather she left Town Solicitor Christopher Cooper to hold the dirty diaper on this motion — the same Christopher Cooper who is no longer employed by the Town.

Lastly, Judge Brown wrote, “I am cognizant, in the present case, that the alleged defamatory statements were made in the context of a hard-fought political campaign. They are clearly related to the mayoral position and governance of the Mayor, councillors and the municipal governance generally. With these very precise words the Judge clearly notes that at no time were any comments directed at staff — you may recall that this was the claimed basis that Morris used to ask the town (i.e residents and businesses of Aurora) to fund her lawsuit. The Judge obviously saw through this charade.

So what’s next? Is it over?

Well, as you may already know, the Banner reports that Phyllis Morris plans to appeal to a higher court for “leave to appeal”. Which should come as no surprise. Phyllis has a habit of appealing any decision that does not give her what she wants. One need only look to the Westhill debacle to understand her resistance to other opinions. We understand the date for that appeal will be in October.

Which means that the higher court will decide first if she has grounds for appeal, and then if they believe she does, they will set at a further date hear arguments on the motion again.

But nothing changes until the appeal is heard. Except the Defendants costs continue to rise. And Morris avoids having to pay the defendants their costs for the judgment.

Finally, whether the motion is dismissed again or not, the lawsuit is not over — just the Norwich Motion.

If, as expected, the appeal fails and the Norwich Motion is dismissed again, the leaking boat that is the Morris lawsuit will continued to plow forward. With yet another hole in her bow.

So regardless of the outcome of this motion there will still be more wasted time and wasted money — which aptly represents the legacy of the political career and contribution to politics in Aurora by Phyllis Morris.

Posted in Community Corner, Integrity, Leadership, Legal | 13 Comments »

Please help me understand how litigation against three Aurora citizens was approved.

Posted by auroracitizen on April 13, 2011

Re: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Payment of Legal Expenses of Phyllis Morris and the defamation action of Phyllis Morris v.Johnson et al.

An Open Letter to the Aurora Town Council and the Citizens of Aurora.

I am writing this as an open letter to the current Aurora Town Council and to the citizens of Aurora as I believe others may have similar questions and concerns in relation to the defamation action of Phyllis Morris v. Johnson et al. I stand open to being corrected if anyone has any new information to be shared and I look to others for answers and clarification as I don’t believe that the current information in the public domain is sufficient to explain how this action was authorized by the Town of Aurora. It is only by sharing the following questions and subsequent answers (and any questions that other Aurora citizens may contribute) that we may all learn and come to understand how this action proceeded to its present state. A considerable amount of Aurora tax money is now authorized for payment of external legal fees for this case but more importantly to me three private citizens of Aurora are still involved as defendants in this action which may take years to resolve and which may jeopardize the financial futures of their families.

I realize that there are those that support Ms. Morris’ argument and reasoning for her defamation suit as equally there are those that support Richard Johnson, Elizabeth Bishenden and Bill Hogg (Johnson et al) and I respect their difference in opinions. I was from the start and still remain in support of Johnson et al but it is not my intention here to argue the legal aspects of their case as this is now in the hands of our judicial system and the lawyers. It is my intention to learn and better understand how this action was authorized by the Town and to understand how it was deemed to follow the proper legislative and administrative procedures.

I recognize that Mayor Dawe and some of the current councillors that ran on a platform that included stopping the Town’s involvement in the lawsuit. I commend them for following through on this promise once they were sworn into office. I also commend those councillors and mayoral candidates that also supported stopping the Town’s involvement but who were not successful in the recent election. I can appreciate that Mayor Dawe and the current Town Council has had to responsibly deal with the matters opened by the previous council and administration and were faced with the difficult decision to authorize the payment of external legal fees to December 14, 2010. I further recognize that there may still be some legal privacy issues in answering some of my questions but that does not prohibit me from asking these important questions and seeking these answers even if they may still be forthcoming in the future when this case is resolved.

In the following, I will reference the letter by George Rust-D’Eye of WeirFoulds LLP entitled EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Payment of Legal Expenses of Phyllis Morris (to be known as the “Executive Summary”). This letter was made public on March 30, 2011 as a Media Advisory by the Town of Aurora. It was authorized for release by order of the Aurora Town Council at its March 29, 2011 meeting and it can be found on the Town website at the webpage http://www.town.aurora.on.ca/aurora/index.aspx?CategoryID=27&lang=en-CA under 2011 Media Releases (March 30, 2011).

It was after reading George Rust-D’Eye’s Executive Summary that I was compelled to ask the contained questions and to seek the assistance from others to help me and the citizens of Aurora better understand how Phyllis Morris v. Johnson et al was initiated by the Town of Aurora. It is the Executive Summary that makes me question past information and/or lack of information to the public in this matter.

I am numbering my questions so that anyone responding to this letter can do so accordingly by the question number.

1. Who has the legal authority at the Town to proceed on the Town’s behalf with a lawsuit?

2. What are or in fact are there any legislative steps that must be complied with by the Town Council in order to initiate a lawsuit? What is the involvement and authority of the Mayor and the Town’s administrative staff, be it the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the Town Solicitor or any other Town staff in initiating a lawsuit?

3. I recognize that this matter started with the Council directive from the Closed Session of the Town Council Meeting of September 14, 2010. From that point onwards what were the steps and who further authorized that this matter was to be handled directly as a lawsuit?

As stated in Question 3, this matter started with the Council directive from the Closed Session of the Town Council Meeting of September 14, 2010 (Please see 2nd attachment). The entry for this motion is as follows:

Council recessed into Closed Session at 11:33pm

Mayor Morris left the meeting at 1:10 am.

Council reconvened into Open Session at 1:11 am with Deputy Mayor McRoberts in the Chair.

Moved by Councillor MacEachern Seconded by Councillor Gaertner

THAT the Council rise and report from the Closed Session to confirm the direction from Closed Session regarding the potential defamation; and THAT the Town Solicitor be directed to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring resolution to this matter.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The September 14th Council meeting initially had Mayor Morris and all eight Councillors in attendance. In the minutes it is noted that Councillor Collins-Mrakas left the meeting at 10:16 pm and Councillor Buck left the meeting at 11:01 pm. The Closed session would then have included Mayor Morris (who subsequently left at 1:10am just before reporting out and before the vote) and Councillors Gaertner, Gallo, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts and Wilson. There is no indication in the minutes as to if any Town staff may have been involved in the closed session but since it involved litigation I would assume that the Town’s CAO and the Town Solicitor would be present, though I stand corrected if they were not present and/or if others were present.

From the Executive Summary (after the September 14th Council Meeting and after the Town retained Aird & Berlis LLP (“AB”) as its external legal counsel): “Then-Mayor Morris requested the Town to pay for the litigation, following the receipt of a legal opinion from AB in which it was advised that the comments were made against the Mayor, as well as the Town Solicitor and the Integrity Commissioner, in their capacity as elected officials or employees of the Town.”

4. Given the answers to the above questions 1, 2 & 3 and the statement “Then-Mayor requested the Town to pay for the litigation”, were the steps taken by the Town in accordance to the accepted procedures and in such a way that Mayor Morris could not be seen as having a conflict of interest as she had direct involvement in the case being that she would be the plaintiff, that the Town would be financing this action and that she would be the sole beneficiary of any awarded damages?

5. As I see no further reference to this action in any other subsequent Council Meeting in the above statement “who” is the Town? Was this a Town staff member with authority to authorize payment for the litigation?

6. Again, who at the Town had the authority to proceed with litigation? If it was the Mayor was it not a conflict of interest for the Mayor to request the Town to proceed? If it was the Mayor, should not another person (be it elected or Town staff) have taken the lead to this action?

7. Was there a reason why this matter was not taken back to Council be it in a closed session to authorize such litigation and the accompanying expenditures?

From the Executive Summary: “The retainer letter signed by the Mayor and the Town on October 6, 2010 leads to the conclusion that both are jointly and severally liable for paying the legal expenses incurred for the defamation action.”

8. Thus the Town and Ms. Morris were equally and separately responsible for the full amount. The Town has now authorized payment of legal fees to December 14, 2010. Should the Town not be demanding that Ms. Morris reimburse the Town now for at least ½ of the Town external legal fees instead of as recommended in the Executive Summary “that the Town give notice to Phyllis Morris of the intent by the Town to look to her for indemnity in respect of legal services paid for by the Town out of any damages or cost recovered by her in the proceedings”? The only way that the Town will be reimbursed will be if Ms. Morris is successful and the 3 Aurora citizens are not and this does not guarantee any funds to the Town as there is no signed agreement for this option.

9. Would the Mayor have proceeded or initiated such action given that she would have to pay ½ the current legal expense?

(This is now a hypothetical question and does not require an answer).

From the Executive Summary: “it appears that, at the time of the meeting of the Town Council on September 14 and 15, 2010, it was accepted by all concerned that the abuse being heaped on the Mayor and other municipal officials by third parties, was seen as an attack on the reputation of the Town itself, affecting the reputation and perceived integrity of Council and staff, and that there was an agreed-upon strategy to vindicate the Town’s name and reputation, which was seen at least as much the target as was the Mayor herself;”

10. Are we to understand that the “agreed-upon strategy” that Mr. Rust-D’Eye writes of was simply the wording in the Council Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2010 “THAT the Town Solicitor be directed to retain external legal counsel and to take any and all actions to bring resolution to this matter”? And that it was this directive that gave authorization to an open-ended mandate and a blank cheque to external counsel without further advice, consultation or authority from Council. (A separate rhetorical question but if there was not an election and a change of Council to stop payment to AB how high would the lawyer’s bill have gone?)

11. If it was an “agreed-upon strategy” then why if I recall correctly were some councillors apparently surprised when the news of the litigation came forth?

12. Were these instructions sufficient to proceed with the defamation suit? (Thus my earlier questions on legislative procedure).

13. Did the Town Solicitor or whoever instructed the external legal counsel of Aird & Berlis have the authority to proceed with litigation without further approval from Town Council?

14. Was the motion from the September 14th meeting so broadly worded that it could be ambiguous enough so that legal proceedings could commence without further authorization or approval from Council?

15. Did council discuss litigation as part of their closed session meeting? Was it understood that litigation was the only option that external legal counsel should pursue? (I realize that this may never be known as it was a closed session). If so, then they knew it could proceed to the current situation along with the financial burden to the Town. If not, then did someone at the Town over-step their authority (thus my earlier questions as to procedure in authorizing litigation)?

Please help me understand how we arrived at the current state of affairs.

It is my opinion that the council directive was far too vague and could be viewed as irresponsible as it did not provide specific direction and limitations and any need for the external legal counsel once engaged to seek further direction and authorization from council. Given the particular care that councillors take in wording their motions and given the fact that this was done at the end of term with councillors having a minimum of 4 years of experience (excluding Councillor Gallo) in their seats as opposed to being inexperienced councillors at the beginning of term it is surprising that this motion as worded was ever approved. It makes me wonder whether there is any part of this incident and/or subsequent actions that could be deemed in any way to violate the Municipal Act and/or the Town’s business and legislative procedures and if so who are we to hold accountable for their actions.

I note that Councillor Bob McRoberts disavowed his approval of the September 14th motion at the September 29, 2010 Council meeting and stated on October 14, 2010 on Rogers TV First Local News, “The arguments presented by town staff and council members didn’t match my understanding of the Municipal Act. I do not agree with the rationale provided. I do not agree that the matter is a matter for Council”.

I have to ask – what would have happened to the Town of Aurora if this past Council were to have directed other external contractors “to take any and all actions” for litigation against land developers in Aurora or for the repair to all roads or to improving Aurora’s water and sewage systems or to providing recreation facilities?

I believe that there is still much to be disclosed to the citizens of Aurora so that we can all understand how Phyllis Morris v. Johnson et al was authorized by the Town of Aurora. I should think that the answers would be simple and straight forward.

Sincerely,

Paul Sesto

Posted in Community Input, Conflict of Interest, Election 2010, Freedom of Information, Guest Post, Integrity, Leadership, Legal, Town Council | 30 Comments »

2011 Federal Election

Posted by auroracitizen on April 7, 2011

With the federal election looming, what are the key issues that are important to you in this election?

Who do you think will win — and why. Are you even planning to vote?

Has Harper and the Conservatives done enough to earn a majority or have the other parties presented an alternative strong enough to maintain the Conservative minority or even a swing towards the left?

Which leader do you think offers the best vision for Canada — or do any of then really inspire you?

Are you influenced by media? If not, what criteria do you consider when voting

Do you plan to vote party or will you consider your vote based on the local candidate? What would it take for a candidate to earn your vote here in the Newmarket-Aurora riding?

Posted in Community Input, Leadership, Politics | 165 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »