Upload
dave-johnson
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 1/7
Court File No. 12023/01
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WILFRED ROBERT PEARSON
Plaintiff
- and -
INCO LIMITED, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITYOF PORT COLBORNE, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
OF NIAGARA, THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF NIAGARA,and THE NIAGARA CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL DAYBOLL(Sworn April , 2002)
I, PAUL DAYBOLL, of the City of Port Colborne, in the Province of Ontario, MAKEOATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 2/7
- 2 -
4. The other 6 members of the PLC, all of whom were also appointed by City Council,
come from varying backgrounds to reflect wide-ranging community interests. With the
exception of one of the members (Rose Bisson), 6 out of 7 (including myself) are original
members appointed by City Council in early 2000. At the outset, there was an eighth PLC
member. However, that individual withdrew from the committee after the first or second
meeting for personal reasons.
My Response to the Affidavit of Ellen Smith
5. I have reviewed the affidavit of Ellen Smith, sworn April 9, 2002 in support of the
Plaintiff’s motion for certification. I verily believe that there are several inaccuracies in her
affidavit and, furthermore, I disagree with many of her criticisms of the PLC and CBRA process.
I do not believe her views reflect those of the community at large in Port Colborne.
6. First, I disagree that any delays in the CBRA have been an impediment to the process or
should be viewed as a reflection of a flawed process. On the contrary, I believe that such delays
are a testament to the vigilance of the PLC and its consultant, Beak International (hereinafter
“Beak”), in participating in and overseeing the CBRA on behalf of the community, including the
PLC’s active participation in the formulation of the Technical Scope of Work and investigationof Chemicals of Concern. I also believe that the timetable has been largely dictated by the
amount of debate, scientific and otherwise, between the PLC and its consultant and the other
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 3/7
- 3 -
7. I also disagree with Ms. Smith’s statement that the public does not have access to the
PLC. On the contrary, PLC meetings are held in public, with Ms. Smith and any other interested
members of the community being free to attend. Prior to each PLC meeting, a notice is placed in
the local newspaper, with the details of the upcoming meeting and its agenda. In so doing, the
PLC invites community members to request a delegation if they would like to make a
presentation at the meeting. All PLC meetings are followed by a lengthy question and answer
period. The meetings themselves are usually scheduled for 7:00 p.m. and have often been
extended to as late as 11:00 p.m. or midnight to allow members of the community to ask
questions and voice their concerns. In addition, it is not unusual at all for the public to contact
PLC members at home or to approach them on the street for further discussion on the CBRA.
8. Separate and apart from the PLC meetings, the PLC has sponsored several drop-in
centres and update meetings to allow for community comment. There have also been a numberof drop-in forums, where members of the public have been invited to attend and speak directly to
the various consultants involved in the CBRA, including Beak.
9. I acknowledge that the public is not entitled to ask questions during meetings of the
Technical Sub-Committee (hereinafter “TSC”) of the PLC, although the public is permitted to
attend. The PLC, as members of the TSC, can and do ask questions and voice public concerns. I
believe that by conducting the technical meetings in this fashion, the process continues to be
ibl d f ll h bli H i ll h k b i
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 4/7
- 4 -
10. All major decisions of the PLC are made in a forum that is open to the public and with
public input, both from the PLC members themselves, who represent the interests of the
community, and from the input of attendees at PLC meetings who are free to voice their
questions and concerns regarding the CBRA. Indeed, the PLC has insisted that all major aspects
of the CBRA go through a Community Input Session prior to being brought to the PLC. This is
a drop-in centre (allowing for one on one meetings with the various consultants), followed by a
formal presentation and question and answer period from any and all community members who
wish to participate. Such events were recently held to discuss CoCs and PVS.
11. Contrary to Ms. Smith’s assertion, key reports related to the CBRA process are available
in the public library. The PLC makes every effort to ensure that materials are available to the
public as soon as possible following PLC meetings. PLC minutes are available on the City’s
website.
12. I believe that community participation has been a key component in the PLC process
from its inception. I resent Ms. Smith’s assertion that the PLC is controlled by Inco and the
MOE. As a voting member on the PLC, I take my role very seriously and feel that I, along with
my fellow committee members, have a crucial role to play in the CBRA. I feel that my
contributions are important and taken seriously by the other stakeholders in the CBRA, and that
the CBRA provides me with a process to effectively communicate not only my concerns but
h f h i h I b f h PLC
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 5/7
- 5 -
15. I make this affidavit in response to the affidavit of Ellen Smith and for no other or
improper purpose.
SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of
Port Colborne, in the Province of
Ontario on April , 2002.
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
Paul Dayboll
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 6/7
- 6 -
8/6/2019 Affidavit Dayboll
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/affidavit-dayboll 7/7
WILFRED ROBERT PEARSON Plaintiff and
INCO et al Defendants
Court File No: 12023/01
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Welland
AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL DAYBOLL
STIEBER BERLACH GIBBS 130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 900Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
Michelle Brodey LSUC# A037015RTel: (416) 366-1400Fax: (416) 366-1466
Solicitors for the Defendant,The Corporation of the City of Port Colborne