Update with reply from Law Society of Saskatchewan

As part of the effort to resolve the zoning dispute between Strudwick and the Argue family, Outlook Community Leader Lloyd Smith toured the RM of Edenwold and spoke with several of the ratepayers.

Lloyd Smith prepared a three page, 14 paragraph affidavit, which uncontradicted affidavit was filed with the Courts and which information was provided to the RCMP Outlook Detachment, stating in part that:

9. I drove around the RM and asked different people that live there what they thought of the lost revenue to the RM for not going ahead with the Argues development. I also asked if they had any idea what the reason might be for blocking it. Some said the RM wanted the water. Others said that if you had a dairy farm then you could grow your own hay.

12. I talked to Brent Lewis who was head of the RCMP at Outlook last spring. He said that when a person is defrauded or false documents are filed for gain it is a crime and should be investigated. I gave him a copy of Robert Lee’s file. I also talked to Bob Laidlaw who is a retired member of the RCMP fraud investigation department. He told me to tell the Argues to take their case to Main Depot in Regina and file a complaint.

Because it was the Argue family that had a complaint of fraud against Strudwick the RCMP refused to allow either the individual who had done the investigation with the RM of Edenwold ratepayers, Outlook Community Leader, Lloyd Smith, or I ( E.R.Lee) serving as the Argues agent, to sign the criminal complaint against Strudwick.

The Argue’s were advised by four different Regina lawyers that if they signed a criminal complaint against Strudwick she would sue them, the Argues, for libel, and would win the libel action, as a result the Argues declined to sign a criminal complaint against Strudwick and I, as the Agues representative, went ahead on their behalf filing Lloyd Smiths affidavit with the Court.

When Lloyd Smiths affidavit was presented in Queens Bench Court a lawyer paid by the RM of Edenwold ratepayers, Regina lawyer, Glen W. Dowling, acting for Strudwick, contacted RCMP Sergeant Brent Lewis, who had been promoted to Staff Sergeant and was at his new posting in Command of the Melville Saskatchewan RCMP detachment who then, at the request of the Government lawyer, Glen W. Dowling, filed a non notarized letter with the Court stating that;

Mr. Lloyd SMITH approached me for advice in 2004 while I was Sergeant in command of the Outlook Detachment. Upon hearing Mr. SMITHS version of events I suggested that he make a complaint to the Regina RCMP Detachment as this matter was occurring near White City and that is within their Detachment boundaries. I have received numerous documents from Mr.SMITH regarding this matter. After briefly reviewing these documents, my advice remained the same; if he feels he is the victim of a fraud then he should make a complaint to the Regina RCMP Detachment. I have no personal knowledge whether this was ever done. All documents received from Mr. SMITH have been destroyed.

There is no doubt whatsoever but that, Glen W. Dowling, the lawyer paid by the RM of Edenwold ratepayers, acted for RM Administrator Strudwick in blocking zoning for the Argues 30 million dollar subdivision until I, as the Argues representative, carried the “flowers, chocolates and perfume”, Strudwick demanded to provide zoning.

Glen W. Dowling is deemed under Saskatchewan law to be an Officer of the Court and it is a contravention of section 118 of the Criminal Code of Canada for an Officer of the Court to interfere with the administration of Justice, which Dowling did by having RCMP Staff Sergeant Brent Lewis destroy the evidence of Strudwicks criminal actions he had been provided by Outlook Community leader Lloyd Smith.

On September 17th, 2007, I complained in writing to the Law Society of Saskatchewan that their Society member, Glen W. Dowling, had not acted in the” public interest” in blocking zoning for the Argues 30 million dollar subdivision development, until his client, RM Administrator Strudwick, had been carried “ flowers chocolates and perfume”, in effect a bribe to grant zoning as ordered by the Minister responsible, the Hon Len Taylor.

On September 24th 2007 the Law Society of Saskatchewan ruled, in writing, that my complaint was not a valid complaint and that Dowling had done no wrong because the interests of the RM of Edenwold and Strudwick are one and the same and that the RM of Edenwold is a “ corporate entity” and that corporation may pay a lawyer to act for a officer of that corporation.

That Law Society ruling is utter nonsense. The Honourable Justice Lady Janet McMurtry stated in paragraph [27] of her Judgment that :

[27] Strudwick is a public servant. She reports indirectly to Ministers in the Government and the Premier. ……..

There is no doubt whatsoever but that Strudwick is a public servant and Dowling, paid by the RM of Edenwold ratepayers to act for her is, in law, a Government lawyer and that under Saskatchewan Statute the Law Society of Saskatchewan is a branch of the Department of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

My written complaint to the Law Society was that Solicitor Dowling, in contacting RCMP Staff Sergeant Lewis destroyed evidence of criminal acts of a public servant who reports to the Minister and Premier, was in contravention of section 118 of the Criminal code of Canada, which action is “unbecoming” to a Government lawyer.

There can be no doubt whatsoever but that this is hard evidence of actions by the Law Society of Saskatchewan, which agency is a branch of the Provincial Government, to protect a public servant who is demanding “flowers, chocolates and perfume” to provide zoning permission for development projects, and should add significantly to the evidence in a potential class action law suit on behalf of the small Saskatchewan Developers.

Provided following is the entire Law Society of Saskatchewan ruling:

Document from the Law Society [PDF]

or

Document from the Law Society [GIF]

ZONING PROBLEMS WITH A RURAL MUNICIPALITY?

I KNOW there are 30 developers in the Saskatoon area that have had problems obtaining zoning for their development projects from the Rural Municipalities and their Administrators and I have reason to believe there may be as many as another 50 small Saskatchewan developers who have had a similar problem obtaining zoning from the Rural Municipalities, but a recent Supreme Court summary statement on a rural zoning problem may have created grounds for a class action law suit on behalf of those small developers against the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan.

In 1997 the Earle Argue family of Regina applied to the RM of Edenwold #158 for zoning for a 160 lot residential subdivision development located on their land east of Regina and was granted conditional approval for the project with the RM putting in writing that the RM SHALL grant zoning for the project once the conditions were met.

The Argue family spent $175,000.00 to meet the conditions and all conditions were met as approved by all Provincial Government Departments but the RM Administrator, Donna Strudwick, advised the Argues in writing that zoning had been denied for their subdivision project and that they had no right of appeal to her zoning refusal. The cost to the Argues and the RM of Edenwold ratepayers is very high. The Argues’ 160 lot subdivision are estimated at a value of $30 Million dollars. At Edenwold’s current Mill Rate the RM revenue would have been $200,000 annually with an equal amount to the school board for a total loss of $4,000,000.00 over the last ten years.

The Argues went to Court with their zoning problem with the RM of Edenwold but the Saskatchewan Queens and Appeal Bench Courts both ignored the implications of the RM’s SHALL letter and refused the Argues request for equity. The Court ruled that all zoning issues are political and the Courts must not interfere and dismissed the Argues request.

The Argue family then asked me (E.R.Lee) to serve as their agent to obtain political resolution for their zoning dispute with Edenwold.

Remember the political history of Saskatchewan. In 1999 three Liberal members, Jim Melenchuk, Ron Osika and Jack Hillson were elected and the NDP administration asked those three Liberals to assist them in forming Government. Hillson was appointed Minister for Municipal affairs so I approached him (Hillson) with the Argue/Edenwold zoning problem.

To solve the Argue/Edenwold problem the Honourable Jack Hillson, on July 3rd, 2002, amended the Urban Municipality Act removing the “ common boundary” requirement from section 14 (1) of the Act thereby allowing a Village to annex land that did not touch their borders, in other words a Village may now annex a development project out of a Rural Municipality anywhere in Saskatchewan.

The Hon. Jack Hillson then left the Provincial Government to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan and Ron Osika was appointed the new Minister of Municipal Affairs.

On March 27th, 2003, the Hon. Ron Osika ordered that the Argues find a village to annex their subdivision out of the RM of Edenwold #158. The Village of Wood Mountain agreed to annex the Argue subdivision out of Edenwold but at a public meeting on August 12th, 2003, the RM of Edenwold Administrator, Donna Strudwick, stated that the Argue family were “ less than honest and were trying to con the Village of Wood Mountain Council”.

At the same meeting Donna Strudwick also stated, in public, that the Mayor and Council of the Village of Wood Mountain was not competent to manage their own Village affairs let alone the 160 lot Argue subdivision and Strudwick, as Administrator of the R.M. of Edenwold, overturned the Hon Ron Osikas instructions and refused to allow Wood Mountain Village to annex the Argue subdivision development out of the R.M. of Edenwold.

Again I remind you of the political history. The October 2003 election saw the fall of Ron Osika, (who is now Mayor of Fort Qu’Appelle,) the election and appointment of the Hon Len Taylor as the new Minister for Municipal affairs (now Government Relations and Trade).

At a meeting on April 29th 2004 the Hon Len Taylor ignored the Amendment to section 14(1) of the Urban Municipalites act by Jack Hillson and the order by Ron Osika that the Argues find a Village to annex their development out of the RM of Edenwold and the Minister ruled that the Village of Wood Mountain should not be allowed to exist and that the Village would not be allowed to annex the Argues 160 lot subdivision out of the R.M. of Edenwold.

The Hon Len Taylor then ruled that my only option, as the Argues agent, was to “carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” to Strudwick so as to be “ more successful with the zoning issue”.

The Hon Len Taylors instruction to me to carry Strudwick “ more flowers, choclates and perfume” to obtain zoning for the Argues is a sick joke because I would not carry the woman a wilted dandelion to accomplish any goal whatsoever but the fact is that even if I did have the kind of soul that could force himself to carry flowers to Donna Strudwick to obtain development zoning, I could not because Section 123 [1] MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION of Canadas Criminal code is plain english, it states:

123. (1) Every one who
a) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a municipal official, or
b) being a municipal official, demands, accepts, or offers or agrees to accept from any person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the official……. is liable to incarceration for up to five years

I will not allow myself to be incarcerated for five years to obtain zoning for the Argues subdivision so I refused to solve the zoning problem by following the Hon Len Taylor’s instructions to me to carry flowers to the RM of Edenwold Administrator Donna Strudwick.

As a consequence of my refusal to “ carry flowers, chocolates and perfume” to Strudwick the Village of Wood Mountain asked the Saskatchewan Municipal Board to hear the Village of Wood Mountain application to annex the Argues 160 lot residential subdivision out of the R.M. of Edenwold as ordered by the Hon Ron Osika.

The Saskatchewan Municipal Board heard the application in Moose Jaw on October 14th, 2004. The SMB ruling came out on December 22nd 2004. Their five page ruling covers the facts perfectly regarding the history of the Argue subdivision application to Strudwick.

His Worship Mayor Michael Klein made the Village submission to the SMB. His Worship made many points, among them the point that many large development projects such as inland grain terminal or ethanol plants are best suited to be governed by the RMs but that smaller projects and residential subdivision projects are best suited to be governed by an Urban Municipality.

The SMB complimented the Mayor on his presentation but ruled that the Village of Wood mountain would not be allowed to annex the Argue subdivision out of the RM of Edenwold

As a consequence of the SMB ruling I complained to the Premier about the Hon Len Taylors order to me that the only option that I had, as the Argues agent, to obtain zoning for the Argues was to “carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” to Strudwick and I pointed out to the Premier that it would be a contravention of Section 123 (1) MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION to provide a benefit of any kind to Strudwick to obtain zoning for the Argues subdivision.

The Premier, on April 4th, 2005, refused, in writing, to address the Argues zoning issue or his Ministers instructions to me to carry Strudwick “more flowers, Chocolates and perfume” and two weeks after the Premiers response to my complaint, on April 19th, 2005, the RM of Edenwold Administrator, Donna Strudwick, sued me for $50,000.00 (fifty thousand dollars) for libel plus all costs.

Court of Queens Bench Judge, the Honourable Lady Justice Janet E. McMurtry, ruled that Strudwick reports to the Premier and the Minister responsible and that I had libeled her by complaining to the Premier about her because my complaint would lower her in the eyes of the Premier. The Queens Bench judge stated exactly that:

“[27] Strudwick is a public servant. She reports indirectly to Ministers in the government and the Premier in her position as a rural administrator. Her ability to perform effectively in her position is affected by the persons in those positions and their good or poor opinion of her. Being labeled a liar and corrupt could serve to” lower [Strudwick] in the estimation of those
persons.”

but Lady Justice McMurtry also lowered Strudwicks libel claim to $10,000.00 ( ten thousand dollars) from the $50,000.00 demanded by Strudwick and awarded no costs to Strudwick.

I appealed the Queens Bench ruling to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal who ruled that the Argues ( and presumably all Developers), “in order to develop their projects” “must build a relationship” with the Rural Administrators, “ by carrying them flowers, chocolates and perfume”, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Judges ruled exactly as follows:

“ [16] The Argues attended a meeting with Minister Taylor on April 29th, 2004 at the meeting, they asked him for a recommendation as to how they should deal with their zoning problem. He apparently said that they needed to “ carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the R.M. of Edenwold. Mr. Lee places considerable emphasis on this statement. He and the Argues interpret it as an instruction or “ Crown ruling” to pay bribes to the R.M. and its administrator, Ms Strudwick. Mr. Lee sees this as contravening s. 123 of the Criminal Code which, in plainest terms, prohibits the payment of bribes to municipal officials.

[17] Two comments are in order here. First the Argues’ interpretation of the Minister’s comments is unwarranted. It is readily apparent that the Minister effectively was suggesting that they needed to build a relationship with the R.M. and work with it in order to advance their project. Their is no reasonable basis for thinking he was directing them to pay bribes and
commit a Criminal offence and there is certainly no basis for characterizing his comment as being some sort of official or authoritative governmental decision……….”

and the Court of Appeal upheld the Queens Bench libel award to Strudwick of ten thousand dollars and did award her ( Strudwick) $873.70 (eight hundred and seventy three dollars and seventy three cents), in Appeal costs.

I appealed the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada which Court dismissed my appeal but was very blunt in its summary statement that I had used the idea of the Village of Wood Mountain annexing the Argue subdivision out of the RM of Edenwold simply to try to pull a end run on the RM of Edenwold to avoid having to carry “ flowers, chocolates and perfume” to Strudwick as ordered by the Minister..

The Supreme Court was also blunt in its statement that the Minister had told me that the only option I had, as the Argues agent, to solve the Argues zoning problem with Strudwick was to “carry her flowers, chocolates and perfume”.

Note the Supreme Court summary statement below:

“In 1997, E.C. Argue Holdings Ltd. along with Earle argue and Sharie Argue, applied to the rural municipality of Edenwold to re-zone land from agriculture to mobile home park use. Initially, the council for The Rural Municipality of Edenwold approved the request conditionally, but subsequently denied the application. the application for judicial review was unsuccessful. An application to annex the land on which the proposed mobile home park was to be situated was then presented by the Village of Wood Mountain but was denied on the grounds that the annexation was solely an attempt to circumvent the Rural Municipality of Edenwold’s
councils refusal to rezone the land. Mr. Lee acted as Argue’s representative, and three letters written by him were the basis for the Ms. Strudwick’s defamation claim. the first letter, written to the Minister of Government relations and Trade and copied to other officials, contained
the terms ‘ falsehoods”, false statement”, “ untruths”, “ evasions” and “ half and quarter truths” to describe statements made by Ms. Strudwick relating to the zoning issue, accusing her of involvement in criminal conduct. A second letter was written shortly thereafter and sent to the
Premier of Saskatchewan and copied to the Ministers, stating that Ms. Strudwick was suppressing the truth and acting in violation of s. 123 of the Criminal code. Mr. Lee then met with the President of the Rural Municipal Administrators Association to file a complaint against Ms Strudwick alleging that she “ told misrepresentation and lies to the Saskatchewan
Municipal Board”. At this meeting Mr. Lee was told by the Minister to “ carry more flowers, chocolates and perfume” in order to be more successful with respect to the zoning issue. A formal written request was made by Ms. Strudwick to the effect that Mr. Lee retract his statement but he refused and a third letter was then sent by Lee and was addressed to the Premier and copied to the NDP Caucus Chair, the Law Society of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Municipal Board, The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the Rural Municipal Administrators Association of Saskatchewan, alleging “ egregious suppressions of the truth”.

Those interested may obtain the above from the Supreme Court of Canada website and by clicking on to case number 31940.

All readers will see that the Supreme Court of Canada took special notice of the fact that the idea of Wood Mountain Village annexing the Argue development out of the R.M. of Edenwold was solely an attempt to circumvent the R.M. of Edenwold Council’s refusal to provide zoning.

That was exactly the plan. The two Liberal Ministers, Hillson and Osika, who had been co-opted by the NDP to help form the 1999 Provincial government, designed the Village annexation plan to allow the Argues and other small developers to go ahead with their development plans and create economic development without having to “ carry flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the Rural Administrators.

But after the 2003 election the new Minister Responsible, the Hon Len Taylor, and the Premier, put a end to the Hillson/Osika plan to circumvent the R.M.s blocking zoning until the senior officials, such as Strudwick, are “carried their flowers, chocolates and perfume” to grant zoning for the Developers projects.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld Strudwik’s libel against me but due to the statements by the Supreme Court that the Minister responsible ruled that the only option I had as the Argues agent was to carry “flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the Rural Administrator must mean that it applies to all small Developers and there is a belief there may be a chance of conducting a class action law suit on behalf of Saskatchewan’s small developers against the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan asking for compensation, especially because the Premier, despite many requests by myself, has refused to deal with the problem.

The Argues and presumably all small developers are placed in a impossible situation. I repeat, the Minister Responsible and all three levels of Court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have ruled that the only option the Developers have to obtain zoning for their subdivision is to “carry flowers, chocolates and perfume” to the Rural Administrators and Councils but it is a contravention of Section 123(1) MUNICIPAL CORRUPTION of the Criminal Code to carry “a benefit of any kind” to a Municipal official, and the Premier of Saskatchewan has refused to deal with the problem, thus perhaps opening the door for a class action suit, all we can do is try to find out if it is possible.

If you are a small developer and have been harmed regarding a zoning issue by a Rural Council or Administrator write me setting out your name, address, phone number, the number of the RM, a summary of what was done to you and what it cost you in dollars; my name and address is;

E.R. Lee
P.O. Box 33057
Regina, Saskatchewan S4T 7X2

Class action law suits are hard to launch, the Courts will certify only about 50% of the applications to go ahead. But the class action suits are conducted on a contingency basis, you pay nothing unless the lawyers
win the case but the lawyers do usually charge about a third of what you and the group win.

I ask nothing from either you or the lawyer conducting the class action on your behalf, (should it go ahead). I do it as a public service because if I did ask for anything the Premier would, to prevent my search for the small Developers who had been harmed have his Attorney General charge me under Section 361 (2) FALSE PRETENCE or Section 381 MAIL FRAUD, of Canada’s Criminal code and because the class action suits are hard to launch the Courts would rule that I had mislead you on the chances of success.

As I get your letters I will send them to my contacts in eastern Canada and eventually, assuming we receive enough letters indicating a zoning problem with a Rural Municipality, a lawyer will decide if he wants to go ahead. It all depends on the potential for a lawyer to make money, but in this instance the potential should be there.

As example, the only case I know in detail, the Argues and Donna Strudwick, the Argues’ spent $175,000.00, ten years ago, say $200,000.00 in todays dollars to fulfill the conditions set by the R.M. of Edenwold so the 30 situations in the Saskatoon area alone means a total of 6 million dollars. A third of that, 2 million dollars goes to the lawyers and in most cases, once they are certified to go ahead by the Court, class action lawsuits are settled out of Court, so I think that we may have a good chance of finding a lawyer to take it on.

As I receive your letters I will send you a information package, including the affidavits used in Strudwick’s libel action against me, the SMB ruling, Court Judgments and all other related material.