Objection to Item DM35.2
Let the City know you don’t support it covering Third party legal expenses. Send the below letter to the City Clerk, John D. Elvidge, who will then circulate it to City Council.
Please circulate this email to every council member ahead of the meeting. We request that these comments be publicly visible online and understand that these comments and the personal information in this email will form part of the public record and that our name will be listed as a correspondent on agendas and minutes of City Council or its committees. Also, we understand that agendas and minutes are posted online and our name may be indexed by search engines like Google.
Subject: Objection to Item DM35.2 – Reimbursement of Legal Expenses for Third Party Contractors
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,
I am writing to oppose Item DM35.2, which would authorize the City to reimburse legal expenses incurred by third party contractors or consultants after a contract has been negotiated, agreed upon and signed by both parties.
Third party contractors are engaged at arm’s length precisely to limit the City’s legal and financial exposure. They are required to carry their own insurance so that liability arising from their work, including legal defence costs, does not fall to taxpayers. Item DM35.2 undermines that structure by authorizing reimbursement regardless of the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings.
As drafted, Item DM35.2 does not require that claims be dismissed, found to be without merit, or resolved in favour of the contractor before public funds may be used. Nor does it require a finding that the contractor acted without negligence. This creates a clear moral hazard by insulating private parties from the financial consequences of their own conduct and transferring uninsured risk to the public.
These concerns are amplified where contractors have long-standing relationships with the City or were retained through non-competitive or limited-competition procurement processes. In such cases, selectively reimbursing legal expenses further undermines confidence that contractors are operating at arm’s length and that risk is being allocated fairly. Even the appearance of preferential treatment erodes public trust.
Council should not be pre-judging matters that are properly before the courts. Funding private legal defences while litigation is ongoing, and without regard to outcome, risks signalling conclusions about responsibility that only a court can make.
For these reasons, I urge Council to reject Item DM35.2 or amend it to ensure that no reimbursement of third party legal expenses occurs unless and until a court has fully resolved the matter in the contractor’s favour. Public funds should not be used to underwrite private legal risk.
Respectfully,
Your Name