Foolishness versus illegality

In the seven days in which Ontario Superior Court has heard the case of Friends of Lansdowne versus the City of Ottawa, the complex Lansdowne Partnership Plan has been discussed in great detail. As I have listened to the lawyers present their clients' positions, is has been clear that there is much to criticize.
But for the Court, no matter how unwise or even foolish the arrangement may be, the issue is: do the City's actions constitute a violation of law?
The question of legality goes beyond what is sensible. There is no law against making a bad decision, or, put more bluntly -- stupidity can be perfectly legal.
The argument from the Friends of Lansdowne centres on three issues:
- Can the City of Ottawa ignore its own procurement policies without violating the requirement in the Municipal Act that it establish and maintain such policies;
- Has the financial arrrangment struck with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group provided a benefit to a private party which is contrary to the Municipal Act; and
- Has the action of the City in withholding information or in presenting misleading information to the public and to elected officials constituted bad faith.
If the Court finds that any one of the allegations by the Friends of Lansdowne is valid, there may be a basis on which the the actions of the City may be nullified.
But in looking forward to the prospect that the Court might indeed quash the City's arrangment with OSEG, what exactly would that mean in practical terms?
While such a decision by the Court would certainly be a major story in the media and could be a political bombshell, it need not set back the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in a major way. If the City really wants to rebuild the stadium and fix up the arena, it can go ahead and do so. After all, the City is putting up all the money for the redevelopment. If the City would like to have another organization take on the management of the facilities or to take responsibility for maintenance, it can readily run a competition to select firms to supply such services. If the City wants to sell or lease some of the property to generate revenue, it can do so.
In the hearing last week, the Lansdowne Partnership Plan was likened to a marriage. These days there are all sorts of ways in which relationships develop which are not marriages. And many of us would advise our adult children that rushing into marriage can be unwise.
If the Court decides that the LPP marriage should be annulled, that might be the best outcome for both parties.

Rube Goldberg remembered

Back in the thirties and forties, there was a noted cartoonist, Rube Goldberg (and a similar British humourist, Heath Robinson) who drew pictures of very complex arrangements of mechanisms to accomplish mundane tasks. Bubbling tea kettles and bouncing balls combined with other devices to turn pages in newspapers or stir soup pots.
After sitting in court for seven days listening to the description of the Lansdowne Partnership Plan, I could not help thinking of those cartoons from the past. The lawyers from both sides described an extraordinarily complex business arrangement. But try as I might, I could not see the need for such complexity.
Much of the humour in the old cartoons comes from imagining the foolishness which would prompt anyone to assemble such ludicrous arrangements. I would have enjoyed the humour in the complexity of the Lansdowne setup, but I kept remembering that somehow I was paying for it all.
In fact, the more the complex arrangement was explained to the judge, the less funny it seemed. The complexity looked as if it were designed to conceal the reality of the arrangement rather than actually contributing to a positive outcome.