Greater Sudbury rejects claims it was biased in KED decisions
The second day of a Superior Court trial in Sudbury involving the proposed Kingsway Entertainment District took place Tuesday via video teleconference, broadcast on YouTube. (File)
SUDBURY -- The second day of a Superior Court trial in Sudbury involving the proposed Kingsway Entertainment District took place Tuesday via video teleconference, broadcast on YouTube.
A local businessman, Tom Fortin, alleges the city acted in bad faith and was biased in reaching its decision to allow the project to move forward.
The judge heard from Tom Halinski, a lawyer representing Greater Sudbury, which is rejecting claims the city did anything wrong.
"It had to make a decision on a very hard issue and that's what it did," Halinski said. "And again if that decision was wrong (Fortin's lawyer Gordon) Petch has a venue to argue that point in September at LPAT ... This is just about if the decision was legal and certainly there is just nothing in the evidence to indicate that, that wasn't the case."
The city filed a response to the allegations comprised of about 2,000 pages of sworn affidavits and supporting documents.
Day 2 was not without technical difficulties. The trial started late, a few parts of it were difficult to view and hear on YouTube.
The judge's decision in this case could have a huge impact on the KED development.
If the Superior Court rules the decision to build the KED was biased, then the city would have to either appeal the decision, or scrap the entire project.
Richard Swan, a lawyer representing Gateway Casinos, told the judge the decision to accept a casino in Greater Sudbury has been made by successive city councils.
"Council has decided unanimously, on several occasions and several different years, and with differently comprised councils, that the city and region should serve as a host to an OLG casino," Swan said.
After a lengthy day of arguments and rebuttals, the judge in the case reserved his decision. While he didn't give a date, a ruling is expected to come before a September hearing at the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.
That hearing is to hear arguments on whether the city followed planning laws when approving the development.