there are no current staff members of Premier Wynne’s office that were also senior staff members or members of the policy division in Premier McGuinty’s office. As such, there is no individual at the current Premier’s Office who can speak to the deferral on onshore wind with direct knowledge of what happened in 20 II.
The Tribunal requested that the Respondent clarify by 18 December 2014 whether it was in a position to identify the individual in the former Premier’s Office who was most directly involved in the decision on the deferral/moratorium on onshore wind development, whether or not she or he was a staff member in the current Premier’s Office.
[a]ll documents in the possession, power or control of the Premier’s Office related to the consideration and implementation of the moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects, announced on February 11, 2011, including documents of Dalton McGuinty, Jameson Steeve, Dave Gene, Sean Mullin and Chris Morley.
1. “Canada shall disclose the identity of the individual from the Premier’s Office who was most directly involved with the decision to implement the moratorium on offshore wind development (whether it is Mr. Mullin, Mr. Steeve, Mr. Morley or another individual);”
2. “The individual identified by Canada shall appear before a certified court reporter in Toronto, Ontario to be examined for discovery by counsel for Windstream to answer questions relating to the decision to implement the moratorium on offshore wind development;”
3. “If that individual will not appear voluntarily to be examined for discovery, the Tribunal grants Windstream its approval to seek an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for assistance in compelling the attendance of the individual;” and
4. Alternatively to the above requests, “the Premier’s Office [shall] restore the available back-up tapes and search the resulting restored documents for documents responsive to Claimant’s document request #25.”
1. “Disclose to Windstream and to the Tribunal the search processes it used to identify documents responsive to document requests #22, 27, 28, 29 and 56;”
2. “Identify, and disclose to Windstream and to the Tribunal, the lacunae in its search processes that led to the above documents not being produced in response to document requests #22, 27, 28, 29 and 56;” and
3. “Conduct any further and better searches for documents responsive to requests #22, 27, 28, 29 and 56 as may be agreed with Windstream, or ordered by the Tribunal failing such agreement.”
a) The Claimant’s request that the Respondent be ordered to disclose the identity of the individual from the Premier’s Office who was most directly involved with the decision to implement the moratorium on offshore wind development is dismissed as moot;
b) The Claimant’s request that the individual identified by the Claimant shall appear before a certified court reporter in Toronto, Ontario, to be examined for discovery by counsel for the Claimant to answer questions relating to the decision to implement the moratorium on offshore wind development, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
c) The Claimant’s request that if the individual identified by the Claimant will not appear voluntarily to be examined for discovery, the Tribunal grants the Claimant its approval to seek an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for assistance in compelling the attendance of the individual, is granted;
d) The Claimant’s alternative request that the Tribunal order the Respondent to restore the available back-up tapes and search the restored documents for documents responsive to the Claimant’s document request #25 is denied. The Tribunal’s decision is without prejudice to the Claimant’s right to make a fresh request after the filing by the Respondent of its Counter-Memorial, subject to an offer to pay the cost of the search, should the Claimant consider that there is still a need for such a request, in view of the evidence submitted in support of the Counter-Memorial;
e) The Claimant’s request that the Tribunal order the Respondent to disclose to the Claimant and to the Tribunal the search processes it used to identify the documents responsive to documents requests #22, 27, 28, 29, and 56 is denied;
f) The Claimant’s request that the Respondent identify and disclose to the Claimant and to the Tribunal the lacunae in its search processes that led to the documents not being produced in response to document requests #22, 27, 28, 29, and 56 is denied; and
g) The Claimant’s request that the Respondent conduct further and better searches for documents responsive to requests #22, 27, 28, 29, and 56, as may be agreed with the Claimant, or ordered by the Tribunal failing such agreement, is denied.
Already registered ?