PETITION FOR AN INDEPENDENT PROVINCIAL INQUIRY Into the Selection, Due Diligence and Oversight of Distrikt Developments
To: Oakville Town Council
The Honourable Stephen Crawford, MPP for Oakville
The Government of Ontario / Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

THE REQUEST

Recent reporting has raised serious questions about the experience, financial history and suitability of Distrikt Developments to undertake a project of the scale and significance of Midtown Oakville. Residents believe these questions warrant independent examination not assumptions or political assurances.

We are asking the Province to establish the facts: What due diligence was conducted before Distrikt was selected? What information was available to decision-makers? Were potential risks properly assessed? And were Oakville taxpayers’ interests adequately protected?

This is not about prejudging Distrikt or alleging wrongdoing. It is about transparency, accountability and ensuring that a decision of this magnitude was made on the basis of thorough and appropriate due diligence.

----
We, the undersigned residents of Oakville, respectfully request that Oakville Town Council formally ask the Province of Ontario to conduct an independent inquiry into the selection, due diligence, oversight and accountability processes surrounding the selection of Distrikt Developments in connection with the District lands.

This request is being made in the public interest.

WHY AN INQUIRY IS WARRANTED
The Municipal Act, 2001 establishes a framework of municipal accountability and transparency. Section 270(1) requires municipalities to adopt and maintain policies concerning, among other matters:

-the sale and other disposition of municipal land;
-procurement of goods and services;
-public notice;
-accountability to the public for municipal actions;
-transparency to the public; and
-delegation of municipal powers and duties.
-Oakville's own Public Notice and Engagement Policy states that the Town is committed to accountable government and transparent processes, including timely communication, meaningful public participation, careful consideration of public input and reporting back to Council before final decisions and outcomes are reached.

Oakville also states that its purchasing function is dedicated to acquiring goods, services and construction in an ethical, professional and accountable manner, with established processes for procurement and review of non-competitive procurements.

Oakville's Council Code of Conduct further states that members of Council are expected to perform their duties in a manner that will “bear the closest scrutiny” and recognizes their accountability for managing Town resources.

These principles raise legitimate public-interest questions about whether the processes surrounding the selection of the developer were sufficiently rigorous, transparent and protective of the public interest.

QUESTIONS WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED
We respectfully ask that an inquiry examine, at minimum:

1. The selection process

Who participated in the selection of the developer?
What process was followed?
What criteria were established?
Was the process competitive?
If it was not competitive, why not?
Who had authority to make or approve the selection?
Were any decisions delegated to staff, agencies, corporations or other entities?

2. Due diligence

What financial due diligence was conducted?
What corporate, legal and ownership information was reviewed?
What information regarding the developer's previous projects and performance was considered?
Were references obtained and independently verified?
Were financial capacity, financing arrangements and ability to complete the project assessed?
Were any concerns, warnings, litigation, defaults, disputes or other material information identified?
If concerns existed, how were they evaluated and documented?

3. Disclosure and decision-making

What information was provided to the decision-makers before the developer was selected?
Was all material information available to those responsible for the decision?
Were any material facts omitted, unavailable or subsequently discovered?
Were elected officials adequately informed of the risks associated with the selection?

4. Public accountability

What information can properly be disclosed to residents regarding the selection process?
What portions of the decision-making process occurred in public and what portions occurred in closed session?
Where closed-session discussions occurred, were they authorized under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 and properly recorded?
Were the Town's accountability, transparency, public notice and engagement policies followed?
The Municipal Act establishes statutory requirements governing open municipal meetings, including requirements surrounding closed-session resolutions and the circumstances in which matters may be discussed privately.

5. Conflicts, lobbying and ethical obligations

The inquiry should determine whether all applicable conflict-of-interest, lobbying, ethical and disclosure requirements were followed and whether any relationships or interests should have been disclosed or independently reviewed.

Oakville has an Integrity Commissioner process for complaints concerning potential violations of its Council Code of Conduct or the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

This petition does not allege that any such violation occurred.

Rather, it asks that the appropriate authorities determine whether any issue requiring examination exists.

6. Protection of taxpayers

The inquiry should determine whether the process adequately protected:

-municipal assets;
-taxpayer interests;
-the Town's financial position;
-the public value of the lands;
-the Town's contractual position; and
-the long-term interests of Oakville residents.

OUR REQUEST TO OAKVILLE COUNCIL

We respectfully request that Council:

1. Bring this matter forward for formal consideration at an open Council meeting.

2. Request an independent review of the selection, due diligence and oversight process relating to Distrikt Developments.

3. Formally request that the Province of Ontario establish an independent inquiry under the authority available to the Province, including the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, if the Province determines that a public inquiry is the appropriate mechanism.

4. Request that the Province determine whether the Town, its agencies, boards, corporations, consultants, staff or other public bodies involved in the process complied with all applicable legislation, regulations, policies, procurement requirements and governance obligations.

5. Request that the inquiry examine whether appropriate financial, legal, corporate and reputational due diligence was completed before the developer was selected.

6. Request that all relevant records be preserved and made available to the appropriate independent reviewer or inquiry, subject to applicable legal, privacy and solicitor-client protections.

7. Request that the findings and recommendations of any independent review or provincial inquiry be made public, subject to legitimate statutory restrictions.

OUR REQUEST TO MPP STEPHEN CRAWFORD

We respectfully ask MPP Stephen Crawford to:

1. Bring the concerns raised by Oakville residents directly to the appropriate provincial minister and ministry officials.

2. Advocate for an independent provincial examination of the developer selection and due-diligence process.

3. Request that the Province determine whether a formal public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, or another independent investigative mechanism is appropriate.

4. Report back publicly to Oakville residents regarding the Province's response to this request.

We therefore respectfully call upon Oakville Council and MPP Matthew Crawford to seek an independent provincial inquiry.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A PREDETERMINED CONCLUSION.
WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FACTS.
For transparency.
For accountability.
For taxpayers.
For Oakville.