JONO Developments is taking the city to court over its mismanagement of the St. Pat’s-Alexandra ordeal.
The company alleges it suffered financial damages “as a result of HRM’s negligence in failing to follow its policies and procedures.” JONO lost profits, legal fees, miscellaneous expenses and interest on a deposit for the site, lawyer David Coles wrote in the statement of claim.
JONO has also appealed the Supreme Court decision that found HRM did not follow its own procedures in the disposal of the former school site.
The company still hopes to develop the site, Joe Metlege said over the phone Tuesday. The best-case scenario would be if the city honoured their agreement, he said.
In 2011, HRM issued an RFP for the nearly four-acre school site. JONO Developments along with two other developers and three non-profit groups submitted proposals. City procedure said non-profits should be considered first, but staff ranked for-profit proponents against non-profits. JONO scored highest with 88 and 89 points out of 100 for the company’s two proposals.
Council voted to sell the property to JONO, and an agreement of purchase and sale was executed Jan. 9, 2012. The next day, council voted to rescind the sale.
The suit didn’t surprise the city, and it was reasonable considering the circumstances, HRM spokesperson Janet Bryson said Monday. The city’s legal team is reviewing the case and has 15 days to respond to the suit, which was filed Oct. 28.
Meanwhile the three non-profit groups who were awarded the chance to re-apply for the property are working on their proposal, due Nov. 12. HRM said its call for non-profit proposals is ongoing.
Lawyer Ron Pink has advised the groups to submit a proposal. “But if the appeal is successful, then it’s all for naught—the whole proposal goes out the window,” he said Tuesday. The appeal goes to court in May.
Related Stories
Jono not interested in St. Pat’s mediation
This article appears in Nov 7-13, 2013.
A person or entity seeking to enter into a contract with a municipality is required to ensure that the municipality has the legal ability to enter into such a contract.
In this case Mr Metlege knew of the obligation HRM owed to community groups, was present during the discussion at council and knew of media coverage of the provisions regarding community groups and therefore was equally negligent in entering into a contract that any reasonable person would view as voidable.
He is filing the action as the appeal of the earlier court decision will not take place before this suit would be time barred.
His predicament brings to mind ‘marry in haste, repent at leisure’
What a bizarre comment.
How is the municipality’s responsibility to ensure its own legal ability to enter into a contract, and the municipality’s negligence in entering a contract that was “voidable” somehow actually the responsibility of the developer?
The developer *may* be opportunistic, hoping to take advantage of someone else’s failure to comply with their own rules, but it is not his failure or indeed his rules.
I suppose one could say the developer should accept that his attempt to take advantage of the municipality’s mistake failed, and he should move on quietly, but it is ridiculous to assert the whole thing was his responsibility and his doing in the first place.
Jammie – my comment is taken from longstanding court decisions. Rogers Municipal Law explains (available at the Dal Law Library).
I don’t assert that it was all his fault but I did say that he ‘was equally negligent’.
When entering into any contract it is essential to ensure that the other party has the legal ability to enter into the contract and be bound by the contract – due diligence. Would you buy a car from me without making sure I was the registered owner and the vehicle was free and clear ?
Here is the decision re St Pat’s : http://decisions.courts.ns.ca/site/nsc/nss…
The HRM position on the matter was ‘ we can do what we want and don’t have to follow the procedures we have adopted’ .
And the judge found that HRM sold the property at less than market value and therefore in violation of the HRM Charter; Jono was willing to pay $4,000,000 but paid $3,000,000.
So JONO should sue their lawyers and HRM, I guess, if Joeblow is correct.
Recognized agent for Jono is Lena Diab-Now Justice Minister. let the games begin