2006-04-24_Supplemental Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaire
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2006
Common Council Chamber
Supplemental Agenda
12.15 Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit - Tentative Settlement
12.16 Ratification - Settlement of Legal Proceedings
15.2(a) Clarification on Discussions with Maritimes Northeast
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 24 avril 2006
Salle du conseil communal
L'ordre du jour supplementaire
12.15 Reglement provisoire relatif aux plaintes en matiere des droits de la personne
12.16 Ratification du reglement relatif aux procedures judiciaires
15.2(a) Eclaircissements sur les discussions engagees avec Maritimes Northeast
0.\ 6,
City Solicitor's Office
Bureau de l'avocat municipal
P.O. Box/C.P. 1971
Saint John, NB/N.-B.
Canada E2L 4L1
www.saintjohn.ca
The City of Saint John
April 24, 2006
Common Council of
The City of Saint John
Your Worship and Councillors:
Re: Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit -
Tentative Settlement
An extensive mediation process has been followed for the purpose of resolving
the complaints which have been filed with the Human Rights Commission
respecting access to public transit in Saint John. The complaints focused upon
access to the bus system by persons with a physical disability.
While the authority and responsibility for the operation of the public transit
system in Saint John lies exclusively with the Saint John Transit Commission,
each complainant named the City as a respondent. While making clear the
respective roles and responsibilities of the City and Transit Commission in this
matter, the City participated in the mediation process in an effort to address in
a mutually satisfactory manner, the concerns expressed by the complainants.
A tentative resolution has now been achieved.
The tentative resolution is set out in the "Minutes of Settlement" document
attached to this correspondence. From the City's perspective there would be
the following commitments:
1. The City Manager would annually recommend to Common Council
that the Capital Budget provide for the purchase of two low entry buses
consistent with the Strategic Plan of the Transit Commission. The
Transit Commission has identified a plan to replace 30 buses over a
twenty year period.
.../2
Common Council
April 24, 2006
City Solicitor
Page 2
Re: Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit - Tentative Settlement
2. The City would dedicate any capital funds provided to it for the
acquisition of buses, for example from other levels of government, to
the acquisition of low entry buses, " ... or other such accessible buses
capable of accommodating passengers with physical disabilities
including wheelchair users. "
3. The City, since Saint John Transit does not have its own web site,
would host on its website:
a) hours of operation information relating to the Handi-Bus
service, as provided to the City by Transit; and
b) schedule and route information respecting fully accessible buses
in the Transit fleet, again as provided to the City by Transit.
And there would be the publishing of a public notification of the
disposition of the complaints, in a form acceptable to all parties.
The terms of the proposed settlement are satisfactory to the complainants, the
Human Rights Commission and the Saint John Transit Commission. The
proposed terms reflect and are consistent with the significant capital
commitment which the City has made in the past few years to the Transit
Commission's acquisition of low entry buses. It is also consistent with the
City's providing on its web site information with respect to transit schedules.
It is my recommendation that Council accept the proposed terms of settlement
and authorize the execution of the settlement document, a copy of which is
attached.
Respectfully Submitted,
/ 7 .. ^ '0~(! iJft +
Jo L. kgint \J
Cit So licitor
Attachment (Minutes of Settlement)
MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT
BETWEEN:
KAREN KINCADE (ON BEHALF OF
HER SON, JASON KINCADE), SARAH
WOOLL VEN, ANN SHEA, NANCY
PASCHAL, MARGARET TOTTON,
JEFFREY SPARKS, AND DEBBIE
COLWELL (Hereafter the
"Complainants")
-AND-
CITY OF SAINT JOHN (Hereafter the
"Respondent City")
-AND-
THE SAINT JOHN TRANSIT
COMMISSISON (Hereafter the
"Respondent Commission")
-AND-
THE NEW BRUNSWICK HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
-AND-
THE PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON THE
ST A TUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
(Interested Party and hereafter the
"Premier's Council")
WHEREAS the Complainants had filed Human Rights Complaints with the New
Brunswick Human Rights Commission against the Respondent City and the Respondent
Commission, with regard to services on the basis of physical disability (hereafter the
"Complaints");
AND WHEREAS the Respondent City, and the Respondent Commission have,
since the filing of the Complaints, been proactive in accommodating the needs of citizens
with disabilities in the City of Saint John who are accessing public transit;
AND WHEREAS the Complainants, before, during, and after the time of the
filing of their respective complaints, were concerned about the inadequate level of
accessible transportation services available in the City for persons with physical
disabilities; and have been proactive in the resolution to this matter;
AND WHEREAS the Complainants, the Respondent City and Respondent
Commission are eager to resolve this matter in order that all citizens with disabilities of
the City of Saint John can benefit from the final resolution of this matter;
AND WHEREAS the Complainants, the Respondent City, and the Respondent
Commission intend to resolve these Complaints;
AND WHEREAS the parties wish to evidence the terms of settlement in these
Minutes of Settlement;
NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that, m
consideration of the premises and agreements herein contained and for good and valuable
consideration the parties agree as follows:
1. The Respondent City agrees that the City Manager will recommend annually to
Common Council that provision be made in the Capital Budget for the
acquisition of two low entry or other such accessible buses capable of
accommodating passengers with physical disabilities including wheelchair users
consistent with the long term strategic plan of the Respondent Commission.
2
2. The Respondent City and the Respondent Commission agree and acknowledge
that any capital funds provided by the City or any other levels of government
for the acquisition of any new permanent buses will be used to purchase low
entry or other such accessible buses capable of accommodating passengers with
physical disabilities including wheelchair users.
3. The Premier's Council has agreed that it will provide the Respondent City, the
Respondent Commission, and the Handi-Bus Service with appropriate
information pertaining to other available funding sources from both the
Provincial and Federal governments with regard to improving the transit service
to the citizens with disabilities in the City of Saint John.
4. The Parties acknowledge that during the period of time that the Respondent
Commission in its discretion provides the Handi-Bus service to the citizens of
the City of Saint John:
a. The Respondent Commission and the Complainants agree that the target
for the advance notice required to be able to provide service to eligible
users of the Handi-Bus system will be within 24-48 hours;
b. The Respondent Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus serVice will
create and maintain a tracking system that will include at least such
monthly information as the number of trips provided and the number of
any trips not accommodated and the reasons why not. Such reasons
could be grouped under such headings as the client was not eligible; the
client called too late; the vehicle was not in operating condition; the
client did not show up, etc;
c. The Respondent Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus will compile
this information and track it on a monthly basis and will provide such
information, within three weeks from the date of request by the
Premier's Council, the Human Rights Commission, or any of the
Complainants;
d. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to first time callers
who are not registered, the target of service would be the same as it is
for registered clients. However, if an issue should arise concerning the
3
nature and extent of the non registered client's disability and thus their
eligibility to utilize the Handi-Bus Service, the client must provide
medical documentation confirming the nature of the disability before a
subsequent ride is provided by the Handi-Bus. Further, the Handi-Bus,
at this time, has the right to request that a client be registered for the
service and the client must take the appropriate steps to register for the
serVice;
e. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus
service, priority booking on the basis of need will continue. However,
the Respondent Commission agrees that once a client has booked the
Handi-Bus, this client cannot be bumped, for other clients with a
perceived higher priority, without his/her consent. The Respondent
Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus service will make every effort
not to request, on a regular basis, that a booked client give his/or her
consent to be bumped to accommodate the needs of other clients with a
perceived higher priority as the Respondent Commission recognizes that
recreation is just as important to one's quality of life, as are work
commitments and medical appointments;
f. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus
service, it will accommodate the needs of the client with regard to
scheduled return trips within the service hours of the Handi-Bus service;
g. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus
service, the Handi-Bus will use both voicemail and call forward as a
means to allow clients to make booking requests during and after hours
of operation for service during hours of operation;
h. The Respondent Commission acknowledges the need to expand the
Handi-Bus service and agrees that it will work towards a target of
having a schedule that includes Friday and Saturday evening service
without reducing any of its other evening service;
1. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will provide, in all future
annual reports to the City of Saint John, information pertaining to the
4
operation of the Handi-Bus service. This information will include, but is
not limited to, the following: financial commitment, the total number of
accommodated trips, and the total number of trips;
J. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will inform its passengers of
the changes in the Handi-Bus service;
k. The Respondent City agrees that since the Respondent Commission does
not currently have its own web-site, it will provide on the Respondent
City's web-site information pertaining to the hours of operation of the
Handi-Bus service as provided to the Respondent Commission by the
Handi-Bus, and that the Handi-Bus will have, at its disposal, information
sheets that would be available to the public relaying information
pertaining to the hours of operation;
1. The Respondent Commission agrees to be proactive with regard to
notification of the public with respect to the changes and improvements
in the Handi-Bus service by notifying the public via the standard means
of notification which exist with the Respondent Commission and which
may vary from time to time.
5. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will, whenever reasonably possible,
place and maintain in a consistent manner, the fully accessible buses on a set
route and provide a schedule of such to the public.
6. The Respondent City agrees that since the Respondent Commission does not
currently have its own web-site, it will provide on the Respondent City's web-
site information to the schedules and routes of the fully accessible buses in the
Respondent Commission's regular transit fleet and as provided by it.
7. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will inform its passengers of the
schedules and routes of the fully accessible buses in its regular transit fleet.
Upon request, the Respondent Commission agrees to provide the Complainants
with the set schedule and route of the fleet of accessible buses following the
finalization of this settlement.
5
8. The Respondent Commission agrees to be proactive with regard to notification
of the public with respect to the changes and improvements in the regular transit
service by notifying the public via the standard means of notification which
exist with the Respondent Commission and which may vary from time to time.
9. The Respondent City and the Respondent Commission agree to publish a public
notification that deals with all of the complaints that have been filed with
respect to the public transit system in the City and which is mutually agreed to
by the Respondent City, Respondent Commission, the Human Rights
Commission, and the Complainants.
lO. The Complainants agree to sign a General Release, which includes a waiver of
all actions and causes of action relating to any alleged incident of discrimination
on the basis of physical disability that allegedly occurred.
11. The parties acknowledge that they have received independent legal advice in
this matter or that they waive this right.
12. The Complainants agree to withdraw their respective complaints.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed these Minutes of Settlement on the
dates indicated below their respective signatures.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
Witness )
)
KAREN KINCADE
Date:
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
Witness )
)
)
)
JASON KINCADE
Date:
6
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
) NANCY PASCHAL
)
Witness )
) Date:
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
) MARGARET TOTTON
)
Witness )
) Date:
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
Witness )
)
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
Witness )
)
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
)
Witness )
)
)
SARAH WOOLLVEN
Date:
ANN SHEA
Date:
JEFFREY SPARKS
Date:
7
) THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
)
) Per:
Witness )
) Date:
)
)
)
. QjYVVl~;Z7~7" )
~y~ ) Per:
Witrtess ( )
\
) 19;1N) 6
,
)
) NEW BRUNSWICK HUMAN
) RIGHTS COMMISSION
)
) Per:
Witness )
) Date:
)
AND
) THE PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON
) THE STATUS OF DISABLED
) PERSONS
)
) Per:
Witness )
) Date:
)
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )
)
)
)
Witness )
)
)
8
DEBBIE COLWELL
Date:
\d\~
City Solicitor's Office
Bureau de l'avocat municipal
P.O. Box/C.P. 1971
Saint John, NB/N.-B.
Canada E2L 4L1
www.saintjohn.ca
The City of Saint John
April 24, 2006
Common Council of
The City of Saint John
Your Worship and Councillors:
Re: Ratification - Settlement of Legal Proceedings
Settlement of three legal proceedings identified as Cause Numbers S/C/463/00,
S/C/500/00, and S/C/441102 was concluded in the spring of 2004. The
plaintiff in each of the three cases received $10,000 from the City in exchange
for a filed Discontinuance of Action and a Release in the City's favour.
Settlement occurred following the matters having been addressed in Legal
Session of Common Council. Inadvertently, the settlements were not
authorized by the required resolution of Common Council adopted in Open
Session. Consequently, that must occur and the following is the text of the
appropriate resolution:
Whereas settlement was concluded in the spring of 2004 with respect to
three actions brought against the City of Saint John identified as Cause
Numbers S/C/463/00, S/C/500/00 and S/C/441102; and
Whereas the aforesaid settlements were inadvertently concluded
without their having been authorized by resolution of Common Council
adopted in Open Session;
.., /2
Common Council
April 24, 2006
City Solicitor
Page 2
Re: Ratification of Settlement
Now therefore be it resolved that Common Council does hereby ratify
the payment of $10,000 to the plaintiff in each of the said actions
respectively, in full, final and conclusive settlement of their actions
against the City of Saint John.
Respectfully Submitted,
/2N~~~~r
Jorn/L. Nugent /
City Solicitor
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
April 21, 2006
The City of Saint John
INFORMATION OF COUNCIL
His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MARITIMES NORTHEAST
I noticed that there has been some public comment from elected officials with regards to
a decision I made to obtain further information from Maritimes Northeast with respect to
the proposed Brunswick Pipeline. Let me clarify what has transpired so that there is no
confusion as to the steps I have taken and the reasons for doing so.
· Common Council adopted a position that they were not in favour of a proposed
pipeline through Rockwood Park.
· Questions were asked with respect to whether or not the City should seek
"intervener status" before the NEB. I did indicate to Council that such a decision
may require tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the
material contained in Maritimes Northeast's application.
If the ''under water route" was not part of MNE' s application, the City of Saint
John would have to make the case for this route. Conceptual designs, detailed
designs, construction schedules and specific cost estimates would need to be
prepared by the City of Saint John as part of its obligation to "present facts and
evidence" .
If, on the other hand, MNE's application contains much of this information (albeit
not the preferred route) then perhaps Council can avoid incurring some of these
costs.
· I attended the NEB public presentation at the Delta Hotel so that I would be
adequately informed of the options available to Council.
Report to Common Council
Page 2
Subject: Discussion with Maritimes Northeast
· The first person I met with was Mr. David Thompson. The purpose was to
discuss his position, to understand his proposed under water route and to perhaps
gain from his experience as an intervener.
· I have read all the public commentary with respect to "demanding community
benefits, negotiating with MNE, responsibility for the Park and so on".
In the end, I have concluded that there is more rhetoric surrounding this issue then fact.
As a result, when Council is asked to approve tens, if not hundreds of thousands of
dollars to advocate the under water route, I fully expect to be asked a whole series of
questions, some of which can only be obtained from MNE. Rather than wait until they
file their application, I want to have answers to questions such as;
A) Is your application going to clearly indicate the route is through Rockwood
Park?
B) Will your application address in any detailed way, the proposed "under water
route". If so, can you provide the City with any of that technical data?
C) Will your Business Plan, which I presume will form part of your application
before the NEB, identify in specific terms the revenues that;
1. shall accrue to the City of Saint John in the form of municipal taxes.
11. may accrue to the City of Saint John by way of a "toll".
111. may be provided to the City of Saint John for the purposes of
improving services to the general public or perhaps specifically
earmarked for improvements to the Park.
D) Is MNE obligated to negotiate with other owners of private property over
which a pipeline may pass? Is the approach to a municipally different than
that to a private landowner?
E) Has MNE had any discussions with anyone else, other than the City of Saint
John with respect to the ownership of Rockwood Park?
F) Is it customary for MNE, or any other pipeline company "to provide
community benefits?" If so, would MNE share this information or should the
City do its own research?
G) I understand that a portion of the Shamrock Grounds is to be used as a "lay
down" area. When will this occur? Is MNE assuring the City that the
grounds will be appropriately reinstated or even improved?
H) If the City succeeds in its attempt to have the pipeline placed underwater,
what does this mean to the entire "Brunswick Pipeline" project?
Report to Common Council
Page 3
Subject: Discussion with Maritimes Northeast
I) Does MNE ever intend to make a presentation to Common Council with
respect to its plans?
Now, admittedly, I do not have the answers to these questions. In order to get them, I did
ask Andrew Beckett and Bernie Morrison to do some work to get the answers. In
addition, I asked Mr. MacMurray of the Horticultural Association and Mr. Manning of
the Board of Trade if they were prepared to work with Andrew and Bernie. My view is
that the City might as well ask such individuals to be at the table when answers are
provided in the first place, as opposed to discussing the answers with them at a later date.
As to not informing the Mayor, or Councillors, no slight was intended at all. I routinely
ask staff and citizens to do work for me every week and I saw this as no different than my
having m with David mpson.
errence L. Totten, FCA
CITY MANAGER