Showing posts with label SWSDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWSDA. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2009

SWSDA TO DISAPPEAR! - New entity required to be officially accountable, transparent, and more democratic

SUNDAY, JUNE 14, 2009

SWSDA TO DISAPPEAR!
















SO SAYS... THE NEW DEPUTY MINISTER!

In a letter dated May 26, 2009 Mr. Ian Thompson the new Deputy Minister over at Economic and Rural Development (ERD)advises SWSDA and Municipal Members of SWSDA's Board that they must be incorporated under the Regional Communities Development Act passed into law twelve years ago in 1997 to receive future funding.

Friday, February 20, 2009

South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) tosses reporter from closed meeting

SWSDA tosses reporter from meeting...
Shelburne County Today
18feb2009


Despite the recent ruling by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court that the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) was a public agency according to the laws of the Province and despite protests by several member politicians, CEO Frank Anderson had the Shelburne RCMP escort SCT editor and publisher Timothy Gillespie from the Shelburne meeting of the agency in Shelburne early Wednesday morning.

Anderson told Gillespie that, despite the court ruling, he considered the meeting a "private" one and not open to the public or the media. In a November, 2008 decision, Supreme Court Justice Suzanne Hood determined that, because its membership is comprised almost exclusively of elected officials and the agency's funding is almost exclusively from public funds, SWSDA is a "municipal body" and should not be exempt from legislation controlling their actions.

...

One SWSDA member reported that the board of directors decided at the meeting that the agency was obliged to conform to Freedom of Information requests as "municipal agency", but determined that they were not subject to public meeting legislation. "In light of the court's recent ruling," said an authority on the governing legislation," that is a patently absurd and dangerous conclusion. All of the municipalities which comprise SWSDA are now subject to almost certain legal action in the courts and to all of the costs and bad publicity that will entail."

...
FULL ARTICLE

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 05, 2009

NDP calls for SWSDA audit... $1 million-plus unaccounted for

5jan2009: NDP calls for SWSDA audit... $1 million-plus unaccounted for...

Shelburne County MLA Sterling Belliveau called on the Office of the Auditor General on Monday for a full provincial independent audit of the South West Shore Regional Development Authority’s handling of the sale of the Sandy Point sound stage and the boys’ school.


“The residents of Shelburne have been calling for an audit for more than a year,” says Belliveau. “The questions being asked are not going to go away. Residents want, and deserve, to know that the money from these sales will be utilized within Shelburne County. It’s time for the Auditor General to step in and investigate this situation.”

...

Lockeport Mayor Darian Huskilson, former SWSDA executive member and outspoken critic of some of the business practices of SWSDA, told SCT that, any politics aside, there has been considerable public interest in "getting to the bottom of a murky situation." Huskilson added, "the public has a right to have a full accounting of public monies."

FULL ARTICLE

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Court rules development authority is a public body: novanewsnow.com

Court rules development authority is a public body


by Michael Gorman/The Vanguard


By Michael Gorman

 
 

THE VANGUARD

 
 

NovaNewsNow.com

 
 

The South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) lost a legal battle last week that could have wide-reaching impacts on the information it is required to release.

 
 

In a ruling from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Justice Suzanne M. Hood ruled that SWSDA is a public body and, thus, is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act.

 
 

The ruling is the result of a claim filed by Adelard A. Cayer, who was appealing a request for access to the travel expenses of Frank Anderson, the CEO for SWSDA. The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, a group dedicated to bringing openness and transparency to government, intervened in the case.

 
 

FULL ARTICLE: <http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-278734-Court-rules-development-authority-is-a-public-body.html>

Friday, November 28, 2008

Court rules FOI laws still apply - TheChronicleHerald.ca

Court rules FOI laws still apply

Case involved development authority's refusal to provide information

By JEFFREY SIMPSON Staff Reporter

Fri. Nov 28 - 5:54 AM

Arm's-length government agencies cannot prevent the public from prying into their business by claiming to be exempt from freedom of information laws, Nova Scotia Supreme Court decided this week.

The ruling involved the South West Shore Development Authority, which had refused to release information that a Shelburne-area man had requested about how it was spending money. The authority argued it was outside the jurisdiction of freedom of information laws.

The man, Adelard Cayer, took the authority to court.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, saying that the authority is an agency of the municipal government, which appoints its members and supports its operations financially. And since municipalities are subject to freedom of information laws, so are the agencies they establish and fund.

"If they're using our money, we have a right to find enough information from them to decide whether or not they're doing what we want them to do," said Darce Fardy, who founded the Right to Know Coalition after retiring in 2006 as the province's review officer for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

"This business of trying to do it in secret is just not on."


 

Full Article: <http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1092940.html>

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Big loss for SWSDA chief on legal front... Appeals Court demands release of expense records... RDAs are public bodies says court... - Shelburne County Today

26nov2008:
Big loss for SWSDA chief on legal front... Appeals Court demands release of expense records... RDAs are public bodies says court...


 

In what may be a far-reaching decision for access to public records from government agencies, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court published an opinion today in a two-year legal battle to obtain the expense claims of Frank Anderson, CEO of the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act.


 

     The suit by Shelburne businessman Ed Cayer was filed after Anderson and his attorneys refused to abide by rulings by the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information Office and Cayer appealed to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court where the matter was heard by Justice Suzanne M. Hood. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Anderson and SWSDA have continued to claim that SWSDA is not a "public body" and that SWSDA and Anderson are somehow exempt from the FIOPOP legislation.


 

     In her 38-page decision from a trial de novo, Justice Hood spelled out her reasoning for the decision, which included opinions that, despite attempts to amend its by-laws to the contrary, SWSDA is and was always a public body under the Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act (MGA) and, in that, fully subject to FIOPOP standards.. She cited four court cases, including a recent, similar case involving the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) in which the judge determined that it was "contrary to the purpose of the (FOIPOP) Act and access to information legislation in general to permit... [the evasion of] the statutory duty to provide residents with access to information..." 


 

FULL ARTICLE:<http://www.shelburnecountytoday.com/>

Right to Know Coalition NS pleased with court decision

Right to Know pleased with court decision


By KELLY SHIERS Staff Reporter

Thu. Nov 27 - 5:53 AM

An advocacy group is heralding a Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision that the South West Shore Regional Development Authority [SWSDA] is a public body subject to the province's Freedom of Information Act.

"We're very pleased," said Darce Fardy

DarceDarce Fardy RTKCNS President - Image via Wikipedia

, president of the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia.

"It's important because regional development authorities have great influence on what's happening in their communities and they're publicly funded.

"To have them feel that they're unaccountable to the public that they're serving and using public funds to do it, that they're not going to be open and accountable, . . . for me, I'm not a lawyer, I just said that doesn't make sense."

The coalition became involved in the legal wrangling when the South West Shore Regional Development Authority turned down an individual's request for records, citing, among its reasons, that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act doesn't apply to it, Mr. Fardy said.

When that person asked the court to review that finding, the Right to Know Coalition intervened.

An authority spokesman could not be reached Wednesday evening.

( kshiers@herald.ca)


Inserted from <http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1092836.html>


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Development (SWSDA) authority to prepare report


by Eric Bourque

The Vanguard

Article online since February 11st 2008, 13:39

By Eric Bourque
THE VANGUARD
NovaNewsNow.com

The public consultation sessions having been held, it was time to sort through the material and work on a summary of what was discussed, which is what Dave Warner of the South West Shore Development Authority was in the midst of doing when contacted last week.

The development authority's annual three-part series of consultation meetings was held last month over two weekends in three counties.

The first of the sessions was held at the Barrington Lions Club.

Sessions followed in Yarmouth, at the Burridge Campus of the Nova Scotia Community College, and in Little Brook at the Clare Social Club.
The Clare and Shelburne County sessions drew about 40 participants each, basically on par with a year ago, while the Yarmouth turnout was down, this time consisting of around 60 people.
Referring to the Yarmouth session, Warner said it was still a good gathering, even if the participants were not as numerous as last year.
He notes that the session each year tends to draw a mix of people who are keen on having a good discussion.
The consultation sessions are part of an annual process the development authority goes through to hear what people have to say with regard to priorities for the region – issues to be addressed or projects to be pursued.
Warner said the authority also was hoping to hear from municipal units.
One of 13 regional development authorities in Nova Scotia, the South West Shore Development Authority used to confine its consultation process to Yarmouth and Shelburne counties, but the geographical scope was broadened with the addition of the Municipality of Clare, which joined SWSDA in 2005.
Previously, Clare had been affiliated with a development authority that covered the western Annapolis Valley region.

Inserted from <http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-182802-Development-authority-to-prepare-report.html>


Thursday, December 20, 2007

Accountability vital - TheChronicleHerald.ca

Accountability vital

 
 

By DARCE FARDY

Thu. Dec 20 - 6:38 AM

The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia is pleased with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's recent decision that the coalition has a legitimate role in a legal action concerning the South West Shore Regional Development Authority (SWSDA).

The case was brought to court by an individual whose application for records from the SWSDA was turned down. While rejecting the application, the authority expressed its view that it is not subject to the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPOP). It was on this matter that the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene. SWSDA opposed our application to the court. The applicant had no objections.

SWSDA argued that the coalition had no "direct interest" in the proceeding and its intervention would delay the appeal. Justice A. David MacAdam, in allowing our appeal, said the coalition will bring the perspective of a body "directly interested in the public interest issues it raises." He described our coalition as "an organization which is genuinely interested in the issues" raised by the applicant's appeal.

The court decision recognizes the significance of freedom of information legislation, and the coalition's advocacy role in the application of FOIPOP to agencies that deal with public resources.

The coalition was represented by Brian Awad, who told the court the question of whether freedom of information laws apply to SWSDA is important because of the significance of economic development to the future of Nova Scotia, the key role the regional development authorities have assumed or been given in this regard, and the increasing frequency with which public projects or undertakings involve "quasi-public bodies or public/private partnerships."

This is the argument the coalition will carry forward when the court hears the case. The court's ruling, in our view, will have far-reaching consequences for the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Beyond the courts, it is time for the legislature to have another look at the wording of the FOIPOP Act with a view to ensuring that any agency of government or a municipality that spends taxpayers' money must be accountable to the taxpayer.

The Right to Know Coalition is an advocacy group established in 2006 to encourage the use and development of freedom of information legislation in order to foster a better informed and more politically active electorate in Nova Scotia, and to improve the quality of public and private decision-making through advocacy and education. We believe that a lack of openness and accountability by "public bodies" contributes significantly to public apathy and alarmingly low voter turnouts.

Darce Fardy is president, Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia.

 
 

Inserted from <http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/999246.html>

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation:
Cayer v. South West Shore Development Authority [SWSDA], 2007 NSSC 346

Date: 2007/11/28

Docket: S. H. No. 277885A
Registry: Halifax

Between: Adelard A. Cayer Appellant
v.
South West Shore Development Authority Respondent

LIBRARY HEADING

Judge: The Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam
Heard: September 18, 2007 in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Subject: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, - Civil Procedure Rule 8, - Application to intervene.

Summary: The applicant, the Right-to-Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, applied pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 8 to intervene in an appeal under the Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In the main proceeding, the Acting Freedom of Information Review Officer determined that the South West Shore Development Authority was a "municipal body" and was subject to the freedom of information provisions of the Municipal Government Act. The Development Authority declined to comply with this recommendation, leading to the appeal by
Mr. Cayer.

Issue: Should the Court grant leave to the applicant to intervene in the appeal?

Result: Rule 8 requires the applicant to demonstrate an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and to show that the intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the appeal. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the Court will consider the subject matter of the proceeding, the interest of the applicant, the potential for delay arising from the intervention, the potential for prejudice or injustice arising from the intervention and the contribution the applicant can make to the litigation. Rule 8 has been interpreted broadly, and does not require the applicant to demonstrate that its proprietary rights or legal interests are directly affected by the proceeding. Demonstrating a public interest in the subject matter of the proceeding may be a sufficient basis for intervention.

In addition, it is well-established that Nova Scotia's freedom of information laws require a generous interpretation in order to ensure public access to information. The applicant had demonstrated an interest in the issues raised by the appeal. The interests of the applicant and the appellant were not identical or virtually indistinguishable. The applicant is concerned with the scope of freedom of information legislation, which is a matter of public interest. The fact that Mr. Cayer and the Coalition took the same position on the issues upon which the Coalition sought to make submissions did not mean that they approached the appeal from identical perspectives. Other than referencing this application, the respondent did not provide any detail on any delay or prejudice that might arise from the Coalition's intervention so as to outweigh the Coalition's contribution to the proceeding.
The application to intervene was allowed.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Right to Know Coalition will intervene in the South West Shore Development Authority case

Right to Know Coalition will intervene in the South West Shore Development Authority case


 

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision released on November 28, 2007, agreed that the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia (RTKNS) has a legitimate role in the legal action concerning the South West Shore Regional Development Authority (SWSDA).

At issue is whether Nova Scotia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIPOP) applies to the Authority. SWSDA is one of thirteen regional development authorities in Nova Scotia.

The Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam agreed with arguments put forward by the Coalition's lawyer, Brian Awad, that FOI is a matter of public interest and is genuinely interested in the issues raised by the case. SWSDA opposed the Coalition's request to intervene.

The Coalition asked to be allowed to intervene in a case which involves a request from an applicant for information records from SWSDA.. When the Authority refused the applicant took the matter to court. RTKNS will intervene only on the issue of whether SWSDA is subject to the FOIPOP.

"We're very pleased that this decision recognizes the significance of FOI legislation and the advocacy role of the Coalition in the application of that legislation to agencies that deal with public resources," said the Coalition's President, Darce Fardy.

The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia is an advocacy group established in 2006 to encourage the use and development of freedom of information legislation in order to foster a better informed and more politically active electorate in Nova Scotia, and to improve the quality of public and private decision making in the province. RTKNS aims to achieve this mission through both advocacy and education.

 
 

Darce Fardy

President

Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia

(902) 422-1481

darce@eastlink.ca

www.nsrighttoknow.ca

 
 


 

Friday, November 23, 2007

Going... going... gone! $1,000,000-plus missing from economic development fund





from Shelburne County Today
Nov 22 2007

Team Shelburne will never see Boy's School money, says SWSDAIn a stunning revelation by the attorneys for South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) and its CEO Frank Anderson, Supreme Court Justice Allan Boudreau and courtroom observers were told Thursday in a Yarmouth courtroom that as much as $1,000,000 or more of proceeds from the Shelburne Youth Centre (Shelburne Place) has disappeared into the general fund of SWSDA and is unlikely to be recovered. Attorney Reuben Dexter, representing Ocean Produce International, told the court that documents he recently got from SWSDA indicate that "monies may have been spent on all kinds of improper things." (see Follow the money below)

In a sworn affidavit submitted to the court by Anderson for the hearing, he testifies that "... there is no longer any specific sum..." to preserve for OPI's legal action and that the $1.27 million dollars from the Youth centre are now merely "a SWSDA accounting entry."Letterhead and legal fees "Team Shelburne will never see that money," admitted SWSDA attorney Robert Belliveau, "and the money was never supposed to be in the hands of Team Shelburne. This is government money and only SWSDA is authorized to administer it." Belliveau told the court that SWSDA has spent the money on everyday items like staff and stationery. According to financial statements from SWSDA, the estimated $400,000 in legal fees to date that SWSDA has incurred in a protracted series of lawsuits with OPI would also be paid from that fund. The hearing Thursday was part of an action for fraudulent conveyance of funds and breach of trust brought by OPI against SWSDA, CEO Frank Anderson, Ralston MacDonnell, the Shelburne Area Industrial Commission, all municipal bodies in the county and CVN Holdings, which holds the mortgage for Shelburne Place. OPI is seeking to protect the funds in the case that they win their $5 million lawsuit against SWSDA.Unbeliveable"This is unbelievable," Shelburne Municipal warden Paulette Scott told SCT. "Somebody is going to have to be accountable for those funds. I am not going to rest until we get to the bottom of this." Shelburne mayor P.G. Comeau was also upset at hearing about the court testimony. "I remember the promises made to us by at least six provincial ministers about getting the proceeds from the sale when this all started," said Comeau. "I'm certain that my council will not lie back and take this resting and I wish I could address the court myself." Neither Don Harding, solicitor for the Towns of Shelburne, Clarks Harbour and Lockeport, plus the Municipality of Barrington and the Industrial Commission, nor Shelburne Municipal solicitor Kevin Latimer attended the hearing. Latimer sent two letters to the justice requesting an ajournment. Justice Boudreau said that, in contacting his office and hearing from the other lawyers that Harding was on vacation, Harding seemed "uninterested" in the hearing. Mayor Comeau told SCT that he thought the town was paying for representation in court and perhaps "we should seek other council".

The big mistakeLockeport Mayor Darian Huskilson is confidant that his council will not take kindly to the disappearance of the monies, nor to the position that they were never targeted for Team Shelburne. "I don't like to speak for council, he adds, "but I am 99% sure that they will not just walk away from this." Huskilson was at the initial meeting with provincial ministers and remembers clearly - as do all other attendees questioned - that the monies were to go to Team Shelburne for economic development. "The big mistake," adds Huskilson, "was taking this place of the province's hands in the first place. We should have made them do their job."

Frankly speakingThe positions expoused by lawyer Belliveau for SWSDA are apparently not necessarily those of the board of directors or executive. "We've never been consulted about any legal strategy on this thing," says Huskilson, who serves as treasurer for the SWSDA board. "I imagine that, in the absence of any consultation, those are the positions of Frank Anderson that were being represented in court."

Shelburne County MLA (and former Barrington municipal warden) Sterling Belliveau (no relation) admitted to being surprised at the turn of events in the courtroom. "That delegation of ministers that came down to meet with us, they told us that the funds from the Youth Centre were to be used to create an economic development fund for the county." Lawyer Belliveau, who was assisted by junior attorney Gavin Giles, said that Team Shelburne could access funds from SWSDA by presenting a project proposal to them, which might result in funding by SWSDA via their line of credit, which is guaranteed by the same municipal governments. Secret Agent?"They're asking us to make requests to them to spend money they borrow on our credit for projects which should have been paid for with our funds that they spent on letterhead and lawsuits," said warden Scott. "It's really unbelievable". The money, says Scott, was always earmarked for use by Team Shelburne members for economic development. A recent letter from former economic development minister Richard Hurlburt said, according to Scott, says that Frank Anderson and SWSDA were agents for Team Shelburne in spending the money. "It was never supposed to disappear into SWSDA's general funds," she added. Hurlburt, who issued the letter just days before leaving his post as minister, is also a partner in a Yarmouth-based real estate development business with Frank Anderson.The Bowood ConnectionIn a November 2 letter from Belliveau to Latimer, the McInness Cooper lawyer demanded for SWSDA from the Municipality a $500,000 increase in its line of credit, which it might then have to use to pursue a legal action with Bowood Corporation. Ralston MacDonnell, a frequent beneficiary of large consulting contracts from SWSDA, is the sole officer of Bowood. The tender and sale of the property was controversial, in that a second bidder claimed that his was the only bid submitted under published guidelines and that CEO Anderson gave special preference to MacDonnell. Belliveau stated also in his November 2 letter that Bowood is on the selling block, a claim MacDonnell denies. In the letter, Belliveau intimates that there are still economic development funds available, but may not be for too long if the loan guarantees are not approved soon.

"There have been more recent threats from SWSDA to sue us," says warden Scott. "It's not officially a suit, but it's about our refusing to agree to increase the line of credit."Wharf RatsIn his comments during the hearing about people being concerned whether monies might be missing from various projects or accounts, Justice Boudreau said that people are naturally wary of companies or agencies which exist on paper only and which "might get lots of money to repair a wharf and then millions go missing." Justice Boudreau is from Digby, where a recent funding scheme to repair and protect the wharf turned into what may referred to as " a disaster." In that project, Ralston MacDonnell, according to a CBC radio report, was "the president of a company hired by a non-profit groupy in Digby to operate the port. His firm has received $2 million of taxpayers money through a management contract which MacDonell says doesn't require his company to itemize or account for what it spends to anyone." Attorney Belliveau twice repeated in court that SWSDA is a "public body", funded by the government. In a separate legal action between OPI's Ed Cayer and Anderson regarding Anderson's refusal to produce his expense claims, the SWSDA CEO has consistently claimed that SWSDA is not a public body, so is not subject to freedom of information requests. This is despite rulings by the provincial freedom of information office to the contrary. That case, in which the Freedom of Information Society has intervened, may go to trial in January.Never, never happen landAll of the parties to the suit except SWSDA agreed to allow the funds to go immediately to the Team Shelburne members. "Team Shelburne wants to get its hands on that money," asserted Belliveau, "and that's never going to happen." The Justice Boudreau suggested that, since SWSDA is backed by the government, and since they seem to have spent the money in question, perhaps the government could post a surety bond of sorts to protect the assets in the future. Those familiar with the current provincial government say that such a guarantee is unlikely.

"This fiasco only proves the point I have made for years," adds Shelburne mayor Comeau, "we need our own RDA here and we need it now." Despite several requests by Team Shelburne for a meeting with The hearing was adjourned until December 6 in Yarmouth, in order for SWSDA to submit their "internal accounting" for the Team Shelburne funds and for the attorneys in the case to absorb the many documents submitted by SWSDA in the past two days. That hearing will include a cross-examination of Frank Anderson regarding assertions and claims in his affidavit which OPI's lawyer believes may be incorrect


Follow the money: The total monies possibly accruing to Team Shelburne into SWSDA bank accounts from the discharge by provincial authorities of the former Shelburne Youth Centre (Shelburne Place) include:
Monies given by province on discharge in 2004 - $ 600,000
Interest on the above (2 yrs @ 5%) 60,000
Funds from sale to Bowood 550.000
HST on sale 77,000
Interest on sale funds ($627k x 5% x 4mos) 10,440
Total $ 1,297,440

This accounting does not factor compound interest on discharge funds or legitimate accountable expenses. Team Shelburne has not received an accounting of the funds to date.
Robert Belliveau declined to be interviewed for this story. Frank Anderson and Barrington warden Louise Halliday did not return calls by press time.

http://www.shelburnecountytoday.com/

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

Today's court results regarding the South West Shore Development Authority appeal:

The hearing into whether the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia will be permitted to intervene in the South West Shore Development Authority appeal in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia is now scheduled for September 18, 2007.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Advocacy Group to Intervene in South West Shore Development Authority [SWSDA] Case

(Halifax, NS) The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia today filed an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Halifax asking the court to permit Right to Know to intervene in a case concerning the South West Shore Development Authority.


At issue in the case is whether Nova Scotia’s freedom of information (FOI) legislation applies to the Authority. The South West Shore Development Authority is one of thirteen Regional Development Authorities in Nova Scotia.


Darce Fardy, President of Right to Know, who is also a past Freedom of Information Review Officer, explained why Right to Know has taken an interest in the case. "The South West Shore Development Authority is telling the court that it is not bound by Nova Scotia’s FOI legislation. We believe there is an overriding public interest in the decisions of public authorities concerning economic development. The province and municipalities have given these bodies a key role in economic development – an activity that is of great public interest and concern.


"We believe public access to information – required by both the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Government Act – is vital to ensuring that good economic development decisions are made by the government and the regional development authorities. At the very least, there should be clarification as to whether the current FOI legislation applies to Nova Scotia’s regional development authorities," he said.


Fardy noted that Right to Know will seek the court’s permission to intervene on the question of whether the legislation applies to the Authority, and does not intend to comment otherwise on the parties or the case at this time.


The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia is an advocacy group established in 2006 to encourage the use and development of freedom of information legislation in order to foster a better informed and more politically active electorate in Nova Scotia, and to improve the quality of public and private decision making in the province. Right to Know aims to achieve this mission through both advocacy and education.


-30-


10 July 2007


For information contact

Darce Fardy, President
The Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia
Tel. (902) 422-1481
E-mail. darce@eastlink.ca