(Highlighting added)

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd, v. Richard Bendall

In 1996, the then Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton (RMOC) (now the City of Ottawa) commissioned an environmental study to address the problems at the wastewater treatment facility it owned and operated in Munster Hamlet, a small community in the former Goulbourn Township. The study recommended specific upgrades at the existing facility. The treatment plant was deemed not to meet contemporary standards, although there was no present health danger posed by the system.⁵⁰

The City also received unsolicited private sector proposals regarding innovative approaches to wastewater treatment, so it directed its staff to prepare an addendum to the report to explore alternative approaches. An engineering firm called Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. (CRA) was retained by the City to evaluate alternative approaches, make a recommendation and prepare the addendum to the report.

CRA solicited alternative proposals through an advertised Request for Proposals and received five proposals (including a sixth proposal of keeping the status quo). CRA then evaluated the proposals using specific evaluation methodologies and recommended a proposal that would involve building a pipeline to enable the Village of Munster Hamlet to connect to the Regional wastewater collection system. This proposal required an amendment to the City's Official Plan, since it had not been contemplated in the original plan.

⁴⁹ Telephone interview with Doug Hembruff (23 July 2004)
 

⁵⁰ The Regional Official Plan specifically stated that the hook up of a rural community to a central sewage

collection system (i.e.: pipeline), is only allowed in the event of an existing "health problem".

The alternative proposed by CRA became the subject of much dispute. Proponents of alternative proposals expressed their concerns about CRA and its evaluation process. Local residents of Goulbourn Township such as Richard Bendall and others spoke out against the proposal at a public meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee of the RMOC. Richard Bendall was a member of a public liaison committee that had been established as part of the public consultation process for the project. Mr. Bendall had also expressed his concerns about CRA's recommendation in letters published in the local township newspapers.

The members of the community opposed the pipeline alternative were concerned about a number of issues: 1) the pipeline was never part of the City's original request for proposals for treatment alternatives, 2) a pipeline was viewed as the more costly alternative and 3) it was believed the community would take longer to implement, because of environmental and safety concerns, and 4) the 5,000 Richmond and rural residents along the proposed route feared that sewage leakage and potential dangers to their shallow wells would pose a serious "built-in" health threat.

A number of legal actions were initiated. One of the failed proponents issued a claim against CRA and the Regional government. CRA responded by initiating their own claim against the proponent and a claim against Richard Bendall for defamation. CRA claimed total damages in the amount of over $4 million against Mr. Bendall for comments he made at a meeting of the Regional Government's Planning and Environment Committee and in letters to the editor of local newspapers.⁵¹

Of note is that the civil litigation was taking place while the some of these parties were awaiting the hearing of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal of the

⁵¹ Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. v. CMS Group and Richard Bendall, Court File No.: 99-CV-172557CM (Ont. Sup. Ct.)

Region's decision to approve an amendment to its Official Plan. Individuals, which included Richard Bendall, opposed the Regional Government's approval of an amendment to the Official Plan to allow for the pipeline proposal and had appealed the decision to the OMB.

The Board heard the matter in 2000 and found that the evaluation process had been flawed. The Board found that the evaluation methodology used was incomplete and that the decision to choose the pipeline alternative had not been based on complete evidence. It ordered the City to hire a different professional group to conduct a re-evaluation of three of the six alternatives proposed in order to "perfect its case".⁵²

The professional engineering firm selected by the City completed its re-evaluation, and on December 16, 2002, recommended elimination of the pipeline option in favour of a communal wastewater treatment option.

Despite the independent engineer's report recommending a communal solution, the City of Ottawa (formerly RMOC) proceeded with a pipeline, which is currently being constructed. The litigation is still pending.

Mr. Bendall feels that this lawsuit is a SLAPP and has put up a website detailing the history of the issue and the legal action against him.⁵³

Automobile Protection Association

The Automobile Protection Association (APA) is a membership-based non-profit association dedicated to promoting consumer interests in the marketplace with respect to automobiles. As part of its work, the APA regularly conducts

⁵² OMB Decision No. 0926 (8 June 2001).

⁵³ Online: http://www.ottawasewergatefiasco.com/