na 
SOKALSKI
WALSH
a 

.NIxilr ll!? ,\l.lil  \li?i't'l

?immune. Hill: i/.i






hillco.ml).ca

Dave Hill

Bob Sokalski

Sherri Walsh

Derek M. Olson

Christian Monnin

Michael J. Weinslein

Rohith Mascarenhas

Loren D. Braul

Jennifer L. Gaba

Brett A. Steidl

Mark G. Reid
(Articling Student)

Danielle R. Burke
(Anicling Student)

Counsel:

Hon. Peter S.
Morse, Q.C.

Hon, Richard J.
Scott, O.M. QC.

Writer: Dave Hill
Direct Phone: 204.954.0750
Email: dhill@hillco.mb.ca

Assistant: Carol Dougan
Phone: 204.954.0765
Email: cdougan@hillco.mb.ca

July 29, 2015
Via E?mail

Councillors Jason Schreyer,
Russ Wyatt and Ross Eadie

City of Winnipeg

City Hall Council Building

510 Main Street

Winnipeg, MB R3B 1B9

Dear Sirs:

Re: Procedure By-Iaw
Our File: 15266

This is further to our meeting with you on Thursday, July 23.
You forwarded to us, and we have now reviewed, the Procedure By?law.

As I recall our meeting, the speci?c question you asked us was as follows: Was the
motion which was passed by Council null and void because Council broke its own
Rules? I would also say that question can be posed as follows: If Council breaks its
own Rules in proceeding to pass a motion, does this make the motion itself illegal?

According to my notes, you told us that the Speaker advised that a suspension of the
Rules was needed as a requirement to allow more than two amendments on a given
report.

The guideline in question was discussed and two amending motions were on the table
when each of you wanted to put forth further motions.

Upon our review of the Procedure By?law, we can see nothing in that By-law which
prevents more than two amendments on a given report. The only exception to this is
section 43 which is entitled ?Moving the Motion Without Comment?. Speci?cally
section 43(b) refers to ?moving, without comment or debate, an amendment to a main
motion or an amendment to an amendment?.

From what we understand of your procedure, your motions by way of amendment to

the main motion are by way of an amendment to an amended motion were not to be
made ?without comment or debate?.

15266/Doc#0011021



HILL
SOKALSKI
WALSH
OLSON

July 29, 2015
Page 2

However, nothing in the Procedure By-law, deals with whether a motion which was
passed is null and void by virtue of Council having broken their own Rules or any of
the provisions of the Procedure By-law.

Suiir 257?. Zitill .\l;lin le'm'l
Xlullilnlm I Ci/.l

l' 
i :lHU-l?tg?lill

The only recourse we see is the ?Point of Order? section 39(1).

1 hillvumlu .1

liillco.mb.ca

We would have to do considerably more research into municipal laws and procedures
in general in order to answer the question whether the motion which was passed
becomes null and void because of the failure to follow the Rules and the Procedure
By?law.

I do not think that your budgets would allow for that signi?cant research to be done.
Suf?ce it to say that you might want to make the point politically that what was done
by the Council that night was, if not illegal, at least contrary to the Procedure By?law
that governs all Council meetings.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours truly,

HILL SOKALSKI WALSH OLSON LLP

Per

1 i
a:



services provided by Dave Hill Law Corporation

15266/D0c#0011021