Long story short
​
In the summer of 2018, a handful of people on a board of a company titled 'Stonebridge Community Association' (SCA), had decided they want buy Stonebridge golf course and went ahead negotiating with Mattamy (the residential developer who owns the golf). SCA is a private local business sponsored and advertised by real estate agents and Councillor Harder. They did it without ANY consent from the community as a whole. Vast majority of the residents were unaware of any such efforts, many became aware in the late summer 2019, many became aware only when received a ballot to vote in October 2019. By that time a consorted effort was on the way and it was impossible to add any new proposals or stop the effort​
​
SCA is a local business, no different than any other. But for some strange reason it vested itself with an authority to speak on behalf of all Stonebridge residents
​
During the time of this effort, SCA had made few attempts to create an appearance of adherence to the process provisioned under Municipal Act. This process was facilitated by Jack Stirling, contracted by Counsellor Harder in April 2019 . These attempts facilitated by Stirling had no intention to make this effort neither transparent, wide enough nor actually adhere to the law. For example:
Stirling formed a different body called SWG (Stonebridge Working Group). Stirling handpicked it's members from golf lot owners and SCA board members like Ron Reddik, Mike Kujawski and Niraj Singhal, who were the authors of the entire effort. SCA director Jay McLean was also in SWG. Now with an alternative front face, and a word 'community' in SCA and SWG titles, they presented themselves to the City Council as if they were authorized to act on the community's behalf. This was a growth misrepresentation, misleading the City Council
all information pertaining to the effort was posted on this private company web site, which vast majority of households have no business to visit, nor be aware of. Yet SCA could claim 'public advertisement'.
All meetings that were held in the subject were confined to only those who became aware through their subscription to SCA web pages.
They also put up a couple of billboards along a road, which many people simply ignore, as the same billboards are used for pie backing contests and obscure events people generally are not involved in.
Any meetings that took place consisted of up to 10% of the households, and no attempts have been made to go door to door or send mail to increase the awareness and elicit explicit support for the effort to purchase the golf from individual households.
Most of the households aware and supportive of the effort were golf lot properties. They stood to lose their golf lot premiums, if the golf was to be redeveloped and built upon.
Any surveys conducted were solicited in the similar manner – no community wide notification. This survey claims to have 1038 responses (out of the community of almost 3500 households). The survey was not confined to a single household – any individual could complete it multiple times. No one can independently verify the results of this survey either. And even with that 43% of the responses did not support the effort.
The households that became aware of the effort the feedback mechanism was unsustainable. There was a form on SCA web page where people would submit questions, but questions and feedback would disappear into a void. Many residents complained about not being heard, never being replied to, suggestions being ignored. It appeared to be a formality rather than actual feedback mechanism
​​
The City did not come with ANY initiative to remedy the situation. The City did not want to front the money and buy the golf and levy the community after that. The City explicitly rejected an idea of acquisition of the golf, explaining by having no appetite for running golf, even though most people would be fine with the land being rezoned as a greenspace. The City however was fine with collecting levy first and then acquiring the title in 10 years, despite of loopholes in the LOI which would allow the land to be lost and money not returned to residents
​
There are overwhelming examples of various conflicts of interests all throughout this matter. For example:
Members of SWG had conflicting interests with many in the community. The deal was benefiting those who would opt to sell within 10 year time frame and leave uncertainty and financial hardships of maintaining the land to the ones staying in the community beyond 10 years.
With respect to O.Reg. 586/06 under the Municipal Act, 2001 , there is a conflict of interest pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, sections 1.1 and 5.2 (1) as elected representatives are to act in the best interests of all residents and should not be involved in any business transactions with developers even on behalf of the residents who would like to purchase the golf course. Councillor Harder, who chairs the city's planning committee, accepts campaign donations from individuals within the development community, then casts votes deciding projects in which their companies are involved. While donations may be legal, the practice stains residents' perceptions of how decisions are made.
At the same time Councillor Harder sponsors local business 'Stonebridge Community Assocation' , who become a party to the golf purchase agreement.
Councillor Harder daughter works for Jack Sterling, who Councillor Harder hired as a mediator to conduct mediation between SCA and Mattamy
Legal representation
​​
The community was forced to petition for a real estate acquisition under pressure of time, without a contract, without details of the business annual expenses, without legal representation for the community as a whole.
And on top of that when a private investor came to the rescue in August 2019 and offered 3 million dollars for the opportunity to run the golf for at least 20 years - SCA rejected the offer. Not only that - they kept it quiet from everyone in the community