Dear Editor:
As Fort Frances enters a municipal election year, the conclusion of the Point Park litigation should prompt serious reflection about the suitability for re-election of the multi-term councillors who presided over this seismic waste of taxpayer money.
After nearly 30 years of litigation and close to $5.5 million in public spending, the court dismissed the Town’s claims in their entirety. It confirmed that the Town never held title to Point Park and that its lease expired in 2009. The court also rejected the Town’s interpretation of the historic Order-in-Council.
None of this was unexpected. Earlier rulings had warned that the Town’s legal theory was weak and overly reliant on strained legal argument. At its most implausible, the Town argued that its tenancy had somehow morphed into ownership—despite its own records showing unsuccessful attempts to purchase the park in recent decades. Taxpayers now face not only sunk legal costs, but the likelihood of a seven-figure costs award payable to the opposing parties.
While council has been quick to point fingers at its predecessors, the record tells a more uncomfortable story. Nearly one-fifth of the entire $5.5 million was spent over the past three years, long after the case’s weaknesses were apparent. This liability was not passively inherited; it was a deliberate course of action that defined the current term of office. It’s also a direct result of misfeasance in the last one.
Council’s contrite public statement ignores that it abandoned the May 2019 declaration with the Agency One First Nations, which contemplated a more collaborative future for the park. That approach was scuttled in 2021 after the then-mayor unilaterally instructed the Town’s lawyer to proceed without council authorization, while a majority of the then-council sat on its hands. I resigned from the committee overseeing the file at the time, publicly documenting those governance failures. Rather than intervene or reassess, council members allowed the litigation to carry on. Now taxpayers will pay the price.
None of this is the ancient history that some incumbents would prefer. Three councillors who presided over those events remain in office today, at least two of whom are reportedly measuring drapes in the mayor’s office. As voters head to the polls this fall, the ballot question is straightforward: will Fort Frances reward these costly mistakes and poor judgment—or demand better governance and oversight from those seeking to lead?
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Judson
