RE: Thorne vs. Thorne

0
57

The letter in the October 5 edition titled “Setting the record straight” makes me wonder about the author’s facts. There is no article 916 in the Municipal Code of Quebec. It was repealed.

The letter in the October 5 edition titled “Setting the record straight” makes me wonder about the author’s facts. There is no article 916 in the Municipal Code of Quebec. It was repealed.
There is however an article 916 in the Quebec civil code that has to do with “appropriation” of property. The TCRA “sale” was done by a lawyer, not a notary, to benefit the taxpayers who are the actual owners of the property. The TCRA is only the “caretaker”. Also, importantly, this article was instated in 1991, so I don’t know how it applies since the “sale” was done in 1989.
As to the million dollars in lost grants, I didn’t buy a 649 ticket last week, so did I lose out on millions in prize money? There were washrooms and playground structures installed on the property with grant money, so what leads the writer to believe grants are not available? Is there paperwork somewhere to show that grants were applied for and rejected? Can the writer quote the article that says a municipality must own their building to be eligible for grants? Does this situation have the approval of the majority of council? Was a vote ever allowed?
According to August’s Council minutes, the Mayor said he would be
satisfied if the TCRA would transfer the back portion of the property back to the municipality. This offer was made by the TCRA, but not accepted. At the meetings with the TCRA, the mayor also stated the municipality would take back all the property one way or another. Is this a negotiation?
The more the facts are set straight, the more questions arise.
Still concerned taxpayer,

Bill McCleary
SHAWVILLE