(Editor's note:  Bob Kotyk, a member of CommunityAIR, and regular contributor to this blog, has written a series of six articles focusing on the Toronto Port Authority and its relationship to the Island Airport and CommunityAIR.  We will be publishing one article every day for the next six days.)

Anyone who has read this blog regularly is perhaps struck by the critical and often acrimonious position Community AIR has demonstrated toward the Toronto Port Authority (TPA).  At least one poster suggested trying to work out noise issues.  There are reasons for Community AIR’s position.  One of the reasons is a question of trust.  Consider the following. 

In 2001, the TPA started legal action against the City of Toronto for compensation for land that the city took away from the Toronto Harbour Commission, the Port Authority’s predecessor.  In 2003, the TPA, in its efforts to get the City’s approval to build a bridge to the airport, offered to settle its suit.  That summer a City committee agreed to the terms of the settlement and recommended it to full council.  The TPA cleared a major hurdle to building the bridge.

If common custom is anything to go by, it is usual for adversaries in a legal suit settled out of court to agree that the case has been resolved by mutual agreement and maintain a distance.  In the instance of Ms Raitt and Mr. Ootes, the two representative principals, the relationship appeared less than adversarial and without distance. 

On one hand, Ms Raitt, CEO of the Toronto Port Authority, was prepared to sue the municipality in which it is located for hundreds of millions of dollars.  The threat, implicit or otherwise, to the city was to face a protracted fight in court or give the TPA the right to build a bridge to the island airport.  On the other hand, Mr. Ootes representing the City, often having stood in for Mayor Lastman chairing committees and the full council, an elected representative and the mayor’s delegate, mindful of the city’s best interests, had every right to be outraged.

Rather than going to court, the city agreed to a negotiated settlement.  When the lobbying was finished and the deal making was done, the city was on the hook for $10 million and the TPA got its bridge go ahead.  How did the adversaries maintain their arm’s length relationship?

In late July, 2003, I emailed Lisa Raitt, then CEO of the TPA.  The email and Ms Raitt’s response follow.

Dear Ms Raitt,
It is my understanding that you attended a fund raising dinner for Case Ootes on the same date that Mr. Ootes chaired the City of Toronto Policy and Finance Committee meeting at which the Committee recommend approval of the terms of settlement of the legal dispute between the Port Authority and the City.  If this is the case, can you please assure me that the Port Authority did not pay for you to attend?
Thank you.
Bob Kotyk

Dear Mr. Kotyk:
I can confirm that I attended a Case Ootes function through a personal invitation.
Lisa Raitt
CEO & Harbourmaster
Toronto Port Authority

To my naïve way of thinking, Mr. Ootes’s action, if it was he who extended the invitation, was curious, inviting an adversary to his fundraiser.  Ms Raitt’s acceptance and appearance at the event destroyed any semblance of an arm’s length relationship and represented a curious sense of propriety in achieving an objective.  It was behaviour that the port authority would repeat.

In the end, I never did find out if the TPA paid for Ms Raitt to attend the fundraiser and Ms Raitt’s actions did nothing to engender trust.

Bob Kotyk