Coun. Brad Clark faces $750,000 lawsuit over building permit allegations. Are taxpayers on the hook?

Stoney Creek councillor Brad Clark faces a lawsuit over allegations of corruption he made in a phone conversation about an infamous Dundas building permit fiasco.

But it remains unclear if taxpayers are on the hook for the $750,000 claim by Marco Zwaan because the city refuses to say whether Clark's legal costs are covered under the municipal indemnification policy.

Neither the councillor nor Zwaan have responded to Spectator interview requests or questions about the status of the claim, which was filed in the spring and names Clark as the only defendant. No statement of defence has been filed.

The issue dates back to 2019, when Zwaan had his legal building permit yanked by the city in the middle of building a dream home" in the rural Pleasant View area. Zwaan later settled a legal claim against the city, which admitted it was to blame for issuing a building permit in error, and sold the land near York Boulevard and Hwy. 6.

But the episode spurred a new legal claim this year after Clark alleged corruption in the permit controversy during a private phone call that was later posted to YouTube by Paul Manning, a suspended former undercover cop and frequent council critic currently facing misconduct charges.

In the call - for which Clark has since apologized - the councillor said the Pleasant View permit debacle would cost the city $1 million and suggested such scenarios were happening all over the freaking city."

When Manning asked if corruption was involved, Clark replied it's just beginning to scratch the surface."

The councillor never named Zwaan during the phone call. But in his statement of claim, Zwaan said Clark's statements and innuendo" were damaging to his professional and ethical reputation, resulting in his being subjected to embarrassment, hatred, ridicule and contempt."

He also points to an integrity probe report, which criticized the councillor's words as unprofessional" and distressing," that suggested Clark's comments might carry more weight" because of his council position.

Clark apologized to city staff soon after the conversation was posted online, calling the allegations unfounded rumours and inferences" that he referenced out of frustration and in a conversation he assumed would stay private.

He then followed up with an apology to upstanding citizen" Zwaan and his family.

In his statement of claim, Zwaan called Clark's apology too little too late."

Clark declared a conflict of interest when city councillors went behind virtual closed doors last week to discuss an unspecified indemnification of legal fees," but the outcome of the discussion is unknown.

Spokesperson Matthew Grant pointed The Spectator to the city's indemnification policy, which gives council the ability to pay legal costs for members deemed to have been acting on city business and in good faith. He would not say if Clark is covered.

The city has covered costs for some councillors but not others in past defamation cases.

In 2010, the city opted to cover Mountain Coun. Terry Whitehead's costs after he was sued for calling a constituent a liar in an email circulated to other councillors. A judgment against Whitehead in 2011 was later overturned on appeal and an ordered new trial never happened.

The city did not defend then-councillor Margaret McCarthy in 2003 during a libel dispute with an election candidate.

Matthew Van Dongen is a Hamilton-based reporter covering transportation for The Spectator. Reach him via email: mvandongen@thespec.com