Is this how Freedom Of Expression works in Canada?
Township of South Glengarry admits it denied access to Election campaign finances records, for 7 years!
They said the requests were “Frivolous & Vexatious” . Judge AGREED! See below. They called the police and they sued the taxpayer.
Then they told another Judge we have NOW provided access, but we want COSTS. The public needs to know how our laws work. Should Taxpayers fund this?:
October 11, 2019 Township of South Glengarry PAYS lawyer to send this letter:
You will not likely receive any responses from any member of South Glengarry Council.
That said, they are all free to decide what, if anything, they wish to send you.
Likewise I do not expect any other elected representatives such as Mr. Clark and Mr. McDonnell to waste their valuable time with your never ending crusade.
You also seem to be fond of Twitter and I would caution you regarding [REDACTED]
Please find another hobby.
[REDACTED lawyer’s signature]
Ontario Civil Liberties Association? Canadian Civil Liberties Association?
Frank Prevost for Mayor of South Glengarry ? is this CHINA? RUSSIA?

Some BACKGROUND (more soon)

On June 21, 2018, a Deputy Judge dismissed my claim for denial of access to Public Election Records.

On June 21, 2018, the Deputy Judge stated: I am basing my decision to dismiss this Claim due to the plain and obvious process which is open to the Plaintiff under the MPIFFA and which process the Plaintiff has used or is presently using to obtain access to public records.

Is this the law on Freedom of Expression in Ontario, Canada in 2018? Can a court tell you that you have to use MFIPPA to access Election Records?

these little kids say THAT’S NOT FAIR  

Supreme Court of Canada Justice L’Heureux-Dubé said it this way “Freedom of expression prohibits gags, but does not compel the distribution of megaphones

Will anyone speak up to defend the Public’s right to “Freedom of expression … access to Public Elections Records” ?

If you want to speak up OR see if anyone spoke up go here.

NOT surprisingly, The Township of South Glengarry, based on that decision, continued to deny access to Public Records.

If the Township of South Glengarry sent you this notice, and only you, is that discrimination? is that constitutional?

LAWYER’S LETTER: We have been retained by the Township of South Glengarry with respect to your ongoing and numerous inquiries and requests for information from the Municipality. Any future requests received by the Municipality will be dealt with in accordance with the relevant legislation, however, from this point forward, I am advising you that the Municipality will only respond to properly submitted written requests pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information Act; those requests must be submitted in accordance with the rules set out in the Act and accompanied by the prescribed fee. This legislation is accessible at The Municipality’s (Chief Administrative Officer previously informed you, by email, of the proper way to submit such requests to the Municipality:
“Should you require any information from the Township send your request to the Clerk with a $5 non-refundable application fee, the types of record(s) you are requesting, and specify the names of the records, including dates, where possible. We will then respond with a reasonable estimate of the costs that you will be required to pay for these records.”

If the Municipality then ignored and denied Freedom Of Information requests for Election Records(and all Public Records) ? is that constitutional?

Municipalities should behave:
The Court agreed that another Municipality for one year infringed his(Mr Bracken’s) right to freedom of expression:

The Law

Municipal Elections Act: Public records

88(5) Despite anything in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, documents and materials filed with or prepared by the clerk or any other election official under this Act are public records and, until their destruction, may be inspected by any person at the clerk’s office at a time when the office is open. 1996, c. 32, Sched., s. 88 (5).

The IPC and Ombudsman are/were no help.