Comment 121370

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted April 26, 2017 at 09:07:07

Craig, could you please explain what the city solicitors meant when they said the MOA is a "non-binding agreement"?

What is the difference between a binding and non-binding agreement?

In the Fall, solicitors clearly confirmed that Council agreed to work with Metrolinx to implement the LRT project in at least three separate agreements.

In particular, he MOA language says that both parties will

proceed expeditiously, diligently and in good faith and in a co-operative and collaborative manner


facilitate and expedite the construction and completion of the project.

The same solicitors pointed out in a report to Council that Metrolinx could pursue the City for costs and contractors could pursue the City for foregone profits if they renege at this point. The risk is about $70M.

What would be different if the MOA were a "binding" agreement? Some Councillors seem to be interpreting this as meaning they have no obligation to follow through with what they agreed to in the MOA ... they can just ignore it.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2017-04-26 09:12:03

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools