The “Do-the-Math” Version
My feature image for this article is a slide from a PowerPoint Presentation that Innovation PEI prepared and delivered to executives at RBC Dexia. That pitch offered RBC Dexia a “new build” and various tax incentives and employee subsidies totaling $78 million over 10 years if RBC Dexia was to locate a “near-shore” financial services centre in PEI hiring 600 workers to “export financial services to clients and customers around the world.”
Innovation PEI had extended the MOU signed with CMT/FMT on July 6, 2012, containing the same legally-binding provisions forbidding the PEI Government to even mention PEI’s interest in establishing a financial services centre in PEI with any “entity” whatsoever. That agreement to engage in “exclusive discussions” with CMT/FMT represented a commitment to complete a 2-year business relationship with CMT/FMT to establish a financial services centre in PEI as a “near-shore” financial services centre exporting financial services to clients and customers around the world.
The Presentation delivered to RBC Dexia was delivered shortly after the MOU with CMT/FMT was extended for an additional 30 days in early September, 2012 when the legally-binding exclusivity clause was fully in force.
PEI Court of Appeal Judges
SENDING THE CASE TO TRIAL
CMT is alleging a number of different things against a number of different clients in the law suit. Those claims (what lawyers call “torts”) fall under one of three categories: (1) the tort of “spoliation”; (2) the tort of “misfeasance in public office,” and (3) the tort of “breach of contract”.
The “breach of contract” claim is the most important claim and the real “money tort.” The other torts go to the degree of quantum of damages that CMT will likely be able to justify as a result of the extreme bad faith evident in such actions as the destruction of government records (spoliation) or giving false statements (misfeasance) that were intended to the cover-up the main tort, the “breach of the MOU” and by so doing thwart justice.
This article deals only with CMT’s claim that the PEI government “breached” the legally-binding provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), specifically, the RBC Dexia breach.
CMT is now alleging that the PEI Government breached the MOU in at least four (4) separate ways, in four well-organized recruitment campaigns, all of which involved recruitment activity that overlapped times when the MOU was in force. They are as follows:
- In communications and meetings that took place between Wes Sheridan, Chris LeClair, et. al. and Keith Laslop (Newco) discussing the possibility of Laslop establishing a financial services company to offer a broad range of financial services as a “near-shore” location to clients around the world. Wes Sheridan provided Laslop with contact information to establish a partnership with the PEI Credit Union during the time the MOU was in effect in August, 2012, then orchestrated the delivery of a “business plan” for that near-shore financial services company (prepared during the final days the initial MOU was in force) set to be formally delivered to Wes Sheridan and Allen Roach immediately after the MOU was thought to expire, September 6, 2012. That business plan was emailed to Wes Sheridan and others at 12pm, September 6, 2012.
- When Brad Mix hired a “head hunter” consultant in the U.K. to set up meetings with at least six (6) meetings with SWIFT-companies capable of delivering financial services at a high-level SWIFT conference in Osaka, Japan;
- With Brad Mix hiring head-hunter prospecting consultant to make contacts with financial services companies in Boston, in advance of a scheduled recruiting mission attended by Cheryl Paynter and Pat Binns, in October, 2012; and;
- With Brad Mix, Wes Sheridan, Cheryl Paynter, Melissa MacEachern et. al. actively, and continuously recruiting RBC Dexia to establish a financial services centre in PEI.
The #1 and #2 Allegations of a Breach of the MOU were given some consideration by Judge Campbell. He had some documentation on Laslop [ironically, obtained by the PC MLAs when in the Official Opposition, the same PC MLAs now denying that any breach occurred].
Back in the those days when the PC MLAs were collaborating with me and my investigation, I would provide copies of my FOIPP documents and they would provide me copies of theirs. When I obtained those Laslop documents I made them public and CMT’s legal counsel then found a way to have them entered into the Court Record.
Campbell addressed the #1 and #2 allegations of a breach of the MOU in his ruling; however, critically-important “new documents” about both the SIBOS and Laslop/Newco MOU breaches were obtained in subsequent FOIPPs that were never seen by Judge Campbell because Coady refused to provide consent to have them entered into the court record.
My next post will focus on that mysterious “Supplementary Affidavit of Documents,” in a piece I’m titling: “Who Ordered the Code Red?” Coady served four new documents to CMT’s legal counsel – two relating to Laslop and two relating to SIBOS – on September 20, 2019, 5 days prior to Judge Campbell’s ruling. John MacDonald sought Consent from Coady to have those documents put before Campbell before he filed his ruling to dismiss the case, but Coady refused to do so, in a blatant breach of the PEI Rules of Civil Procedure. Given all that was at stake, that was a breach too far!
Campbell did not see sufficient evidence of a “breach” with either Laslop or SIBOS documents he did have before him, but he would have seen enough evidence of a breach if Coady had given him those four documents attached to the Supplementary Affidavit. But someone ordered a Code Red!
# 3 and #4 of CMT’s Allegations of a Breach of the MOU were never considered by Judge Campbell at all, because Jonathan Coady never disclosed or produced any records on either of these two occasions when the MOU was breached.
New FOIPP documents on these two separate breaches of the MOU [Boston financial services companies recruiting trip; recruitment efforts with RBC Dexia] are now contained in those roughly 1,000 pages of new evidence before the Appeal Court Judges as “exhibits” attached to three Fresh Evidence Motions filed by CMT’s legal counsel.
Given the very broad definition of financial services centre and other wording in the MOU about sharing information, pursing an agreement in good faith, etc….any one of the four occasions in which the MOU was breached would likely suffice to establish liability on the part of the PEI Government. However, the RBC Dexia is especially strong in that regard, and by itself puts the issue to bed.
So with that as background, I’m focusing the remainder of this article on presenting the facts surrounding RBC Dexia that unequivocally proves a breach of the MOU. The documentary evidence presented to the Appeal Court by CMT was uncontested by Coady. That new evidence completely destroys any remaining credibility in Coady’s and the King Government’s legal Response to CMT’s Appeal.
More than the other MOU breaches, the RBC Dexia also exposes the sheer magnitude of the cover-up of the truth by successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, with a breath-taking spectrum of deception and lies employed by Stewart McKelvey, and surprisingly endorsed by the King Government, to cover-up the truth and frustrate open and transparent democracy in a deliberate, sustained and well-organized attempt to corrupt our judicial system. What is that truth?
That the PEI Government breached the MOU in bad faith causing damages to CMT/FMT, and is therefore liable for any damages that can be proven in Court to have been the result of that breach of the MOU.
As for the Boston recruitment effort, FOIPP documents are still being withheld by the PEI Government, so details are sparse. It is clear, however, that – just like the SIBOS recruitment trip to Japan – work was underway during the time the MOU was in force prospecting a consultant who in turn was reaching out to identify and then contact financial services companies in Boston, with the help of former Premier Pat Binns, to schedule meetings with PEI Government delegates wanting to discuss the possibility of relocation to PEI to establish a “near-shore” financial services centre.
2. Coady’s Legal Response to RBC Dexia at the Appeal
This article answers the question whether the MOU was breached. Why? Because Jonathan Coady implicitly conceded that the MOU was breached in what he said at the Appeal. I’ll explain.
Unlike with Laslop/Newco and SIBOS claims of a breach of the MOU, Coady was not denying that Innovation had been engaged in a concerted recruitment effort happened with RBC Dexia. The evidence is just too overwhelming.
Coady was unwilling to concede the obvious however, and proceeded to advance a three-fold legal argument in a bid to convince the Appeal Court Judges RBC Dexia recruiting activities were of no real consequence for the MOU, and did not violate the exclusivity clause.
It was up to Coady to explain to the Judges exactly how those activities and events recruiting RBC Dexia didn’t violate the exclusivity provision of the MOU, and he made a stab at it with three incredibly weak arguments summarized as follows.
- Ongoing negotiations/discussions with RBC Dexia were just a “carry-over” from a decision/agreement/deal that happened before the MOU, so they were somehow “grandfathered” into the MOU agreement;
- RBC was offering a different type of “financial services” than CMT/FMT and the meaning of the term “financial services centre” in the MOU was vague and not specific enough to clearly indicate what type of financial services Innovation PEI had to be careful not to discuss. Being so “different” from CMT, coupled with that vague definition in the MOU, there was no breach of the MOU; and finally;
- Innovation PEI was legally compelled to do what they did – notwithstanding the MOU – because of a Statutory obligation to “recruit companies to PEI.” The implication was that such an obligation would supersede the legally-binding provision in the MOU.
Let’s consider each argument separately. But first, let’s see exactly what the King Government said about RBC Dexia in the Response Coady filed with the PEI Court of Appeal:
So let’s start with the weakest of the three weakest legal arguments in the world and count down to his last and best shot at convincing the Appeal Judges that no breach of the MOU happened with RBC Dexia.
Weakest Argument in the World #3
“The Deal with RBC Dexia Happened Before the MOU was Signed”
Coady attempts to sell the idea that any communication with RBC after the MOU was signed on July 6, 2012 was just cleaning up from some kind of deal that had already been struck with Innovation PEI. It’s not spelled out like that in detail, but the implications are very strong, as can be seen in what was written in the Response cited above. Let’s unpack that a bit.
What was that prior “event” reference by Coady? He calls it a “relocation offer.” Communications did indeed take place between Brad Mix and RBC Dexia as early as March, 2012. The “relocation offer” was nothing more than a pitch delivered opening up a conversation about the possibility of RBC Dexia locating in PEI. I’ve read all that back and forth communication and it was ongoing negotiations and clarification about what would be available “if RBC was to….” kinda stuff.
The dedicated negotiations/recruitment effort with RBC Dexia was really only getting underway in earnest in July. That July 6th email from Brad Mix referenced by Coady was a discussion about developments at RBC and the impact they might have on an upcoming meeting in Toronto Wes Sheridan had scheduled with RBC executives, as RBC Dexia continued to show interest in possibly moving to PEI.
RBC was an active, ongoing recruitment effort happening before and during the time the MOU with CMT/FMT was in effect. Once the MOU was signed, any recruitment efforts with other major financial companies to establish a “near-shore” location in PEI to “export financial services” were supposed to stop. They didn’t.
There was no “deal” with RBC Dexia somehow grandfathered: Mix was still eagerly prospecting RBC Dexia three weeks after the MOU was signed, when he referred to the company in an email to Ministers Roach and Sheridan, Deputy Minister MacEachern and his CEO, Cheryl Paynter as: “Our number one prospect…”Fast Forward to September 20, 2012 – just days after a 30-day extension of the MOU with CMT/FMT came into force.
I won’t go into all the details of that September 20th pitch presentation made to RBC Dexia to locate in PEI. Consider just three slides. First of all, in this first one, notice the wording identifying the type of financial services as “exporting financial services from Prince Edward Island”:
What the PEI Government Offered RBC Dexia over a 10-year period
The Office Complex the PEI Government was to build for RBC Dexia
The presentation indicated that this “new build” would be available for occupancy by December 1, 2012! Wow. That’s fast. That’s just just how eager Brad Mix was to ink a deal with his #1 prospect: RBC Dexia.
The RBC Dexia folks were all from off-Island of course, so I suspect Mix put that December 1, 2012 “availability” date into the proposal confident that they’d never discover how long it actually takes the PEI Government to build anything….especially “buildings”.
World’s Weakest Legal Argument #2:
The term “Financial Services Centre” in the Exclusivity Clause in the MOU is vague and doesn’t Encompass the Kind of Services RBC Dexia offer
Jonathan Coady also tried to sell the idea that there really wasn’t a breach of the MOU with the recruitment efforts with RBC because the kind of financial services RBC Dexia were offering were somehow different from those of CMT/FMT.
He didn’t explain why he believed RBC was offering something entirely different from what CMT/FMT was offering in the MOU, he just suggested that the term “financial services centre” was actually quite NARROW and referred only to the kind of financial platform services CMT/FMT were able to offer, then argued that what RBC was offering was completely different, falling outside that narrow definition of “financial platform”. He offered no evidence supporting those statements whatsoever.
Just two things to say about Coady’s claim that the intent of the exclusivity clause was limited to a rare special type of “transaction platform” services and therefore “narrow” in meaning (1) what the Auditor General had to say about that; and (2) what the actual MOU agreement has to say about that.
(1) The Auditor General, Jane McAdam believed the language in the exclusivity clause was very “broad” and drew attention to that as a concern she had, also noting senior staff she interviewed at Innovation PEI were concerned the MOU would impact Innovation PEI’s ability to recruit financial services companies:
(2) The meaning of the phrase “financial services centre” seems pretty clear when considered within the full context of the MOU. The intention behind putting that phrase into the agreement seems clear as well: I’m pretty sure that Innovation PEI traipsing around the world prospecting “alternative” financial service center companies to establish a “near-shore” centre in PEI to export financial services globally while keeping all that recruitment work completely secret wasn’t the intent of the exclusivity clause:
Consider as well the preamble to the agreement where the type of “activity” associated with “financial services centre” is described as “global and domestic financial transaction processing and other related services.” That pretty much encompasses any financial services company operating as a “near-shore” centre. That’s exactly what RBC Dexia offered – “global and domestic financial transaction processing and other related services.”As the “Mover of first advantage” promised to FMT in the recruitment package FMT would have been offering the Global Transaction Platform that RBC Dexia would have needed to connect to if it was to relocate to PEI. Given what was said in the MOU about sharing such information, the PEI Government had a “good faith” obligation to share that “necessary information and contacts it has in order to facilitate the creation of such a facility in the Province,” with CMT/FMT.
Needless to say, Innovation PEI shared nothing about its many recruitment efforts and exploits with CMT/FMT, but diligently avoided any mention of recruitment activity or disclosing any documents about same, including recruitment efforts with their #1 prospect – RBC Dexia.
World’s Weakest Legal Argument #1
Innovation PEI had a Statutory Obligation to Recruit
Let me say from the outset that if it was the case that there was absolutely any possibility that the Statute giving Innovation its Mandate took precedence over the legally-binding provision of the MOU you would think that Billy Dow – who brought that MOU to Cheryl Paynter at Innovation PEI for her signature – would have mentioned to Gary Jessop (CMT’s lawyer) that the exclusivity clause was legally-meaningless and just a ploy? Like I said, world’s weakens legal argument ever.
Jonathan Coady told the Appeal Judges (to paraphrase) “…Innovation PEI had a statutory obligation to recruit companies,” further pressing the point that “financial services” was one of the specifically-targeted sectors with Innovation PEI, thereby giving even more force to his argument that Innovation PEI were compelled to follow that statutory obligation. Consider the “forced” evolution in Coady’s legal response as information that was first kept hidden became available and CMT’s legal counsel attempted to have it considered fairly by the Court. Jonathan Coady went from…
(a) failing to disclose and/or admit any records or materially-relevant facts about the RBC breach of the MOU , never mentioning it at all; to…
(b) refusing to allow CMT’s legal counsel to have documents about RBC’s breach of the MOU put in front of Judge Campbell prior to his September 25, 2019 ruling; to his unsupported claim expressed at the appeal with zero evidence that…
(c) Innovation PEI‘s ongoing recruitment efforts with RBC Dexia didn’t constitute a true “breach” of the MOU because Innovation PEI had a statutory obligation to “recruit” that – by implication – took precedence over the MOU.
Chief Justice David Jenkins didn’t seem impressed with that legal argument. He interjected (to paraphrase): “…yeah but Counsel Coady, you told them that you wouldn’t do that [recruit] and you signed a legally-binding agreement to back up that promise, right?”
I can’t recall what Coady said in response, but it doesn’t really matter.
3. How Coady Kept the RBC Breach From Judge Campbell
How is it that such overwhelming evidence of multiple breaches of the MOU – but especially the RBC Dexia breach – never once came to the attention of Judge Campbell, even after Maines and CMT’s lawyer discovered all those new documents proving the breaches?
If Judge Campbell had seen those RBC Dexia documents 5 years ago at the very outset of CMT’s law suit, I’m sure he would have immediately sent the lawsuit to trial. The past five years have been nothing but a deliberate attempt to frustrate the legal system. It’s been a steady stream of procedures and steps that would all have been unnecessary if not for all the lies and cover-up.
If Jonathan Coady and the PEI Government had told the truth about what really happened rather than advancing a false narrative based on false statements sworn by multiple defendants, the last five years of expensive and frustrating legal procedures and process would never have happened.
The impact on the plaintiff is five wasted years in his bid for justice in the PEI courts, and millions of dollars in wasted legal expenses that were never needing to be incurred, being forked over to lawyers by both CMT and the PEI taxpayer, something the PEI Government apparently determined was acceptable “collateral damage” to effect a successful cover-up and protect the Defendants from the just legal consequences of their actions.
If all that materially-relevant documentary evidence had been disclosed from the outset it would have sent the case to trial at a minimum, and would have more likely resulted in an immediate ruling in favour of CMT on the “liability” and “causation” issue, then prompting direction from the Court to move the litigation process on to a determination of damages for consideration by the Court.
CMT’s civil litigation case needed to establish two things to succeed:
- That a breach of the MOU happened, and;
- That the breach of the MOU caused damages and financial losses to the Plaintiff. The new evidence proves that the MOU was breached. The only remaining matter at issue is whether a causal connection to damages can be shown, and if so, what the quantum of those damages proven and accepted by the Court will be.
John MacDonald told the three Appeal Court Judges that he had, in fact, formally asked Coady to enter into an agreement to separate the issues of “liability/causation” and “damages/financial losses” – what he referred to as agreeing to “bifurcate the issues” – on the basis of evidence proving a breach of the MOU. At no time did Coady show any interest in conceding anything, especially that his client had breached the MOU.
The Appeal Court Judges now have that PowerPoint Presentation that Innovation PEI delivered to RBC Dexia during the time the MOU in force, and a whole lot more – nearly 1,000 other pages of materially-relevant documents systematically withheld from Campbell by Coady and never disclosed to opposing counsel, as the PEI Rules of Civil Procedure require.
There’s at least three more occasions the MOU was breached that have come to light, and the PC Government is still denying a breach of the MOU occurred.
The egaming scandal was all on Ghiz; and the denial and cover-up of that scandal carried on with Wade MacLauchlan’s four-year term as Premier. However, the most shameless, systematic and serious attempt to cover-up not only the egaming scandal, but the “cover-up” of that scandal as well, and all the corruption it entailed, in a bid to protect all the key players, including Brad Mix and Neil Stewart who continue to serve in powerful senior positions within the King Government – now falls squarely on the lap of the King Government.
When Jonathan Coady filed his Statement of Defense in response to CMT’s Statement of Claim relaunching the law suit with a much-strengthened amended version, Coady told all Canadians through the Globe and Mail that there was zero merit to CMT’s claim:
“It just doesn’t hold together in law,” said Jonathan Coady, the Charlottetown lawyer handling the case on behalf of the province. “There is no legal merit to the claim. … The defence is clear, detailed and provable.” [“PEI Denies Breach of Contract, Conspiracy Claims in eGaming Contract,” Globe and Mail, April 13, 2015].
“The defence is clear, detailed and provable?” I did not see that demonstrated at the Appeal! I wonder what Jonathan Coady would say to that reporter today?
Judge Campbell would never have dismissed CMT’s case if Jonathan Coady had not repeatedly and deliberately breached the Rules of Court on countless occasions by failing to honour the principles of honest and full disclosure. Withholding and keeping information and materially-relevant documents about RBC Dexia from the Court is pretty serious stuff!
Judge Campbell would never have dismissed CMT’s case if Jonathan Coady and the King Government hadn’t alos blocked “fresh evidence” from being entered into the record by refusing to give Consent. That’s not only serious stuff…it’s downright malicious if you ask me.
Jonathan Coady is now left waiting for the proverbial “shoe to drop” with the Appeal Court’s decision. He can’t feel very confident, left to advance weak legal arguments with all the weight of chaff blowing in the wind. Paul Maines found the wheat in a series of FOIPPs, and John MacDonald baked up a tasty loaf of bread – the bread of understanding – which the Appeal Court Judges are currently consuming, likely spread with the jam Coady and the King Government are in!
Trying to convince the Appeal Court Judges that the new 1,000 pages of fresh evidence that he worked so diligently to keep secret is “inadmissible” on the basis of a technical provision in the FOIPP Act intended to protect the confidentiality of interviewees during formal Information Commission reviews shows the level of desperation with Coady’s response to the current situation – suggesting that massive corruption and cover-up, multiple occasions of perjury, etc. should all be passed over and forgotten on the basis of a technicality was probably not the smartest play.
That provision in the FOIPP Act was most certainly never intended to convince the Court that massive corruption on an unprecedented scale undermining the very integrity of judicial system shredding the fabric of an open, accountable, and democratic political system could somehow be “quashed” and brushed aside on such a technicality. That Coady would even advance such a legal argument in the face of overwhelming evidence betrays a legal mind so devoid of any moral sensibility or understanding of the essential supremacy of truth and the intimate connection between justice and truth in the fair adjudication of justice as to make Jonathan Coady unfit to practice law.
It’s too late to ask the Judges to rule all that Fresh Evidence is “inadmissible” at any rate. They’ve seen it and they can’t “unsee” it. Nor should they try to ignore what’s in that fresh evidence. Let’s not forget, Jonathan Coady had an obligation to provide a full and complete disclosure of materially-relevant records from the outset and he deliberately did not do that. Now he’s trying to convince the Judges that – based on some technicality – it’s now too late to consider the truth he hid from the Court? Hard to imagine that’s what he argued.
Jonathan Coady was able to secure a “Civil Litigator of the Year” award last summer. He was also granted “Queens Counsel” status. He was able to keep and embolden that status with a victory last September with Judge Campbell’s decision to dismiss CMT’s case: his reign as the litigator of the year may be in jeopardy after the Appeal Decision.
Coady’s final battery of the world’s three weakest arguments he discharged at the Appeal all bypass and entirely ignore the truth. He never answered when Chief Justice Jenkins asked for his response to some pretty serious claims John MacDonald had made concerning his breach of Court Rules. Nor did he present any evidence or intelligent legal arguments challenging let alone disproving CMT’s most recent claims and legal position, based on powerful new evidence. Arguments based on technicalities will not work for Coady this time around.
Final Comments on the King Government’s Role in this Fiasco
Ethics should matter in our legal system and courts. True justice based on a fair adjudication of matters in light of the law and THE FULL AND COMPLETE RECORD should always be the goal and standard for our justice system. Protecting and upholding the truth should matter most of all! On that, the King Government and Jonathan Coady have failed us miserably.
The PEI Government ultimately has a duty to ensure that honest legal strategies employed by outside legal counsel it retains are ethical at all times. The onus now falls to the King government to offer direction to its legal counsel to address this scandal. For its part, the King government must begin to deliver open, honest government to Islanders. To date, we have been dealt a gargantuan betrayal!
In opposition, Steven Myers, Jamie Fox, Sidney MacEwan, Brad Trivers, Matthew MacKay, James Aylward and Darlene Compton fought long-and-hard to uncover the truth about egaming. They discovered a lot about the illegal deletion of records and about the breach of the MOU. They were convinced then with hardly any evidence – there’s a mountain now and they’re denying there was a breach. Go figure!
There’s no question that King Government has failed to confront that corruption and rid us of that self-serving and secretive Insider Club rotting our political democracy and judicial system at its very core. As for the PC MLAs once so vocal on the subject of demanding transparency and true accountability. Silence.
The collective actions of our PC MLAs and Premier represents one of the most serious moral and political betrayals of the electorate by any incoming government in PEI’s history.
I suspect there will be unpleasant consequences for Jonathan Coady for the “particular legal strategy he chose to adopt” [e.g., totally ignoring and breaching the Rules of Court more times than you can count] as he repeatedly said of John MacDonald’s decision not to file a Motion to Produce and go instead hunting for a truthful record in targeted FOIPP requests.
That would have been a fatal decision for his client if no materially-relevant documents had shown up, but they did, lots of them. Coady wouldn’t produce a truthful record so CMT’s legal counsel and Paul Maines went looking for one, and they found it just in time to set a loaf of bread in the middle of the table for the Appeal Court Judges.
RBC Dexia never did come to PEI. But take another look at that 4-story, 60,000 sq. ft. red brick office complex in the feature image. Look familiar? Kinda like the four-story building in downtown Charlottetown that was a vacant lot back when the PEI Government put together that Slide Show Presentation for RBC Dexia. It isn’t vacant anymore. You know the one – McInnes Cooper’s new law firm offices!
McInnes Cooper law firm, the “egaming project manager” (according to the Auditor General), likely used that $950,000 gift disguised as a loan to lay the foundation for that new build. That money was never accounted for, was hid from Treasury board by Neil Stewart, then completely written off by Premier Wade MacLauchlan, without a glance at McInnes Cooper or the scoundrels who orchestrated that fraudulent money-transfer of tax dollars to McInnes Cooper.
So in a way, the PEI Government did proceed with “the build” originally intended for RBC Dexia, although it just looked like McInnes Cooper was doing well and could afford a new office complex to the rest of us. Crazy eh? There’s always a story within the story with PEI’s Insider Club! I hope the Appeal Court sends a message and puts a end to all these shenanigans.