Prominent Toronto lobbyist Jeffery Lyons was "not candid" and "factually incorrect" a number of times when he testified last May in the MFP computer leasing probe, lawyers told a special session of the inquiry yesterday.
Inquiry lawyer Richard Butt told the hearing that the inquiry's efforts to obtain documentation from Morrison Brown Sosnovitch, the law firm where Mr. Lyons worked for the period covered by the inquiry, had turned up a number of important discrepancies between the law firm's records and Mr. Lyons' account of events.
The inquiry asked for all relevant records in August, 2002, when it issued the first of two subpoenas to Mr. Lyons, but when he testified almost a year later, he said he could provide few documents.
Ian Roland, the lawyer representing the city, told Madam Justice Denise Bellamy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who is conducting the inquiry, that the record outlined by Mr. Butt shows "Mr. Lyons has not been candid with you in his evidence. He has not presented himself fairly and openly, and appropriately co-operated with this inquiry."
Related Articles
Yesterday's hearing was the second dramatic development this week in the long-running probe. Former city information technology chief Jim Andrew earlier described a phone call from former budget chief Tom Jacobek urging him not to talk to investigators.
Yesterday, Mr. Butt identified five key discrepancies between Morrison Brown Sosnovitch's account of the records issue, as set out in its letters to the inquiry, and Mr. Lyons' testimony:
•Mr. Lyons told the inquiry that he had no file relating to Dell Financial Services Ltd. — a Lyons client who bid on the leasing contract — as he had it destroyed when he was at the law firm, but the law firm found a DFS file in its records.
•In his testimony, Mr. Lyons said that he had "probably" ordered certain files destroyed, but the firm said it had no record that Mr. Lyons had ever ordered files destroyed.
•Mr. Lyons, who said that if he had any files they would have been left at his old firm, testified that he had looked for files relevant to the inquiry. The the law firm said he never asked for relevant materials.
•He further said that he had also asked the firm for electronic files and learned that they had been wiped clean because the firm did not have enough storage. The law firm said he did not ask for electronic records and that it would not have destroyed electronic data for that reason.
•Mr. Lyons said that he did not put personal files in the law firm's long-term, off-site file storage, but the firm's records show that when Mr. Lyons left in mid-2001, he had put 21 bankers' boxes of personal files into its storage. The firm's records show that Mr. Lyons took two boxes of personal material out of storage last year.
After a subpoena from the inquiry, the firm gave the remaining boxes to the commission this summer. (The commission has 18 boxes. One remains unaccounted for.)
Mr. Lyons' lawyer, Richard Auger, told the judge yesterday that Mr. Butt's review was "unfair and entirely unhelpful" in deciding the issue before the special hearing. The issue was how the contents of the 18 boxes, sealed since they were delivered to the commission, might be examined to determine if they contain material relevant to the inquiry.
Mr. Auger said that, for instance, there is an April letter, apparently sent by fax machine to the inquiry before Mr. Lyons testified, that has a list of the personal files in storage, but it seems that the commission was not aware of the letter until after Mr. Lyons finished his testimony.
If the inquiry had been aware of the letter, it could have asked Mr. Lyons about the material, and he would have testified, Mr. Auger said. "For whatever reason, there may have been a problem, and it is just simply unfair to go through these letters and through the testimony and try to come to some conclusion and to assert that Mr. Lyons was being less than forthcoming."
While Mr. Butt proposed that Judge Bellamy should order that the boxes be opened by commission lawyers in the presence of Mr. Lyons's lawyers to determine if they contain relevant material, Mr. Auger argued that this would violate Mr. Lyons's clients' right to legal confidentiality. He suggested that only Mr. Lyons's lawyers were entitled to open the boxes, and said that they would turn any relevant material over to the inquiry when they did so.
Judge Bellamy reserved judgment until next week.
