The Clark Report: Exposes Alberta’s Fly-By-Night Inspections

On Tuesday the 21st I had the opportunity to chat with a research contact and I mentioned some municipalities in the grip of the downtown oligarchs, I had stumbled on something related to their inspections a few days before.  Our conversation resulted in some very productive research and by the morning of Thursday August 23, 2018, some hidden Alberta precedent was discovered by my contact and it was the Clark Report, which is a model of procedural fairness.


“This section describes my appointment and the process which I used for the



On December 14, 2004, I was appointed by the Honourable Rob Renner,

Minister of Municipal Affairs, under Ministerial Order L:177/04, “ … inspector for

the purposes of conducting an inspection regarding the election process in the

City of Calgary.”


Section 571 of the Municipal Government Act, under which I was appointed,

provides as follows:”     p.10


“On December 29, 2004, by Ministerial Order L:182/04, the Minister set out the

following terms of reference for the inspection:”     p.11


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, every witness to the Inspection, in relation

to their testimony provided to the Inspector in public or private and

documents produced as evidence in the Inspection, shall be afforded the

protection of the law including the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.”     p.12


“I appointed David Wachowich, a partner at Fraser Milner Casgrain, as Inspection

Counsel and Tom Forgrave, a former Alberta Municipal Affairs Assistant Deputy

Minister as Executive Secretary.”     p.13


“I also referred to the statements of Mr. Justice Martin in

interpreting the scope of the terms of reference I received from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and in determining my procedure.”     p.13


“Holding portions of

the inspection process by public hearing, in the nature of a public inquiry, was

new as the 13 inspections since 1995 had been conducted without a public

hearing component. This innovation brought with it obligations of procedural

fairness to those involved, but primarily was consistent with my commitment to

the principle of transparency.”     p.13 – 14


“My Inspection process generated an involvement of the courts which has not

been experienced in previous Section 571 inspections. The Inspection was

named as a party in legal proceedings and I have had to consider extensive legal

advice, far beyond anything I anticipated. In my view, the procedural issues that

the Clark Inspection anticipated and addressed, in extending an Inspection to

include public hearings, are instructive for future Inspectors who may be

appointed under Section 571. Therefore, at my request Inspection Counsel will

be preparing a separate report to Alberta Municipal Affairs on procedural matters.


On March 17 an action commenced by way of Originating Notice in the matter of

Margot Aftergood and David Aftergood v. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Robert Clark. The court was asked to quash the Inspection, or to prohibit it from

proceeding. The court also was asked to find bias and procedural irregularities in

various aspects of the inspection process. A judicial review of the determination

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs denying funding to the Aftergoods was also

sought.”     p.14 -15


“Mr. Justice Brooker rendered his decision from the Bench in relation to the

Aftergood application on April 18,”…     p.15


“However, Mr. Justice Brooker went on to provide an

interpretation of the scope of the issues that properly fell within the terms of

reference which altered and limited the use I could make of investigations

pursued to that date. He indicated that in examining the terms of reference, the

nature of the list of issues I was asked to address in my report should give an

indication of where my efforts should be concentrated.”     p. 15


“Mr. Justice Brooker noted that these directions were

rendered for the benefit of the Clark Inspection and would no doubt be

considered in its further proceedings, and that my process merited judicial

direction in part in that questioning of David Aftergood had exceeded these

bounds”…     p.15


“A complete list of witnesses, counsel involved at the public hearings, and people

who assisted with the community consultation is attached to this report as

Appendix B. Transcripts of the evidence at the public hearings and of the

Roundtable/Town Hall were prepared and have been filed with Alberta Municipal

Affairs together with the Exhibits tabled at the sessions. Several Exhibits are

marked “SEALED” to protect personal information included in them. A list of

Exhibits is attached as Appendix C. Exhibits 13 to 47 were not tabled during the

public sessions and so are not officially marked as exhibits. Appendix D lists

written submissions received by the Clark Inspection from various sources.”     p.17



Only one MGA s. 571 Inspection, has been conducted legally and lawfully in Alberta

The Clark Report is a huge find as was the Barclay Report on January 15, 2017, that referenced the Bellamy and Cunningham Reports.  To date we now have knowledge of 4 recent procedurally fair inspection/inquiry reports in Canada.  In Alberta we have a multitude of inspection reports compiled by fly-by-night consultants for over 20 years.  These defamatory, fly-by-night, inspection reports, document Municipal Government Act – MGA, Public Inquiries Act – PIA, and common law breaches on behalf of the provincial government. And now my contact recently discovered that only one, MGA s. 571 Inspection, has been conducted legally and lawfully in Alberta.  The procedurally fair Clark Report exposes the corruption that exists within the ministry, department, and legal community.

Your council and administration are at the same risk (“witch hunt”) as Mr. Kelly & colleagues

I don’t provide legal advice and much prefer common sense advice.  As an experienced councillor I am providing you with my expert opinion from that perspective. Also, I am the only individual in Canada that has exposed the corrupt inspection process in Alberta, way back in January 2015, during a councillor report, the day after my session with the fly-by-night inspector of Thorhild County.  From the news media reporting that I have reviewed about recent municipal affairs victims, the media reports contain allegations of wrong doing about individuals related to the inspections reported on.   An inspection or inquiry are never to find fault but rather to find facts according to strict terms of reference.  Many councillors and administrators from many Alberta municipalities have been accused publicly without any notice of allegation and an opportunity to be heard.  I believe your council and administration are at the same risk as Mr. Kelly.  Mr. Kelly is the former CAO from Westlock County that was framed by the fly-by-night consultant, conducting the illegal and unlawful inspection (“witch hunt”) of Westlock County.  Another pleasant surprise provided by my contact is the below CBC post, and I was also thrilled to see the victim speaking out about his “witch hunt” experience.

The Clark Report is a hedge of protection for all municipalities in Alberta

I suggest that your municipality do everything possible to ensure that the illegal and unlawful inspection report of your municipality, is not published and removed from the municipal affairs website if it has been posted there.  The discovery of the Clark Report is a hedge of protection for all municipalities in Alberta.  I encourage writing to the ministry and department, asking for reasons why fly-by-night inspectors compiling hearsay and gossip in reports are let run wild.  In comparison, Inspector Clark had to follow rules and obtain evidence under oath, according to strict terms of reference.  Otherwise he would lose immunity as an inspector and be legally liable for defamation and damages.  Ask why there are 2 completely different inspection procedures used in Alberta when conducting the same MGA s. 571 inspection.

Legal advice from experienced and ethical counsel that will speak the truth about inspections in Alberta

Your municipality would be wise in acquiring legal advice from experienced and ethical counsel that will speak the truth about inspections in Alberta.  If you view the “Mercenaries” & “Mercenaries Part 2” posts on this blog, they provide my councillor experience of how a lawyer, etc. can mislead the court and attack without warning.  I am willing to assist your municipality with finding a competent lawyer, for the reasons that, I have personally witnessed several lawyers misrepresent facts and fiction on paper and I have a near zero trust of the legal community.  I don’t want any more people to be harmed as many in Alberta have been harmed, and I have a duty to warn others. My experience and research is equal to what garlic is to a vampire and will help keep the vampires from you.

If you have anything to share, questions, or need councillor advice – feel free to contact is about News, Information, and Networking.  I have been thrust into website administration to create a venue for countering all the false information published about me.  In a few minutes of research, recruiters have me linked to a number of lies.  The website enables me to redirect bad energy in an attempt to create new opportunities.  My media focus is to counter sensationalism by the moron media.  If you, or your municipality has anything to share, on or off record, you are free to contact me.  If you have questions or need some councillor advice, feel free to contact me as no one should be subjected to these fly-by-night inspections, and left confused at the mercy of the moron media.  The sensationalism by media causes inflated emotional responses (psychological warfare) and is very dangerous to the wellbeing of each community, and as we have seen individuals in municipal positions have been defamed and physically assaulted in a number of communities.


Please spare others from harm and share the Clark Report with your community and others!!