Mayor Vanderkruys - Please stand up, RESPOND and be counted BEFORE the election!
A) The first of those Freedom of Information requests was deemed to be "vexatious" by YOUR CLERK (your terminology, not mine, I always thought that a clerk was an apolitical appointment), the same party who as best I can determine was one of the individuals who authored the policy and initiated it against me!

B) The second has recently been returned with a letter from CAO Sage that refuses to allow me to file an FOI request to council as whole (as being the party defined in MFIPPA clause 3 but ONLY to Ms Fettes who has already deemed the earlier request "vexatious" based upon her statements that she has "PERSONAL ISSUES" with the requester and refuses to recuse herself even though she is in a blatant conflict of interest by proceeding!
In the news report on you stated that the policy under which I was banned allowed me to appeal.

I have now asked more than
SIX times of YOU, CAO Sage, Clerk Fettes (as the illegally delegated head for FOI), Councillor Paterson and COUNCIL as whole for the information that would allow me to understand my FIDUCIARY PROCESSES and to start the appeal process that YOU in your statement in the press have FINALLY acknowledged is my right under the policy.
With your public admission on that I have the right to appeal your ban, this is a request for you to direct YOUR CLERK and CAO Sage to cease impeding my requests for the information I need to file an appeal and also to provide me, without the need to go through the FOI process with the following information needed for me to start preparing for an appeal, that I am asking RIGHT UP FRONT BE CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC:
1) A copy of the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE appeal process you have now confirmed exists or the link to it on your web sites, the date it was created and the minutes showing the vote to approve it taken by council at the same time as the policy was voted upon.

2) The (redacted for personal identification only) records of the advice provided to a member of your staff by legal counsel believed to have been paid for by tax dollars resulting in the advice that my letters and questions to the Township of Clearview did NOT constitute harassment that then initiated the creation of your policy and consequently became the basis of the complaint dealt with in your secret tribunal and ending with your ban against me.

3) The letters (with proof of delivery and receipt) sent PRIOR to the creation of the policy advising me of any concerns over my communications to the Township of Clearview from staff/council.

4) The date of authoring of the policy used to ban me (not the date that council approved the policy).

5) The names of all staff members involved in the authoring of the policy.

6) The letter (with proof of delivery and receipt) sent at the time the policy was voted into being, providing me with a copy of the new policy and its appeal process and advising me that the policy was going to be applied against me if I continued to ask questions of staff.

7) The full list of charges against me as submitted to council by staff or any member of council.

8) The full copies (redacted only for personal identification) of ALL evidence in any form considered by the Ontario Privacy Commissioner to constitute a "record" provided to council by staff or any member of council registering any component  of the charge(s) against me.

9) The names of ALL parties present during any part of the secret tribunal that resulted in me being banned.

10) The recordings (as recommended by the Privacy Commissioner and the Ontario Ombudsman) of the secret tribunal held by council that resulted in me being banned.

11) The minutes (redacted only for personal identification) of the secret tribunal held by council that resulted in me being banned so that I can see what was discussed and who participated in the decision.

12) The name of the party maintaining the minutes of the secret tribunal that resulted in my being banned.

13) Copies of the formal complaints registered in writing with you, CAO Sage and Councillor Paterson against:
With the upcoming election I believe that it would be appropriate to deal with this matter BEFORE the election so that voters can see how, under the Sage/Vanderkruys/Burton administration, business is being done in Clearview
In case Councillor Measures, who is running against Mayor Vanderkruys in the 2018 election thinks that this matter can be used to score points against the current mayor in his camplaign, Councillor Measures (and all of the other Councillors present and voting at that secret tribunal) is/are equally a part of this problem.

It was Councillor Measures who accused me and my web site ( of lying after the last election, an assertion that he has still not supported with ANY form of proof and which may have even have weighed in to this decision to ban me.

The last two attempts to obtain that information were made through the ONLY process that you allow for me to obtain that information from the Township, namely the Freedom of Information process.
The withholding of ANY of the above information will limit my ability to appeal the ban!
The fact that council wanted to keep this whole process SECRET is of little consequence to me, as I have informed you, IF I HAD BEEN TOLD that this process was going to take place I would have asked for it to be in public, since I have absolutely nothing to hide. Your decision to abuse the purpose of a Closed Meeting to HIDE everything about this matter (let's be clear, in ANY meeting there are references to identifiable persons, so under your "rules" ALL meetings should be in camera!) is simply proof positive that you will protect your peer group (civil servants) over the rights of residents despite the provisions protecting those rights under Canadian law.
How can I effectively appeal something that was conducted in TOTAL SECRET in a kangaroo court (an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor)?

I was never told that I had been charged, have no idea by whom I was charged, the publicly available grounds for the charge, not allowed to see any evidence presented against me nor present any evidence countering the charge and all that without even knowing the process was taking place until it was over and unilaterally finished off with a very confusing single page letter. A letter that has now been revised three times?

Then to be told by YOU as the "head of council"
through the newspapers that I have the right to appeal AFTER having 6 attempts to find out HOW to appeal addressed to YOUR council and staff denied by your own OWN PEER GROUP, smacks of the type of system my grandfather and my father fought to stop in the last two world wars!
Any appeal process needs to be by an entity who can rule for and against all components of the process, it should not fall to the same people who enacted the ban in the first place to again have the right of decision in any appeal!

If the entity named in the appeal process is the Ontario Ombudsman, I REJECT that entity
since that office has absolutely no mandate to do anything more than investigate a complaint and then to "suggest" a solution/result to the same council who has banned me and who can then either reject or follow that "advice".

I will accept the Ombudsman IF this council provides, PRIOR to the filing of an appeal, written, signed and PERSONAL undertakings from all councillors
that they will abide without question, the decision of the Ombudsman and that any vote related to that decision will be a recorded vote made IN PUBLIC and that the investigation by the Ombudsman is also held in public and not using the secret mediation process used by the Privacy Commissioner!
No more roller coaster rides on this matter!
13a) Mr Hendry (your son-in-law) for refusing to respond to requests related to the asserted accessibility testing of web sites

13b) Ms Fettes (YOUR CLERK) for numerous counts related to record keeping, refusal to correct audited filings and refusal to use emails for committees

13c) CAO Steve Sage for refusing to respond to filed complaints within the period (5 days) set down in your complaints policy.

13d) Mayor Vanderkruys for refusing to respond to filed complaints within the period (5 days) set down in your complaints policy against Mr Hendry, Ms Fettes and CAO Sage

13e) The complaint against the brother-in-law of Steve Sage filed (as was required by your ban) with Councillor Paterson
As I am sure you are aware YOUR CLERK has responded to my FOI requests for these records as "not being found". To save time why don't you review your own email records and then ask Councillor Paterson if he has the complaint sent to him regarding the brother in law of the CAO. If he confirms that complaint as being received please direct YOUR CLERK to further review the records that she is responsible for maintaining and to find those complaints and any responses.

If she is still unable to find those records of the Municipality of Clearview for which
YOUR CLERK is responsible, I am asking that you undertake a full public review of the ever expanding loss of records by YOUR CLERK as can be supported by a number of FOI request from myself and others. In any appeal or hearing I will use the originals, their delivery receipts and the lack of the timely action for a response within 5 days to support what I believe was the REAL unstated intent of that ban process.

14) A copy of the legal opinion and supporting legal documentation obtained by the Township prior to the passing into "law" that confirms that the policy meets all of the requirements under both Federal and Provincial laws with regard to the "surreptitious recording" reference and the ability of a council to deny access to residents to "public" facilities such as doctors/dentists offices, the voting places used for Federal and Provincial elections and the offices of the Township which are already equipped with video surveillance equipment to protect staff and for which there is superior recourse under our criminal process in Canada.

15) The legal support for the "illegally delegated  Head for FOI" to reject FOI request components because (as stated in many of her responses) SHE has "personal issues" with a requester. These rejections have taken place DESPITE THE FACT that she was asked to recuse herself because of conflicts of interest and has on each occasion used the two bylaws recently provided after a direction by the Privacy commissioner that do not meet the requirements of MFIPPA 3(2) as the reason why she is allowed and supported BY THIS COUNCIL to employ personal reasons for rejecting the request for the appeal information.

16) In light of the current refusal of CAO Sage to accept FOI requests addressed to the parties clearly referenced as being the "Head for FOI" in MFIPPA 3(2), I am also repeating my requests for a copy of the ruling by the Privacy Commissioner, setting out once and for all if non-elected parties without any form of oversight can be delegated by a council to perform the functions set out for the legally named "head for FOI" in MFIPPA clause 3 that clearly states that role, by bylaw,  to be one or more elected councilors or in the absence of a bylaw the council as whole either of whom would be subject to the holding to account for any refusals through the new Integrity Commissioner process.
Lo and behold, this is what came back from "King Steven":

"I acknowledge receipt of your request.  As per the Clearview policy, I will ensure that a review is undertaken and respond back to you upon the completion of the process."

I'm now waiting to see just what they can come up with this time, since this is a "review" by my accusers and not a public   APPEAL process by an authority above council that I am prepared to accept.
Update of the appeal process for the ban against me
"Don't waste time appealing  - GROVEL"

"I'll bet a good grovel on two bended knees at the court of 'King Steven" with suitable obeisance to "Prime Minister Chris" and council would get you totally banned and eliminate the need to boil your requests down to 20 words or less!"
"This is the required appeal submitted directly to the Corporation of Clearview for council to remove the ban against me."
So I decided to test that suggestion by sending the following "20 word request" to "King Steven":
Just after the Wasaga Sun published the article in which Mayor Vanderkruys finally admitted that I had the right to appeal the ban against me and I had sent the 7th request for appeal information to the Mayor (still unanswered by him), I was "jokingly" told by another resident:
Updated Sept 05