The Evidence of Refusal to Notify Landowners — September 29, 2026
WATERSHED DEBACLE INQUIRY | PROF. LEX’S CORNER | September 29, 2026
The request, the response and questions for the record
The completed nine-page evidence issue brings together the request to circulate a watershed inquiry notice and Severn’s written refusal. It includes both source documents and 14 evidence-focused questions concerning affected landowners and their access to information.
YELLOW NOTICE — THE LANDOWNERS ARE THE FOCUS
For any alleged denial: what information was sought, by which landowner, from which institution, on what date, and what response was given?
The documented refusal concerned a notice intended for affected landowners. Individual denials of access, and their consequences, should be established through each owner’s records. The circulation refusal alone does not prove that every owner was denied records.
Read or download the complete issue
The PDF contains the evidence review, all 14 questions, the three-page request and proposed notice, and Severn’s two-page response. John’s home mailing address has been removed from the circulation copy of the Township letter.
What the records establish
January 16, 2026: John Tait emailed Alison Gray and Patrick Trafford a request for the municipality to circulate the proposed notice, verbatim and at municipal expense, to owners whose properties were subject to watershed or environmental encumbrances. The request expressly did not seek disclosure of owners’ names or addresses.
January 27, 2026: Severn declined the request in a letter signed by Alison Gray as Clerk, with Patrick Trafford listed as a copy recipient. The Township said the notice was neither statutorily required nor associated with a Township-originated or sponsored event. It also said MFIPPA provides access to records and does not require it to distribute the inquiry’s information.
The letter further stated that the Township had no record of owners meeting the request’s description and could not produce it from machine-readable records. These are the Township’s stated positions; the issue asks for the supporting authority and records.
Questions for the record
Who authorized the January 27 refusal? Identify each person who made or approved the decision, the date and the decision record.
What authority governed that decision? Identify the policy, delegation, by-law, resolution or statutory provision relied on.
What relevant information had landowners already received? Identify the notices, their contents, dates, intended recipients and delivery methods.
Was any direction given concerning release or circulation? Distinguish access to records from circulation of the inquiry notice, and identify the supporting record.
Landowners reporting denied access are asked to identify what they sought, what response they received, when they learned of the restriction and the inquiry, and any practical consequence supported by records. The full questions appear on pages 2–3 of the PDF.
Reading the documents fairly
The original request is John Tait’s submission, despite its title “NOTICE FROM SEVERN.” Its proposed notice was not issued by the Township. “Neutral” is the request’s description. Its legal assertions and suggested minimum loss of $100,000 per property are not established findings or an independent appraisal.
The refusal does not identify a mayoral instruction. Copying Patrick Trafford does not establish that he was directed to withhold information. These documents do not settle whether earlier planning notices were adequate, whether a particular owner suffered a compensable loss, or whether a separate legal duty was breached.
YELLOW NOTICE — YOU ARE WELCOME HERE
You do not need legal knowledge to follow the inquiry. Participation is voluntary and subscribing to updates is free. Reading or replying does not commit you to a lawsuit, an appraisal or any payment.
Thank you to recipients who supply documents and potential evidence. Please retain original records, provide complete copies where possible and tell us whether your material may be quoted publicly. Corrections and documented responses are welcome.
These are proposed evidence-gathering questions for counsel to adapt to the proceeding. They are not sworn testimony and do not guarantee admissibility.
Related reading
John Tait | Lead Plaintiff, Watershed Debacle Inquiry
Comments