Assuming there's no last minute out-of-court settlement, according to Registry documents the trial is scheduled to begin Friday, April 5th which could be significant. Recall the the plight of Toronto Mayor Rob "Goofy" Ford who was temporarily removed from office by a Judge for improper campaign fundraising.
Should Smiling Sam lose will a Justice similarly boot his arse out of office?
In going through the file (CI 12-01-75787) we noticed Mr. Chan is a self-rep. Michael Jack's name also appeared on a few peripheral documents. He was promoted last year to head the City of Winnipeg's Legal Department. First encountered him while covering a trial in which a couple of Winnipeg Police Service Officers were being sued for alleged false arrest. Unlike some lawyers and Crown's who frequent The Law Courts in need of major A A (Attitudinal Adjustment) and possessing a misplaced sense of entitlement, Mr. Jack was very, very good at answering CyberSmokeBlog's questions on points of law after the court had recessed for the day.

Here are the Motion Briefs for both parties in the dispute. Who will win? You be the Judge and Jury.

Recently Smiling Sam announced he'd run again in the next election. The local CTV affiliate's Question of the Day was, "Would you vote for Sam Katz?" Usually, approximately 2,000 viewers respond to these questions. Bad news Sam, sounds like you'll be toast - 73% said "No."

Clare L. Pieuk

For The Plaintiff

The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre
File Number: CI 12-01-75787

Between: Joe Chan, Applicant

- and -

Samuel Michael Katz and The City of Winnipeg, Respondents
Brief Of The Applicant
Date Of Hearing: Thursday, February 2, 2012

Joe Chan
427 Alexander Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3A 0N5
Telephone: (204) 955-5988

Index   Page
I Facts  3                   
II Issues  5                
III Arguments  6     

I Facts

1. On December 13, 2012, Samuel Michael Katz, Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, hosted a Christmas dinner at Hu's Bar and Grill, 1747 Ellice Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

2. On December 12, 2012, Samuel Michael Katz, Mayor of the City of Winnipeg against hosted a Christmas dinner at Hu's Bar and Grill, 1747 Ellice Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

3. Hu's Bar and Grill is wholly owned by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc. and Mayor Samuel Michael Katz is its only shareholder.

4. Winnipeg taxpayers' funds of approximately $3,000 were used to pay for each dinner.

5. Mayor Samuel Michael Katz had a significant pecuniary interest in goods and services sold by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

6. Mayor Samuel Michael Katz benefited from the funds paid for the dinners from the City of Winnipeg.

7. The contract for the dinners was never tendered or offered to any other restaurant.

8. The Applicant is manager of Cathay House, a cafe that serves similar fare as that sold by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

9. Mayor Samuel Katz played a major role in directing the business of the Christmas dinners to Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

II Issues

1. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz have taken any role in deciding which restaurant should host the Christmas dinners?

2. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz be disqualified from office?

3. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz reimburse the city of Winnipeg for monies paid for the 2 Christmas dinners?

III Argument

For The Defendants

The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre
File Number: CI 12-01-75787

Between: Joe Chan Applicant

- and -

Samuel Michael Katz and The City of Winnipeg, Respondents
Motion Brief of Samuel Michael Katz
Civil Uncontested List
On Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

Tapper Cuddy LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
1000-330 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3Z5

Robert L. Tapper
Solicitors for the Respondent Samuel Michael Katz

Telephone: (204) 944-8777
Fax: (204) 947-2593
File Number 120173

Motion Brief Of Samuel Michael Katz

I. Argument

1. The Respondent Samuel Michael Katz is the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg.

2. The Mayor should not be subject to absurd and frivolous and vexatious proceedings such as the within proceeding, which is patently vexatious and frivolous on its face.

3. Though this return date is on the uncontested list, it is respectfully submitted it should not be permitted to continue, and should be struck.

4. The following lists the issues demonstrating the folly of this Application.

5. The Applicant has not posted the security mandated by Section 20(2) of the Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act, C.C.S.M. c. M255; that is apparent by a simple reference to the Queen's Bench pocket.

6. The provisions of the aforesaid Act, in the relevant context, are triggered by Section 17 thereof. Leaving aside there is no evidence before the Court that a meeting as defined by the Act was occurring, it is plain and obvious that a Christmas party is neither a council meeting, a committee or sub-committee meeting. There was and can be no obligation to tender the event.

7. Nor is Section 16 of any avail to the Applicant. That would require the Mayor to attempt to influence himself.

8. There is no evidence that the City of Winnipeg paid for either of the events complained of in the Application. Though there is a reference to this allegation in the Brief of the Applicant, his affidavit contains no such averment.

9. The reality is that the Mayor hosted a party for his staff and Council members. There is no obligation to tender that. He is entitled to do that.

10. Some would argue he should be doing that.

11. If the Mayor takes a fellow Councillor across the street from City Hall for dim sum, must he first attend at the City Clerk's office to pick up a tender form? Because the Applicant also sells dim sum? (presumably).

12. This application is a transparent attempt by the Applicant  to garner attention to himself and his restaurant and the Court should not permit it to continue.

13. It should be dismissed with costs. The Mayor should not have to dip into his pocket to have funded this (untendered) defence: those costs should be on a full indemnity basis.

All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th Day of January 2012.

Original signed by Robert L. Tapper Q.C.
Solicitors for the respondent Samuel Michael Katz