City denies striking partnership with seniors centre

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/10/2020 (1970 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The City of Winnipeg denies allegations it failed to fulfil a management agreement with a seniors centre and is asking a court to dismiss the group’s legal challenge.

Instead, the municipality claims it never committed to that type of deal.

In August, the Good Neighbours Active Living Centre filed a statement of claim, which alleges the city was supposed to let the group co-manage the 720 Henderson Hwy. building it shares with the Bronx Park Community Club. Good Neighbours, a seniors centre with 1,150 members, said the arrangement led it to relocate to the community centre in 2009.

Good Neighbours claims the city never fulfilled that deal and the centre now fears that being deemed a tenant in the building will lead to leasing costs it can’t afford.

The city statement of defence argues no co-management agreement is in place.

“The city and (Good Neighbours) have never formed a partnership,” the statement claims.

And while a “partnership” between the seniors centre and community club was noted in one brochure, the city claims that was merely a “colloquial reference.”

Good Neighbours leaders have said they fear that being treated as a tenant could trigger about $5,000 in new monthly costs, which they say would force the centre to shut down within two years.

The city’s legal claim does not list specific costs for the seniors centre but does allege Good Neighbours hasn’t paid its fair share.

“(Good Neighbours) has failed to fully contribute its share of the operational expenses to the community club and has failed to pay administrative fees to the city,” the statement claims.

The city also argues that a management agreement “made clear” the Bronx Park Community Club was the manager of the property, not the seniors community.

And while the seniors centre legal challenge seeks financial damages from the city, the city denies it caused Good Neighbours any losses.

By contrast, the lawyer for Good Neighbours said the deal was clear.

“Our response is that clearly the intent was a partnership and not just in a colloquial sense. That (word partnership) was what was used in the (executive) policy committee minutes,” said Ken Muys.

The lawyer noted a report on the July 19, 2006 executive policy committee agenda does use the word “partnership.”

“Bronx Park Community Centre and the (seniors centre) will form a partnership in a new community centre at the present Bronx Park site,” that report notes.

Muys said the city has not provided terms for a potential lease. He said some of the unspecified financial charges the city mentions in its statement are also still subject to an appeal.

In addition to potential costs, Muys said his clients are very concerned they may lose input over activities within their building.

“It’s much more than just about money. This is about them having a say in how the facility is run,” he said.

The city declined a request for further comment.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

joyanne.pursaga@freepress.mb.ca

Twitter: @joyanne_pursaga