Menu
Four years of spending, governance, and transparency controversies. These are the ten issues that stand out most strongly in the documented record from 2023–2026.
01 |
THE $22,515.26 LEVY AMENDMENT$22,515.26 - an expense not in the approved 2026 budget
On March 11, 2026, the Board carried motion BIA-26-025, approving a $22,515.26 amendment to the 2026 BIA budget for Integrity Commissioner investigation costs and asking Council to incorporate it into the final levy installments. The minutes expressly say the amount would be raised through a proportional levy increase across BIA members. If the IC said the remaining governance issues belonged before the Ombudsman or the courts, what did the Board do to address them before merchants were asked to pay the bill? |
02 |
$107,761 SHORTFALL |
|
|
The financial reports give merchants a giant lump sum called "GRANTS". They do not provide members with a simple reconciliation showing applications, amount sought, approval, rejection, or final amount received. There is no grant revenue line in the 2023 BIA budget, and the audited 2023 financial statements show no grant revenue. The audited 2024 statements also show no grant revenue, although a later BIA budget comparison projected $14,000 in wage subsidy grants, something that does not appear as grant revenue in the final audited statements. Then the Board made a massive leap for 2025: Budgeted grants: $163,000 Actual audited grants: $55,239 Shortfall: $107,761 SO WHAT GOT CUT? Special events: $69,407 below budget Beautification: $44,772 below budget Advertising: $15,908 below budget Yet the BIA still recorded an $81,986 deficit and ended the year with $86,910 less cash. The board failed to provide a grant-by-grant report showing exactly what was applied for, what failed, and who approved spending against those assumptions. |
03 |
DID THIS BOARD DRAIN THE BANK?The audited numbers tell the story better than any verbal update could.
BIA Projects & Stabilization Reserve 2023 — $172,150 2024 — $148,474 2025 — $68,125 That is a reduction of: $104,025 or approximately 60% of the audited reserve balance in two years. The audited statements show the BIA drew: 2024 — $23,676 2025 — $80,349 And the 2026 budget planned another: $69,079.50 from reserves. After three consecutive years of actual or planned reserve draws, what will be left when downtown merchants actually need the emergency cushion? |
04 |
OVER $100,000 IN WAGES?The audited financial progression is:
2023 — no salaries or benefits recorded 2024 — $37,569 2025 — $108,561 The detailed 2025 P&L breaks it down: Wages alone — $99,225.34 Total payroll expenses — $108,561.46 How did $37,569 in salaries and benefits become $108,561 one year later? |
05 |
AN EVENT SPENDING EXPLOSIONThe 2025 accounts list spending on:
The detailed P&L shows approximately $34,700 in these costs excluding the $30,000 Happening payment. The broader audited special events number was $64,593 in 2025, compared with $43,726 in 2024 and $16,111 in 2023. What the financial records do not provide is an obvious event by event P&L showing revenue, sponsorship, merchant participation, measured foot traffic, and economic return for each event. If the Board cannot show an event by event return, how does it know which events deserve funding next year? |
06 |
$100,000 HAPPENING FESTIVALThe actual documented BIA contributions are:
2023 — $10,000 2024 — $30,000 2025 — $30,000 2026 — $20,000 Actual four-year total: $90,000. The BCAH-derived actual support records confirm the $10,000 / $30,000 / $30,000 progression through 2025. Had the BIA simply repeated the $30,000 contribution in 2026, the four-year total would have reached exactly $100,000. But 2026 is different. After the sponsorship issue had been challenged and a written agreement demanded, the record finally contains a formal agreement identifying the BIA as: Headline Sponsor — Proudly Presented By Contribution — $20,000 The BCAH application placed $30,000 of BIA support under municipal administration or equivalent authority support, while BIA records treated Happening as special event spending and all public facing materials used sponsorship terminology. Why was the money described one way to merchants and another way in federal grant applications? |
07 |
WHO WAS WATCHING THE BOOKS?By the end of 2025:
Grants missed budget by $107,761. Payroll reached $108,561. The reserve fell to $68,125. The BIA recorded an $81,986 annual deficit. The BIA was paying outside bookkeeping/accounting costs: the 2025 P&L records $1,682.50, with additional bookkeeping expense continuing into 2026. Yet Treasurer reports could be extraordinarily brief. In February 2025, the minutes said the P&L was attached with “nothing to report on finances thus far.” A later financial update similarly recorded “Nothing to note on the profit/loss statement, balance sheet or budget to date.” Meanwhile, KPMG had discussed errors arising through the financial transition, the BIA later failed to produce financial reports because of accounting-software problems, and reporting corrections continued. How can there be “nothing to report” while the BIA is running an $81,986 deficit and drawing $80,349 from reserves? |
08 |
BUDGET APPROVAL WITHOUT ASKINGA May 9, 2024 NewsNow article reported an issue that started before the 2025 budget controversy.
It reported that Town Council intervened when the BIA sought major financial autonomy and procedural changes, identified factual problems with information presented to Council, and required an AGM process before those major changes could proceed. The BIA's own May 2024 minutes confirm that membership was supposed to vote at an AGM on whether to move forward with the financial transition. Then look at what happened with the next major BIA budget. The July 2025 minutes explicitly say members should provide comments before the AGM because "the budget would already be approved when it was presented at the AGM". And the Board subsequently approved the 2026 budget before presenting it to the general membership. Are BIA members participants in this organization, or simply the people required to finance decisions after they're made? |
09 |
PAY TO PLAY FOR REGIONAL COUNCILLOR?On March 12, 2025, Regional Councillor Michelle Seaborn appeared before the BIA regarding the Grimsby Farmers' Market. The minutes state that the road closure endorsement would return in April.
On April 16, an issue was raised by a local merchant who had administrative concerns and asked that endorsement be withheld until the documentation and insurance were in place. Instead of endorsing the Market, the Board passed BIA-25-031, deferring it and specifically directing Chair Simon Duong to meet with Town staff and Seaborn before endorsement returned. A written request followed on May 12 again asking that endorsement be deferred until the documentation, conflicts, and compliance questions were addressed. On May 14, Duong ignored the request and personally moved the motion that officially endorsed the Farmers' Market. Simon failed to mention that the Happening received a $4000 in-kind donation from the Farmers' Market. The federal BCAH final report confirmed that the Grimsby Farmers' Market provided in-kind support to Happening in Grimsby, which was received before the April 30th application deadline. Was a conflict declared to the BIA Board before Simon moved the motion endorsing the Market? |
10 |
DID OUR BOARD ASK ABOUT THE LAWSUIT?When Grimsby's BIA hired Amanda MacDonald as Executive Director, litigation arising from her previous employment as Executive Director of the Oshawa BIA remained active.
Her Statement of Claim sought: $175,000 — wrongful dismissal $18,025 — accrued lieu time $4,326.92 — vacation pay $15,000 — moral/punitive/exemplary damages Plus interest and costs. The pleading ultimately waived damages above $200,000 so the case could proceed under simplified procedure. The litigation was still unresolved when MacDonald became Grimsby's BIA Executive Director. It was ultimately dismissed on consent, without costs, on June 4, 2026. This puts the current BIA board in a difficult position trying to explain the Board's hiring process. Did the Board know about the active lawsuit before hiring an Executive Director? |
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by pair Domains