The City of Hamilton has launched a legal suit against Ombudsman Arlene Brock, in the continuing battle over Hamilton’s secretive project for the redevelopment of the city’s waterfront.

The application for a judicial review cites the Ombudsman’s “decision to commence an ‘own motion’ investigation into the affairs of the Corporation of Hamilton with particular emphasis on the Hamilton Waterfront Redevelopment Project”.

The November 8 writ also makes reference to Ms Brock’s “decision to conduct an investigation in particular manner”.

The Ombudsman’s investigation was launched earlier this year, with Ms Brock saying she would undertake it in the public’s interest.

At the close of 2012, the Hamilton waterfront was quietly leased by the City for a period of 262 years to the group Allied Development Partners, under construction boss Michael MacLean.

The lack of consultation with Government and lack of transparency in settling the deal were referenced by Ms Brock in March, when she began looking into the City’s governance.

Although City Hall initially welcomed the investigation, Mr Outerbridge and Mr Smith subsequently appeared in court on contempt charges after they were accused of refusing to answer questions from the Ombudsman’s office. Both were found to be in contempt by the Supreme Court last month, while Ms Brock’s report on her investigation was delayed.

Only yesterday Ms Brock said she was willing to give Corporation members extra time to respond to “adverse comments” made about them during her ongoing investigation into City Hall governance.

Ms Brock said that her inquiry had reached the “due process” stage, when parties had the right to share their concerns and comments about criticism of them gathered during the fact-finding stage.

She said Ombudsman best practice would usually require the due process stage to take a couple of days for “sensitive investigations” but that in this case she had decided to extend the time until November 21.

“In the case of the Corporation of Hamilton, there are at least nine members of the City council itself and other persons either about whom there are adverse comments or who are otherwise named,” said Ms Brock. “Given the complexity of this investigation, there are several issues that people may want to comment on.”

She said those responding to adverse comments could be represented by anyone of their choosing, including a lawyer, and should “clearly articulate their responses in writing”. They also have the right to a hearing in person with her.

Ms Brock said this week her action was “due to their failure to comply with her summons to attend investigation interviews”.

She said the Mayor and Deputy Mayor claimed they had a right to have their lawyers present during the Ombudsman’s investigation interviews but the Supreme Court found there was no right of legal representation during the Ombudsman’s fact-finding stage of investigations.

Government meanwhile has introduced reforms to the legislation of municipalities that would subject the waterfront deal to approval by the Minister of Home Affairs.

The City has hired the services of J2 Law Chambers — a firm also used in Team Hamilton’s legal challenge to those legislative changes.

Ombudsman Ms Brock and Hamilton Deputy Mayor Donal Smith declined to comment further on the legal suit when contacted yesterday.

Hamilton Mayor Graeme Outerbridge could not be reached for comment last night.