04-09-2021, 08:51 PMSimply Incorrect Wrote:

04-09-2021, 08:45 PMluketd Wrote: The part that is murky is that a bonus is in relation to a S55 action but for a S56 contract. So the question is whether would it be added to S56, because the action was completed in S55. Or is it added to the S57 cap because the contract was accepted for S56 bonus.

HO agrees that it would apply to the S57 cap, but we also agree that ML did not do it in ill-will, hence why we lowered it to a 2 mil cap hit instead.

I hope I answered your question

Whether it’s 4 or 2 mil, doesn’t make a difference here. If HO openly admits the rule is hard to understand and subject to misinterpretation to the point where you have to re-word it, I fail to see how Toronto can be held at fault here.

And it’s not as if they didn’t pay the bonus, they did, so they didn’t scan their way out of having it impact their cap.

What is hard to understand is the specific example in the rule, which we will now have to reword and fix so that it doesnt happen again. The original bonus being counted towards S56 should have been caught, but it was not. There will be a punishment to the budget team coming, but like I said earlier we wanted to get this out in order to give ML enough time to submit an appeal. Now it is in the owners hands on how they want to handle it.

HO decided that it was a cap hit as a punishment. The final line is that it should have been caught but it wasnt, so we cant let it slide under the rug. We can debate whether the punishment is fair or not, but a decision had to be made, and this is what HO thought was fair given the situation.