Scope limitation

Scope limitation Two scope limitations were noted during this review:

Summary of procedures & findings

Based on the procedures we executed and the results of our testing, we did not detect evidence to support the allegations. A summary of our analysis of each allegation is included below (further details are included in the Summary of Procedures and Results section of this report).

With regards to allegation #1 ( Lancaster stabilizers were loaned to British entity per City Council and were due to be returned but do not appear to be returned ) we noted that:

The stabilizers were sent to the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom (RAF) and are currently in the possession of the RAF. The loaned stabilizers were dispatched based on the approval of the Council. While the stabilizers are not currently in Windsor, this is in accordance with the agreement in effect between the City of Windsor and The Secretary of State for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The stabilizers are scheduled to be returned by June 30, 2021. The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), commissioned officer at RAF Coningsby has confirmed there are no expected challenges with the timeline for the RAF to return the stabilizers, that the stabilizers are in the possession of the RAF and provided photos of the stabilizers.

With regards to allegation #2 ( City is providing rental space to Canadian Historical Aircraft Association (CHAA) who is restoring the Lancaster on behalf of the City but restoration is not done, not sure when it will be done and may be missing parts ) we noted that:

The City is providing rental space to Canadian Historical Aircraft Association (CHAA). CHAA is restoring the Lancaster using funds raised by the CHAA. The City provides funding to CHAA up to $50,000 per annum to cover lease and other utility type costs, not to fund restoration activities. The restoration is in progress and a 3rd party has provided perspective on that restoration indicating that, while significant work remains, the restoration elements communicated to City Council correspond to the condition of the aircraft and are in line with its intended use. Two key components of the restoration are (1) available funds and (2) volunteer time. With both of these items being hard to forecast the City would be challenged to define a formal restoration timeline or plan. As for missing parts, our focus was on the specific allegation in #1 (stablizers). As the investigators are not aeronautical engineers and the age of the plane it is not possible for us to ascertain if parts are actually missing. However, two mitigating factors were noted: 1. an independnet review of restoration progress engaged by management and the stewardship agreement that was in force and that both parties show behaviours of operating under. As such, parts, if missing, would still need to be provided by CHAA as part of the restoration to the intended use - if they were to be missing.

We noted that while historically there was a legal agreement between CHAA and the City as to the restoration and stewardship elements there is currently no formal agreement in place. Both parties appear to be operating as if the original 10 year agreement was extended.

With regards to allegation #3 ( When lease came due on CHAA space were the lease provisions followed - i.e. other proponents tried to get space but were denied however incumbent did not follow process ) we noted that:

Based on the contract wording, City communication of rate for 5 years (2015-2019) and the lessee rental payment it appears that the 3rd and final extension is in force with the lessee and the City would not have been in a position to rent the space to another party until lease term completion. In the event the lease extension is not activated lease terms revert to a month to month basis and entering into alternative space use solutions would be at the discretion of the City (with terms and covenants appropriately met) which it did not exercise. In this analysis, we were not able to locate a copy of the lessee intent to extend the lease agreement as part of the City records. Given the evidence noted, it appears that an inforce lease is in place between the City and CHAA and the property was not available for other lessors to consider, or in a more conservative interpretation - that a lease was in force on a month to month basis and the City and lessee were not interested in changes to the existing arrangement.