David G. Boghosian

An anonymous complainant filed an integrity complaint against five male councillors of Haldimand County, alleging gender-based discrimination and harassment against female government representatives, including the Mayor and the local MPP.

The Integrity Commissioner also investigated a comment made by the Mayor.

The Commissioner dismissed the allegations of gender-based discrimination, finding no evidence that the male councillors' actions regarding a Minister's Zoning Order, a volunteer recognition night, or a letter excluding the MPP from delegations were motivated by gender bias.

The Commissioner also dismissed the complaint against Councillor O'Neill and the Mayor.

However, the Commissioner found that Councillor Shirton breached the Council/Staff Protocol, and thereby the Code of Conduct, by making inappropriate comments ("stop drinking the Kool-aid" and "out of her mind") towards a fellow councillor and the Mayor during meetings.

The Commissioner recommended that Councillor Shirton be reprimanded and issue a public apology.

A resident filed a complaint alleging that the Mayor's Executive Assistant breached the Code of Conduct by attending a property standards inspection of a neighbour's property, thereby improperly influencing Town staff.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the Mayor did not direct her assistant to attend and was unaware of it beforehand.

Furthermore, the assistant did not attempt to influence the inspectors during the visit.

The complaint was dismissed as no violation of the Code of Conduct occurred.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated complaints against two municipal councillors regarding their public comments about the Chief Administrative Officer's (CAO) decision to grant salary increases to senior management.

The Commissioner found that one councillor breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from in-camera meetings, making false and misleading statements, and improperly injuring the professional reputation of the CAO.

A 20-day suspension of remuneration and a public apology were recommended.

The complaint against the second councillor was dismissed, as his comments did not disclose confidential information or improperly criticize staff.

The complainant, a municipal manager, filed a complaint against the respondent, a member of the City's Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities, alleging he falsely accused her of forging a policy document.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and determined that the committee was a local board and the respondent's conduct fell under the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner found that the respondent breached the Code by maliciously and falsely impugning the complainant's professional reputation.

The Commissioner recommended the respondent's immediate removal from the committee and a requirement to publicly apologize.

A complaint was filed against a municipal councillor alleging that he made culturally insensitive and divisive comments during a committee meeting regarding how South Asians use parks.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that while section 1(a) of the Code of Conduct was not breached, the councillor's comments created an 'us vs. them' dichotomy and failed to meet the standard of decorum required by section 8.1.

The Commissioner recommended that the councillor make a public apology and that all members of council undergo cultural sensitivity training.

The complainant filed a Code of Conduct complaint against a municipal councillor regarding a tweet he posted criticizing her acceptance speech at an awards event.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Code's general statements of principle are not independently enforceable, the requirement for decorum under section 8(1) applies to social media communications.

The Commissioner concluded that the councillor's tweet, which referred to the complainant as an 'ungrateful, self-righteous toddler', constituted an ad hominem attack that failed to meet the required standard of decorum.

However, given mitigating factors including the prompt removal of the tweet and a public apology, the Commissioner recommended no formal penalty.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint by the Town of Fort Frances against a councillor for alleged violations of the Code of Conduct.

The investigation found that the councillor repeatedly violated the open meeting principle by conducting council business via email, engaged in bullying and intimidation of fellow councillors, harassed and improperly directed town staff, attempted to influence a Committee of Adjustment decision, and improperly forwarded confidential information to a personal email account.

The Commissioner recommended a cumulative 55-day suspension of pay, a formal reprimand, a public apology, and the hiring of a workplace facilitator to restore council relations.

An anonymous complainant alleged that a municipal councillor violated the Code of Conduct by incurring excessive cellphone roaming charges while residing out of the country.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the complaint regarding the 2022 expenses was barred by the 60-day limitation period.

Regarding the 2023 expenses, the Commissioner concluded that while the charges were high, they did not amount to waste, abuse, or extravagance under the Code of Conduct, noting that there was no set limit on cellphone expenses and the councillor's overall expenses were only the fourth highest on Council.

The complaint was dismissed.

The City of Hamilton Council submitted a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner regarding an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.

The complaint alleged that confidential information from closed session meetings of the Selection Committee regarding Committee of Adjustment appointments was leaked.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found on a balance of probabilities that a disclosure of confidential information by a member of the Selection Committee did occur.

However, the Integrity Commissioner was unable to determine the source of the leaked information to the applicable legal standard, and the investigation was concluded without identifying the responsible councillor.

City Council submitted a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct regarding the disclosure of confidential information from the Hamilton Police Services Board Selection Committee.

The complaint alleged that an applicant was informed about the status of their application prior to any public announcement.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated by interviewing several councillors and committee members.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the Commissioner was unable to conclude whether a leak of confidential information occurred or, if it did, who was responsible.

The investigation was concluded without any findings of misconduct.

The CAO of the City of Greater Sudbury filed a complaint alleging that three municipal councillors breached the Code of Conduct by participating in a public meeting where defamatory statements were made about City staff.

The Integrity Commissioner found that Councillor Leduc breached the Code by publicly disclosing the personal relationship of two City employees, recommending a 30-day suspension of remuneration.

Councillor Montpellier was found to have breached the Code by asking a rhetorical question that impugned staff competence, resulting in a recommended 10-day suspension.

The complaint against Councillor Vagnini was dismissed as his comments did not impugn staff.