Guy Giorno

Two residents filed a complaint alleging that a Town of Mono Councillor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by using the influence of his office to further the interests of the Bruce Trail Conservancy, of which he was a member, and by improperly sharing their correspondence.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor did not contravene the Code.

The Commissioner determined that he lacked jurisdiction to apply common law rules on bias or to conduct an inquiry under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the Councillor's reliance on his experience as a Conservancy member did not constitute an improper use of influence, and that sharing a letter published in a public council agenda did not breach confidentiality rules.

The complainant, a municipal councillor, alleged that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by creating a toxic work environment for staff and acting improperly regarding a local development project.

The Integrity Commissioner conducted a wide-ranging inquiry and found no evidence of harassment or a toxic work environment.

The Commissioner concluded that the respondents' actions, including their questioning of staff and public communications, were part of normal political debate and consistent with their roles as elected representatives.

The complaints were dismissed.

The Complainant, a municipal councillor, filed a Code of Conduct complaint against the Respondent, the Mayor, alleging that he threatened to sue her for defamation during a council meeting, which she claimed constituted bullying and intimidation.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Code of Conduct does not prohibit a member from suing or threatening to sue another member.

The Commissioner concluded that the right to bring a lawsuit is a common law right that can only be restricted by clear legislation, and an Integrity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of a defamation action or a threat to litigate.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant mayor filed applications alleging that four respondent councillors contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on a resolution to retain legal counsel to represent them in a defamation lawsuit threatened by the mayor.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondents did not have a pecuniary interest in the resolution because they were already covered by the municipality's insurance policy and indemnification by-law, meaning they faced no personal financial exposure for legal fees or potential damages.

Furthermore, the resolution itself was a nullity as the retention of counsel was a matter for the insurer and the individual councillors, not the municipal council.

The Integrity Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

An employee filed a Code of Conduct complaint alleging that three municipal councillors breached confidentiality by sharing an email the employee had sent to Council with the Chief Administrative Officer.

The employee claimed the email was protected as a whistleblower report and a workplace harassment complaint.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the email did not fall under the Fraud and Wrongdoing Policy or the Workplace Harassment Policy.

While the email contained some confidential information regarding performance appraisals, sharing it with the CAO did not contravene privacy laws or the Code of Conduct.

The complaint was dismissed.

A resident filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct by contacting the police about emails the resident had sent.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's purpose in calling the police was to silence further criticism, but concluded this did not contravene the Code.

The Commissioner determined that elected officials have the right to request police assistance, the councillor did not interfere with police independence, and the Integrity Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to second-guess a request for police assistance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a municipal employee, alleged that a city councillor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by making disrespectful and intimidating comments about him to a co-worker at an arena.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the councillor's brief comments, which referenced the complainant's prior critical social media posts, were not disrespectful or intended to intimidate.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by harassing her and misusing the influence of her office during a neighbourhood dispute over cut vines.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated the incident, which involved the councillor and another adult visiting the complainant's home multiple times.

The Commissioner found that the councillor did not use or attempt to use the influence of her office during the dispute.

Furthermore, the Commissioner determined that the Code of Conduct does not apply to a councillor's private life and personal disputes that have no connection to the municipality's interests or the councillor's official duties.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged that several municipal councillors and the mayor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by unlawfully removing and replacing committee chairs without following the Procedure By-law.

The Integrity Commissioner declined to conduct an inquiry, finding that the complaint essentially challenged the lawfulness of a council decision, which falls outside the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction and must be challenged in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Commissioner also held that the Integrity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to enforce the Procedure By-law or to penalize members for how they vote.

The complainant alleged that the Mayor contravened the Council Code of Conduct through social media posts and internal communications regarding the Fire Department's participation in a local Santa Claus parade.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's social media posts were an exercise of freedom of expression and did not breach the Code.

However, the Mayor contravened the Code by unilaterally directing the CAO to block the use of fire vehicles in the parade without Council authority, and by interfering with the Fire Chief's lawful exercise of responsibilities.

The Commissioner recommended that Council consider the Mayor's reliance on incorrect past legal advice regarding mayoral authority as a mitigating factor.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint by Councillor Scott Anderson alleging that Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows contravened the Council Code of Conduct regarding the Fire Department's participation in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

The Commissioner found that the parade was not a partisan activity and that the Deputy Mayor did not make false statements or demeaning communications.

However, the Commissioner concluded that the Deputy Mayor breached the Code by issuing directions to the CAO and Fire Chief, and by interfering with the Fire Chief's lawful duties regarding public education and the use of fire vehicles.

The Commissioner recommended that Council accept the report and consider that the Deputy Mayor felt he was acting in the Township's best interests.

The complainant, a municipal mayor, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent councillor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by organizing a local Santa Claus parade and requesting the participation of the municipal Fire Department.

The Integrity Commissioner found that organizing the parade was a private activity not subject to the Code.

Furthermore, the request for Fire Department participation did not constitute an improper use of influence or municipal resources, as the Fire Department had historically participated in the parade for public education purposes.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Mayor of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio filed a complaint against a Councillor, alleging that the Councillor breached the municipal Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by participating in a council decision to award a $750 grant to a community recreation association of which the Councillor was a member and treasurer.

The Integrity Commissioner determined that MCIA allegations cannot be enforced through a Code of Conduct complaint, as the legislature established separate, exclusive statutory processes with strict time limits for MCIA applications.

On the Code of Conduct allegations, the Commissioner found that the Councillor did not contravene the prohibition against improper use of influence, as participating in a council decision does not constitute using one's status to improperly influence another person.

The complaint was dismissed.

A former municipal employee filed Code of Conduct complaints against the Mayor and Deputy Mayor regarding workplace treatment.

During the inquiry, the complainant signed a release covering all employment-related claims, including harassment, against the municipality and its council members.

The Integrity Commissioner exercised his discretion under the Municipal Act to terminate the inquiry and dismiss the complaints, finding that continuing the investigation was not in the public interest or a prudent use of municipal resources given the signed release.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, the Mayor of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, contravened the Council Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed session meeting to the news media.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent disclosed the substance of deliberations from a closed meeting regarding a development agreement with an aggregate company.

The Commissioner concluded that the Respondent breached sections 6.4.1 a) and d) of the Code of Conduct by releasing confidential information.

The Commissioner recommended that Council adopt the findings of the report but did not recommend any additional penalty.

The complainant alleged that the respondent councillor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by making a body-shaming comment ('Let's see what Big Rhonda has to say') during a virtual town council meeting.

The respondent acknowledged that he made the intentional comment, which was inadvertently broadcast because he failed to mute his microphone.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent contravened the Code of Conduct and recommended that Town Council issue a reprimand.

The complainant alleged that two municipal councillors contravened the Council Code of Conduct during a town council meeting.

The inquiry concerning the second councillor was discontinued due to a lack of specific allegations.

The first councillor acknowledged contravening the Code by making an inappropriate body-shaming comment that was inadvertently broadcast.

The Integrity Commissioner found that he lacked jurisdiction to recommend the councillor's removal from the position of Deputy Mayor, as the Municipal Act limits penalties to a reprimand or a suspension of pay.

The Commissioner recommended that the town council issue a reprimand.

A municipal councillor filed a Code of Conduct complaint against another councillor and the mayor.

The complaint alleged that the respondent councillor made a body-shaming comment during a virtual council meeting while his microphone was unmuted, and that the mayor failed to address a history of bad behaviour.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the allegations against the mayor were out of time and dismissed them.

The respondent councillor acknowledged contravening the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner recommended that the municipal council issue a reprimand.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a self-reported complaint by a municipal councillor regarding a body-shaming comment he made during a virtual council meeting while his microphone was unmuted.

The councillor acknowledged that his comment contravened section 4.1 of the Council Code of Conduct, which requires members to treat others without abuse, bullying, or intimidation.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the comment was intentional, though inadvertently broadcast, and recommended that Town Council issue a reprimand.

The Complainant alleged that a County Councillor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by improperly using County resources to establish a trail network, failing to deposit gifted historic bridge remnants with the County museum, and accepting hospitality from local businesses.

Following an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The Commissioner found no evidence that the Councillor received personal gifts or hospitality, nor that he improperly directed County resources or staff.

The Councillor's involvement in local heritage and community initiatives was found to be within the natural course of his duties.