Guy Giorno

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a minor variance application.

The property owners' agent was the son of the Respondent's separated spouse.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the agent had a pecuniary interest, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the agent as a child of her family.

Therefore, the agent was not a 'child' under the Act, the Respondent did not have a deemed pecuniary interest, and the Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, the Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, contravened the Council Code of Conduct by acting aggressively, bullying, and using offensive language toward her during a committee meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent was exercising his authority as chair to maintain order and decorum when the complainant strayed off-topic and accused the committee of having pre-determined the application.

The Commissioner concluded that the respondent's conduct was assertive but not aggressive, hostile, or unprofessional, and dismissed the complaint.

The Regional Clerk filed a complaint alleging that two municipal councillors breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information during an open council meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the information was not from a closed meeting, it was confidential and its disclosure was unauthorized.

However, the Commissioner recommended no sanctions, noting mitigating factors including the challenges of virtual meetings, the complex circumstances, and the fact that the Regional Chair had already ruled the disclosure out of order during the meeting.

The Council of the Township of Centre Wellington requested an inquiry into whether Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen breached the Code of Conduct by joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus and publicly stating that COVID-19 lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the provincial government had not quantified the impacts of its lockdown measures, making the councillor's statement a matter of political opinion rather than a demonstrable falsehood.

The Commissioner concluded that expressing such political opinions, defending constitutional values, and criticizing provincial policy choices did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

The inquiry found no evidence that the councillor interfered with law enforcement or urged people to break the law.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint alleging that the Mayor of Orangeville contravened the Code of Conduct by issuing a public letter announcing his resignation from the Police Services Board and criticizing the Board's Chair.

The Commissioner found that the factual claims in the letter could not be disproved and that the remaining portions constituted political opinion.

The Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct does not regulate political speech or opinions, and therefore the Mayor's letter did not contravene the Code.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor of Orangeville contravened the municipal Code of Conduct through a series of Facebook posts concerning the trial and acquittal of a former police officer.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the Mayor made false statements, failed to treat people with respect, or engaged in bullying and harassment.

The Commissioner found that the factual portions of the Mayor's posts were accurate and the opinion portions were made in good faith on a matter of public interest.

The Commissioner concluded that the Mayor did not contravene the Code of Conduct and recommended that Council consider whether the Code should continue to police the truth of political speech.

The Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Peterborough filed a complaint against the Mayor, alleging contraventions of the municipal Code of Conduct.

The complainant alleged the Mayor improperly pressured her to retire early and spoke disrespectfully about staff regarding delays in an affordable housing report.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's inquiries about retirement were pursuant to a Council mandate and did not constitute improper influence or harassment.

The Commissioner also found that the Mayor's comments regarding the housing report were a call to action on an urgent issue, not a disrespectful attack on staff.

The complaint was dismissed with no contraventions found.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, a municipal councillor, breached the Code of Conduct by making inappropriate comments during a committee meeting and spreading falsehoods in the community about the complainant's business.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the committee meeting comments were already addressed by the meeting chair and the respondent had publicly apologized, declining to exercise jurisdiction over them.

The Commissioner also found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of falsehoods spread in the community.

The complaint was dismissed.

Two municipal councillors filed complaints against the Mayor, alleging he contravened the Code of Conduct during a closed council meeting by using abusive language and threatening to resign.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Mayor's language was obviously a breach of decorum, the presiding officer of a meeting is typically in the best position to address such conduct.

Given the unique circumstances, including the fact that the Mayor was the presiding officer and had left the meeting, the Commissioner concluded that the comments contravened the Code but recommended that Council receive the report and determine what steps, if any, to take.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor of Peterborough contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by posting tweets containing profanity and offensive language directed at politicians and attendees of an anti-lockdown protest.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's tweets were personal actions not subject to the Charter.

The Commissioner declined to inquire into harassment allegations on behalf of non-complaining politicians and found that the tweets did not constitute harassment of the protest attendees.

Furthermore, the Commissioner held that the use of profanity as emotive political expression did not amount to indecent, abusive, or insulting words, nor did it constitute bullying or intimidation under the Code of Conduct.

The complaint was dismissed.

Fourteen individuals filed complaints alleging that the Mayor of Amaranth contravened the municipal Code of Conduct through comments made during a council meeting and in subsequent media interviews regarding the flying of a Pride flag.

The Integrity Commissioner conducted a single inquiry into the complaints.

The Commissioner found that the Mayor's comments were hurtful and came across as hateful, but noted that the Mayor subsequently apologized, retracted the comments, and completed diversity training.

The Commissioner clarified that the decision not to fly the flag was a collective council failure, not the Mayor's unilateral decision, and made recommendations to the council regarding diversity training and complaint procedures.

Twelve employees of the City of Oshawa's Finance Services Department filed a complaint against a municipal councillor, alleging she contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by making disrespectful and impugning comments about staff during a Finance Committee meeting and a City Council meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's comments, which advocated for changes to the presentation of corporate payment reports and questioned financial oversight, did not amount to a breach of the Code.

The Commissioner also noted that the Committee Chair had already addressed the councillor's conduct during the meeting, and it was not the Integrity Commissioner's role to duplicate the presiding officer's enforcement of meeting decorum.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council decision regarding the heritage designation of a local bridge.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest because his nearby businesses would benefit from the bridge's replacement.

The Integrity Commissioner found that any potential increase in business revenue was speculative and hypothetical, and therefore did not constitute a pecuniary interest.

The Commissioner concluded there was no basis to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a Business Improvement Area board decision to co-fund a local concert series in which his son performed.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor had a deemed pecuniary interest because it was reasonably foreseeable that the decision would lead to additional paid performances for his son.

However, applying binding Court of Appeal precedent, the Commissioner concluded the interest was exempt from disclosure under section 4(k) of the Act because the councillor acted in good faith to support the community and was not motivated by his son's financial interest.

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

The complainant alleged that the Mayor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by failing to dispatch a by-law officer to investigate a property standards complaint regarding a neighbouring property.

The complainant also insinuated that the Mayor had an undisclosed personal interest in the property.

The Integrity Commissioner found no evidence of any personal interest.

The Commissioner further held that the Mayor had no authority to personally direct by-law enforcement officers, as law enforcement must remain independent of political direction.

The complaint was dismissed and no contravention of the Code was found.

The Complainant, a former Auditor General of the City of Oshawa, alleged that the Respondent Councillor breached the municipal Code of Conduct by participating in Council decisions regarding the City's response to the Complainant's judicial review application.

The Complainant argued the Councillor had a private interest in defending previous Council decisions he had supported.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor did not contravene the Code, as the decisions were collective actions of Council and duly enacted by-laws of the municipal corporation, not the personal decisions of the Councillor.

Consequently, the Councillor had no disqualifying private advantage or personal interest in the matter.

The applicant alleged that the respondent city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council decision regarding the regulation of payday loan establishments while serving as a director of a local credit union.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the credit union did not have a real and present pecuniary interest in the regulation of payday lenders, as any potential competitive advantage or future regulatory impact was speculative and remote.

Consequently, the councillor did not have an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter.

The application was dismissed, and the Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct by attempting to interfere with the independence of municipal law enforcement officers.

The councillor had emailed the Director of Municipal Law Enforcement requesting that enforcement actions against a volunteer group distributing food in a city park be put on hold.

The Commissioner found that the email constituted an improper attempt to influence and interfere with law enforcement, contravening section 15 of the Code.

However, the Commissioner concluded that the contravention resulted from an error of judgment made in good faith, as the councillor was motivated by a desire to help the homeless, and recommended that no penalty be imposed.

The Integrity Commissioner issued a supplementary report addressing a claim by Councillor Mercer's lawyer that her Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor White had been withdrawn prior to the issuance of the initial report.

The Commissioner found that the 2020 complaint had never been withdrawn, noting that a previous 2019 complaint was withdrawn months earlier.

The Commissioner concluded that the complainant's description of events was unreliable and affirmed the findings of the initial report.

The Complainant, a municipal councillor, alleged that the Mayor breached the municipal Code of Conduct by interfering with her communications with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and by treating her with hostility and disrespect during a council meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and dismissed the complaint, finding the allegations unsupported by the evidence.

The Commissioner concluded that the Mayor's request for a one-window communication approach with the Commission did not prevent the Complainant from doing her job, and that the Complainant herself had acted provocatively and disrespectfully during the council meeting in question.