Guy Giorno

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by using a racial slur during a committee meeting and by engaging in harassment depicted in a group photograph.

The Integrity Commissioner discontinued the investigation into the photograph because no individual present or involved in the photo had complained.

Regarding the committee meeting, the Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's use of the term 'Indian giver' was inappropriate and wrong, noting that the Mayor had acknowledged the error and apologized.

The Commissioner recommended that Council provide an opportunity for a formal apology and schedule anti-racism education for Council members.

The applicant alleged that the respondent municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and voting on a by-law to reduce the speed limit on the road where she resides.

The Integrity Commissioner found that any potential economic effects on property values or insurance rates were speculative and remote, and did not constitute a real and present pecuniary interest.

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

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and participating in a vote regarding a lease agreement with a baseball club of which the Respondent was a member.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the club was donating a portable building to the Township and neither incurred a financial obligation nor received a financial benefit.

Because the club had no pecuniary interest in the matter, the Respondent had no indirect pecuniary interest.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent Mayor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from a vote regarding an interim report by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor did not have a pecuniary interest in the interim report, as any potential financial impact was speculative and remote.

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

A municipal councillor filed a code of conduct complaint against another councillor, alleging that his social media posts were derogatory, contained factual inaccuracies, and released confidential information from a closed session.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding that the posts did not release confidential information and did not reach the threshold of discriminatory or demeaning language under the Code.

The Commissioner emphasized that the Code does not prohibit political dissent or authorize the policing of factual accuracy in political speech.

The Township Council requested an inquiry into whether Councillor Berndt contravened the Code of Conduct regarding the 2018 municipal election recount.

The allegations involved inappropriate communications with a recount official and advocating for the destruction of ballots.

The Integrity Commissioner found insufficient evidence to support the allegations and concluded that the Councillor did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated four complaints arising from statements made by members of the Township of Amaranth Council during meetings.

Deputy Mayor Gerrits alleged that Mayor Currie and Councillor Tijssen contravened the Code of Conduct through their prepared remarks, and also requested an investigation into his own remarks.

The Integrity Commissioner found no contraventions of the Code of Conduct, concluding that the statements constituted political speech and criticism of the members' records in office.

The Commissioner emphasized that the Code of Conduct is not intended to silence political debate or act as a referee for political speech.

An elector applied for an inquiry alleging that the Mayor of Oshawa contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a decision to fund a project jointly sponsored by the Downtown BIA and Carea Community Health Centre, where the Mayor's spouse was employed.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Mayor had a deemed indirect pecuniary interest due to his spouse's employment, the interest was so remote and insignificant under s. 4(k) of the Act that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence him.

Applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Ferri v. Ontario, the Commissioner considered subjective factors, including the Mayor's good faith and the public interest nature of the initiative, and declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Mayor filed a complaint alleging that a Councillor contravened section 11 of the Council Code of Conduct by pressuring a municipal board to pay an extra $300 to a musician without a written contract or proper meeting procedure.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Councillor's actions in convening an informal meeting and rushing a financial decision were improper and irresponsible, they did not constitute an unethical use of influence for personal gain or for a friend.

The complaint was dismissed as the conduct did not fall within the specific prohibitions of the Code.

The Applicant, Mayor Debbie Bath-Hadden, alleged that the Respondent, Councillor Cria Pettingill, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by influencing a decision of the Wilfrid Hall Board to pay an extra $300 to a musician.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent had no financial interest in the matter and did not benefit personally.

As there was no pecuniary interest, the Act did not apply.

The Integrity Commissioner decided not to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a Deputy Mayor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by failing to file a written statement after declaring a conflict of interest during a closed session of council regarding a workplace investigation.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter, but rather a potential non-pecuniary interest related to being a potential witness.

Because the MCIA only applies to pecuniary interests, the respondent's actions were governed by common law principles of bias, not the MCIA.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded there was no contravention of the MCIA and declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The Mayor of Centre Wellington filed an Integrity Commissioner complaint against a Councillor, alleging that an email sent by the Councillor to citizens contravened the Code of Conduct.

The email criticized a proposed Code of Conduct and Council-Staff Relations Policy, and mentioned an upcoming performance review of the CAO.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor's mention of the CAO's performance review was an error for which the Councillor apologized.

However, the Commissioner dismissed the allegations of intimidation, impugning reputation, and using abusive language, finding that the email constituted protected political speech and that the Integrity Commissioner should not act as a referee for political debate.

The Commissioner recommended that Council accept the Councillor's apology regarding the confidential information.

The applicant alleged that the respondent city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a staff report on land use options for the South Field of the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The applicant argued that the respondent's parents owned property near the airport and that the land use decision could indirectly affect the airport's viability and, consequently, the parents' property value.

The Integrity Commissioner found that any potential effect on the parents' property value was indirect, hypothetical, and speculative, and did not constitute a real or present pecuniary interest.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that the respondent did not contravene the Act and declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The Integrity Commissioner received a complaint alleging that a Council Member breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed session meeting to the media.

During the inquiry, the Commissioner sought to interview the Township's lawyer and access his notes from the closed session to determine what was discussed.

The lawyer refused, citing settlement and litigation privilege.

The Commissioner paused the inquiry and issued an interim report to Council, asserting that the Municipal Act grants the Commissioner free access to all necessary information and that any privilege belongs to the Township, not its lawyers, requesting Council to resolve the impasse.

The applicant alleged that the respondent municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and participating in the appointment of his business associate to the Police Services Board.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the appointee had a pecuniary interest in her own appointment, she was a co-shareholder and co-director of a corporation with the respondent, not a 'partner' within the legal meaning of the MCIA.

Therefore, the respondent did not have an indirect pecuniary interest in the appointment.

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

The applicant alleged that a municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a zoning application for a grain processing plant.

The councillor and her husband own a farm that grows grain primarily for livestock feed.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's interest was speculative and remote, not real and present, as the farm did not currently sell grain to the applicant and had no plans to do so.

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

The Integrity Commissioner issued a supplementary report regarding a Code of Conduct complaint against a municipal councillor.

The complaint related to a nine-word sentence spoken by the councillor, for which he had apologized.

The Complainant raised numerous procedural questions and requests, many of which fell outside the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The Commissioner confirmed that because the facts were not in dispute, no further witness interviews were necessary, and concluded that the investigative process was fair, objective, independent, and thorough.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, a former municipal councillor, breached the municipal Code of Conduct during a verbal altercation at the Township office.

The Integrity Commissioner found that both the Complainant and the Respondent engaged in yelling, swearing, and a physical struggle over a door.

Because both parties contributed to the incident and shared responsibility, the Commissioner concluded it would be unreasonable to find that only the Respondent contravened the Code.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner alleging that municipal council members failed to respond to correspondence or schedule a meeting with the 2018 Canada Day Committee, and that the CAO/OM contravened the Respect in the Workplace Policy.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding that the Code of Conduct does not govern how council members respond to correspondence, which is a political matter.

Furthermore, the Integrity Commissioner concluded there was no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the CAO/OM under the Respect in the Workplace Policy.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor breached the Council Code of Conduct by excluding volunteer committee members from a Christmas party and by allowing staff to unfairly criticize her use of a Township credit card.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint without a full inquiry, finding insufficient grounds.

The Commissioner held that excluding volunteers from a party does not violate the Code's human rights provisions, the Mayor is not responsible for staff reports, and the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over complaints against municipal employees under the Employee Code of Conduct.