Guy Giorno

The complainant alleged that members of the municipal council breached the Code of Conduct by going into a closed meeting to conceal the truth about consulting fees incurred in a legal proceeding, thereby deceiving the public.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while he lacked jurisdiction to determine if the closed meeting violated the Municipal Act, he could consider the Code of Conduct allegations.

The Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct did not contain a rule against concealing the truth or deceiving the public, and even if it did, there was no evidence that the council members deliberately misled or deceived the public.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant, a former police sergeant suffering from PTSD treated with medical cannabis, filed a Code of Conduct complaint against the Respondent, a Regional Councillor.

The complaint alleged that the Respondent made an inappropriate joke regarding the Complainant's medical cannabis use at a Police Services Board meeting.

The Respondent acknowledged the comment, admitted it was insensitive, and issued an immediate apology.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that while the comment was uncalled for, the immediate apology and the circumstances did not warrant a formal finding of contravention.

The report was presented to Regional Council to serve as a public record without a finding of contravention.

A complaint was filed against a municipal council member alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct by attempting to use the influence of office to benefit an outside business.

The alleged incident occurred in 2014 or 2015, before the Code of Conduct took effect in 2016.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct cannot have retroactive effect and therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor and several Councillors breached the municipal Code of Conduct in connection with their consideration of an investigation report and the decision to indemnify a Councillor for expenses related to a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding no contravention of the Code.

The Commissioner noted that the allegations regarding the indemnification by-law related to procedural steps not covered by the Code, and that the conflict of interest allegations were made well outside the statutory time limits.

The Commissioner recommended amending the Code to impose a three-month time limit on complaints.

The Township's Treasurer filed a complaint alleging that a Councillor (now Mayor) contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by publicly criticizing her during an election campaign.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent did not contravene the Code, as the comments were made in the context of an election campaign and were part of a larger narrative advocating for change.

The Commissioner emphasized that the Code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with democratic rights, including the right of candidates to express political opinions and challenge the status quo.

The Complainant alleged that Councillor Ernie Peplinski breached the Township's Code of Conduct by making discriminatory and harassing comments during a committee meeting regarding the Complainant not being from the local area.

The Complainant also alleged reprisal and a breach of the Code for the Respondent accepting legal representation from the Township's lawyer.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the comments about the Complainant's lack of local roots did not constitute discrimination based on "place of origin" under the Human Rights Code, as place of origin refers to an inherent characteristic from birth, not current residence or length of time in a community.

The Commissioner also dismissed the harassment, reprisal, and conflict of interest allegations, finding no breach of the Code of Conduct.

A city councillor filed a Code of Conduct complaint against a regional councillor after an anonymous envelope containing derogatory comments was slipped under his office door.

The regional councillor acknowledged printing the document for her files but denied delivering it.

She subsequently filed a cross-complaint alleging the initial complaint constituted harassment.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed both complaints, finding insufficient evidence to prove who delivered the envelope, and ruling that a good faith Code of Conduct complaint cannot itself form the basis of a retaliatory harassment complaint.

The Complainant alleged that Councillor Shelley Maika breached the municipal Code of Conduct by making an inaccurate statement about asbestos in a heritage railway station during a committee meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Code of Conduct process is not suited to policing the truth of political speech, and that any inaccuracies should be addressed through political debate.

The Commissioner dismissed the allegations of abuse of power, prejudicing the provision of services, and accepting services from a municipality-paid individual, concluding that the Councillor did not contravene the Code.

The complainant, Regional Councillor Gael Miles, filed a complaint against Councillor Pat Fortini alleging that his public and social media comments regarding the City's purchase of the Riverstone Golf and Country Club contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the respondent's statements violated rules concerning accurate communication of Council decisions, discreditable conduct, and respect for staff.

The Commissioner found that the majority of the respondent's comments were expressions of political opinion rather than factual claims, and thus could not be deemed false or misleading.

The Commissioner concluded that the respondent was exercising his democratic right to dissent and explain his vote, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

A city councillor filed a complaint against two other councillors, alleging they breached the Council Code of Conduct regarding impartiality and conduct respecting staff.

The respondents had family members in the local fire fighters' association and participated in council decisions regarding fire services.

The Integrity Commissioner found no breach of the Code's provisions on granting special consideration or respecting staff.

While the respondents had personal interests that affected their impartiality under common law principles, the wording of the Code did not clearly require recusal in these circumstances.

The Commissioner recommended amending the Code to explicitly require recusal when a personal interest affects impartiality.

Two complaints were filed with the Integrity Commissioner alleging that several members of the City of Dryden Council breached the Council Code of Conduct during a public policy debate regarding the provision of fire services and the enforcement of an alcohol policy at the fire hall.

The Complainants alleged that the Council members engaged in bullying, harassment, and differential treatment of volunteer firefighters.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the issues raised pertained to a public policy debate and that the Council members' conduct did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a volunteer and former president of a local tennis club, filed a complaint against a municipal councillor alleging that comments made by the councillor during a committee meeting breached the municipal Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's comments were inaccurate and warranted an apology.

However, the Commissioner concluded that he lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, as conduct during council and committee meetings is governed by the municipality's Procedural By-law and should be enforced by the presiding officer.

In the alternative, the Commissioner found that the comments did not amount to abuse of power, harassment, verbal abuse, or a breach of the Code's substantive provisions.

The Commissioner recommended that the municipal council apologize to the complainant and that council members receive training on enforcing meeting decorum.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report regarding a Code of Conduct complaint against a Council Member.

The investigation had been suspended pending a related Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) proceeding.

Following a settlement in the HRTO matter, the municipality's counsel argued the settlement barred further Integrity Commissioner proceedings.

The Integrity Commissioner held that the municipality is not a party to Code of Conduct complaints and cannot settle them.

Emphasizing the statutory requirement for independence, the Commissioner determined the HRTO settlement did not bind the Code proceeding and ordered the investigation to resume.

The Integrity Commissioner for the City of Brampton issued an interim report regarding two complaints filed against two Council Members.

The Commissioner noted that the investigations were ongoing and complex, and that the parties in the two complaints were reversed.

The report outlined the fair and balanced process followed in investigating Code of Conduct complaints and indicated that the investigations would be completed as quickly as possible.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report regarding a complaint that a municipal councillor breached the Code of Conduct's decorum rules while handling a noise complaint.

The complainant alleged the councillor made disparaging remarks about them to local residents.

The investigation could not be completed because a key witness identified by the complainant could not be reached despite repeated attempts.

The Commissioner ordered the investigation file to remain open until the witness could be contacted.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated two cross-complaints between the Mayor and a City Councillor.

The Mayor alleged the Councillor breached the Code of Conduct's harassment and decorum rules by forwarding an email from a resident that contained satirical and allegedly harassing comments about the Mayor's stance on water fluoridation.

The Councillor alleged the Mayor breached the decorum rule by publicly criticizing his previous email communications.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed both complaints, finding the Mayor's public statements were decorous and proper, the Councillor's single email did not constitute a course of conduct required for harassment, and the Councillor's forwarded email was political satire outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction to regulate.

The complainant, a municipal councillor, alleged that the respondent, another councillor, contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council during a committee meeting by making inappropriate comments and failing to act with decorum.

The Integrity Commissioner found that jurisdiction over statements made during meetings likely falls under the municipality's Procedure By-law rather than the Code of Conduct.

In the alternative, the Commissioner found that both parties contributed to the verbal altercation and declined to single out the respondent for a breach of decorum.

The harassment allegation was dismissed as a single incident does not constitute a course of conduct.

The complaint was dismissed.

An individual filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor breached the Code of Conduct by interfering with a zoning by-law investigation and improperly using the influence of her office.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor contravened section 8.3(c) of the Code by sending an email that inappropriately attempted to influence the by-law enforcement process.

However, the Commissioner found no contravention of section 13.1 regarding improper use of influence, and made no finding on the alleged disclosure of confidential information.

The Commissioner recommended that Council adopt the finding of a contravention but impose no penalty.

An unnamed complainant alleged that the Respondent, Warden Jennifer Murphy, breached the Council Code of Conduct by threatening a reprisal.

The Respondent had sent Facebook messages to a family member of the complainant, stating her intention to sue the complainant.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent's threat of litigation constituted a reprisal under the Code of Conduct, regardless of whether the original complaint was upheld.

However, given that the Respondent acknowledged the error and apologized to the family member, the Commissioner recommended that no penalty be imposed.

The Complainant, the Town Clerk and Director of By-law Enforcement, alleged that the Mayor breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct in his dealings with By-law Enforcement staff.

The allegations primarily stemmed from the Mayor's social media posts and emails regarding the removal of a public piano, as well as an interaction concerning an accessible parking ticket.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's interpretation of Council's direction regarding the piano was reasonable and that his communications did not constitute directing staff, bullying, or improperly influencing the administration of justice.

The complaint was dismissed, with the Commissioner noting that while some of the Mayor's words could have been more carefully chosen, no Code contraventions occurred.