Jonathan Batty

Municipal integrity commissioner’s report into a former mayor’s consensual personal relationship with a staff member and related workplace, influence, and conflict-of-interest issues.

The report found no contravention of the City’s human rights policy because the relationship was consensual and the sexual harassment test was not met, but concluded the former mayor breached the human resources and ethical framework for members’ staff by failing to disclose and properly manage the relationship in the workplace.

The report also found no improper influence in securing outside employment for the staff member and no misuse of official travel or in-office advancement, but held that the former mayor breached the improper influence provision by voting on FIFA World Cup matters that had direct bearing on the staff member’s employment at MLSE while they were in a personal relationship.

No penalty was recommended because the former mayor had already resigned office.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated two complaints against a City Councillor regarding his public tweets criticizing senior City staff.

The Commissioner found that the Councillor violated the Code of Conduct by falsely injuring the professional reputation of one staff member and engaging in discreditable conduct towards both by subjecting them to public humiliation on social media.

Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the Councillor engaged in reprisal against one of the complainants during a committee meeting after being notified of the investigation.

The Commissioner recommended a reprimand and a 10-day suspension of remuneration.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a city councillor breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by interfering with the municipality's enforcement response to a restaurant operating in defiance of COVID-19 public health orders.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the councillor improperly directed municipal staff or engaged in discreditable conduct through his public statements.

The investigation found that the councillor appropriately escalated his concerns through established emergency channels and did not interfere with or direct the work of municipal staff or police on-site.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint that Councillor Josh Matlow breached the Code of Conduct by Tweeting that a committee decision was 'cowardly'.

The Commissioner found that the Tweet was directed at the collective judgement of the committee rather than the character of individual members.

As such, the Tweet constituted political rhetoric critical of a legislative outcome and did not amount to discreditable conduct.

The complaint was dismissed with no penalty recommended.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated complaints that a former City Councillor breached the Code of Conduct by improperly using his influence, engaging in discreditable conduct, and failing to adhere to Council policies.

The complaints alleged the Councillor shielded political supporters from bylaw enforcement, improperly entered constituents' homes suspected of being illegal rooming houses, and used profane language while training a staff member.

The Commissioner found insufficient evidence of improper use of influence.

However, the Commissioner found the Councillor breached the Code by entering properties without invitation, photographing residents without consent, and using highly profane and disrespectful language during staff training.

No penalty was recommended as the Councillor had already been removed from office.

The Integrity Commissioner considered whether to continue an investigation into a 2016 Code of Conduct complaint against former Toronto City Councillor Justin Di Ciano.

The investigation had been mandatorily suspended for 30 months while police investigated a related Municipal Elections Act charge, which was ultimately withdrawn.

The Commissioner terminated the investigation, finding that resuming it would serve no useful purpose given the significant delay, the fact that the respondent was no longer in office, and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a case conference order that allowed an adjuster to represent themselves and warned that failure to attend the resumed case conference would result in the application being dismissed.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision to adjourn a motion regarding three treatment plans.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

The Associate Chair declined to use the liberal interpretation provision in Rule 3 to vary Rule 18, finding that bifurcating the proceedings would cause unwarranted delay.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a preliminary motion decision that found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to a hearing on non-earner benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration because, under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of a matter.

Since other issues remained in dispute for an upcoming hearing, the motion decision did not finally dispose of the application.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision that found the applicant was limitation-barred from obtaining Income Replacement Benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the issue of catastrophic determination remained scheduled for a future hearing, the underlying decision did not finally dispose of the appeal.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's motion decision that granted the respondent's request to cross-examine the applicant on her affidavit.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant was catastrophically injured while driving a dirt bike in a closed course motocross competition.

The insurer denied his claim for accident benefits, relying on an exclusion under s. 2(1) 5 of O. Reg. 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act for vehicles driven at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association.

A preliminary motion decision found the applicant was excluded from benefits.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the adjudicator erred in statutory interpretation by applying the last antecedent rule to conclude that closed course competitions did not need to be sponsored by a motorcycle association to be exempt, and by finding that the organizing corporation qualified as a motorcycle association.

The Request for Reconsideration was granted, and the applicant was found not to be excluded from receiving accident benefits.

The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration regarding an amended decision that confirmed the quantum of a weekly income replacement benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the second request, noting that the original request had already been considered and the decision amended, and advised the applicant to pursue judicial review or an appeal if they remained in disagreement.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to have new evidence consisting of clinical notes from a doctor advising time off work due to neck pain.

The Associate Chair denied the request for reconsideration because the applicant failed to provide the actual evidence or submissions explaining why the records could not have been obtained prior to the hearing or how they would have changed the decision.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a preliminary motion decision that found they were precluded from proceeding with a claim for income replacement benefits due to a limitation period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision denying a request to strike evidence from the respondent's submissions.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration because, under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Since the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision denying a request to adjourn a hearing.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision denying a request to vary the hearing timetable.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration because, pursuant to the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Since the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision from a case conference that denied a request for a combination hearing.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that found his injuries were not minor but denied his requested treatment plans.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars of any alleged errors in law or fact, and merely asked the Tribunal to re-weigh the evidence and reach a different conclusion.

The request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.