Robert Marleau

Municipal integrity commissioner’s inquiry report concerning allegations that a councillor’s employment and consulting relationships with a planning consultant and the consultant’s daughter created an apparent non-pecuniary conflict of interest in the municipal planning process.

The report held that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act did not apply because there was no evidence of a qualifying pecuniary interest, but concluded that the Code of Conduct did apply to apparent conflict, transparency, and benefits.

The commissioner found that the respondent’s recruitment of the consultant’s daughter, subsequent sole-sourced contracts with the consultant’s firm, lack of a formal conflict screen, and acceptance of unpaid services during a four-month contractual gap created a reasonable apprehension of preferential access and conflict.

The report found breaches of ss. 4(1), 4(5), 13(2), and 13(3) of the Code of Conduct, and recommended sanctions including reprimand, committee removals, a 15-day suspension of remuneration, amendment of the gifts registry, reimbursement of legal fees, and broader governance reforms.

This integrity commissioner report addressed two formal complaints by former staff members alleging sexualized interview conduct, harassment, intimidation, and manipulation by a municipal councillor.

The report applied the balance of probabilities standard and a similar fact evidence framework, relying on sworn witness evidence, documentary records, and the respondent’s public denial after he declined to participate in the inquiry.

The decision-maker found that the respondent repeatedly objectified female staff, fostered a toxic and fear-based workplace, and breached Sections 4 and 7 of the municipal Code of Conduct in relation to both complaints.

Section 10 was held inapplicable on the interpretation adopted.

The report recommended consecutive 90-day suspensions of remuneration and further governance restrictions.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated three formal complaints against a City of Ottawa Councillor regarding his conduct during job interviews.

The complainants alleged that the Councillor made inappropriate and sexual comments, including asking if they would go bra-less or consider stripping, and showed inappropriate photographs.

The Councillor denied the allegations publicly but refused to participate in the investigation.

The Commissioner found the complainants credible and concluded that the Councillor breached Sections 4 and 7 of the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner recommended a 90-day suspension of remuneration for each of the three complaints.

Two members of the public filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct by improperly obtaining and using personal information, and by harassing them.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found no breach of the confidentiality provisions, as the information was publicly available.

However, the Commissioner found that the councillor breached the harassment provisions by sending an email to the Chief of Police that identified the complainant as the spouse of a police officer and baselessly implied the officer was sharing internal information.

The Commissioner recommended a reprimand and a formal apology.