Tyson Hinschberger

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a council decision on the local community centre.

The Respondent owned residential property near the centre, and his wife had an interest in a nearby commercial property.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the council's decision to renovate the existing arena, rather than close it or change its use, did not have a real and present potential to affect the value of the Respondent's properties.

Furthermore, even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was so remote and insignificant that it fell under the exception in section 4(k) of the Act.

The Integrity Commissioner declined 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 failing to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from voting on a 10-year capital forecast concerning a local community centre.

The respondent owned a home approximately 140 metres from the community centre.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent did not have a real and present pecuniary interest, as the potential impact of the community centre's continued use on the respondent's property value was speculative.

Furthermore, even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the respondent, particularly given his good faith and focus on the community's best interests.

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