City of Toronto Integrity Commissioner, David Mullan
Citation: Lyras v. Heaps, 2008 ONMIC 2
Date: 2008-09-08
REPORT ON REJECTION OF COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal council and, in most cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal Council. Therefore, reference should be made to the minutes of each particular municipal council to obtain information about the particular council's consideration of each report. When possible, a link to the relevant municipal council minutes is provided.
Please find below the link to the corresponding council decision. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2008.CC24.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY. 3
RECOMMENDATIONS.. 3
FINANCIAL IMPACT. 3
DECISION HISTORY. 3
ISSUE BACKGROUND.. 3
COMMENTS.. 4
CONTACT. 4
SIGNATURE.. 4
ATTACHMENTS.. 4
APPENDIX I 5
SUMMARY
A member of the public complained that Councillor Adrian Heaps had violated the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (“Code of Conduct”). I rejected that complaint. Section 7(3) of Part B of the Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol (“Complaint Protocol”) provides that only “in exceptional circumstances” will the Integrity Commissioner report to Council when he has dismissed a complaint. In this instance, the Councillor has legitimately exercised the option of making the report available to the media. Once that took place, it was my view that the report on the complaint should become an official public document on the Integrity Commissioner’s website. This corresponded with the wishes of the Councillor. The only way of accomplishing this and dealing with these “exceptional circumstances” is for the Integrity Commissioner to report on the complaint to Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council receive this report for information.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This report will have no financial impact.
DECISION HISTORY
The complaint in this matter was filed on May 20, 2008. I dismissed the complaint in a report dated August 18, 2008 and forwarded my report on the complaint to the parties through the City Clerk as provided for in Section 9 of the Complaint Protocol. The existence of this report became public knowledge through the media some time in the week of September 1, 2008.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
The complainant, John Lyras sought a compliance audit of Councillor Heaps’ 2006 election campaign expenditures as provided for in the Municipal Elections Act. He continues to pursue this matter in the courts. Subsequently, he alleged that Councillor Heaps violated Article VIII of the Code of Conduct by improperly influencing staff on the disposition of a property that Mr. Lyras had wanted to purchase from the City. There was no evidence to support that allegation and I rejected the complaint.
At the time, I determined that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a report to Council on the complaint other than as part of “an annual or other periodic report”: Section 7(3) of the Complaint Protocol. As a consequence, the report would not be a public document unless one of the parties chose to make it so, there being no statutory or other prohibition on that course of action. Otherwise, it is only reports to Council on complaints that become public documents: City of Toronto Act, 2006, section 162(3).
When Councillor Heaps revealed the report to the media, it raised for me the issue whether there were now exceptional circumstances justifying a report to Council on this complaint.
COMMENTS
If a party to a complaint of violation of the Code of Conduct chooses to exercise her or his right to reveal a report, any part of a report, or information about its contents to the media, there is no longer any reason to otherwise preserve the privacy of that report. Indeed, where the revelation is partial or incomplete, it may be absolutely critical to the interests of the parties and the process to ensure that the full report is publicly and officially available. In this instance, there is the added dimension that this complaint involved allegations that the Councillor had acted vindictively because the complainant had exercised his civil right to seek a compliance audit of the Councillor’s 2006 election campaign expenses, a proceeding that has been reported widely in the media. It is therefore understandable that the Councillor would want any suggestion of that put to rest publicly. In those circumstances, I formed the view that there were compelling reasons for making the report publicly available on my website. The only way of achieving this is within the context of a report to Council on the complaint. Section 162(3) makes that clear. I therefore determined that I should submit a report to Council with the complaint decision annexed.
CONTACT
David Mullan, Integrity Commissioner
Phone: 416-397-7770; Fax: 416-392-3840
Email: dmullan@toronto.ca
SIGNATURE
David Mullan, Integrity Commissioner
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix I: Integrity Commissioner Decision on Complaint against Councillor Heaps