MICO 2018

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.

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 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.

Six Council Members filed a complaint alleging that a seventh Council Member contravened the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed meeting to a journalist.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found insufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent shared specific details from the closed meeting.

The complaint was dismissed with no recommendation for penalty.

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.

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 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 CEO of the TTC filed a complaint alleging that a City Councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by making public statements during a radio interview that questioned the integrity and objectivity of TTC staff regarding a briefing note on the Scarborough subway extension.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor's statements crossed the line from fair comment to injurious statements about professional staff, contravening Article XII of the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner recommended that City Council reprimand the Councillor.

The Auditor General requested an inquiry into whether a municipal councillor contravened Article VIII (Improper Use of Influence) of the Code of Conduct based on an anonymous letter alleging he improperly referred matters to a development consultant.

Following an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner found no evidence to support a finding that the councillor had any business or referral relationship with the named consultant.

The inquiry concluded that there was no basis to support the allegations of a referral scheme.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint against a Council Member alleging violations of the principles section of the Council Code of Conduct and a subsequent allegation of reprisal.

The Commissioner found that the principles section of the Code provides interpretive guidance but cannot independently form the basis of a complaint.

Regarding the reprisal allegation, the Commissioner noted that while the Council Member sent an email declining to assist the constituent due to the ongoing Code proceeding, the Member actually forwarded the constituent's inquiry to staff.

Therefore, no denial of service occurred, and the complaint was dismissed.

The Integrity Commissioner received a complaint alleging that a Regional Councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the vote of two members of Council on a matter in which she had a pecuniary conflict of interest.

The Commissioner found that he had no jurisdiction to consider whether the Act had been violated, as such complaints must be made to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Commissioner also noted that the Council Code of Conduct did not expressly make a breach of the Act a breach of the Code.

The complaint was dismissed.