MICO 2019

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.

The applicant alleged that the respondent city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a staff report on land use options for the South Field of the Oshawa Executive Airport.

The applicant argued that the respondent's parents owned property near the airport and that the land use decision could indirectly affect the airport's viability and, consequently, the parents' property value.

The Integrity Commissioner found that any potential effect on the parents' property value was indirect, hypothetical, and speculative, and did not constitute a real or present pecuniary interest.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that the respondent did not contravene the Act and declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated nine complaints against a municipal councillor.

Complaints regarding the councillor's operation of a for-profit Facebook group and his support for a controversial casino development were dismissed.

However, the Commissioner found that the councillor contravened the Code of Conduct and the prior Code of Ethics by repeatedly engaging in personal attacks, abuse, and harassment against members of the public who disagreed with him.

The Commissioner recommended that the councillor be reprimanded by Council.

The Integrity Commissioner received a complaint alleging that a Council Member breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed session meeting to the media.

During the inquiry, the Commissioner sought to interview the Township's lawyer and access his notes from the closed session to determine what was discussed.

The lawyer refused, citing settlement and litigation privilege.

The Commissioner paused the inquiry and issued an interim report to Council, asserting that the Municipal Act grants the Commissioner free access to all necessary information and that any privilege belongs to the Township, not its lawyers, requesting Council to resolve the impasse.

The applicant alleged that the respondent municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and participating in the appointment of his business associate to the Police Services Board.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the appointee had a pecuniary interest in her own appointment, she was a co-shareholder and co-director of a corporation with the respondent, not a 'partner' within the legal meaning of the MCIA.

Therefore, the respondent did not have an indirect pecuniary interest in the appointment.

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

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a former municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by using a constituency email list to send a campaign email supporting a candidate in the 2018 municipal election.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the former councillor contravened Articles VI and VII of the Code of Conduct by re-purposing his constituency mailing list, which was managed using City resources, for election-related purposes.

However, the Commissioner recommended that City Council impose no penalty or remedial action, noting that the former councillor is no longer in office and had attempted to maintain some separation by not using City IT infrastructure to send the email.

City Council requested the Integrity Commissioner to investigate a breach of confidentiality regarding a confidential investigation report that was leaked to the media.

The Commissioner determined that there was no reasonable prospect of identifying the source of the disclosure, given the large number of possible sources and the media's typical refusal to reveal sources.

The Commissioner remained alert to the issue during a related inquiry but obtained insufficient information to identify the source.

The report was provided to City Council for information, emphasizing the seriousness of disclosing confidential information and encouraging individuals with specific information to come forward.

The City of Toronto Integrity Commissioner investigated whether Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti and Councillor John Filion, along with members of the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) and Emery Village Business Improvement Area (EVBIA) boards, contravened the Code of Conduct regarding the potential acquisition of land for a monumental flagpole project.

The investigation examined allegations of improper use of influence, inappropriate business relations, improper conduct respecting staff, and disclosure of confidential information.

The Commissioner found insufficient evidence to conclude that any member of the TPA or EVBIA boards contravened the applicable Code of Conduct, though she noted that staff were subjected to significant pressure.

The Commissioner recommended that City Council establish protocols for councillors sitting on local boards and amend the Code of Conduct to require participation in Integrity Commissioner inquiries.

The applicant alleged that a municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a zoning application for a grain processing plant.

The councillor and her husband own a farm that grows grain primarily for livestock feed.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's interest was speculative and remote, not real and present, as the farm did not currently sell grain to the applicant and had no plans to do so.

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

A complaint was filed alleging that a municipal councillor had a conflict of interest regarding his involvement with a local brew pub.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated allegations that the councillor participated in a lease agreement decision before acquiring shares, benefited from municipal promotional materials, and moved a motion regarding a bridge replacement that could increase traffic to the business.

The Commissioner found no conflict of interest, noting the shares were acquired 16 months after the lease decision, the promotional materials were not Council decisions, and the bridge motion did not create a pecuniary interest for the business.

A complaint was filed against a municipal councillor alleging violations of the Code of Conduct and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding a proposed development.

The complainant alleged the councillor had a conflict of interest because an employee of the councillor's company owned abutting property, held improper private meetings, made biased public statements, and pressured staff to issue a stop work order.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found no violations.

The employment relationship did not create a conflict of interest, the meetings were appropriate constituent engagement, the public comments were intemperate but not biased, and the request for a stop work order did not constitute improper pressure on staff.

The Integrity Commissioner issued a supplementary report regarding a Code of Conduct complaint against a municipal councillor.

The complaint related to a nine-word sentence spoken by the councillor, for which he had apologized.

The Complainant raised numerous procedural questions and requests, many of which fell outside the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction.

The Commissioner confirmed that because the facts were not in dispute, no further witness interviews were necessary, and concluded that the investigative process was fair, objective, independent, and thorough.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, a former municipal councillor, breached the municipal Code of Conduct during a verbal altercation at the Township office.

The Integrity Commissioner found that both the Complainant and the Respondent engaged in yelling, swearing, and a physical struggle over a door.

Because both parties contributed to the incident and shared responsibility, the Commissioner concluded it would be unreasonable to find that only the Respondent contravened the Code.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner alleging that municipal council members failed to respond to correspondence or schedule a meeting with the 2018 Canada Day Committee, and that the CAO/OM contravened the Respect in the Workplace Policy.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding that the Code of Conduct does not govern how council members respond to correspondence, which is a political matter.

Furthermore, the Integrity Commissioner concluded there was no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the CAO/OM under the Respect in the Workplace Policy.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor breached the Council Code of Conduct by excluding volunteer committee members from a Christmas party and by allowing staff to unfairly criticize her use of a Township credit card.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint without a full inquiry, finding insufficient grounds.

The Commissioner held that excluding volunteers from a party does not violate the Code's human rights provisions, the Mayor is not responsible for staff reports, and the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over complaints against municipal employees under the Employee Code of Conduct.

The complainant alleged that members of the municipal council breached the Code of Conduct by going into a closed meeting to conceal the truth about consulting fees incurred in a legal proceeding, thereby deceiving the public.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while he lacked jurisdiction to determine if the closed meeting violated the Municipal Act, he could consider the Code of Conduct allegations.

The Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct did not contain a rule against concealing the truth or deceiving the public, and even if it did, there was no evidence that the council members deliberately misled or deceived the public.

The complaint was dismissed.

A complaint was filed against a municipal council member alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct by attempting to use the influence of office to benefit an outside business.

The alleged incident occurred in 2014 or 2015, before the Code of Conduct took effect in 2016.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct cannot have retroactive effect and therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Complainant, a former police sergeant suffering from PTSD treated with medical cannabis, filed a Code of Conduct complaint against the Respondent, a Regional Councillor.

The complaint alleged that the Respondent made an inappropriate joke regarding the Complainant's medical cannabis use at a Police Services Board meeting.

The Respondent acknowledged the comment, admitted it was insensitive, and issued an immediate apology.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that while the comment was uncalled for, the immediate apology and the circumstances did not warrant a formal finding of contravention.

The report was presented to Regional Council to serve as a public record without a finding of contravention.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor and several Councillors breached the municipal Code of Conduct in connection with their consideration of an investigation report and the decision to indemnify a Councillor for expenses related to a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding no contravention of the Code.

The Commissioner noted that the allegations regarding the indemnification by-law related to procedural steps not covered by the Code, and that the conflict of interest allegations were made well outside the statutory time limits.

The Commissioner recommended amending the Code to impose a three-month time limit on complaints.