McLean (Re) (Supplementary), 2019 ONMIC 8

Citation: McLean (Re) (Supplementary), 2019 ONMIC 8 Date: April 17, 2019

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON COMPLAINT

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. https://calendar.durham.ca/meetings/Detail/2019-04-24-0930-Regional-Council-Meeting/5b5d43c7-d1ca-489a-aced-aa41010da222 (see minutes of April 24, 2019, Motion 150)

THE COMPLAINT 3

SUMMARY 3

PROCESS FOLLOWED 3

OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER 5

CONCLUSION 5

CONTENT 5

THE COMPLAINT

1This is a continuation of my March 26 report, Re McLean, 2019 ONMIC 2. It provides Regional Council with additional information on the Complaint, the complaint process, and my determination in this case.

SUMMARY

2The Complaint relates to a single sentence of nine words. The Council Member who spoke those words apologized. The only issue before me – the only issue over which I have jurisdiction – is whether the Code of Conduct was contravened.

3I must conduct an independent, objective and fair process to address the issue before me. I did so.

4The Complainant and the Respondent agreed that the nine words were spoken. There was no dispute that the words were spoken. I did not, therefore, interview additional witnesses in order to confirm a fact that was not in dispute.

PROCESS FOLLOWED

5In addition to the Complaint and affidavit, the Complainant sent me other material.

6He also copied me on correspondence related to other matters such as pension and WSIB, but because these fall outside an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction I received them for information only.

7I was also directed to the video record of the October 16 Police Services Board meeting.

8I reviewed all the material sent by the Complainant. I considered all his submissions.

9Much of this material had nothing to do with the Code of Conduct complaint.

10Material that was relevant to the Code of Conduct issue, I took into consideration. Other material, I received for information only.

11I interviewed the Complainant for 21 minutes on January 31. As I have noted, there is no dispute that the words were spoken. The only issue is whether the nine-word sentence contravened the Code of Conduct.

12My 21-minute telephone interview of the Complainant was more than sufficient to hear all the Complainant had to say that was relevant to this one issue.

13The Complainant sent me many submissions. Whether or not they were relevant, I reviewed all the submissions from the Complainant.

14One communication from the Complainant requested that I answer 25 separate questions. I did not reply to it. I did not respond because that is not how the Code of Conduct process under Part V.1 of the Municipal Act works.

15As Integrity Commissioner, I investigate a complaint, gather evidence, hear from the parties, and report to Council. An Integrity Commissioner must hear and be fair to each party, but an Integrity Commissioner is answerable to Council, not to a party. An Integrity Commissioner is not in a position to respond to lengthy interrogatories from a party. A party cannot decide to substitute his own process for the Municipal Act/Code of Conduct procedure.

16Some of the 25 questions the Complainant wanted me to answer were:

Whether he has the right to address the Police Services Board.
Whether he has the right to a statement from each Police Services Board member present at the October 16 meeting.
Whether he has the right to allege discrimination in future litigation.
Whether he can sue the Police Services Board.
Whether he can sue the Respondent.
Whether he has a right to the Integrity Commissioner’s notes.
Whether he has the right to a mutually agreed upon arbitrator (as I understand, this would be to arbitrate the Code of Conduct issue).

17The remaining 18 requests were in the same vein.

18Most of the requests were unrelated to the Code of Conduct. They involved matters outside my jurisdiction as Integrity Commissioner.

19The requests that did mention the Integrity Commissioner process (such as the request for my notes, and for a mutually agreed arbitrator), I declined to answer. It is not my practice to enter into debate with a party about what the investigative process should or should not be. Moreover, I determined that these tangents were unconnected to the sole issue of whether the Respondent’s words were contrary to the Code of Conduct.

OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER

20The Complaint only alleged that Regional Councillor Bill McLean had contravened the Code of Conduct. Nobody else was alleged to have contravened the Code.

21The Complaint identified another Regional Council Member (Bobbie Drew) as a witness but did not make an allegation against her. I did not investigate Regional Councillor Drew (now Mayor Drew) because there was no complaint against her. I did not interview her as a witness because there was no dispute about the nine words that she heard.

22Conducting a fair process does not require that I spend the Region’s money to investigate facts that nobody disputes. The Complainant and the Respondent agreed that the words were spoken, and the Respondent apologized. I correctly proceeded on that basis.

CONCLUSION

23The parties agreed that nine words were spoken. The Respondent apologized for those words.

24There was only one issue under the Code of Conduct. The process to consider that issue was fair, objective, independent and thorough.

CONTENT

25Subsection 223.6(2) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in this report (which continues Re McLean, 2019 ONMIC 2) such matters as in my opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. All the content of this report is, in my opinion, necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Guy Giorno Integrity Commissioner Regional Municipality of Durham April 17, 2019