MICO 2020

This integrity commissioner report addressed two formal complaints by former staff members alleging sexualized interview conduct, harassment, intimidation, and manipulation by a municipal councillor.

The report applied the balance of probabilities standard and a similar fact evidence framework, relying on sworn witness evidence, documentary records, and the respondent’s public denial after he declined to participate in the inquiry.

The decision-maker found that the respondent repeatedly objectified female staff, fostered a toxic and fear-based workplace, and breached Sections 4 and 7 of the municipal Code of Conduct in relation to both complaints.

Section 10 was held inapplicable on the interpretation adopted.

The report recommended consecutive 90-day suspensions of remuneration and further governance restrictions.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated three formal complaints against a City of Ottawa Councillor regarding his conduct during job interviews.

The complainants alleged that the Councillor made inappropriate and sexual comments, including asking if they would go bra-less or consider stripping, and showed inappropriate photographs.

The Councillor denied the allegations publicly but refused to participate in the investigation.

The Commissioner found the complainants credible and concluded that the Councillor breached Sections 4 and 7 of the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner recommended a 90-day suspension of remuneration for each of the three complaints.

The Integrity Commissioner for the City of Brampton investigated a complaint against Councillor Gurpreet Dhillon regarding allegations of sexual misconduct during a city-funded trade mission to Turkey.

The Complainant alleged that Councillor Dhillon sexually assaulted and harassed her in her hotel room.

After reviewing documentary evidence, including an audio recording of the incident, and conducting interviews, the Integrity Commissioner found that Councillor Dhillon sexually harassed the Complainant, violating the City's Respectful Workplace Policy and Rules 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner recommended a 90-day suspension without pay, a formal reprimand, a formal apology, and other remedial actions restricting his privileges and access.

The Integrity Commissioner considered whether to continue an investigation into a 2016 Code of Conduct complaint against former Toronto City Councillor Justin Di Ciano.

The investigation had been mandatorily suspended for 30 months while police investigated a related Municipal Elections Act charge, which was ultimately withdrawn.

The Commissioner terminated the investigation, finding that resuming it would serve no useful purpose given the significant delay, the fact that the respondent was no longer in office, and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The Complainant, a former Auditor General of the City of Oshawa, alleged that the Respondent Councillor breached the municipal Code of Conduct by participating in Council decisions regarding the City's response to the Complainant's judicial review application.

The Complainant argued the Councillor had a private interest in defending previous Council decisions he had supported.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor did not contravene the Code, as the decisions were collective actions of Council and duly enacted by-laws of the municipal corporation, not the personal decisions of the Councillor.

Consequently, the Councillor had no disqualifying private advantage or personal interest in the matter.

The Integrity Commissioner issued a supplementary report addressing a claim by Councillor Mercer's lawyer that her Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor White had been withdrawn prior to the issuance of the initial report.

The Commissioner found that the 2020 complaint had never been withdrawn, noting that a previous 2019 complaint was withdrawn months earlier.

The Commissioner concluded that the complainant's description of events was unreliable and affirmed the findings of the initial report.

The Complainant, a municipal councillor, alleged that the Mayor breached the municipal Code of Conduct by interfering with her communications with the Niagara Escarpment Commission and by treating her with hostility and disrespect during a council meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and dismissed the complaint, finding the allegations unsupported by the evidence.

The Commissioner concluded that the Mayor's request for a one-window communication approach with the Commission did not prevent the Complainant from doing her job, and that the Complainant herself had acted provocatively and disrespectfully during the council meeting in question.

The applicant alleged that the respondent city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council decision regarding the regulation of payday loan establishments while serving as a director of a local credit union.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the credit union did not have a real and present pecuniary interest in the regulation of payday lenders, as any potential competitive advantage or future regulatory impact was speculative and remote.

Consequently, the councillor did not have an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter.

The application was dismissed, and the Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct by attempting to interfere with the independence of municipal law enforcement officers.

The councillor had emailed the Director of Municipal Law Enforcement requesting that enforcement actions against a volunteer group distributing food in a city park be put on hold.

The Commissioner found that the email constituted an improper attempt to influence and interfere with law enforcement, contravening section 15 of the Code.

However, the Commissioner concluded that the contravention resulted from an error of judgment made in good faith, as the councillor was motivated by a desire to help the homeless, and recommended that no penalty be imposed.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by using a racial slur during a committee meeting and by engaging in harassment depicted in a group photograph.

The Integrity Commissioner discontinued the investigation into the photograph because no individual present or involved in the photo had complained.

Regarding the committee meeting, the Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's use of the term 'Indian giver' was inappropriate and wrong, noting that the Mayor had acknowledged the error and apologized.

The Commissioner recommended that Council provide an opportunity for a formal apology and schedule anti-racism education for Council members.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Mayor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from a vote regarding an interim report by the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor did not have a pecuniary interest in the interim report, as any potential financial impact was speculative and remote.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and voting on a by-law to reduce the speed limit on the road where she resides.

The Integrity Commissioner found that any potential economic effects on property values or insurance rates were speculative and remote, and did not constitute a real and present pecuniary interest.

The application was dismissed, and the Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and participating in a vote regarding a lease agreement with a baseball club of which the Respondent was a member.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the club was donating a portable building to the Township and neither incurred a financial obligation nor received a financial benefit.

Because the club had no pecuniary interest in the matter, the Respondent had no indirect pecuniary interest.

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

A municipal councillor filed a code of conduct complaint against another councillor, alleging that his social media posts were derogatory, contained factual inaccuracies, and released confidential information from a closed session.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding that the posts did not release confidential information and did not reach the threshold of discriminatory or demeaning language under the Code.

The Commissioner emphasized that the Code does not prohibit political dissent or authorize the policing of factual accuracy in political speech.

The Township Council requested an inquiry into whether Councillor Berndt contravened the Code of Conduct regarding the 2018 municipal election recount.

The allegations involved inappropriate communications with a recount official and advocating for the destruction of ballots.

The Integrity Commissioner found insufficient evidence to support the allegations and concluded that the Councillor did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated four complaints arising from statements made by members of the Township of Amaranth Council during meetings.

Deputy Mayor Gerrits alleged that Mayor Currie and Councillor Tijssen contravened the Code of Conduct through their prepared remarks, and also requested an investigation into his own remarks.

The Integrity Commissioner found no contraventions of the Code of Conduct, concluding that the statements constituted political speech and criticism of the members' records in office.

The Commissioner emphasized that the Code of Conduct is not intended to silence political debate or act as a referee for political speech.

An elector applied for an inquiry alleging that the Mayor of Oshawa contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a decision to fund a project jointly sponsored by the Downtown BIA and Carea Community Health Centre, where the Mayor's spouse was employed.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Mayor had a deemed indirect pecuniary interest due to his spouse's employment, the interest was so remote and insignificant under s. 4(k) of the Act that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence him.

Applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Ferri v. Ontario, the Commissioner considered subjective factors, including the Mayor's good faith and the public interest nature of the initiative, and declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Applicant, Mayor Debbie Bath-Hadden, alleged that the Respondent, Councillor Cria Pettingill, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by influencing a decision of the Wilfrid Hall Board to pay an extra $300 to a musician.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent had no financial interest in the matter and did not benefit personally.

As there was no pecuniary interest, the Act did not apply.

The Integrity Commissioner decided not to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The Mayor filed a complaint alleging that a Councillor contravened section 11 of the Council Code of Conduct by pressuring a municipal board to pay an extra $300 to a musician without a written contract or proper meeting procedure.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Councillor's actions in convening an informal meeting and rushing a financial decision were improper and irresponsible, they did not constitute an unethical use of influence for personal gain or for a friend.

The complaint was dismissed as the conduct did not fall within the specific prohibitions of the Code.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a Deputy Mayor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by failing to file a written statement after declaring a conflict of interest during a closed session of council regarding a workplace investigation.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter, but rather a potential non-pecuniary interest related to being a potential witness.

Because the MCIA only applies to pecuniary interests, the respondent's actions were governed by common law principles of bias, not the MCIA.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded there was no contravention of the MCIA and declined to apply to a judge for a determination.