CITY OF BRAMPTON INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, muneeza sheikh

Citation: Dhillon (Re), 2020 ONMIC 19 Date: July 22, 2020

Report

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://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/meetings-agendas/City%20Council%202010/20200805ccmn.pdf#page=22

The appendices can be found at this link: https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/IntegrityCommissionerReports/2020-03%20-%20IC%20Report%20including%20Appendicies_FINAL.pdf#page=49

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND.. 5

A. Events that triggered my investigation of this matter: 5

B. Investigative Interviews: 7

C. Questions raised by Counsel for Councillor Dhillon: 7

i) My Jurisdiction: 7

ii) Requests for Disclosure: 8

iii) Councillor Dhillon’s Participation in an Investigative Interview: 8

D. My response to Counsel for Councillor Dhillon: 8

E. My Conversation with the Complainant and Updating Her on the Status of the Investigation: 10

F. My Jurisdiction to Investigate Prior to March 19, 2020: 11

Complaint and Jurisdiction of the Integrity and Ethics Commissioner 11

A. The Complainant’s Complaint: 11

i) November 10, 2019: 12

ii) November 14, 2019: 13

iii) November 15, 2019: 17

iv) November 17, 2019: 18

v) Days and Months Following the Incident: 18

B. My Jurisdiction to Investigate the Complainant’s Complaint (differentiating civil conduct from potentially criminal conduct): 19

Process Followed. 21

Positions of the Parties. 22

A. Complainant’s Position: 22

B. Respondent’s Position: 22

i) Councillor Dhillon’s Response to the Complainant’s Complaint Form: 22

ii) Councillor Dhillon’s Response to Disclosure Provided to him on April 20, 2020. 23

Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact 23

A. Evidence from Relevant Individuals. 24

i) Interview with Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam: 24

ii) Interview with Mr. Shamim: 25

iii) Interviews with the Complainant: 28

iv) Interview with Ms. Barnett: 28

v) Interview with Mr. Collins: 30

vi) Interview with Ms. Atar: 30

vii) Interview with Mr. Ward: 32

B. Documentary Evidence. 32

i) Receipt indicating the Complainant’s check-in at Movenpick Hotel, Ankara. 32

ii) Audio recording made by the Complainant 32

iii) The Complainant’s written record of the incident shortly after it occurred. 35

iv) Photos of the Complainant’s hotel suite (photo of suite – Dhillon’s cup of tea- tab 8) 35

v) Screenshots of a call log, indicating phone calls the Complainant made to Ahmet Shoufer after the alleged incident 35

vi) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Pinar following the incident 36

vii) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Ms. Atar following the incident 36

viii) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Canadian Consulate in Istanbul 36

ix) Email chains between the Complainant and Mr. Ward. 37

x) Journal entry by Mr. Ward regarding his meeting and conversation with the Complainant after the incident 37

xi) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to her relative, Selim.. 38

xii) Copies of the Complainant’s flight tickets. 38

xiii) Screenshot of the Complainant’s conversation with Ryan Fortner from the Canadian Consulate General in Istanbul over WhatsApp. 39

xiv) Screenshot of the Complainant’s Facebook message to Mayor Brown following the incident, requesting to meet 39

xv) Screenshots of text messages between the Complainant and Mayor Brown following the incident 39

xvi) Screenshots of text messages between the Complainant and Clare Barnett 40

xvii) Screenshots of the Complainant’s conversation with Pinar over WhatsApp. 40

xviii) Screenshot of Ms. Atar’s conversation with the Complainant (produced by Ms. Atar) 41

xix) Mayor Brown’s email dated November 27, 2019. 41

C. Findings of Fact 41

Issues and Analysis. 42

A. The City’s Respectful Workplace Policy. 42

i) Scope and Applicability of the Policy. 43

ii) Purpose of the Policy. 43

iii) Obligations of Elected Officials. 44

iv) Penalties under the Policy. 44

v) Applying the Policy to Councillor Dhillon’s Conduct 44

B. Code of Conduct Violations. 47

1. Rule No. 14. 47

2. Rule No. 15. 48

3. Rule No. 18. 48

4. Rule No. 19. 48

Conclusion. 50

BACKGROUND

This Report addresses sexual misconduct allegations made by a Brampton Resident (the “Complainant”) against a member of the City of Brampton’s Council, Councillor Gurpreet Dhillon (“Councillor Dhillon”). I have chosen to exercise my discretion to keep the name of the Complainant confidential given the sensitive and sexualized nature of the allegations. The following will outline the events that led to my investigation, the investigation itself, my findings, and my recommendations.

A. Events that triggered my investigation of this matter:

My investigation was triggered in response to a phone call I received from Mayor Brown’s office regarding purported misconduct by Councillor Dhillon in November 2019, pursuant to section 223.4(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (also attached hereto under Appendix “1”)

223.4 (1) This section applies if the Commissioner conducts an inquiry under this Part,

(a) in respect of a request made by council, a member of council or a member of the public about whether a member of council or of a local board has contravened the code of conduct applicable to the member

To be specific, Mayor Brown informed me over a phone call on November 27, 2019 that the Complainant had reached out to him regarding an allegation of sexual assault and harassment. The allegation was that Councillor Dhillon had sexually assaulted/harassed the Complainant while they were in her hotel room in Turkey earlier that month. Mayor Brown did not state his intention to file a complaint against Councillor Dhillon, but only to provide me with a summary of what had taken place during his conversation with the Complainant.

Mayor Brown advised me that on November 19, 2019, the Complainant had a conversation with Gary Collins (“Mr. Collins”) (the Mayor’s Director of Communications) and had asked to meet with Mayor Brown on an urgent basis. Mayor Brown told me that he, Babu Nagalingam (“Mr. Nagalingam”) (the Mayor’s Chief of Staff), and Mr. Collins met with the Complainant at her hair salon in Brampton on November 20, 2019. At that meeting, the Complainant told Mayor Brown that while she was in Turkey with the Canadian Turkish Business Council, she met with Councillor Dhillon, and he forced himself on her while in her hotel room on November 14, 2019. During the meeting, the Complainant also played an audio recording for Mayor Brown, which captured a portion of the encounter between herself and Councillor Dhillon.

According to Mayor Brown, when the Complainant made inquiries of the City’s “next steps” in relation to her complaint, Mayor Brown confirmed that he would contact my office, which was responsible for dealing with misconduct issues involving City Councillors insofar as they related to the City’s Code of Conduct. Mayor Brown also contacted the Regional Chief of Police for Peel, Nish Duraiappah, to advise him both of the conversation that he had with the Complainant and of her intention to contact him regarding her allegations against Councillor Dhillon.

While Mayor Brown did not file an official formal complaint against Councillor Dhillon, I exercised my own discretion to treat it as a complaint that required at least a preliminary investigation so that I could better understand what happened in Turkey. I chose to exercise my discretion in doing this, as the allegations were extremely concerning in nature. I was and still am of the view that allegations of this nature (sexual misconduct) are to be investigated immediately and without delay.

Despite my view as set out above, Mayor Brown also told me that he understood that the Peel Regional Police (“Peel Police”) was investigating the matter. As such, I decided to stay my investigation until the matter was disposed of by Peel Police. In staying my investigation (or preliminary investigation), I did not put my mind to the circumstances under which I would resurrect my investigation. I did understand at the time that I decided to stay my investigation, that I had the right to exercise my discretion in this regard. Put simply, I am aware that in some municipalities there are Integrity Commissioners that have run their investigations alongside the Police investigation.

On December 17, 2020, I spoke to David Barrick (“Mr. Barrick”), the City’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), who provided me with the contact information for the Peel Region Police Chief, so that I could make inquiries as to the stage of the criminal investigation (if there was an investigation) involving Councillor Dhillon (the correspondence is attached hereto as Appendix “9”).

On or about December 19, 2019, I spoke with Supt. Don Cousineau from the Peel Police office and learned that neither the Peel Police nor the RCMP were investigating the matter (the correspondence is attached hereto as Appendix “9”). I was provided with no explanations as to why this was the case.

Around this time, I also became aware of a few media publications around the allegations, which also confirmed that Councillor Dhillon had not been criminally charged.

Since there was no criminal investigation (at least one that I knew of), I decided to resurrect my investigation pursuant to the inquiry from Mayor Brown and in accordance with my obligations under section 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which is attached hereto under Appendix “1”.

On December 19, 2019, I informed Mayor Brown that I would be resurrecting my investigation and asking for further details regarding the complaint. My email exchange with Mayor Brown regarding the stay and subsequent commencement of my investigation is attached hereto as Appendix “2”.

B. Investigative Interviews:

Between December 2019 and January 2020, I conducted a series of investigative interviews with various individuals whom I deemed relevant to the investigation.

As a first step, I met with Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam, and inquired about their meeting with the Complainant. I then proceeded to meet with the Complainant and her counsel, Ms. Nadia Klein (“Ms. Klein”), who walked me through the events during the Complainant’s trip to Turkey. The Complainant named several individuals during my interviews with her. While most of these individuals did not have firsthand knowledge of the allegations against Councillor Dhillon, I still thought it appropriate to speak to them, given that the Complainant reached out to most of them following the incident. Many were individuals from whom the Complainant sought help and assistance after the alleged incident.

In rendering this Report, I have considered some of the evidence provided by these individuals. When meeting with them, I asked them questions and requested appropriate material and documents to help corroborate the Complainant’s version of events, to ensure that they were accurate.

After meeting with the other interviewees, I requested a second meeting with the Complainant so that I could ask her additional questions that arose during my investigative interviews with other interviewees, or to clarify any ambiguities.

C. Questions raised by Counsel for Councillor Dhillon:

Between late January of 2020, and mid-April of 2020, through his counsel, Mr. Nader Hasan (“Mr. Hasan”), I asked Councillor Dhillon to meet with me for an investigative interview pursuant to my power under section 5(2) of the City of Brampton’s Complaint Protocol (the “Complaint Protocol”). I have attached that section hereto for reference under Appendix “3”.

Councillor Dhillon was not agreeable to participating in an investigative interview and his counsel raised a number of concerns, largely categorized under the following areas:

i) My jurisdiction;

ii) My disclosure obligations to Councillor Dhillon; and

iii) Councillor Dhillon’s participation in an investigative interview.

I will consider each of the above in turn.

i) My Jurisdiction:

Mr. Hasan inquired about the source of my jurisdiction to investigate if no formal complaint had been launched by the Complainant. Specifically, he stated that section 223.4(1) of the Municipal Act (attached hereto under Appendix “1”) “contemplates a formal complaint being made to the Integrity Commissioner”.

ii) Requests for Disclosure:

Mr. Hasan requested disclosure pertaining to the Complainant’s allegations. Specifically, he requested the following:

• The audio recording provided by the Complainant that recorded at least part of the incident between her and Councillor Dhillon;

• All documents relevant to this matter, including but not limited to, notes of interviews, correspondence and e-mails;

• The information being relied upon in deciding to pursue the investigation, including information from any witness who was interviewed;

• The particulars of the allegations against Mr. Dhillon, including which sections of the Code of Conduct had allegedly been breached; and

• A summary of the evidence gathered from other witnesses during the course of my investigation.

He indicated the importance of disclosure by citing the case of Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817¹.

iii) Councillor Dhillon’s Participation in an Investigative Interview:

Mr. Hasan questioned my authority for compelling Councillor Dhillon’s participation in an investigative interview.

D. My response to Counsel for Councillor Dhillon:

I responded to Mr. Hasan’s letters on March 20, 2020 and on March 30, 2020. However, due to the increasing number of letters back and forth, I provided a fulsome response to Mr. Hasan’s queries regarding the above-noted categories by a letter dated April 9, 2020. I also provided a second letter on April 17, 2020, citing case law and authorities, all of which substantiated my position in deciding to investigate the matter and providing the disclosure that I made. Rather than repeating the details of those letters in the substance of this Report, for efficiency, I attach the two letters of April 9, 2020 and April 17, 2020, as well as three additional letters I sent to Mr. Hasan hereto at Appendix “4”.

To summarize, in the case of Di Biase v. City of Vaughan, 2016 ONSC 5620 (“Di Biase”)², the Federal Court held that an Integrity Commissioner may conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the complaint must be referred to the police service or other appropriate authorities (para 206):

206According to section 8 of the Complaint Protocol, the Commissioner possesses a discretion to refuse to proceed with an investigation if she is of the opinion that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith. Accordingly, the Complaint Protocol allows the Integrity Commissioner to make inquiries to determine whether there is an “air of reality” to the allegation and to clear the air of groundless allegations, including those of criminal conduct by Councillors. If the Integrity Commissioner decides that there is no air of reality to the allegation, the Commissioner may include such a conclusion in her report. [emphasis added]

Brampton’s Complaint Protocol includes a section as well which allows the Integrity Commissioner to dispose of a complaint that is frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith or if there are no grounds for an investigation:

3(2) If the Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, or that there are no grounds or insufficient grounds for an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation, or, where that becomes apparent in the course of an investigation, terminate the investigation.

As set out above, my reasoning for commencing my investigation prior to the Complainant filing a complaint in the Complaint Form (attached to the Complaint Protocol) was not only because of the nature of the allegations (sexual assault/harassment), but also so I could assess the merits of the allegations (which is why I use the term preliminary investigation) to see if they did have an “air of reality”.

With respect to disclosure obligations, when looking at Integrity Commissioner investigations, the Federal Court was clear in Di Biase by stating that a Councillor cannot legitimately expect witness names, full witness statements, and/or documents obtained by witnesses to be provided to him/her. The only material that a Councillor could legitimately expect was “supporting material”, as stated in section 5(1)(a) of the Complaint Protocol. The judge in Di Biase clarified that “supporting material” refers to documents provided by a complainant in support of his/her application. Nevertheless, an Integrity Commissioner has wide discretion in providing disclosure stemming from an investigation. As the judge confirmed in Di Biase, the Integrity Commissioner in his/her Report “may disclose in the report such matters as in the Commissioner’s opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report” (Municipal Act, s.223.6 (2), attached hereto under Appendix “1”).

E. My Conversation with the Complainant and Updating Her on the Status of the Investigation:

The above-referenced correspondence with Mr. Hasan commenced on March 18, 2020 when Mr. Hasan sent me a letter. Among other things, Mr. Hasan questioned my authority to investigate the complaint without the complaint being articulated in a Complaint Form (attached to the Complaint Protocol).

On March 19, 2020, I informed Ms. Klein and the Complainant about the status of the investigation. I did this largely because I had interviewed the Complainant in January of 2020, and had informed her that I would be interviewing Councillor Dhillon shortly thereafter. In that conversation with the Complainant and her counsel, I further informed them that the delay was attributable to Councillor Dhillon’s refusal to participate in an investigative interview. During that discussion, I outlined the concerns that Mr. Hasan had raised, of which, one was that a Complaint Form had not been completed.

On March 20, 2020, Ms. Klein filed a complaint in the Complaint Form, on behalf of the Complainant. I attach a copy of Ms. Klein’s email to me and the Complaint Form she enclosed hereto as Appendix “5” and Appendix “6”, respectively. I served a copy of the Complaint Form on Councillor Dhillon, through Mr. Hasan, on March 20, 2020.

Mr. Hasan then inquired about what conversations I had had with the Complainant. For that reason, I believe it is necessary to clarify that I did not have any involvement in the Complainant choosing to file an official complaint in the Complaint Form. To be clear, while I informed the Complainant of the status of the investigation, the decision to file a complaint was solely hers.

Furthermore, advising the Complainant of the existence of a complaint form is entirely proper when looking at my role as Integrity Commissioner, largely because my duty extends to informing members of the public who may lack specific knowledge of the existence of a Complaints Protocol, and, by extension, a Complaint Form. Again, I have broad discretion to do this in order to uphold the standard of ethics amongst Council members, which falls squarely within my mandate:

42In exercising the powers conferred upon her, the Integrity Commissioner must be able to interpret and reformulate complaints submitted by members of the public who may lack specific knowledge of the Code of Conduct and the Complaints Protocol and who may, therefore, not be familiar with how to identify and formulate alleged breaches. [emphasis added]

43By interpreting and applying the Code of Conduct and the Complaint Protocol when reformulating a complaint, the Integrity Commissioner essentially applies what can be considered her “home statute” [emphasis added].

F. My Jurisdiction to Investigate Prior to March 19, 2020:

Mr. Hasan also inquired about my jurisdiction to investigate the Complainant’s complaint prior to March 19, 2019 (when the Complainant filled out the Complaint Form).

As I mentioned, my investigation (or preliminary investigation – I do use these terms interchangeably) prior to March 19, 2020 was triggered by a phone call from Mayor Brown wherein, he advised me of purported sexual misconduct by Councillor Dhillon.

I note here that a request by a Council member as to whether another member of Council contravened the Code of Conduct need not be in writing, nor be made via a Complaint Form. Nevertheless, Mayor Brown not only advised me of the incident over the phone, he followed up with an email (upon my request), wherein he outlined the details that the Complainant had provided to him. That email is included in the email chain attached hereto at Appendix “2”.

Further to my decision to investigate the matter prior to March 19, 2020, I note the case of Di Biase, wherein, the Divisional Court judicially reviewed a report by the Integrity and Ethics Commissioner of the City of Vaughan. Among other questions, counsel for the applicant raised concerns respecting the jurisdiction and disclosure obligations of the Integrity Commissioner in question. The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no merit to any of the applicant’s submissions.

One of the specific issues raised in that case by the applicant’s counsel was the threshold to be met before an investigation could even commence. To that issue, the Divisional Court judge responded:

30The Complaint Protocol does not require any threshold to be met before an investigation can occur. The Complaint Protocol invites individuals who identify or witness behaviour that “they believe is in contravention of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council” to file a complaint [emphasis added].

Further, I note my power under section 223.4(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which allows me to conduct an inquiry upon a “request made by…a member of council”.

Complaint and Jurisdiction of the Integrity and Ethics Commissioner

A. The Complainant’s Complaint:

Not only did the Complainant file the Complaint Form (attached hereto at Appendix “6”), I also had the benefit of interviewing the Complainant twice and obtaining answers to all my questions regarding the allegations she had made against Councillor Dhillon. As aforementioned, the Complainant also produced an audio recording to me, which corroborates her version of events (particularly what occurred in her hotel room on the night of November 14, 2019). I had also requested numerous documents from the Complainant, namely, screenshots of text messages that she referred to in her interview with various individuals, screenshots of call logs (indicating the names of individuals whom she called the night of the incident and thereafter), emails that she exchanged with individuals regarding the incident, as well as copies of her flight tickets. I will deal with much of these documents in the “Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact” section of this Report.

Below is the Complainant’s account of the events that occurred while she visited Turkey in November 2019, coupled with other details and corroborations provided by other interviewees.

i) November 10, 2019:

On November 10, 2019, the Complainant arrived in Istanbul, Turkey to attend the Canadian Trade and Investment Mission (the “Trade Mission”) to Turkey. A copy of the Complainant’s flight ticket is attached hereto at Appendix “7”. The Trade Mission was coordinated by the Canada Turkey Business Council for the purposes of facilitating networking and outreach activities in both Istanbul and Ankara. The Trade Mission was held in Istanbul on November 14, 2019 and subsequently in Ankara on November 15, 2019.

The Complainant arrived in Turkey from Canada via a direct flight. She landed in Istanbul on November 10, 2019 at approximately 3:00pm. One of her relatives who resides in Istanbul by the name of Selim, picked the Complainant up at the airport and she stayed with him between November 10, 2019 to November 14, 2019.

Badar Shamim (“Mr. Shamim”) is a board member for the Canada Turkey Business Council and was formerly the Chair of Brampton’s Board of Trade. Mr. Shamim has been the lead contact for the Canada Turkey Business Council in Brampton. As a part of that process, he reached out to the City of Brampton’s Council Members as well as local business owners, inviting them to join the Trade Mission in Turkey.

Mr. Shamim specifically asked Mayor Brown to attend the Trade Mission, however, as Mayor Brown was accompanying Councillor Medeiros on another business trip, he was unavailable to join the Trade Mission. However, in his place, Mayor Brown suggested that Councillor Dhillon attend the Trade Mission as Councillor Dhillon is the Chair of the Economic Development Committee for the City of Brampton.

In addition to inviting Council Members to join the Trade Mission, Mr. Shamim also publicly promoted the Trade Mission, in an effort to invite local stakeholders and businesses from Brampton to help facilitate business relations between Canada and Turkey. Mr. Shamim’s friend, Aspi Wadiwalla, reached out to Mr. Shamim stating that he had a friend who was interested in exploring the trade connections in Turkey, and who he wanted to introduce to Mr. Shamim. That is how Mr. Shamim ended up meeting with the Complainant and invited her to the Trade Mission. Mr. Shamim learned that the Complainant was the owner of a local hair salon business in Brampton and also imported wedding gowns from Turkey to re-sell in Canada. The Complainant expressed her interest in wanting to attend the Trade Mission as she wanted to learn more about expanding her networks in Turkey and improving her business acumen.

ii) November 14, 2019:

On the night of November 14, 2019, the Complainant arrived in Ankara, Turkey. She had not attended the first day of the Trade Mission which was held in Istanbul, Turkey and had therefore only been acquainted with some of the other attendees of the Trade Mission. She had not met Councillor Dhillon by that point.

The Complainant checked into Movenpick Hotel in Ankara at approximately 11:21pm. A copy of the Complainant’s check-in receipt at Movenpick Hotel is attached hereto at Appendix “8”. At approximately 11:30 pm, the Complainant met Councillor Dhillon near the elevator of the hotel after she had checked in. The Complainant had never met Councillor Dhillon prior to that meeting near the hotel elevator. Councillor Dhillon asked the Complainant whether she knew who he was. The Complainant answered in the negative. Councillor Dhillon introduced himself and told the Complainant he was the Councillor of Brampton. The Complainant describes the exchange as follows (attached hereto at Appendix “13”).

“…as I checked in I was heading to the elevator when this tall man Indian guy who started by:

Dhillon: hi

Me: hi

Dhillon: Where you from?

Me: BRAMPTON Canada

Dhillon: no way, I’ve seen you before

Me: yeah I own the salon on [redacted] Brampton [redacted]

Dhillon: that’s where I Know you from”

After the brief exchange in the elevator, Councillor Dhillon invited the Complainant to chat in the lobby of the hotel. The Complainant said “okay” and advised that she would place her luggage in her room and return downstairs to chat. The Complainant walked to her hotel room alone (second floor) and put away her luggage. She then returned to the hotel lobby on the ground floor, where she and Councillor Dhillon had a conversation.

The Complainant was seated in an uncomfortable manner and Councillor Dhillon asked her if she was alright. The Complainant stated that she had developed back problems due to a car accident. Councillor Dhillon stated that he was on the basketball team and that he could show her some stretches that would help her with her back.

While Councillor Dhillon and the Complainant were seated in the lobby, Councillor Dhillon began coughing and told the Complainant that he had been sick for the past three weeks.

As the conversation was coming to an end, the Complainant decided to head to her hotel room. However, before doing so, the Complainant went to the concierge and informed them that Councillor Dhillon was not feeling well. As an act of courtesy, she asked the concierge to deliver a cup of tea to Councillor Dhillon’s room. The Complainant was not aware of which hotel room Councillor Dhillon was residing in, nor did she ask.

While the Complainant was still at the lobby, she noticed that Councillor Dhillon told his assistant, Amol Dhillon (“Amol”), to go check out the outlets near the hotel. At that point, Councillor Dhillon and Amol exchanged a look, bumped their fists and Councillor Dhillon asked him to leave. The Complainant only registered that this was strange after she encountered the incident in her hotel room. It was strange for Councillor Dhillon to ask Amol to go “check out the outlets” because it was close to midnight and no outlets were even open at that time.

As they left the lobby area, Councillor Dhillon entered the elevator with the Complainant. When the Complainant exited the elevator onto her floor, she noticed that Councillor Dhillon exited with her. She assumed that perhaps Councillor Dhillon’s hotel room was on the same floor as hers. Instead, as Councillor Dhillon and the Complainant were chatting, Councillor Dhillon entered her hotel room with her. The Complainant viewed Councillor Dhillon as a respected public official and did not assume anything negative.

She provided him with a bottle of water and he sat down.

The hotel staff called the Complainant, informing her that Councillor Dhillon was not in his room and asking her where to deliver the tea. The Complainant asked the hotel staff to deliver the tea to her room instead. At approximately 12:05am, a young boy from the hotel staff came to the Complainant’s room to deliver the tea. The Complainant opened the door, received the tea and kept her hotel room door ajar. She handed the tea to Councillor Dhillon, who drank the tea and continued talking to the Complainant.

At approximately 12:10am, Councillor Dhillon told the Complainant that he would show her the exercises that he was talking about. The Complainant thought that Councillor Dhillon would stand up and show her the exercises and she would follow, however, Councillor Dhillon told the Complainant that she needed to lie down on her back for the exercise. Councillor Dhillon told the Complainant that he would show her the exercises and then leave.

The Complainant and Councillor Dhillon walked into the bedroom of the suite. I attach photos of the Complainant’s bedroom hereto at Appendix “10”. Councillor Dhillon asked the Complainant to lie down on her back. The Complainant was fully dressed – she was wearing a long skirt and a turtleneck. The Complainant began to feel strange and that something was not right. Councillor Dhillon said “don’t worry”.

Councillor Dhillon lifted and stretched the Complainant’s left leg upwards and then did the same with her right leg. While Councillor Dhillon was stretching her legs, the Complainant was trying to cover her buttocks so that he would not see her underwear. Councillor Dhillon assured the Complainant that he plays basketball and that those were stretches that he did. He then asked the Complainant to lie down on her stomach and told her that they would do the stretches the other way. While the Complainant was facing down, he proceeded to stretch the Complainant’s leg upward. The Complainant said, “okay, that’s enough.”

The Complainant stated that she was terrified. Councillor Dhillon began to massage the Complainant’s backbone and went lower and lower. Councillor Dhillon’s hands reached the top of the Complainant’s skirt and he asked, “do you want me to take it off?” The Complainant immediately yelled, “stop!” By that point, Councillor Dhillon had his hands in the Complainant’s skirt, gripping both her skirt and her underwear. Councillor Dhillon pulled both the Complainant’s skirt and underwear off, exposing her buttocks. Councillor Dhillon started touching and squeezing the Complainant’s buttocks. The Complainant quickly grabbed and fixed her skirt, turned around and faced Councillor Dhillon. She said, “you have got this all wrong. I’m not like that”.

Councillor Dhillon then picked up the Complainant from the bed, stretched and wrapped the Complainant’s legs around his waist started to feel her body with his hands. While Councillor Dhillon had the Complainant in his grip, he demanded, “kiss me”. The Complainant said, “please stop”. The Complainant repeatedly asked Councillor Dhillon to return her to the ground. Councillor Dhillon started to pull down the Complainant’s shirt and bra and began to forcefully kiss her neck and chest and squeeze her buttocks. The Complainant repeatedly said “no” and asked Councillor Dhillon to leave. She pleaded with him to stop and to put her down. Councillor Dhillon returned the Complainant to the ground.

He then walked over to the seating area of the Complainant’s suite and began to close the curtains. I have attached photos of the seating area of the Complainant’s suite hereto at Appendix “11”. The Complainant grabbed Councillor Dhillon’s hand, stopping him from closing the curtains. The Complainant opened the curtains and Councillor Dhillon closed the curtains again. Councillor Dhillon then picked up the Complainant again while they were in the seating area and tried to force himself on her. The Complainant repeatedly yelled, “put me down!” Councillor Dhillon finally returned the Complainant to the ground.

At that point, Councillor Dhillon turned around and began to touch himself in an effort to arouse himself. He had his back towards the Complainant. While Councillor Dhillon had his back towards the Complainant, the Complainant quickly went to her phone and called an individual by the name of Ahmet, whom she had met earlier during her trip through a Turkish lawyer named Nursel Atar (“Ms. Atar”). The Complainant called Ahmet twice, however, when he did not pick up, she texted him.

At that point, the Complainant pressed the record button on her phone and began to record the remainder of the encounter between herself and Councillor Dhillon. I attach a transcript of that audio recording hereto at Appendix “12”. I will explore the content of that recording in detail in the “Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact” section of this Report.

Councillor Dhillon then picked up the Complainant again for the third time and the Complainant pleaded with him to put her down. The Complainant asked Councillor Dhillon to put her skirt down, she repeatedly said “no”, and finally, she said “you’re a married man, I’m a married woman”. Councillor Dhillon, while having the Complainant in his grip, continued to force himself on her. He even tried to convince her by saying, “we will put a timer on”.

At points during the contact between Councillor Dhillon and the Complainant, specifically while Councillor Dhillon had the complainant in his grip, Councillor Dhillon touched the Complainant on the buttocks, on her shoulder, her neck, her chest area, and unsuccessfully tried to touch her vaginal area.

After Councillor Dhillon left the Complainant’s room, he returned to her door and began knocking at her door while waiting there for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The Complainant opened the door and Councillor Dhillon said, “I just want to know if you are okay?”. The Complainant responded, “I need to take a shower”. Approximately 15 minutes after that, somebody else knocked on the Complainant’s door. When she looked through the peephole, she noticed it was a male who was holding an iron but was hiding his face. The Complainant did not open the door and put a chair behind the door for extra safety.

After the incident, the Complainant called a representative from the Ontario Provincial Police by the name of Sukhwinder Shami Toor (“Mr. Toor”). The Complainant was crying on the phone to Mr. Toor and informed him of the incident. She told him she was panicking. Mr. Toor told the Complainant to calm down and to lock the door. He told her not to open the door and that he would contact his chief and find out how to go about the situation. At that point, Mr. Toor advised the Complainant to write down the incident while it was fresh in her mind. The Complainant has produced screenshots of the notes she took on her phone of the incident while it was fresh in her mind. I attach those screenshots hereto at Appendix “13” and will analyze them in the “Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact” section of this Report.

After the incident, the Complainant also emailed Mike Ward (“Mr. Ward”), the Executive Director of the Canada Turkey Business Council, asking to meet with him regarding an incident that had occurred.

Mr. Ward responded to the Complainant’s email a couple of hours later and advised that he could meet in the morning (November 15, 2019). The Complainant did not contact Mr. Shamim at that point as Mr. Shamim was residing in another hotel and she did not want to inconvenience him that late in the night by asking him to travel to her hotel.

iii) November 15, 2019:

The Complainant met with Mr. Ward in the early hours of November 15, 2019. She had requested Mr. Ward meet in her room to discuss the incident. While the Complainant met with Mr. Ward, she played the audio recording (a transcript of which is attached at Appendix “12”) from the incident and informed him of everything that had occurred.

During the same morning of November 15, 2019, the Complainant arrived at the Tobb Office, for the second day of the Trade Mission. I attach photos that the Complainant took at a roundtable discussion at the Tobb Office on November 15, 2019 hereto at Appendix “14”. When the Complainant arrived, she approached Mr. Shamim and said, “do not leave my side, something terrible has happened”.

The Complainant also approached Ms. Atar and informed her immediately of the incident that had occurred. Mr. Shamim informed an individual by the name of Pinar, who is the assistant to the Consulate General, Brahim.

At one point, while the Complainant was at the Tobb Office, Councillor Dhillon approached her and asked, “how did you sleep last night?” The Complainant responded, “good”. On the contrary, the Complainant informed me that she did not sleep much on the night of the incident. However, she responded to Councillor Dhillon in fear, wanting to end the conversation.

At that point, Pinar asked the Complainant to go to the Ministry with them in the Embassy’s vehicle. While the Complainant was in the Embassy vehicle with Pinar, she began to have a nervous breakdown and repeatedly said “I need to go home”. Pinar responded, “you can’t, Brahim wants to talk to you”. Pinar informed the Complainant that he would contact the RCMP for reporting purposes. The Complainant then got on the next flight available from Ankara to Istanbul, even though she had previously booked a flight for a much later time that evening. She did not get a refund for the ticket that she had previously purchased. Copies of the Complainant’s original flight ticket/itinerary and the new flight ticket/itinerary are attached hereto at Appendix “15” and Appendix “16”, respectively.

The Complainant’s relative, Selim, with whom the Complainant had stayed initially, picked her up from the airport. The Complainant asked to stay in a hotel near the airport. She found a hotel by the name of WOW Istanbul. When the Complainant arrived in her room, she took a shower and went to sleep.

iv) November 17, 2019:

On November 17, 2019, the Complainant flew from Istanbul to Dubai and from Dubai to Toronto. She had originally booked a flight with Turkish Airlines; however, she did not get on that flight as she did not want to see anybody from the group who attended the Trade Mission and she wanted to return to her home immediately. A copy of the Complainant’s originally purchased return ticket from Istanbul to Toronto is attached hereto at Appendix “17”.

The Complainant was crying at the airport. While she was at the airport, she was speaking to Ryan Mitchell from the RCMP. The Complainant advised Mr. Mitchell that she was having a hard time at the airport and that she wanted to switch her flight. Mr. Mitchell assisted her over the phone and the Complainant was able to book a new flight through Emirates Airlines. A copy of the Complainant’s flight itinerary with Emirates Airlines is attached hereto at Appendix “18”.

v) Days and Months Following the Incident:

Following the night of the incident, the Complainant spoke to a number of individuals and informed them of the incident. These individuals include, but are not limited to, the following people:

• Mayor Brown;

• Mr. Nagalingam;

• Mr. Shamim;

• Clare Barnette;

• Mr. Collins;

• Ms. Atar;

• Mr. Ward;

• Members of the Canadian Consulate in Turkey; and

• Representatives of the Ontario Provincial Police as well as the RCMP.

I have had the opportunity to interview many of the above-noted individuals and will consider their evidence in the “Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact” section of this report. In conducting these interviews, I was attempting to substantiate the events that occurred after the incident between Councillor Dhillon and the Complainant.

B. My Jurisdiction to Investigate the Complainant’s Complaint (differentiating civil conduct from potentially criminal conduct):

I note that the Complaint filed by the Complainant in the Complaint Form attached at Appendix “6” states that she was “sexually assaulted” by Councillor Dhillon.

Section 2(2)(a) of the Complaint Protocol affirms the lack of jurisdiction of an Integrity Commissioner to pursue an allegation that is of criminal nature:

(a) if the complaint on its face is an allegation of a criminal nature consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada, the complainant shall be advised that if the complainant wishes to pursue any such allegation, the complainant must pursue it with the appropriate police force;

As a starting point, it was crucial for me to determine which part of the alleged incident could potentially trigger provisions of the Criminal Code relating to sexual assault. Given that I am not a criminal lawyer, I deemed it appropriate to seek a memorandum from a seasoned criminal lawyer regarding which components of the incident that occurred between the Complainant and Councillor Dhillon could trigger the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (“Criminal Code”) (the relevant provisions of which are attached hereto at Appendix “38”). I sought the assistance of a criminal lawyer practising in Toronto by the name of Najma Jamaldin (“Ms. Jamaldin”), who provided a memorandum for my consideration on March 21, 2020. Prior to receiving the report, I met with Ms. Jamaldin so that I could discuss with her the nature of the allegations against Councillor Dhillon.

As I understand it, the relevant Criminal Code provisions which may be triggered under the circumstances are as follows:

Section 265 (1) Assault

Section 265 (1) A person commits an assault when:

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; or

(2) this section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault³

Section 273.1 (1) Definition of Consent

Consent is defined in s. 273.1 (1) as a voluntary agreement of a complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Section 273.1 (2) Limits of Consent

Section 273.1 (2) limits consent in defined circumstances. It provides that: No consent is obtained if:

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

Section 273.2 Where Belief in Consent not a Defence

Section 273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where

(a) the accused’s belief arose from

(i) the accused’s self-induced intoxication,

(ii) the accused’s recklessness or wilful blindness, or

(iii) any circumstance referred to in subsection 265(3) or 273.1(2) or (3) in which no consent is obtained

(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting;

The reason it is important to distill areas of the allegation that would trigger the Criminal Code as opposed to the Code of Conduct is to remind the public that I do not serve in the role of the police. Not only do complaints of a criminal nature trigger a separate set of requirements to be followed by the police, the standard of proof in a criminal context is entirely different to that in a civil context.

The standard of proof in the criminal context is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt must be based on “reason and common sense”.⁴

My job is not to interpret the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and to investigate and assess whether the actus reus and the mens rea of sexual assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. My role is not to determine whether there was consent or mistaken belief of consent as it would normally be evaluated in a criminal context.

My role, pursuant to section 223.3(1) attached under Appendix “1” is to apply the relevant rules of the Code of Conduct as well as any procedures, rules, and policies of the Municipality governing the ethical behavior of Councillors.

To be specific, my role is to determine whether Councillor Dhillon’s misconduct violated rules of the Code of Conduct, as well as any other applicable policy that governs his ethical behavior. The appropriate policy to consider and analyze is the City of Brampton’s “Respectful Workplace” policy, which addresses sexual harassment, and which is also referenced in Rule 14 of the Code of Conduct (this is the policy that was in effect at the time that the incident took place, and I appreciate that this is not the policy that is currently in effect). I will analyze that policy in depth and apply it to the Complainant’s allegations in the “Issues and Analysis” section of this Report.

Process Followed

In ensuring fairness to both the Complainant and Councillor Dhillon, I have followed the relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and the Complaint Protocol during the course of my investigation.

I ensured that Councillor Dhillon had an adequate opportunity to respond to the Complainant by serving a copy of it on him on March 20, 2020. I received a response to the Complaint from Councillor Dhillon on April 7, 2020.

On April 20, 2020, I served the following documents on Councillor Dhillon:

• A summary of the phone call between myself and Mayor Brown which prompted my investigation;

• The email exchange between myself and Mayor Brown regarding my investigation (including notes from Gary Collins, the Director of Communications for Mayor Brown); and

• A transcript of the in-room audio recording that was provided to me by the Complainant’s counsel.

Pursuant to section 5(1)(a) of the Complaint Protocol, which I attach hereto under Appendix “3”, I requested a fulsome response from Councillor Dhillon to the above-noted disclosure by no later than April 29, 2020.

Mr. Hasan provided Councillor Dhillon’s response to me on April 27, 2020, which I will assess below under “Positions of the Parties”.

Positions of the Parties

A. Complainant’s Position:

The Complainant’s position, which she outlines in her Complaint Form (attached at Appendix “6”) is as follows:

“Beginning shortly after midnight on November 15, 2019, I was sexually assaulted by Councillor Dhillon in my hotel room in Ankara, Turkey. We were both in Turkey as delegates from Brampton on a trade mission.

I believe this contravenes rules 14 and 15 of the Council Code of Conduct.”

To be specific, the Complainant’s position is that:

a) Councillor Dhillon engaged in conduct that constitutes harassment (Rule no. 14); and

b) Councillor Dhillon engaged in conduct that is discreditable (Rule no. 15).

B. Respondent’s Position:

i) Councillor Dhillon’s Response to the Complainant’s Complaint Form:

Councillor Dhillon’s position, which he outlines in his response to the Complaint Form that was served on him on March 20, 2020, is as follows:

“I categorically deny the allegation and I am deeply concerned about the procedural irregularities, particularly as they relate to adherence by your office to the City’s official procedures on receiving complaints, and any subsequent investigation. The absence of any detail or disclosure about this complaint against me — despite repeated requests from my counsel — has meant that I am unable to properly respond to it.

The Integrity Commissioner has also failed to respond to important questions about the legal basis for the investigation conducted between December 2019 and March 19, 2020.

In addition, I was also troubled to learn from you that your initial investigation apparently began as a result of a telephone call from the Mayor in late November 2019, which is troubling as the City’s Official Complaints Process was created to ensure the process remains apolitical.

Lastly, the fact that a formal complaint was coincidentally only made one day after my counsel questioned your investigative powers in the absence of a formal complaint, leads me to question the fairness and objectivity of the investigation.”

Put simply, Councillor Dhillon’s response to the Complainant’s allegation in her Complaint Form (which I received on April 7, 2020) was that he “categorically” denies the allegation. Further, he questioned my jurisdiction and investigation process. I had already answered the questions that Councillor Dhillon had raised through his counsel in the five letters that I sent to him, which are attached hereto at Appendix “4”.

ii) Councillor Dhillon’s Response to Disclosure Provided to him on April 20, 2020

As mentioned above, I served Councillor Dhillon with documents on April 20, 2020 and provided him ten days to respond, pursuant to the Complaint Protocol. Councillor Dhillon responded to me on April 27, 2020, through his counsel, Mr. Hasan.

In his correspondence to me of April 27, 2020, Mr. Hasan stated:

“Mr. Dhillon will not be adding anything further to his response of April 27, 2020”.

Further, Mr. Hasan reiterated the same concerns regarding lack of disclosure and “procedural irregularities”, all of which, I addressed in the three letters that I sent to Mr. Hasan.

With respect to the audio recording, Mr. Hasan stated that:

“We have concerns about the accuracy and completeness of that transcript”.

I view Mr. Hasan’s above response as wholly unjustified. Not only am I the Integrity Commissioner for Brampton, I am also an officer of the court by virtue of being a lawyer. I view Mr. Hasan’s concern regarding the accuracy and completeness of the transcript as a means to obstruct my investigation even further.

Documentary Evidence, Evidence from Relevant Individuals, and Findings of Fact

I will now analyze the documentary evidence I have received from the Complainant as well as other individuals, followed by an analysis of the oral evidence I have received from the relevant individuals I interviewed. I will then use the documentary and oral evidence before me to reach findings of fact. Thereafter, I will use the findings of fact to analyze the key issues (under the “Issues and Analysis” section of this Report) and to determine whether those issues are with or without merit.

A. Evidence from Relevant Individuals

i) Interview with Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam:

I met and interviewed Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam at my insistence on December 31, 2019 at Brampton City Council.

Mayor Brown advised me that Mr. Shamim had approached him about coming on a trade trip to Turkey, however, Mayor Brown’s “schedule was too busy” so he could not. Mayor Brown advised that “Councillor Dhillon said he could go”.

When I asked Mayor Brown about what the Complainant told him when he met with her on November 20, 2019 at her hair salon, he said:

“She said he sexually assaulted her. That it all started with her being at hotel bar. They were all at same hotel. She said.. I forget all details, but she said he invited her up to his room. I don’t think he drinks.. I’m not sure if they were drinking. She said that she was in his room for 45 mins. She felt uncomfortable.”

Mayor Brown informed me that the Complainant phoned his Communications Director, Mr. Collins, upon her return to Brampton, stating that she wanted to make a complaint. Mayor Brown informed me that he, Mr. Nagalingam, and Mr. Collins met with the Complainant, wherein she informed them of the incident that occurred:

Muneeza: what was going on for 45mins?

Mayor Brown: she says that he has asked for help with his sore back and that she wanted to leave but then he wouldn’t let her. He kept on trying to kiss her and hold her and trying to take her pants off. Eventually, she got him out of the room and she...

When I asked Mayor Brown about his interpretation of the recording that the Complainant had played for him, he said:

Muneeza: what are we hearing?

Mayor Brown: him asking for a kiss and her saying no and saying please leave.

She said he wouldn’t leave and the recording would get him to leave.

Muneeza: Was he aware she was recording?

Mayor Brown: I don’t think so.

Babu: no..

Muneeza: why would she think recording him would make him leave?

How did she finally get him out?

Mayor Brown: she got him out, then he waited next to the door.

Muneeza: for how long?

Mayor brown: a long time.

He tried to get back into the door. He pretended he was housekeeping, but she didn’t answer.

When I asked Mr. Nagalingam about his discussions with Councillor Dhillon, he stated that “in the few meetings I had with him, he was trying to find out what we are planning to do.”

Mr. Nagalingam also advised that Councillor Dhillon was “nervous”. He stated that, “every time I would meet him, he would say, did you hear anything?”

Mayor Brown also advised that the Complainant did not want the news of the incident to reach the media as she was concerned for her safety.

Mayor Brown also advised me that he reached out to Clare Barnett (“Ms. Barnett”), the City of Brampton’s Economic Director, to meet with the Complainant since Ms. Barnett is a female and Mayor Brown wanted to ensure that the Complainant had a female contact to speak to about the incident and to reach out to for help in case she felt awkward or uncomfortable speaking to him, Mr. Collins and Mr. Nagalingam about it (3 males).

ii) Interview with Mr. Shamim:

I met with Mr. Shamim, a Board Member of the Canada Turkey Business Council and the former Chair of Brampton’s Board of Trade, on January 10, 2020 at Brampton’s City Hall.

Mr. Shamim informed me of the purpose and the logistics of the trade mission that took place on November 14, 2019 and November 15, 2019 in Turkey.

Mr. Shamim confirmed that he did not know Councillor Dhillon beyond his political affiliations. He also confirmed that Mayor Brown was unavailable to attend the Trade Mission as he was accompanying Councillor Medieros on another business trip. Mr. Shamim confirmed that Mayor Brown called him to inform him that Councillor Dhillon would be accompanying them on the Trade Mission in place of himself as he was the Chair of the Economic Development Committee at Brampton.

Mr. Shamim also confirmed how The Complainant came to be involved with the Trade Mission – she was introduced to him by a friend and was a local business owner in the City of Brampton.

Mr. Shamim advised that on November 13, 2019, he spent the day in meetings and that Councillor Dhillon was supposed to come and join him for his meeting relating to asset management. However, when Councillor Dhillon landed, he was “under the weather” and “was jet lagged”, so, “he spent his day resting or sightseeing”.

Mr. Shamim informed me of his conversation with the Complainant the morning after the incident (morning of November 15, 2019), which he recalls as follows:

Badar Shamim: The next morning (November 15^th), I got up and got ride from Samm Hotel to the Tobb offices for our meeting and eventually everybody arrived in a bus together from hotel to Tobb office as well. People came off bus and entered the hall. [The Complainant] entered and walked up to me around early morning and said don’t leave my side, something terrible happened.

Saba: How long was the bus ride?

Badar Shamim: Not sure, but around 5-10 min bus ride.

Badar Shamim: I had curious look on my face. I said, what happened? I can’t remember exact terms. She described that night before at Movenpick, that C. Dhillon decided to follow her into the hotel elevator

Muneeza: Did she say there was anything that led up to him following her?

Badar Shamim: No nothing. Apparently, she came to hotel late, registered in hotel, Dhillon was in the lobby with his assistant. I can’t remember whether both Dhillon and assistant went into elevator with her or whether Dhillon followed her

Muneeza: You’re just telling me what you remember her telling you?

Badar Shamim: Yes. She had been complaining about back aches. She told me she mentioned that to C. Dhillon. He offered to show her some stretches for her back aches. For whatever reason, she decided to invite him into her room. She called the hotel staff for a cup of tea. They had tea and then I guess he proceeded to show her some stretches and all of a sudden he got more physical. According to her, he picked her up and started to disrobe her and tried to get into her skirt. Basically, tried to convince her to have sex with him. During all this process, she kept saying no no no, we are married. We shouldn’t be here first of all. I don’t think you know what you’re doing. We should talk tomorrow. Apparently, that interaction … it kept on going for a while. So next day, she was extremely upset about that whole episode. Eventually she managed to get him out of the room. He was in corridor. Kept banging on door. She called security. He left after security was called.

Muneeza: How did you respond to her telling you this?

Badar Shamim: I had no idea how to respond to that. I asked if she spoke to anybody. She said I spoke to Mike Ward.

Muneeza: When?

Badar Shamim: I think she called him at night. I think he didn’t pick up the phone so she spoke to him in the morning prior to speaking with me.

Muneeza: Was she calm or flustered when she spoke to you?

Badar Shamim: Flustered. You could tell she was upset. You could tell she was confused… upset and almost in the state of hyperventilating.

And she did mention… so I have through Canada turkey business council I have friends in Ankara that [the Complainant] had met in Istanbul – she did call them at night.

Muneeza: the night of incident?

Badar Shamim: yes.

She called Ahmet – he is an assistant to a friend of mine. Ahmet is Nursel’s assistant.

Ahmet said what am I going to do coming there right now, so just call security. She might have called him while this was going on. Ahmet told her to call security and she called hotel security.”

Mr. Shamim further advised that right after the roundtable discussion on November 15, 2019, “[the Complainant] was wisped away by staff from the embassy in Ankara”.

Mr. Shamim did not see the Complainant after that in Turkey, however, when Mr. Shamim’s friend, Ms. Atar, visited Brampton, Mr. Shamim invited the Complainant for lunch to introduce her to local stakeholders. That lunch took place on November 22, 2019.

Following the lunch, the Complainant, Mr. Shamim and Ms. Atar decided to visit the location of a Tool Manufacturer in Canada as Mr. Shamim wanted to connect Ms. Atar to a gentleman there. During the car ride, the Complainant brought up the incident that had occurred with Councillor Dhillon and played the audio recording of the incident, which Mr. Shamim heard.

Mr. Shamim’s recollection of the audio recording is as follows:

Muneeza: what did you hear?

Badar Shamim: it’s a lengthy conversation of Dhillon trying to convince her to have sex with him. During that audio recording, she is repeatedly telling him, no no no, I don’t think you know what you’re doing.

I only heard audio once, but towards end of audio, she was running around in the room, she was hyperventilating and trying to get away. So I would say it was pretty incriminating.

And, that was that.

iii) Interviews with the Complainant:

I interviewed the Complainant for the first time on January 10, 2020 and for a second time on January 29, 2020, wherein I addressed any follow-up questions or points of clarification that I had. The majority of the information that the Complainant provided to me during her investigative interviews is included under the Complaint section of this Report. However, to the extent there are any further details that are noteworthy, I will include them here.

When I first met with the Complainant, she allowed me to listen to the audio recording that she had made of the incident. Before the Complainant’s counsel played the audio recording, the Complainant exited the room. When the Complainant returned to the room, she stated, “I can’t even hear it. It’s not easy” and she began crying and was visibly upset.

The Complainant also confirmed that while she did not call hotel security during the night of the incident, Ahmet, whom she contacted over the phone after the incident, spoke to the hotel staff and was trying to get her room changed. However, no other rooms were available as they were fully booked.

iv) Interview with Ms. Barnett:

My colleague, Saba J. Khan (“Ms. Khan”), interviewed Ms. Barnett on January 16, 2020 at City Hall.

Ms. Barnett stated that she came to know of the incident between Councillor Dhillon and the Complainant through Todd Lets, the Head of the Board of Trade, who called Ms. Barnett around November 18, and informed her of the incident.

Ms. Barnett then went to visit Mr. Collins as she wanted to know how to respond to the allegations in case any of her staff members or somebody else asked. Mr. Collins suggested that Ms. Barnett speak to Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam herself, which she did. Ms. Barnett stated as follows with respect to that conversation with Mr. Collins and Mayor Brown:

Ms. Barnett: At that point, he told me Gary and Babu had seen her. They asked me what I thought about anything more they should do. I said she should probably see a woman considering her situation. I said I’d be happy to go and do it. I did. I had coffee with [the Complainant] that afternoon. I had her cell phone number from Gary and sent her text saying who I was typically responsible for trade missions.

On or about November 27, 2019, Ms. Barnett met with the Complainant at a Starbucks and they discussed the incident over a coffee. Ms. Barnett’s recollection of what the Complainant informed her of regarding the incident on the night of November 14, 2019 is as follows:

Ms. Barnett: I met her one afternoon for about 2 hours, where she told me, from her perspective what had happened. Details she shared with me was that Councillor Dhillon had been speaking in lobby of hotel and sat down and he said he wasn’t feeling well. She ordered him a tea. At that point, Amol came to councilor to see if he was coming. And he said he was staying there. They did a fist bump. [The Complainant] said that she should have known at that point that something was up.

Then, she told me how he rode the elevator and got off on her floor. Spoke in the hallway for 10-15 mins, then ended up coming to her room. He was showing her back exercises b/c her back hurts from being in a car accident. He said that he plays basketball and has back exercises he does. She had opened the curtains in the room. He went to go close the curtains.

I’m not 100% sure how it started, he grabbed her. He’s a big man and she’s very little. She felt concerned for her own safety. He had pushed her on the bed and was trying to take his pants off and have sex with her unwillingly. I’m not sure… it wasn’t clear to me how she got away from underneath him but she said she grabbed her phone and she recorded her experience, which I have not heard. I didn’t ask to hear it. Then, I think she left her door ajar in some way. Hotel staff person came and interrupted and that got him out. He stayed outside her room for about 15 mins and then he eventually left. I don’t think he called security but security was around.

She was very scared and told me about how big he was and how little she was, and that she said stop.

Saba: How was her demeanor when she was conveying this to you at Starbucks?

Ms. Barnett: You could see that she was obviously physically drained. Her body was very tired looking. She was hunched over. She also told me about how she was very worried about some type of honour killing. She said she saw some Sikh men taking pictures of her house on her driveway. She was concerned for her own safety because of Sikh community and traditions.

I really didn’t say much the whole time, I listened to her. I said if she needed anything, she could text and I’d be happy to help her.

She said she was going to her doctor but at that point she hadn’t told her husband. She said her husband was going to react in a negative way. She was concerned about how she was going to tell him or how he’d found out. “

Ms. Barnett also stated that she suggested helpful resources to the Complainant such as Women’s College Hospital.

v) Interview with Mr. Collins:

My colleague, Ms. Khan interviewed Mr. Collins on January 16, 2020 at Brampton City Hall.

The Complainant spoke to Mr. Collins over the phone on November 19, 2019, wherein, “she indicated that she had reached out to the Mayor on social media to arrange a meeting”. Mr. Collins stated that the Complainant informed him of the incident and that she wanted to meet the Mayor on an urgent basis. Mr. Collins “felt an obligation to arrange the meeting”. On November 20, 2019, the day after Mr. Collins spoke with the Complainant, he informed Mayor Brown both of his conversation and that the Complainant wanted to meet. Mr. Collins advised that he met with the Complainant around 2:45pm that very day (November 20, 2019) along with Mayor Brown and Mr. Nagalingam.

Mr. Collins stated that the Trade Mission to Turkey was “a City trip”. Specifically, he stated that “Dhillon’s trip was an official City trip with City money. The Mayor would generally attend these kinds of events, however, the Mayor can’t be everywhere”.

Mr. Collins stated that the meeting with the Complainant at her hair salon on November 20, 2019 lasted for “30 odd minutes or so”. During that meeting, the Complainant conveyed the details of the incident. Mr. Collins specifically recalled the Complainant “talking about him picking her up” and that “he was trying to take her pants off”. Mr. Collins stated that he was shocked at what the Complainant was telling him. Mr. Collins also stated that he tried connecting the Complainant to organizations and that he knew that the Complainant had met with her family doctor regarding the incident.

vi) Interview with Ms. Atar:

I interviewed Ms. Atar, the lawyer from Turkey who assisted the Complainant in dealing with the incident, on January 23, 2020.

Ms. Atar stated that she first met the Complainant in Istanbul, Turkey. Ms. Atar stated that the Complainant approached her in the morning of November 15, 2019 advising her that “something bad had happened the night before.”

She stated that the Complainant said, “it was really uncomfortable, he came to my room, he harassed me, what should I do?”

Ms. Atar stated that the Complainant was “stressed” when she was conveying this to Ms. Atar.

Ms. Atar mentioned that she was introduced to the Complainant through Mr. Shamim and that because the Complainant knew how to speak some Turkish, she became close with her in a short period of time.

I asked Ms. Atar what the Complainant’s demeanor was on November 15, and she stated as follows:

Nursel Atar: she wasn’t happy. She was kind of shaky. Unfortunately, she was feeling a little guilty. This is my interpretation. She was saying, I wasn’t wearing revealing clothes, I didn’t do anything to turn him on. I didn’t really want to cause this. I didn’t do anything. I’m like don’t worry, even if you were naked and you said no, that means no. Don’t worry, it’s not your fault. She was worried about her husband. She said I’m probably not going to make a complaint. What if he finds out about this. That’s probably why she didn’t accept my recommendation.”

Ms. Atar also corroborated Ms. Shamim’s account of the lunch that they went to with the Complainant in Canada:

Nursel Atar: it was new for me. I didn’t know how I should feel. If I should help her or not. When embassy took over, I was relieved. When I went to Toronto, we talked again.

Nursel Atar: This part is important. I went to Toronto I met with Badar in Brampton. Badar wanted to introduce me to few business contacts and we did meet with these contacts in the morning. Badar also arranged a lunch for me and with his friends. At the very last moment, right before we were getting into the restaurant, we said why don’t we call [the Complainant]. Badar called her and [the Complainant] was with us in half an hour. During lunch, she sat with me and she told me that she was still shaken and she hasn’t gotten over this and there’s a police investigation going on and she wants to hire me as a criminal lawyer. I think she also asked for help from Ahmed to get the records at the hotel camera recordings. The camera recordings for the hotels. I don’t know if he did help or not.

Muneeza: what else do you remember from that meeting?

Nursel Atar: She gave me a ride to Yorkdale mall where my daughter was waiting for me from Brampton. On the way to the mall, she had me listen to recording of that night. And she told me, again, that there was harassment and it was really uncomfortable and she changed her mind and she decided to go ahead with the complaint and now police is involved. They questioned her.

Ms. Atar also mentioned that she had conversations over WhatsApp with the Complainant following the incident.

vii) Interview with Mr. Ward:

I interviewed Mr. Ward, who was the Executive Director of Canada Turkey Business Council, on January 24, 2020 over the phone. Mr. Ward stated that he first met with the Complainant on November 11, 2019 with Mr. Shamim.

Mr. Ward corroborated the Complainant’s account of the incident. When I asked him what his view was when he listened to the audio recording that the Complainant played for him during the morning of November 15, 2019, he stated as follows:

Mike Ward: She said he picked her up and he was fumbling with strings on his underwear. But when I heard the recording, I had a sense that he wanted something from her and she was saying no and that’s when I stopped listening to it. I forget how many minutes I listened to. That was the sense I had.”

During my interview, Mr. Ward relied on a journal entry that he said was written at the time that the Complainant told him about the incident. I will be referring to that journal entry in the documentary evidence section of this report.

B. Documentary Evidence

I will now review the documentary evidence before me in chronological order.

i) Receipt indicating the Complainant’s check-in at Movenpick Hotel, Ankara

The Complainant provided me with a receipt indicating the time that she checked into Movenpick Hotel. I note that the date and time listed on the receipt (which is attached at Appendix “8”) is “14/11/19” and “23:21”, respectively.

ii) Audio recording made by the Complainant

During my first interview with the Complainant on January 10, 2019, the Complainant allowed me to listen to the audio recording that she made of the incident.

I have attached a transcript of that audio recording hereto at Appendix “12”.

Upon listening to the audio recording, it is evident to me that the Complainant began recording the incident part way through Councillor Dhillon being in her room. It is clear that Councillor Dhillon is trying to plead with the Complainant to engage in inappropriate sexual misconduct.

A summary of what I heard in the audio recording is as follows:

• Councillor Dhillon trying to convince the Complainant for a “favor”;

• The Complainant pleading with Councillor Dhillon and repeatedly saying “no”; and

• The Complainant asking Councillor Dhillon to put her down and to put her skirt down.

In a recording that lasted only 2 minutes and 57 seconds, I heard the Complainant said “no” to Councillor Dhillon 74 times.

Key excerpts from the recording, which I will analyze further in the “Issues and Analysis” section of the Report are as follows:

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just… just... just…just... just…

THE COMPLAINANT: Noo [whining]. No. No. No. Please. Like.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just… just…

THE COMPLAINANT: You’re the…

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just… just…

THE COMPLAINANT: You’re the Councillor of Brampton! You’re! Come on!

[chuckling sound]

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just… just do me a favor and then I’ll leave. I’ll…

THE COMPLAINANT: NO!

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: I’ll leave right away.

THE COMPLAINANT: No! No! No. Please. No.

THE COMPLAINANT: STOP! Please! Please! Please! No, no, no, no.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just listen. Hear me out. Hear me out first. Hear me out. [Inaudible]

THE COMPLAINANT: No. Noooo… [whining] no, no. Noooo [whining]. Please. Please. Come on. Please.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: I’ll…

THE COMPLAINANT: Please.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Listen. Listen. One sec.

THE COMPLAINANT: Please.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: I’ll put a timer on.

THE COMPLAINANT: NOOOOO! [yelling] NO! Come on! You…Stop! Please.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just…

THE COMPLAINANT: No. No, no, no, no. Please. Stop. No. Stop it! Please! Don’t!

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: [moaning or deep breathing sound]

THE COMPLAINANT: Please! No! Put me down! Please! Please stop! Please. Noo. Please. No. No. No. [voice becomes distant] Please. Stop. Nooo! [whining] Please. Stop. Sto-ooop.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: [grunting sound]

THE COMPLAINANT: Stop. Please. [deep sigh] Please. Sto…[deep sigh]. Plea….no! No!

No! Please please…put my skirt down. Oh my god [crying sound]! Please, no! Please stop! Please.

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Come on.

THE COMPLAINANT: Nooo! [whining] No. Please. You go rest today. Please? Please?

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just give me a…

THE COMPLAINANT: No!

COUNCILLOR DHILLON: Just give me a little bit before I leave.

THE COMPLAINANT: Nooo [whining]! No.

[door closing sound]

[door locking sound]

THE COMPLAINANT: Fuck!

[picking up recording device sound]

THE COMPLAINANT: [deep and heavy panting and breathing sound]

iii) The Complainant’s written record of the incident shortly after it occurred

The Complainant provided me with screenshots of the incident shortly after it occurred. The screenshots are attached hereto at Appendix “13”.

The content of the Complainant’s notes substantiates both the audio recording as well as what she advised me during my investigative interviews.

When I reviewed the screenshots, I noticed that the date listed on the note was December 18, 2019. I asked Ms. Klein about why the date listed was December 18, 2019 if the notes had purportedly been written shortly after the incident.

Ms. Klein’s response to my question (which I attach hereto at Appendix “19” was as follows:

“I can further advise, after reviewing my texts with [the Complainant], December 18 is the day we met, she reviewed those notes, and forwarded them to me as a text message. That may be what a men the time stamp updated.”

Being an iPhone user myself, I note that this is indeed a function of the “Notes” application on iPhones – that is, the time stamp on the note updates automatically if the text in the note has been clicked on.

iv) Photos of the Complainant’s hotel suite (photo of suite – Dhillon’s cup of tea- tab 8)

The Complainant provided me with photos of her hotel suite, which includes a bedroom as well as a seating area, just as she had mentioned in her interview. The photos corroborate her version of events.

I also note, in one of the photos of the Complainant’s hotel suite (attached at Appendix “11”), you can see Councillor Dhillon’s teacup on the table, as well as the bottle of water that the Complainant referred to in the audio recording.

v) Screenshots of a call log, indicating phone calls the Complainant made to Ahmet Shoufer after the alleged incident

The Complainant provided me with screenshots of a WhatsApp call log, indicating incoming and outgoing phone calls between her and Ahmet Shoufer (“Mr. Shoufer”), Ms. Atar’s consultant. I attach the screenshot of the call log hereto at Appendix “20”.

The date the call was made is “November 14, 2019” between 4:42pm and 4:57pm. Between 4:42pm and 4:57pm, a total of 5 phone calls were exchanged. It should be noted that since the Complainant screenshotted the call log after her return to Canada, the timing of the calls is displayed in local Canadian time (Brampton), rather than in Turkish time. With the help of a time zone converter, I was able to determine that 4:57pm on November 14, 2019 (Canadian time) would have been 12:57am on November 15, 2019 in Ankara, Turkey.

I also attach a screenshot of the time zone converter indicating as such hereto at Appendix “21”.

vi) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Pinar following the incident

The Complainant provided me with a screenshot of a WhatsApp call log, indicating an outgoing call to Pinar at 8:01am (Canadian time) on November 15, 2019, which translates to 4:01pm on November 15, 2019 (the day after the incident).

I also note a screenshot showing an incoming call from Pinar at 2:01am (Canadian time) on November 16, 2019, which is 10:01am (Turkish time) on November 16, 2019.

I attach the above-noted screenshots hereto at Appendix “22”. I also attach a screenshot of the time zone converter indicating the time conversion into Turkish time hereto at Appendix “23”.

vii) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Ms. Atar following the incident

The Complainant provided me with a screenshot of a WhatsApp call log, indicating an unanswered phone call made to Ms. Atar at 10:34am on November 15, 2019, which translates to 6:34pm on November 15, 2019 (the day after the incident).

I attach a screenshot of the above-referenced call log hereto at Appendix “24”. I also attach a screenshot of the time zone converter indicating the time conversion into Turkish time hereto at Appendix “25”.

viii) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to Canadian Consulate in Istanbul

The Complainant provided me with screenshots of a WhatsApp call log, indicating calls to and from a contact at the Canadian Consulate General in Istanbul.

Based on those screenshots, I note:

• An incoming call on November 15, 2019 at 11:52am (Canadian time), which converts to 7:52pm on November 15, 2019 (Turkish time);

• An outgoing call on November 17, 2019 at 11:08am (Canadian time), which converts to 7:08pm on November 17, 2019 (Turkish time); and

• An outgoing call on November 17, 2019 at 6:47am (Canadian time), which converts to 2:47pm on November 17, 2019 (Turkish time).

I attach screenshots of the above-referenced call logs hereto at Appendix “26”. I also attach screenshots of the time zone converter indicating the time conversions into Turkish time hereto at Appendix “27”.

ix) Email chains between the Complainant and Mr. Ward

The Complainant provided me with email chains between herself and Mr. Ward. I attach the email chains hereto at Appendix “28”.

The email chains corroborate the Complainant’s version of events, particularly, that she emailed Mr. Ward after the incident, asking him to meet.

I note the Complainant’s email to Mr. Ward, sent at 1:13am on November 15, 2019, wherein she states:

“Mike I am so sorry to text you. Can I talk to you tomorrow in the morning alone please. About of an incident happened here and I need you’re help. Good night”

The email chain shows that Mr. Ward responded as follows:

“No problem [Complainant]. Happy to speak later this morning or this afternoon”. Lunch may provide an opportunity”.

The Complainant then responded, “It’s a bit urgent and I don’t know who to talk to.”

I also note the Complainant’s email, wherein she asked Mr. Ward to meet in her room, which corroborates both hers and Mr. Ward’s recollection of the events that occurred.

x) Journal entry by Mr. Ward regarding his meeting and conversation with the Complainant after the incident

Mr. Ward provided an excerpt of his journal entry to me, which he wrote on November 15, 2019, the day after the incident.

Of particular importance are the following lines from the journal entry:

• “My adrenaline was still running when I returned to my room last night so I ended up doing a bit of work past midnight. It’s because I was still awake that I saw a cryptic message from Badar’s friend [Complainant] asking if we could meet in her room to discuss an unspecified issue. It sounded strange, and it was way too late to meet anyone ... and certainly not a woman in her room, so I suggested getting together for breakfast. It wasn’t until I woke up this morning that I saw her reply message saying she preferred to speak in private and asking if we could still meet in her room. So I went to see her at about 07:00.”

• “…One of the other delegates, a Brampton politician, allegedly made a move on her in her room late at night. Although she did not seem traumatized, she was justifiably upset.”

• “She had made a recording of the fellow while he was in her room (I’m still not sure why she let him in).”

• “I suggested she get any hallway video recording from the hotel, that she write an incident report, that she speak with a female Turkish lawyer on the delegation who I know from when we lived in Ankara, and that she consider setting up a meeting with Brampton mayor Patrick Brown if she decides to take further action. That all happened before breakfast, and prior to us getting on the bus I had booked to take everyone from the hotel to the TOBB building. [The Complainant] was on that, but I encouraged the politician to take a taxi, so [the Complainant] would not have to be near him for that drive.”

• “Badar now knows about the event and will help [the Complainant] back in Brampton.”

Mr. Ward’s account of what followed after the incident corroborates the Complainant’s version of events.

xi) Screenshot of phone call the Complainant made to her relative, Selim

The Complainant produced a screenshot of her WhatsApp call log, which indicates an incoming call from her relative, Selim, on November 15, 2019 at 1:30am (Canadian time), which converts to 9:30am on November 15, 2019 (Turkish time).

I attach a copy of that screenshot hereto at Appendix “29”. I also attach screenshots of the time zone converter indicating the time conversions into Turkish time hereto at Appendix “29”

xii) Copies of the Complainant’s flight tickets

The Complainant produced copies of her flight tickets and itineraries to me which are attached hereto at Appendices “7”, “15-18”.

I have reviewed the flight tickets and itineraries and they corroborate the Complainant’s version of events. Particularly, the copies of the flight tickets and itineraries show that the day after the incident (November 15, 2019) the Complainant got on an earlier flight from Ankara to Istanbul (and not on the one that she had previously booked).

Further, it corroborates the fact that the Complainant did not board the return flight that she had originally booked from Istanbul to Toronto (via Turkish Airlines) on November 17, 2019, but instead, took a later flight through Dubai via Emirates Airlines later that day.

xiii) Screenshot of the Complainant’s conversation with Ryan Fortner from the Canadian Consulate General in Istanbul over WhatsApp

The Complainant produced screenshots of her conversation with Ryan Fortner (“Mr. Fortner”), from the Canadian Consulate General in Turkey. I attach those screenshots hereto at Appendix “30”.

In the messages, it is evident that Mr. Fortner is asking the Complainant if she needs any advice or support. I note that the first message was sent by Mr. Fortner on November 15, 2019 at 11:32am (Canadian time), which converts to 7:32pm on November 15, 2019 (Turkish time) – a day after the night of the incident. I attach screenshots of the time zone converter indicating the time conversions into Turkish time hereto at Appendix “30”

Mr. Fortner also sent a link to the “Victim’s Fund”, which, among other things that he outlined, was a fund created to help with the “expenses for a Canadian victim of crime to return to Canada”.

Mr. Fortner also sent the Complainant a link for “sexual assault support” in Canada.

I also note that on November 17, 2019, in response to Mr. Fortner’s message to the Complainant asking how she was doing, she said, “Yes I am at the airport now getting ready to check in. But I feel very sick and weak.

xiv) Screenshot of the Complainant’s Facebook message to Mayor Brown following the incident, requesting to meet

The Complainant produced a screenshot of a Facebook message that she sent to Mayor Brown on November 16, 2019 at 7:39am (Canadian time), which converts to 3:39pm on November 16, 2019 (Turkish time).

In the Facebook message, the Complainant is asking to meet with Mayor Brown upon her return from Turkey.

I attach a copy of the screenshot hereto at Appendix “31”.

xv) Screenshots of text messages between the Complainant and Mayor Brown following the incident

The Complainant produced screenshots of text messages between herself and Mayor Brown between November 20, 2019 and December 17, 2019. I attach those screenshots at Appendix “32”.

Particularly noteworthy is the Complainant’s text message to Mayor Brown on November 21, 2019 at 11:48am asking to meet with the chief of police.

xvi) Screenshots of text messages between the Complainant and Clare Barnett

The Complainant produced screenshots of text messages between her and Ms. Barnett between December 10, 2019 and December 19, 2019. I attach those screenshots at Appendix “33”.

The screenshots corroborate the meeting at Starbucks that occurred between the Complainant and Ms. Barnett (which Ms. Barnett mentioned in her interview).

I also note that on December 13, 2019, the Complainant texted Ms. Barnett, “I’m Just at doctors haven’t slept all night”…“I don’t know just getting nightmares and sick to my stomach”.

I note that Ms. Barnett texted the Complainant with a link to Women’s College Hospital. The link appears to be for a sexual assault care centre.

Further, on December 18, 2019, when asked how she was doing by Ms. Barnett, the Complainant responded, “I am trying to get myself back together. I am feeling so horrible.” Ms. Barnett asked the Complainant, “do you want me to take you to a safe place in Toronto? A centre for woman to give you some support?” To that, the Complainant responded, “I can go tomorrow if you want”.

On December 19, 2019, the Complainant stated:

“I look strong but trust me I am shattered. I have nightmares now and I can’t sleep or function. May god help me and my family.”

When Ms. Barnett asked the Complainant if she was “ok”, the Complainant responded, “No believe me I am not at all. This is been such a damaging thing to me and my family.”

xvii) Screenshots of the Complainant’s conversation with Pinar over WhatsApp

The Complainant produced screenshots of WhatsApp messages between herself and Pinar (another individual from the Canadian Consulate General at Turkey). I attach those screenshots hereto at Appendix “34”.

In her messages to Pinar, the Complainant states that she is “waiting to speak to the RCMP” and that she is “still emotionally very sick”.

xviii) Screenshot of Ms. Atar’s conversation with the Complainant (produced by Ms. Atar)

Ms. Atar produced screenshots of her WhatsApp conversation with the Complainant between November 15, 2019 and November 22, 2019. I attach those screenshots hereto at Appendix “35”.

In the WhatsApp conversation, I note that the Complainant texted Ms. Atar on November 19, 2019 saying:

“I just arrived today I missed my flight to Toronto. I am like nervous still. I don’t know what to do. I was really sick the last few days.”

The WhatsApp conversation also corroborates the lunch meeting that occurred between the Complainant, Ms. Atar, and Mr. Shamim on November 22, 2019 at Sunset Grill.

xix) Mayor Brown’s email dated November 27, 2019

Mayor Brown’s email to me dated November 27, 2019 (which is attached at Appendix “2”) corroborates the Complainant’s version of events, as well as what the Complainant conveyed to other individuals between November 15, 2019 and November 27, 2019.

C. Findings of Fact

In this Report, I have exercised my discretion to disclose only those particulars that I have determined are necessary for the purposes of this Report. My discretion stems from section 223.6(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, which is attached hereto under Appendix “1”.

Based on my overall assessment of all the documentation before me, most crucially, the audio recording that was produced to me by the Complainant, I find that Councillor Dhillon tried to force himself onto the Complainant in her hotel room at Movenpick Hotel in Ankara, Turkey, between the late hours of November 14, 2019 and the early hours of November 15, 2019. The timing and date of the incident is confirmed through the hotel check-in receipt, the email that the Complainant sent to Mr. Ward following the incident, as well as the phone calls the Complainant made to Ahmet directly after the incident.

I find that the Complainant made it clear that she did not want to engage in any sexual contact or sexual activity with Councillor Dhillon while he was in her hotel room that night. This is exhibited through the transcript of the audio recording, which I have attached to the Report. The audio recording makes it very clear how vigorously the Complainant was refusing Councillor Dhillon while he was trying to force himself onto her. The Complainant said “no” a total of 74 times. During the audio recording, I could hear the Complainant’s voice becoming distant from the recording device as she continually pleaded with Councillor Dhillon to put her down. It is further clear that Councillor Dhillon forcefully lifted up the Complainant’s skirt while he had her in his grip and while she was off of the ground.

The audio recording also makes it evident how traumatized and panicked the Complainant was after Councillor Dhillon exited the room. In the audio recording, I could hear the Complainant approach the recording device, while she began panting uncontrollably.

In reviewing the evidence from the various individuals that I interviewed, it is clear to me that they were of the view (generally) that the Complainant seemed unwell, disturbed, and traumatized by the sexual misconduct she experienced at the hands of Councillor Dhillon.

It is also clear to me, through my investigative interviews, that Councillor Dhillon attended the Trade Mission for the purpose of work for the City of Brampton. Not only was the trip paid for by the City of Brampton, Councillor Dhillon made it evident to the Complainant that he was the “Councillor for Brampton”, a fact that the Complainant repeats to Councillor Dhillon in the audio recording.

Issues and Analysis

Section 223.3 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (attached at Appendix “1” for reference) not only mandates that I apply the Code of Conduct, it also requires me to apply any procedures, rules and policies that the City has which governs the ethical behaviour of Councillors.

I will first assess whether Councillor Dhillon has violated any existing policies that the City has which governs Councillors’ behaviour. Then, I will turn to assessing whether Councillor Dhillon has violated the Code of Conduct.

A. The City’s Respectful Workplace Policy

Upon reviewing the City’s policies regarding ethical behaviour, I reviewed the City’s “Respectful Workplace Policy” (the “Policy”) in particular, which is also referenced in the commentary of Rule No. 14 of the Code of Conduct. I attach a copy of the Policy hereto at Appendix “36” (I appreciate that this not the Policy that is currently in effect, but it is the Policy that was in effect at the time that the incident took place).

As mentioned above, under section 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, my role as the Integrity Commissioner requires me to:

[apply] any procedures, rules and policies of the municipality and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards.

i) Scope and Applicability of the Policy

Page 2 of the Policy outlines the scope of the Policy – that is, who the Policy applies to.

Page 2 clearly and unequivocally states that the Policy applies to “Elected Officials”:

• City of Brampton employees;

• Elected Officials;

• Citizen members of committees;

• Volunteers;

• Contractors;

• Vendors and suppliers; and

• Members of the public accessing city services.

For greater clarity, “Elected Officials” is actually a defined term on page 5 of the Policy. As the Policy states, “Elected Officials” means “the Mayor and Members of Council”.

ii) Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of the Policy is to:

• Ensure individuals know their rights and responsibilities;

• Promote appropriate standards of conduct at all times;

• Ensure individuals are aware that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable practices and are incompatible with the standards of the Corporation, as well as being a violation of the law; and

• Set out the types of behaviour in the workplace and in the delivery of, or access to, services that may be considered offensive and are prohibited by this policy.

Overall, the Policy aims to provide an accountability framework for addressing incidents of harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

The Policy defines “workplace” as follows:

• City buildings, facilities, sites, land, vehicles, offices or work environment in or near where employees work;

• Locations visited by employees while traveling on city related business;

• City related business including conferences, meetings, vendor/supplier or customer sites;

• Locations of work-based social gatherings; and

• Electronic communication (i.e. email, voicemail, social media etc.)

Under “Policy Principles”, it states that:

“Every person has a right to work or access services in a positive, healthy, safe and respectful environment where they are treated in a fair and professional manner.”

This means that those working, accessing services, or visiting the “workplace” are expected to treat every person with respect and dignity to promote a positive and respectful work environment and ensure legislative compliance to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

iii) Obligations of Elected Officials

The Policy specifically mandates that Elected Officials will:

• Understand and abide by this policy;

• Immediately report incidents of harassment or discrimination experienced, witnessed or having knowledge of;

• Document details of discrimination or harassment that are experienced or witnessed, as required;

• Cooperate with investigations of harassment or discrimination to resolve issues; and

• Participate in training regarding this policy.

iv) Penalties under the Policy

The Policy explicitly states that:

“Any employee found to be engaged in harassing or discriminating behaviour will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal. Any individual from outside of the Corporation found to be engaged in harassing or discriminating behaviour within a city workplace may be subject to prohibition from Corporation property, police involvement, or other action as appropriate.”

v) Applying the Policy to Councillor Dhillon’s Conduct

There is no question that Councillor Dhillon attended the Trade Mission in Turkey for City-related business. In fact, as Mr. Collins advised in his investigative interview, the trip was paid for by the City, and not by Councillor Dhillon personally.

Mr. Dhillon is in fact an “Elected Official”, as defined by the Policy. The Policy applies to him and governs his conduct. Mr. Dhillon had an obligation both to understand and abide by the Policy. He had an obligation to ensure that he was abiding by appropriate standards of conduct at all times while he was on the Trade Mission in Turkey.

Mr. Dhillon had an obligation not to engage in harassing or discriminating behaviour.

“Harassment” is defined under the Policy to mean the following:

“… a course of vexatious comments or actions that are known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome. It can involve words or actions that are known or should be known to be offensive, embarrassing, humiliating or demeaning. Harassment does not include reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of employees or the workplace.”

The Policy also specifically includes “Sexual Harassment” as well, which is defined as follows:

“Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

Making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.”

The Policy helpfully includes certain examples of “sexual harassment”, to further the understanding of individuals:

• Unnecessary physical contact, including unwanted touching;

• Suggestive looks implying a sexual interest;

• Asking for sex in exchange for a benefit or a favour;

• Demanding hugs;

• Calling people sex-specific derogatory names;

• Saying or doing something because you think a person does not conform to sex-role stereotypes;

• Posting or sharing sexual pictures (including online)

Note: This list is not exhaustive and other similar behaviours may be considered sexual harassment.

I find that while Councillor Dhillon was on the Trade Mission to Turkey, he sexually harassed the Complainant in her hotel room in the late hours of November 14, 2019 and early hours of November 15, 2019.

To be specific, the audio recording of the incident, as well as the Complainant’s account of the event, make it clear that:

• Councillor Dhillon engaged in unnecessary, unwelcome, and unwanted sexual touching of the Complainant;

• Councillor Dhillon was pleading with the Complainant to have sex with him and even suggested that he would “put a timer on”; and

• Councillor Dhillon demanded that the Complainant “kiss him”.

The effects that the sexual harassment had on the Complainant were clear to me while interviewing her, but were also clear to many of the individuals whom I interviewed, who met with the Complainant following the incident and in whom the Complainant confided or reached out to for help.

I also note that the Policy requires an Elected Official to “cooperate with investigations of harassment to resolve issues”. Councillor Dhillon failed to cooperate with my investigation. He refused to participate in the investigative interview, and by doing so, he refused to even listen to the audio recording in my presence. I had provided an undertaking to the Complainant’s counsel that prevented me from disclosing a copy of the audio recording to anyone including Councillor Dhillon. I am still bound by that undertaking today. In trying to alleviate any concerns that Councillor Dhillon may have had insofar as having ample opportunity to respond to what is admittedly a key piece of evidence in this matter, I did the following:

1. Advised counsel for Councillor Dhillon, that his client could respond to the audio recording during our interview (which I had permission to play for him during an investigation interview), and could also provide me with a supplementary response following the interview, which would include anything he may have missed. I confirmed that I would consider that supplementary response following our investigation meeting; and

2. Sought permission from the Complainant’s counsel to have the audio recording transcribed, and then provided a copy of the transcribed version to Councillor Dhillon.

None of these options were acceptable to Councillor Dhillon, and he refused to meet with me. In refusing to meet with me, he acted as an obstructionist in my investigation, rather than cooperating with me.

For the above-noted reasons, I find that Councillor Dhillon violated the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy.

With respect to penalties under the Policy, the Policy clearly states that “any employee found to be engaged in harassing or discriminatory behaviour will be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal”.

Given my finding that Councillor Dhillon sexually harassed the Complainant, if I had the ability to implement the penalties as to the Respectful Workplace Policy insofar as it relates to Councillor Dhillon, I would recommend that Councillor Dhillon be dismissed from his role. I am cognizant of the fact that I do not the ability to make any such recommendation given the limitations in the Municipal Act, which is unfortunate.

B. Code of Conduct Violations

The Complainant’s position, as she articulated in her Complaint Form, is that:

a) Councillor Dhillon engaged in conduct that constitutes harassment, contrary to Rule No. 14 of the Code of Conduct; and

b) Councillor Dhillon engaged in conduct that is discreditable, contrary to Rule No. 15 of the Code of Conduct.

Two additional rules that I will be assessing are:

• Rule No. 18 – whether Councillor Dhillon failed to adhere to Council policies and procedure; and

• Rule No. 19 – whether Councillor Dhillon obstructed me in carrying out my responsibilities.

To be clear, the following are the Code of Conduct rules that I will be applying to the Complainant’s complaint against Councillor Dhillon and my investigation of that complaint:

1. Rule No. 14 – Harassment;

2. Rule No. 15 – Discreditable Conduct;

3. Rule No. 18 – Failure to Adhere to Council Policies and Procedures; and

4. Rule No. 19 – Reprisals and Obstruction.

A copy of the above-mentioned rules is attached hereto at Appendix “37”.

1. Rule No. 14

Did Councillor Dhillon engage in conduct that constitutes harassment with respect to his behaviour towards the Complainant?

Rule No. 14 states that “Members shall be governed by the City’s current policies and procedures…regarding a respectful workplace, workplace harassment prevention and workplace violence prevention”. The City’s Respectful Workplace Policy is also referenced in Rule No. 14 of the Code of Conduct.

Rule No. 14 (2) clearly states that “harassment by a member of another member, staff or any member of the public is misconduct”.

Based on my review of all of the documentary evidence before me, and my interviews with all relevant individuals, I find that Councillor Dhillon engaged in conduct that constituted harassment (with respect to his behaviour towards the Complainant). The Complainant, being a member of the public, was entitled to attend the Trade Mission and be free from any personal or sexual harassment. Councillor Dhillon prevented that by sexually harassing her.

2. Rule No. 15

Did Councillor Dhillon engage in conduct is discreditable with respect to his behaviour towards the Complainant?

Rule No. 15 of the Code of Conduct states that “members shall conduct themselves with appropriate decorum at all times”. “At all times” means at all times. It does not mean that a member may behave inappropriately or sexually harass another individual when away on a business trip in Turkey.

As leaders of the community and as elected officials, members of Council are rightly held to a higher standard when looking at professional and appropriate behaviour. That behaviour must be, as the commentary of the rule sets out, “exemplary”.

I find that Councillor Dhillon’s conduct towards the Complainant was grossly discreditable and was unbefitting of his role as City Councillor for Brampton.

3. Rule No. 18

Did Councillor Dhillon fail to adhere to Council policies and procedures with respect to his conduct towards the Complainant and his refusal to participate in my investigation?

Councillors have a positive obligation to abide by the terms of all policies and procedures established by Council and the City generally. They must, as the most senior City representatives and elected officials, lead by example to ensure that they take every step to follow those policies and procedures. Their failure to do so erodes the sense of responsibility that other City employees have in relation to those same policies and procedures. This, of course, is unacceptable.

I find Councillor Dhillon to have breached Rule No. 18 by failing to adhere with the Respectful Workplace Policy for the reasons that I noted above.

4. Rule No. 19

Did Councillor Dhillon obstruct me from carrying out my responsibilities by refusing to participate in my investigation?

Rule No. 19 states that: no Member shall obstruct the Integrity Commissioner in the carrying out of her or his responsibilities.

The commentary to Rule No. 19 provides greater clarity. It states that:

Members of Council should respect the intent of the Code of Conduct and investigations conducted under it. It is also a violation of the Code of Conduct to obstruct the Integrity Commissioner in the carrying out of her or his responsibilities, as, for example, by the destruction of documents or the erasing of electronic communications or refusing to respond in writing to a formal complaint lodged pursuant to the Complaint Protocol passed by Council.

Between the months of February 2020 and April 2020, I repeatedly asked Councillor Dhillon to participate in an investigative interview with me. He repeatedly refused, stating that there were “procedural irregularities” in my investigation. In multiple correspondence with Mr. Hasan (those letters are attached to this Report) I attempted to answer those questions and address those concerns in a thorough and detailed manner. Through his counsel, Councillor Dhillon kept asking the same questions and, at every turn, refused to meet with me. In refusing to accept my answers, and most critically in refusing to take part in an investigation where he was named as the Respondent, it is my view that Councillor Dhillon hindered and delayed the completion of my investigation. In doing so, Councillor Dhillon did not respect the intent and spirit of the Code of Conduct or my investigation.

I had specifically advised Mr. Hasan that I was not in a position to provide a copy of the audio recording to him to share with his client, since I was bound by an undertaking I had given to Ms. Klein. My duty as the Integrity Commissioner requires me to be fair to both the Complainant and the Respondent. I reflected a great deal on how to deal with the issue of fairness insofar as it related to the recording (as I am bound to do), while fully recognizing that it was a critical piece of evidence that required a fulsome and thoughtful response from Councillor Dhillon.

I informed Mr. Hasan of the undertaking I was subject to and offered that Councillor Dhillon listen to the audio recording in my presence (on my electronic device), while having the benefit of Mr. Hasan, his counsel, being present with him as well. I also advised Mr. Hasan that I would consider any supplementary responses that Councillor Dhillon may have following our meeting. Had Councillor Dhillon met with me, I would have been willing to play the recording for him multiple times (had he asked), and of course, did provide a transcribed version of the audio recording before Councillor Dhillon agreed to any meeting at all. I did this as I understand my obligation to be fair to all parties, particularly in the face of allegations of this nature. None of this was acceptable to Councillor Dhillon, and he simply refused to meet. I accept that beyond his response provided to me on April 27, 2020, I do not have Councillor Dhillon’s side of the story. Nonetheless, I am also of the view that it was Councillor Dhillon’s decision to refuse to cooperate in my investigation.

Based on the above, I find Councillor Dhillon to have breached Rule No. 19 by failing to cooperate with me in my investigation and respecting my investigation.

Conclusion

Misconduct of this nature (sexual harassment) warrants the highest level of discipline. In light of my findings I strongly recommend the following penalties:

1. I recommend that Councillor Dhillon be suspended (without pay) for 90-days (this is the most severe of penalties that is available for my recommendation, and I wish to state that I am displeased that there is no avenue (at least insofar as it relates to my mandate and jurisdiction) that allows for Councillor Dhillon’s immediate removal from City Council;

2. I recommend that Council issues a formal reprimand for Councillor Dhillon’s misconduct as set out in this Report;

3. I recommend that Councillor Dhillon issue a formal apology to the Complainant and to the public generally for his gross misconduct;

4. Other remedial action as deemed appropriate by Council under its statutory authority, which may include any or all of the following:

a. Removal from membership and Chair (where applicable) of a committee;

b. Removal of Councillor Dhillon’s ability to travel outside of the Province on any City Business;

c. Apart from during Council Meetings, communicate with members of the public solely via email using his City email address – for further clarity - no other form of communication shall be permitted; and

d. Prevent Councillor Dhillon from access to municipal offices except to retrieve Council mail/packages, make bill payments, or to attend for Council meetings.

Sincerely,

Muneeza Sheikh Integrity Commissioner City of Brampton

I would like to acknowledge my colleague, Saba J. Khan, for assisting me in investigating this Complaint and in preparing this Report.

Footnotes

1. 1Appendix A: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817
2. 2Appendix A: Di Biase v. City of Vaughan, 2016 ONSC 5620 (“Di Biase”)
3. 3Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 265, s. 271, s. 273.1(1), and s. 273.1(2) (“Criminal Code")
4. 4Appendix A: R v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320