Pinto v. Anderson, 2020 ONMIC 9

Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity Commissioner, Guy Giorno

Citation: Pinto v. Anderson, 2020 ONMIC 9
Date: September 28, 2020

Reasons for Decision

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.

No council decision. Because this is an inquiry under the Municipal Council of Interest Act, the Integrity Commissioner’s decision is not required to be filed with the municipal council.

Table of Contents

• CONTEXT
• THE APPLICATION
• DECISION
• BACKGROUND
• PROCESS
• ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
• CONCLUSION
• PUBLICATION

Context

1Among their responsibilities, municipal Integrity Commissioners in Ontario conduct inquiries into applications alleging that council members or members of local boards have contravened the Municipal Council of Interest Act. At the end of such an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner shall decide whether to apply to a judge under section 8 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for a determination as to whether the member has contravened section 5, 5.1 or 5.2 of that Act, and shall publish reasons for the decision. Such decision is not subject to approval of the municipal council and does not take the form of a recommendation to council. There is, therefore, no municipal council resolution necessary to give effect to the decision.

The Application

2Section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act allows an elector or a person demonstrably acting in the public interest to apply in writing to the Integrity Commissioner for an inquiry concerning an alleged contravention of section 5, 5.1, or 5.2 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by a member of council or a member of a local board.

3Mayor Floyd Pinto (the Applicant) alleges that Councillor Scott Anderson (the Respondent) contravened the MCIA by failing to declare a pecuniary interest in relation to a matter, and failing to withdraw from participation in discussion and from voting on the matter, during a June 13, 2016, Council meeting.

4The Application cites only section 5.1 of the MCIA but it is clear from the document that the Applicant alleges a contravention of both section 5 and section 5.1.

5The Application was made October 31, 2019. I assigned it File No. MCIA-2019-02.

Decision

6Subsection 223.4.1 (15) of the Municipal Act states that, upon completion of an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner may, if the Integrity Commissioner considers it appropriate, apply to a judge under section 8 of the MCIA for a determination whether the member has contravened section 5, 5.1, or 5.2 of that Act.

7After considering all the evidence and the submissions of the parties, I have decided that I will not apply to a judge for a determination whether Councillor Scott Anderson has contravened section 5 or 5.1 of the MCIA.

8Subsection 223.4.1 (17) of the Municipal Act requires me to publish written reasons for my decision. These are my reasons.

Background

9In 2016, the Lisle Astros Baseball Club requested permission to donate a portable building to the Township and, at the Club’s own expense, to install it in Ross Houston Memorial Park. The portable building would become property of the Township but would be used by the Club to store baseball equipment. The Club would pay for maintenance and upkeep.

10Council discussed the request, June 2, 2016, and directed the staff to investigate further and to draft a lease agreement.

11A lease agreement was drafted by the staff in consultation with the Club.

12On June 13, 2016, Council approved the Club’s proposal and the lease agreement, in a 5-2 vote. The Respondent voted in favour. The Applicant voted against.

13The Respondent did not declare a pecuniary interest in the matter.

14The Respondent was a member of the Lisle Astros Baseball Club. He signed the lease agreement on behalf of the Club. He also participated in discussion with the Township staff, on the Club’s behalf, before the lease agreement was finalized. The extent of discussion of the lease between the staff and the Club is disputed and, in any event, not material to my determination.

15At the time of the Council meetings, the Applicant was aware of the Respondent’s voting, and participation in decision making, on the lease. However, the Applicant states that he did not become aware of the Respondent’s pecuniary interest until several years later. He made a statutory declaration that he filed this Application within six weeks after becoming aware of the contravention.

Process

16The statutory deadline for an Integrity Commissioner to complete an MCIA inquiry is ordinarily 180 days.

17However, Ontario Regulation 73/20, made as a result of the COVID-19 emergency, had the effect of suspending the deadline, and stopping the clock, as of March 16, 2020.

18Ontario Regulation 73/20 was revoked, and the 180-day countdown resumed, on September 14, 2020.

19This determination is made within the statutory time limits.

20In making my decision, I have taken into account all the submissions of the parties and all of the evidence obtained during the inquiry.

Analysis and Findings

21I accept that the Respondent was, at the time of decision making, a member of the Club. Under subclause 2 (a) (iii) of the MCIA, he possessed an indirect pecuniary interest in any matter in which the Club had a pecuniary interest.

22The Divisional Court has defined pecuniary interest as follows: “Generally, it is a financial interest, an interest related to or involving money.”¹

23I find that the lease agreement did not affect a financial interest of the Club in any meaningful way. The Club was donating a portable building to the Township. It neither incurred a financial obligation nor received a financial benefit. The Township decided that the donation needed to be confirmed in a “lease agreement,” but that does not alter the fact that the Club was just offering something to the Township for free.

24The Club did not have a pecuniary interest in whether the Township accepted its donation and approved the lease agreement.

25Because the Club had no pecuniary interest in the matter, I find that Councillor Scott Anderson had no pecuniary interest in the matter.

26The Club, and Councillor Anderson, might have had a non-pecuniary interest in the matter, but non-pecuniary interests are not covered by the MCIA.²

27There is no reason for me to apply to a judge for a determination as to whether Councillor Scott Anderson has contravened the MCIA.

28Because of my conclusion, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether the Applicant knew of the alleged contravention more than six weeks before making the Application.

Conclusion

29I will not apply to a judge under sections 5 and 5.1 of the MCIA for a determination as to whether Councillor Scott Anderson contravened the MCIA during the June 13, 2016, meeting of Council.

Publication

30The Municipal Act requires that after deciding whether or not to apply to a judge, the Integrity Commissioner shall publish written reasons for the decision. This decision will be published by providing it to the Township to make public and by posting on the free, online database as decision 2020 ONMIC 9.

31Subsection 223.5 (2.3) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in these written reasons such information as in my opinion is necessary. All the content of these reasons is, in my opinion, necessary.

Guy Giorno
Integrity Commissioner
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
September 28, 2020

Footnotes

1. 1Tuchenhagen v. Mondoux, 2011 ONSC 5398 (Div.Ct.), at para. 31.
2. 2Wilson (Re), 2017 ONMIC 13, at para. 7.