MICO 2021

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint that Councillor Josh Matlow breached the Code of Conduct by Tweeting that a committee decision was 'cowardly'.

The Commissioner found that the Tweet was directed at the collective judgement of the committee rather than the character of individual members.

As such, the Tweet constituted political rhetoric critical of a legislative outcome and did not amount to discreditable conduct.

The complaint was dismissed with no penalty recommended.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated complaints that a former City Councillor breached the Code of Conduct by improperly using his influence, engaging in discreditable conduct, and failing to adhere to Council policies.

The complaints alleged the Councillor shielded political supporters from bylaw enforcement, improperly entered constituents' homes suspected of being illegal rooming houses, and used profane language while training a staff member.

The Commissioner found insufficient evidence of improper use of influence.

However, the Commissioner found the Councillor breached the Code by entering properties without invitation, photographing residents without consent, and using highly profane and disrespectful language during staff training.

No penalty was recommended as the Councillor had already been removed from office.

A municipal councillor filed a Code of Conduct complaint against another councillor and the mayor.

The complaint alleged that the respondent councillor made a body-shaming comment during a virtual council meeting while his microphone was unmuted, and that the mayor failed to address a history of bad behaviour.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the allegations against the mayor were out of time and dismissed them.

The respondent councillor acknowledged contravening the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner recommended that the municipal council issue a reprimand.

The complainant alleged that two municipal councillors contravened the Council Code of Conduct during a town council meeting.

The inquiry concerning the second councillor was discontinued due to a lack of specific allegations.

The first councillor acknowledged contravening the Code by making an inappropriate body-shaming comment that was inadvertently broadcast.

The Integrity Commissioner found that he lacked jurisdiction to recommend the councillor's removal from the position of Deputy Mayor, as the Municipal Act limits penalties to a reprimand or a suspension of pay.

The Commissioner recommended that the town council issue a reprimand.

The complainant alleged that the respondent councillor contravened the Council Code of Conduct by making a body-shaming comment ('Let's see what Big Rhonda has to say') during a virtual town council meeting.

The respondent acknowledged that he made the intentional comment, which was inadvertently broadcast because he failed to mute his microphone.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent contravened the Code of Conduct and recommended that Town Council issue a reprimand.

A former municipal employee filed Code of Conduct complaints against the Mayor and Deputy Mayor regarding workplace treatment.

During the inquiry, the complainant signed a release covering all employment-related claims, including harassment, against the municipality and its council members.

The Integrity Commissioner exercised his discretion under the Municipal Act to terminate the inquiry and dismiss the complaints, finding that continuing the investigation was not in the public interest or a prudent use of municipal resources given the signed release.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, the Mayor of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, contravened the Council Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed session meeting to the news media.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent disclosed the substance of deliberations from a closed meeting regarding a development agreement with an aggregate company.

The Commissioner concluded that the Respondent breached sections 6.4.1 a) and d) of the Code of Conduct by releasing confidential information.

The Commissioner recommended that Council adopt the findings of the report but did not recommend any additional penalty.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a self-reported complaint by a municipal councillor regarding a body-shaming comment he made during a virtual council meeting while his microphone was unmuted.

The councillor acknowledged that his comment contravened section 4.1 of the Council Code of Conduct, which requires members to treat others without abuse, bullying, or intimidation.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the comment was intentional, though inadvertently broadcast, and recommended that Town Council issue a reprimand.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a minor variance application.

The property owners' agent was the son of the Respondent's separated spouse.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the agent had a pecuniary interest, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the agent as a child of her family.

Therefore, the agent was not a 'child' under the Act, the Respondent did not have a deemed pecuniary interest, and the Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination.

The complainant alleged that the respondent, the Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, contravened the Council Code of Conduct by acting aggressively, bullying, and using offensive language toward her during a committee meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent was exercising his authority as chair to maintain order and decorum when the complainant strayed off-topic and accused the committee of having pre-determined the application.

The Commissioner concluded that the respondent's conduct was assertive but not aggressive, hostile, or unprofessional, and dismissed the complaint.

The Complainant alleged that a County Councillor contravened the municipal Code of Conduct by improperly using County resources to establish a trail network, failing to deposit gifted historic bridge remnants with the County museum, and accepting hospitality from local businesses.

Following an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The Commissioner found no evidence that the Councillor received personal gifts or hospitality, nor that he improperly directed County resources or staff.

The Councillor's involvement in local heritage and community initiatives was found to be within the natural course of his duties.

The Regional Clerk filed a complaint alleging that two municipal councillors breached the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information during an open council meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the information was not from a closed meeting, it was confidential and its disclosure was unauthorized.

However, the Commissioner recommended no sanctions, noting mitigating factors including the challenges of virtual meetings, the complex circumstances, and the fact that the Regional Chair had already ruled the disclosure out of order during the meeting.

Municipal integrity commissioner’s inquiry report concerning allegations that a councillor’s employment and consulting relationships with a planning consultant and the consultant’s daughter created an apparent non-pecuniary conflict of interest in the municipal planning process.

The report held that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act did not apply because there was no evidence of a qualifying pecuniary interest, but concluded that the Code of Conduct did apply to apparent conflict, transparency, and benefits.

The commissioner found that the respondent’s recruitment of the consultant’s daughter, subsequent sole-sourced contracts with the consultant’s firm, lack of a formal conflict screen, and acceptance of unpaid services during a four-month contractual gap created a reasonable apprehension of preferential access and conflict.

The report found breaches of ss. 4(1), 4(5), 13(2), and 13(3) of the Code of Conduct, and recommended sanctions including reprimand, committee removals, a 15-day suspension of remuneration, amendment of the gifts registry, reimbursement of legal fees, and broader governance reforms.

The Council of the Township of Centre Wellington requested an inquiry into whether Councillor Steven VanLeeuwen breached the Code of Conduct by joining the End the Lockdowns National Caucus and publicly stating that COVID-19 lockdowns cause more harm than the virus.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the provincial government had not quantified the impacts of its lockdown measures, making the councillor's statement a matter of political opinion rather than a demonstrable falsehood.

The Commissioner concluded that expressing such political opinions, defending constitutional values, and criticizing provincial policy choices did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

The inquiry found no evidence that the councillor interfered with law enforcement or urged people to break the law.

The Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Peterborough filed a complaint against the Mayor, alleging contraventions of the municipal Code of Conduct.

The complainant alleged the Mayor improperly pressured her to retire early and spoke disrespectfully about staff regarding delays in an affordable housing report.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's inquiries about retirement were pursuant to a Council mandate and did not constitute improper influence or harassment.

The Commissioner also found that the Mayor's comments regarding the housing report were a call to action on an urgent issue, not a disrespectful attack on staff.

The complaint was dismissed with no contraventions found.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint alleging that the Mayor of Orangeville contravened the Code of Conduct by issuing a public letter announcing his resignation from the Police Services Board and criticizing the Board's Chair.

The Commissioner found that the factual claims in the letter could not be disproved and that the remaining portions constituted political opinion.

The Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct does not regulate political speech or opinions, and therefore the Mayor's letter did not contravene the Code.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor of Orangeville contravened the municipal Code of Conduct through a series of Facebook posts concerning the trial and acquittal of a former police officer.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the Mayor made false statements, failed to treat people with respect, or engaged in bullying and harassment.

The Commissioner found that the factual portions of the Mayor's posts were accurate and the opinion portions were made in good faith on a matter of public interest.

The Commissioner concluded that the Mayor did not contravene the Code of Conduct and recommended that Council consider whether the Code should continue to police the truth of political speech.

Two municipal councillors filed complaints against the Mayor, alleging he contravened the Code of Conduct during a closed council meeting by using abusive language and threatening to resign.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the Mayor's language was obviously a breach of decorum, the presiding officer of a meeting is typically in the best position to address such conduct.

Given the unique circumstances, including the fact that the Mayor was the presiding officer and had left the meeting, the Commissioner concluded that the comments contravened the Code but recommended that Council receive the report and determine what steps, if any, to take.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated approximately 80 complaints against a municipal councillor regarding tweets referring to COVID-19 as the 'Chinese Flu' and 'China Virus'.

The Commissioner rejected the councillor's freedom of speech defense, finding the tweets to be racist and inappropriate for a public figure.

The Commissioner recommended that the councillor remove the offending tweets, issue a public apology, and attend diversity and inclusion training, failing which a 60-day suspension of compensation was recommended.

Fourteen individuals filed complaints alleging that the Mayor of Amaranth contravened the municipal Code of Conduct through comments made during a council meeting and in subsequent media interviews regarding the flying of a Pride flag.

The Integrity Commissioner conducted a single inquiry into the complaints.

The Commissioner found that the Mayor's comments were hurtful and came across as hateful, but noted that the Mayor subsequently apologized, retracted the comments, and completed diversity training.

The Commissioner clarified that the decision not to fly the flag was a collective council failure, not the Mayor's unilateral decision, and made recommendations to the council regarding diversity training and complaint procedures.