RegionAL MUNICIPALITY of Durham INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Regional Municipality v. Neal and Schummer, 2021 ONMIC 15 Date: October 19, 2021

Report on Complaint

Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal councils and, in most cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal Councils. Therefore, reference should be made to the minutes of each particular municipal council to obtain information about the particular council’s consideration of each report. When possible, a link to the relevant municipal council minutes is provided.

Please find below the link to the corresponding council decision.

https://calendar.durham.ca/meetings/Detail/2021-10-27-0930-Regional-Council-Meeting/147d5dfd-2365-47ec-bdb9-add40130fdc6 (see CC 21, item 8 on page 6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 12

Position of the Parties. 14

Findings of Fact 17

Issues and Analysis. 18

A. Did the Respondents need access to the Region’s communication with the Province about an MZO?. 18

B. Did the Respondents contravene section 12.1 C) by disclosing closed meeting information?. 19

C. Did the Respondents contravene section 12.1 A) by disclosing confidential information? 19

Recommendation.. 24

Content 25

The Complaint

1. This report concludes an inquiry into a complaint about an alleged breach of confidentiality by Councillors Joe Neal and Walter Schummer (Respondents). The breach is alleged to have occurred when they moved and seconded an amendment during the December 16, 2020, Regional Council meeting.

2. The complaint was submitted on behalf of the Regional Municipality by the Regional Clerk and Director of Legislative Services, Ralph Walton, who did so with the knowledge and support of the Regional Chair and the Chief Administrative Officer, supported by the Region’s Legal Services division. In this report, I recognize the Regional Clerk, in his representative role, as the nominal Complainant.

3. According to the complaint, the alleged breach of confidentiality contravened section 12 of By-law Number 09-2019, the Code of Conduct By-law.

Summary

4. This report makes no comment on the merits of the Beaverton Supportive Housing Project, and expresses no opinion on the disagreement between the Region and the Township of Brock. Nothing in this report should be interpreted as taking a position on the substantive issues.

5. This report does not comment on the Region’s practices of classifying certain information as confidential. It also does not comment on whether a municipality’s request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) should or should not be treated as confidential. Those questions are outside an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.

6. There was no closed meeting at which the information in question was considered. Consequently, there was no breach of closed meeting confidentiality.

7. There was, however, disclosure of information that the Region was treating as confidential, and Regional Council had not authorized the release. By a 26-3 vote on December 16 (albeit after disclosure had already occurred), Regional Council upheld a decision that the information was confidential. Regional Council’s decision was final and is binding on me.

Background

8. The Respondent Joe Neal represents the Municipality of Clarington, having been elected as Regional Councillor for Wards 1 and 2 of the Municipality.

9. At the relevant times, the Respondent Walter Schummer attended Regional Councillor meetings as the alternate for the Township of Brock, while the Township’s Mayor, Debbie Bath-Hadden, was absent due to illness. (Mr. Schummer is Ward 3 Councillor of the Township of Brock.) Mayor Bath-Hadden passed away tragically earlier this year, and Mr. John Grant was appointed Mayor in her place. Mr. Schummer no longer represents the Township at Regional Council meetings.

10. For several months, the Township of Brock and the Regional Municipality of Durham have been disagreeing over the Region’s Beaverton Supportive Housing Project, which would involve the construction of approximately 50 pre-fabricated, modular, supportive housing units at 133 Main Street, Beaverton.

11. At its October 26, 2020, meeting, the Township of Brock Council adopted two resolutions related to the Beaverton Supportive Housing Project. One resolution asked that the Region, “Not pursue the Project because the [Township] Zoning By-law does not permit the uses proposed by the Project.” The other resolution directed the Township staff to prepare an interim control by-law that would temporarily prohibit prefabricated, modular construction and supportive housing anywhere in Brock.

12. The two Brock resolutions were sent to the Region and considered at the October 28, 2020, Regional Council meeting. Council referred Brock’s correspondence¹ containing the resolutions to the Regional staff.²

13. Mr. Schummer, appearing in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Brock or the Township Council, made a delegation to the same meeting of Regional Council. He outlined concerns about the Beaverton Supportive Housing Project.

14. In addition to Mr. Schummer, nine other delegations spoke on the issue. Three spoke about supportive housing generally,³ and six specifically addressed the Beaverton Supportive Housing Project.⁴ Regional Council also received three more items of correspondence from Brock,⁵ and four additional items of correspondence,⁶ related to the Project.

15. On October 28, Regional Council also approved the creation of a Beaverton Supportive Housing Community Liaison Committee, “consisting of up to 10 local resident representatives selected by the Council of the Township of Brock, for the purpose of sharing information,