Stewart v. Meadows, 2021 ONMIC 17

Township of Adjala-Tosorontio INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Stewart v. Meadows, 2021 ONMIC 17 Date: October 23, 2021

Report on Complaint

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://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/document/29064/Regular%20Council%20-%2012%20Jan%202022.pdf?handle=60D4F8EF0A084228B357CA4603999B02 (see minutes of January 12, 2022, item 10.1, RES-25-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3 Summary. 3 Background. 4 Process Followed. 6 Allegations not Considered. 7 Positions of the Parties. 7 Complainant’s Position. 7 Respondent’s Position.. 9 Findings of Fact 10 Issues and Analysis. 11 A. Should I consider a complaint about how a committee chair chaired a committee meeting? 12 B. At the April 21 Committee of Adjustment meeting, did the Respondent contravene section 6.2.1 of the Code?. 15 Recommendation.. 17 Content 17

The Complaint

1Ms Tamara Stewart (Complainant) alleges that Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows (Respondent) contravened the Council Code of Conduct, Policy # ADM 2016-02, during the April 21 Committee of Adjustment meeting.

Summary

2This was not an inquiry into the process followed by the Committee of Adjustment or into the decision made by the committee. Many of the Complainant’s concerns are outside the jurisdiction of an Integrity Commissioner.

3I do not have jurisdiction to consider whether the staff report presented to the Committee of Adjustment contained inaccuracies. In fact, as Integrity Commissioner, I do not have any jurisdiction over the staff or staff reports.

4An Integrity Commissioner cannot determine whether the Committee of Adjustment followed the wrong process or made the wrong decision. An Integrity Commissioner cannot determine whether a variance was actually minor. An Integrity Commissioner cannot determine whether the committee’s minutes are inaccurate or incomplete. An Integrity Commissioner cannot determine whether someone’s questions about a neighbouring property were satisfactorily addressed. The Complainant has concerns about these matters, but the inquiry could not and did not address them.

5In this case, the only authority I possess is to inquire and to report on whether the Respondent contravened the Council Code of Conduct. He did not.

6Witness accounts confirm that the Respondent, as chair of the committee, was attempting to steer discussion back toward the substance of the application before the committee. This was a legitimate function of the committee chair. The Respondent had the authority to cut off discussion that went off topic or otherwise breached order and decorum. I will not second guess the chair’s exercise of this procedural authority.

7Comments made during a meeting fall under the authority of the presiding officer under the Procedural By-law, and ordinarily should not be the subject, weeks after the fact, of an Integrity Commissioner inquiry. I nevertheless considered the comments of the Respondent because he was the presiding officer.

8I find that the Respondent did not harass, bully, or use offensive language toward the Complainant, did not scream at her, was not aggressive, hostile, or unprofessional, and did not treat her differently on the basis of sex.

Background

9The incident arises from an application for a minor variance considered by the Committee of Adjustment on April 21 during a public meeting under section 45 of the Planning Act. The subject property is in Loretto.

10The Complainant resides in the Township and owns a property next to the property belonging to the applicant.

11The Respondent is the Deputy Mayor of the Township and the Chair of the Committee of Adjustment.

12The Planning Act permits the committee to authorize a minor variance that it considers “desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, if in the opinion of the committee the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan, if any, are maintained.”¹

13The Planning Act requires that, “The hearing of every application shall be held in public, and the committee shall hear the applicant and every other person who desires to be heard in favour of or against the application, and the committee may adjourn the hearing or reserve its decision.”²

14Prior to the committee meeting, the Complainant emailed a list of questions, a statement of opposition to the application, and material supporting on her opposition.

15The Complainant also made a presentation to the committee’s April 21 virtual meeting. The minutes of the meeting record as follows the Complainant’s presentation and the interaction with the committee

The Chair opened the floor to the audience.

Tamara Stewart … sent questions to Committee before the meeting, with a statement about not being in support of the proposal.

The Chair advised that not all of her questions related to the minor variance, but were Building Code related. The Secretary/Treasurer advised that is was only one corner seeking a relief from the zoning by-law. It was advised that Section 3.16 of the Zoning By-law 03-57 in regards to established building lines, was not relevant and the Owner met the required 7.5 m front yard setback.

Ms. Stewart wanted confirmation on the lot coverage of the subject property.

The Chair advised that the resident had a demo permit in for the accessory structure in the rear yard, which would bring their lot coverage into compliance once it was demolished.

Ms. Stewart wanted clarification on the swales which are located on both side property lines, and if a variance was required for dumping into those swales.

The Chair advised no variance was required. Ms. Stewart sought clarification on the setbacks for the swales.

The Secretary/Treasurer advised the resident that it was not related to the minor variance application, but would be done through the Building Code requirements.

Ms. Stewart had concerns with the authority addressing existing structures and how this permit went through to this stage.

The Chair advised that mistakes happen within construction and when an inspection occurs, it could be found a variance is required.

The Secretary/Treasurer addressed the concerns as well and mentioned this is part of the Building Official’s duty. When they go on site for an inspection, they review the property as a whole, to make sure all applicable law is being followed and met.

16I am aware that the Complainant does not necessarily agree with the minutes. All material findings of act are based on the evidence of witnesses and primary source documentary evidence (emails sent and received). On contested points, I do not rely on the minutes to determine what occurred.

17The minutes do not mention the exchange between the Respondent and the Complainant that is the source of this Complaint. The parties’ positions on that exchange, and my findings, are set out in subsequent sections of this report.

18After the Complainant’s presentation, the committee received correspondence from other residents, and then heard from the applicant.

19The committee then approved the minor variance. According to the minutes:

A motion was made by Member Hall-Chancey and seconded by Member Koski and carried that the request for Minor Variance A/03/21 under The Planning Act be APPROVED.

Reasons for Decision: After taking into consideration all written and oral submissions, it is the opinion of the Committee that:

1. The application is minor in nature and should come forward as a zoning by-law amendment in the future should the applicant resolve all issues.

2. The application conforms to and is consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement.³

Process Followed

20In operating under the Code, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual bringing a Complaint (the Complainant) and the Council Member responding to the Complaint (the Respondent). This fair and balanced process begins with me issuing a Notice of Inquiry that sets out the issues in the inquiry. The Complaint, including any complaint materials, is attached to the Notice. The Respondent is given the opportunity to respond, and then the Complainant receives the opportunity to reply to the Response. The Respondent is made aware of the Complainant’s name. I do, however, redact personal information such as personal phone numbers and email addresses. I may accept supplementary communications and submissions from the parties, generally on the condition that each party gets to see the other’s communications with me. I do this in the interest of transparency and fairness.

21I received a complaint form on July 7. I requested clarification from the Complainant and received the clarification on July 15 and July 26. Further information was received from the Complainant on July 27, August 2, and August 3. I treated all the communications from the Complainant, combined, as a Complaint under the Code. The date of the final communication, August 3, is the official receipt date.

22The Complaint alleges that the Respondent, while chairing the April 21 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, contravened paragraphs b), c), e), f), g), h), i), m), n) and o) of section 6.2.1 of the Code. The Complaint also alleges a contravention of section 6.3 (Accountability and Transparency) on the ground that portions of the report before the committee were knowingly inaccurate, and the matter should not have been treated as a request for a variance but should have been referred to LPAT.

23I issued a Notice of Inquiry on August 22.

24Based on my review of the Complaint, I exercised my Municipal Act discretion to conduct an inquiry into the allegations under paragraphs i) and n) of section 6.2.1 of the Code.

25I received the Deputy Mayor’s Response on August 27. I received the Complainant’s Reply on August 30 and additional comments on September 2.

26There was no recording of the April 21 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Interviews were conducted to confirm what occurred. I conducted two interviews. I issued a delegation under subsection 223.3(3) of the Municipal Act to Paul Burbank, a lawyer who works with me, and he conducted six interviews.

27Both parties had full and fair opportunities to provide evidence and to state their positions on the issues in this inquiry. While this report summarizes the evidence and the argument, and does not mention everything I considered, the report is based on all the documents, all the interviews, and all the submissions of the parties.

Allegations not Considered

28As I have noted, I only inquired into the allegations under paragraphs i) and n) of section 6.2.1 of the Code. The Notice of Inquiry explained to the parties why the inquiry would not consider the other provisions of the Code.

29The facts alleged in the Complaint would not amount to breaches of paragraphs b). c), e) and f) of section 6.2.1 of the Code. In any event, the allegations of breaches of these paragraphs are too vague and general to form the basis of a complaint.

30The facts alleged in the Complaint do not involve breaches of paragraphs g) and h) of section 6.2.1 of the Code.

31The allegations do not relate to conduct “in the community” or to a presentation on behalf of the Township, so paragraph m) of section 6.2.1 of the Code does not apply.

32In my view, paragraph o) of section 6.2.1 of the Code applies to comments made about somebody, not comments made to somebody. Consequently, that paragraph does not apply to the allegations.

33The inquiry also did not consider the allegation of breach of section 6.3 (Accountability and Transparency) of the Code. This allegation is in substance a challenge to the staff report presented to the Committee of Adjustment, to the Committee’s decision, and to the Committee minutes. An Integrity Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over staff reports and over committees’ decisions and minutes.

Positions of the Parties

Complainant’s Position

34The Complainant submits that the Respondent acted toward her in an aggressive and demeaning manner. In particular, she says that she was “continually shut down” by the Respondent when she asked her questions and that she was “screamed at and accused of calling the committee corrupt” when she suggested the committee had already made up its mind on the application by the time it was being discussed.

35She recalls departing the meeting, “feeling bullied, shamed, afraid and belittled” by the Respondent, who “rendered [her] to tears in the meeting in front of committee members, council members as well as members of the community who were in attendance.” She submitted that the Respondent’s conduct that day tarnished her reputation in the community and stated it was her “firm belief” that the Respondent would not have spoke to her like that “had [she] been male.”

36The Complaint materials include a May 19 email from the Complainant to a Township employee in which the Complainant states:

… screaming at a resident and saying that I called the committee corrupt when I did not say that is abuse plain and simple. The chair bullied me into stopping to comment. I stated at the beginning that I had a series of questions and a statement – I was forced [into] silence and demeaned publicly … I received calls after the meeting to see if I was ok and how awful the chair was to me.

I would further suggest that if a man was speaking he would not have been spoken to in such a manner.

37The Complainant also believes that the Respondent misled her about the nature of the committee’s review function. Specifically, she submits that the Respondent spoke to her before the meeting and encouraged her to “put it all on the table” and raise any issue she had with the application when it was her opportunity to speak, only to deny her the opportunity to speak to many of those issues during her presentation because they were not in scope of the committee’s review function under the Planning Act. In the Complainant’s words:

I became frustrated because the deputy mayor kept saying no, not in scope, you can’t ask that. The Deputy Mayor called me on the Sunday before the meeting and said to me that if he votes against the variance the Township staff will be mad at him and if he votes for the variance the neighbourhood will be mad at him. He also stated he should not be speaking with me about the matter at all. He told me to put everything out on the table, and I said the only way to resolve this then would be a lawsuit, and he said yes. So my frustration was that the Deputy Mayor had called me, told me to put everything on the table and then publicly denied me the ability to put it on the table. So I said I guess the decision is already made then – in the middle of my questions. I had made that statement which was when the DM freaked and said – I find that completely offensive and how dare you call this committee corrupt – which is not what I said at all. He then went on a rant and I did not feel welcome to read my statement or continue with the questions. I was not asked to submit my statement either.

38The Complainant provided emails that show prior to the meeting she raised with the Respondent and Township staff many of her concerns about the property and the application. She questions why she was never told that some of these concerns were outside the scope of the committee’s review and that she would not be able to speak to them at the committee. She believes that staff “stonewalled” her by not providing adequate answers.

39She also raises concerns about the accuracy of the minutes of the April 21 meeting. I note that the Complainant communicated her concerns about the minutes to Township staff in the weeks following the meeting.

Respondent’s Position

40The Respondent’s primary position is that the Complainant was frustrated by the fact that the committee could not address many of her questions about the application because they were outside the scope of the committee’s function, which is to review the application in accordance with section 45 of the Planning Act.

41According to the Respondent, many of the questions to which the Complainant sought answers related to issues that were clearly outside the scope of the committee, and that this had already been communicated to her.

42For example, he pointed out that her statement included questions and comments related to septics and various Building Code issues that are not relevant to the analysis under the Planning Act.

43The Respondent points out that he had the responsibility, as chair, to steer discussion away from topics that were outside the scope of the committee’s mandate:

It is my responsibility to make sure the application is fairly presented and accurately represented on these grounds. Ms. Stewart was to speak on issues with regards to the application, but in fairness to the applicant, other building issues and problems were not relevant to the application and could unfairly prejudice the voting process. This could create a liability for the Township if an LPAT hearing or legal case arise. Ms. Stewart was well aware that she could only address the minor variance.

44The Respondent refers to the list of questions that the Complainant submitted to the committee shortly before the meeting to support his belief that the Complainant does not appreciate the committee’s limited mandate or his responsibility as chair.

45He also acknowledges that he found it unnerving to hear the Complainant accuse the members of the committee of having made up their minds on the application before the committee had discussed and voted on the matter. He points out that committee members do not discuss or decide on matters before they come to the committee, and they conduct independent site visits without conferring with one another.

46The Respondent categorically rejects the Complainant’s belief that sex discrimination had anything to do with calling the Complainant to order, or the manner in which she was called to order:

Our board is made up of 3 women and 2 men and as individuals we work impartially, diligently and fairly, and each member has a right to cast their own vote. My role, as chair, is to protect all my members and I can not allow them to be bullied by anyone, male or female. So anyone, male or female, who makes accusations, like the above, will be interrupted and will be requested not to speak in that manner and asked to apologize.

Findings of Fact

47Findings of fact are made based on the standard of the balance of probabilities.

48While I have considered the Complainant’s and Respondent’s recollections of what occurred at the meeting, the factual findings on the contentious issues are all supported by the evidence of multiple witnesses. No finding depends on the Complainant’s or Respondent’s recollection alone.

49I find as a fact that at one point during her exchange with the Respondent, the Complainant told the committee, “you have already made your decision.”

50I find that the Respondent then interrupted and reprimanded the Complainant for making that comment. He asked the Complainant to apologize to the committee.

51The above findings are consistent with the recollections of both parties. The following are findings of fact on points on which the parties disagree.

52I find that the discussion and review of the application lasted longer than what ordinarily occurs, and that the length and scope of the Complainant’s presentation contributed to the overall length of the meeting.

53I find that the Complainant received ample time to present her views on the application.

54I find that during her presentation the Complainant did more than communicate her position on the application. The Complainant also asked questions about the subject property, such as about lot coverage, and about the approval and setback of its swales, and the Respondent and the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment attempted to provide answers to her questions.

55I find that the scope of the Complainant’s presentation to the committee appeared to stray beyond the limited role of a Committee of Adjustment under the Planning Act. For example, the Complainant repeatedly raised Building Code issues that appeared to be outside the committee’s purview. I use the word “appeared” because it is not for me to make a finding of whether the Complainant’s remarks were actually in order or out of order. Keeping order in the committee and associated determinations were responsibilities of the committee chair, not of me.

56I find that the Complainant also used her presentation to blame the Township staff for certain concerns related to the subject property and to criticize the staff report.

57I find that the Respondent (as committee chair) and the Secretary/Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment both tried to redirect the focus of the Complainant’s comments back to Planning Act matters.

58I find that the Respondent, in the exercise of authority as committee chair, determined that by straying off topic the Complainant’s remarks were out of order. On several occasions, in the exercise of his function as chair, the Respondent cut off the Complainant when her comments strayed beyond the application before the committee.

59I find that the Complainant responded to being cut off (for not speaking to the application) by stating that the committee had already decided on the application. I find that this was her intended meaning, and I find that those present interpreted the comment in the same way.

60I find that other members of the committee were upset by the Complainant’s allegation that they had already decided on the application, because they take seriously their obligation to assess applications on their merits and in accordance with advice of staff with subject-matter expertise. I find that the other committee members expected the Respondent to intervene to defend the committee’s integrity.

61I find that, in responding to the Complainant’s allegation, the Respondent was assertive and did appear frustrated, but his comments were not aggressive, hostile, or otherwise unprofessional.

62I find that the Respondent did not scream.

63I find that the Respondent determined that the remark that the committee had already made up its mind was a breach of order and decorum, and that in responding to the remark he as exercising his function as chair.

64I find as a fact that the exchange between the Complainant and the Respondent was tense, and that at the end of her participation the Complainant was in tears.

65These findings based on the recollections of multiple witnesses.

Issues and Analysis

66I have considered the following issues:

A. Should I consider a complaint about how a committee chair chaired a committee meeting?

B. At the April 21 Committee of Adjustment meeting, did the Respondent contravene section 6.2.1 of the Code?

A. Should I consider a complaint about how a committee chair chaired a committee meeting?

67Generally, no.

68A committee chair has duties under the Procedural By-law, By-law Number 19-23. An Integrity Commissioner should not assume procedural powers that belong to committee chairs. An Integrity Commissioner lacks authority to supervise the chairing of meetings.

69Further, a presiding officer is in a much better position than an Integrity Commissioner to deal with conduct that occurs at a meeting.

70The Chair of the Committee of Adjustment exercises statutory functions under the Planning Act. The position of Chair of the Committee of Adjustment is established by subsection 44(7) of the Planning Act. An Integrity Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to oversee how Planning Act functions are discharged.

71The Procedural By-law applies to meetings of all committees and local boards established by resolution or by-law of Council.⁴ The Procedural By-law applies to the Committee of Adjustment and applied to the April 21 Meeting.

72The Procedural By-law does not always refer separately to committee meetings, but is understood to apply to both Council meetings and committee meetings, and the definitions of “Chair,” “Delegate,” and “Meeting” confirm this.⁵

73Section 4.6 of the Procedural By-law provides that, “The Chair … shall preside over the conduct of the Meeting, including the preservation of good order and decorum, ruling on points of order and deciding all questions relating to the orderly procedure of the Meeting, subject to an appeal of Council, as the case may be.”

74Section 8.1 states: “The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and decide questions of order subject to an appeal to Council by any Member.”

75The Procedural By-law also deals specifically with delegations (deputations) and with public meetings.⁶ The following passages are relevant to this inquiry:

4.10 The Chair shall enforce, as necessary, the observance of order and decorum among Members, delegates and visitors, and shall have the right to expel any person for improper conduct or disruption of the meeting.

4.17 No person shall use indecent, offensive or insulting language or speak disrespectfully of Council as a whole, Member, Staff, Committee or Local Board members.

5.20 Persons desiring to present information where it requires potential action by Council shall complete a request to appear as a Deputation outlining the subject matter of presentation to the Clerk by no later than 12:00 noon on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. In the case of a Special Meeting of Council, the material shall be submitted as soon as possible after the meeting has been summoned. This does not apply to delegations for a meeting that is a public meeting pursuant to legislation. For matters that are subject to a public meeting, no formal delegation request is required. [emphasis added]

5.25 No person shall make detrimental comments, or speak ill of, or malign the integrity of staff, the public or Council.

5.27 Except on matters of order, the Chair shall not interrupt a delegate while he or she is addressing Council or Committee.

5.28 Members may only address a delegate upon recognition by the Chair and may only ask questions and not express opinions or enter into debate or discussion.

5.29 Whenever a Deputation in its presentation, offers comments or statements that are deemed to be inaccurate and unsubstantiated, any Member may be recognized by the Chair on Point of Order and once recognized by the Chair, may bring necessary corrections or clarifications to the comments or statement said by the Deputation.

5.36 During a Public Meeting, any person wishing to address Council may come forward when prompted by the Chair, and such person shall address Council providing their name and address for the public record.

76The Planning Act gives “every person who desires” the right “to be heard in favour of or against the application.”⁷ Under the Procedural By-law, the committee chair may call to order a person is not speaking about the application or about matters within the committee’s jurisdiction. The Procedural By-law also allows the committee chair to call to order someone who speaks ill of or maligns the integrity of staff or of Council. The Procedural By-law allows the committee chair to interrupt a presenter on a matter of order.

77The Complaint relates directly to the Respondent’s exercise of the functions of committee chair that I have just described. In my view, an Integrity Commissioner is in no position to second guess how a committee chair interprets and applies the Procedural By-law. In the context of the Committee of Adjustment, an Integrity Commissioner is in no position to apply subsection 45(6) of the Planning Act.

78In the Findings of Fact section of this report, I state that portions of the Complainant’s presentation appeared off topic. I use the word “appeared” because it is not for me to determine whether the Complainant’s remarks actually were in order. It was for the Respondent, as committee chair, to decide. He decided that the Complainant’s remarks were out of order.

79Under section 8.15 of the Procedural By-law, unless there is an appeal, the chair’s decision on a matter of order is final. As was recently noted in Regional Municipality v. Neal and Schummer, 2021 ONMIC 15, at para. 115, “final” means, among other things, binding on the Integrity Commissioner.

80In previous cases I have expressed the view that, once the presiding officer of a meeting has ruled on an issue or order (or decorum), the Integrity Commissioner should not duplicate that work by making parallel findings under the Code of Conduct: see, for example, Regional Municipality v. Neal and Schummer, 2021 ONMIC 15, at paras. 108-116, and Sinnott et al. v. McConkey, 2021 ONMIC 4, at para. 180.

81I am not the only Integrity Commissioner to defer to the procedural decisions of presiding officers. In the City of Toronto, Integrity Commissioners have consistently taken the position that they do not have jurisdiction over the behaviour of Council Members during Council and committee meetings. Professor David Mullan, the first municipal Integrity Commissioner ever appointed in Canada, noted that the Municipal Act requires that each municipality pass a procedure by-law⁸ and that the procedure by-law provides a clear mechanism for enforcing decorum and orderly conduct during meetings. Integrity Commissioner Mullan concluded:

In general, the Integrity Commissioner does not have authority under the Code of Conduct to review complaints about the behaviour of Councillors at Council and Committee meetings. The behaviour of Councillors at Council, while regulated by the Code of Conduct, is the responsibility of Council (acting primarily through the Mayor or his deputy). Absent a resolution of Council requesting the Integrity Commissioner to become involved, this self-policing is part of the statutory rights and privileges of Council.⁹

82In my view, it is not appropriate or useful for an Integrity Commissioner to revisit a meeting, weeks after the event, and opine on whether the committee chair was right to interrupt a presenter to call her to order.

83I recognize that in this case the Complainant takes issue with how the Respondent called her to order. She claims he screamed at her, and bullied her, and treated her differently because she is a woman. Such allegations, if substantiated, would be covered by section 6.1 of the Procedural By-law which provides that, “No member shall … (b) use offensive words, gestures or speak with un-parliamentary language in or against the Council as a whole, Member, Staff, Committee or Local Board member.”

84A member could be called to order for contravening section 6.1 of the Procedural By-law. In general, a presiding officer is in a much better position than an Integrity Commissioner to deal with conduct that occurs at a meeting. Unlike an Integrity Commissioner, the chair is present and able to act immediately.

85In this instance, however, the Complaint relates to the conduct of the presiding officer. It is impractical for a presiding officer to rule on an allegation about the presiding officer’s own use of language. For that reason, and that reason only, I have considered whether the Respondent contravened paragraphs i) and n) of section 6.2.1 of the Code.

86To be clear, the only issues are whether the Respondent screamed at the Complainant, used inappropriate language, and treated her differently on the basis of sex. When the Respondent interrupted the Complainant and cut her off because he determined she was speaking off topic, he was making a procedural ruling that I cannot overturn. When the Respondent interrupted the Complainant because she had called into question the committee’s integrity, he was calling her to order and exercising a procedural function in which I should not interfere.

87Without more to support the allegation of “bullying,” an Integrity Commissioner should not interfere in a chair’s decision to cut off a speaker who is out of order. Upholding order and decorum is the responsibility of the chair. Unless the functions are exercised in an improper manner, interrupting a speaker who is out of order is not bullying.

B. At the April 21 Committee of Adjustment meeting, did the Respondent contravene section 6.2.1 of the Code?

88No.

89The portions of the Code that are the subject of the inquiry read as follows:

6.2.1 Members shall in exercising and discharging their Official Duties …. i) ensure discourse is appropriate and professional and shall refrain from inappropriate or offensive language and shall avoid personalities … n) not bully, threaten, coerce, or otherwise harass, or intimidate staff, the public, or public agencies

90I rely on the findings of fact outlined earlier in this report.

91The Complainant spoke at length and made wide-ranging submissions. The Complainant was even permitted to ask multiple questions.

92When the Respondent determined that the Complainant was speaking off topic, he interrupted her. When the Complainant alleged that the committee had already made its decision, the Respondent again interrupted to address what he considered a breach of order and decorum.

93In exercising these functions of the chair, the Respondent was assertive, but he was not aggressive, hostile, or unprofessional. He did not scream.

94There is no evidence to support the allegation that the Complainant was treated differently on the basis of sex. I note that most of the witnesses were women. No witness felt that the situation was caused by anything other than a presenter who kept staying off topic and then made an allegation against the committee.

95On procedural decisions, and decisions about order and decorum, I defer to the committee chair. As presiding officer of the meeting, the Respondent had authority to preserve order and decorum at a meeting, including to keep speakers focused on the applications before the committee. This included the authority to intervene and to cut off someone who strayed off topic. As I have mentioned, it is not for me to determine whether the Complainant actually was speaking off topic; that was up to the Respondent.

96It is unnecessary for me to observe that, in allowing the Complainant to ask questions during her presentation, and then attempting to answer them, the Respondent appeared to go beyond the requirements of the Planning Act. The legislation merely states that, “the committee shall hear the applicant and every other person who desires to be heard in favour of or against the application.” The Planning Act does not say that neighbours get to pepper the committee and the staff with questions about the application. Nonetheless, it was within the Respondent’s authority to permit this to occur. Any additional consideration afforded to the Complainant was for the Respondent to determine.

97On the subject of questioning, it is evident from the Complaint that the Complainant feels that the Township staff and the Committee of Adjustment did not satisfactorily answer her many questions about the subject property. I understand that members of the public may want answers when municipal bodies make decisions affecting their neighbourhoods. I also understand that decision-making processes may appear unclear or opaque to people who are unfamiliar with them. I am very cognizant of this context. Nonetheless, my role as Integrity Commissioner is limited. I do not have oversight of the adequacy of communication with members of the public about these processes. I do not oversee meeting procedure. I do not have any oversight of the Township staff.

Recommendation

98I recommend that Council receive this Report.

Content

99Subsection 223.6(2) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in this report such matters as in my opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. All the content of this report is, in my opinion, necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Guy Giorno Integrity Commissioner Township of Adjala-Tosorontio October 23, 2021

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, subs. 45(1).
2. 2Ibid., subs. 45(6).
3. 3In quoting from documents, my practice is always to edit punctuation and capitalization for consistency and to correct immaterial typographical and textual errors.
4. 4Procedural By-law, paragraph 1.1(j).
5. 5Ibid., paragraphs 1.1(g),(o),(w).
6. 6Paragraph 1.1(bb) of the Procedural By-law defines, “Public Meeting.”
7. 7Note 1, subs. 45(6).
8. 8Municipal Act, 2001, subsection 238(2).
9. 9City of Toronto, Report on Complaint (April 6, 2005), Integrity Commissioner David Mullan, at 4.