Leahy, 2021 ONMIC 33

TOWN OF WHITBY Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Leahy, 2021 ONMIC 33 Date: December 15, 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://whitby.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=2449 (see Resolution # 01-21 at pages 3-4 of January 10, 2022, Special Council Minutes)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 4

Position of Councillor Leahy. 4

Findings of Fact 5

Issues and Analysis. 5

A. Did Councillor Leahy contravene the Code?. 5

B. What remedy should be recommended to Council?. 5

Recommendation.. 5

Content 5

The Complaint

1Subsection 223.4(1) of the Municipal Act provides that Council, a Council Member, or a member of the public may make a request about whether a Council Member has contravened the Council Code of Conduct.¹ Commonly they are referred to as complaints, but under both the Act and the Code² they are, technically, requests for the Integrity Commissioner to inquire into whether the Code was contravened. The Act does not prohibit Council Members from making requests about themselves: see Gerrits v. Currie, 2020 ONMIC 6, at para. 2.

2Councillor Chris Leahy, the Deputy Mayor, has submitted a request that I inquire into whether he contravened the Code of Conduct during the October 4 meeting of Town Council. I assigned File No. 2021-03-CC to his request. CC stands for Code of Conduct.

3This report is being released simultaneously with three other reports related to the same incident: Forbes v. Leahy,³ Stevens v. Leahy and Yamada,⁴ and Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell.⁵

Summary

4Councillor Leahy takes the position that he contravened section 4.1 of the Code. The only issue, therefore, is what I should recommend to Council.

5For the reasons set out in Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell, at paragraphs 101 to 112, I recommend that Council issue a reprimand.

Background

6The background to this Complaint appears in the report in Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell, at paragraphs 11 to 28.

7Councillor Leahy’s Complaint against himself states that he contravened section 4.1 of the Council Code of Conduct.

8Section 4.1 reads as follows:

Every Member of Council has the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public, one another and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation, and to ensure that the municipal work environment is free from discrimination and harassment.

Process Followed

9In operating under the Code, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual bringing a Complaint (Complainant) and the Council Member responding to the Complaint (Respondent). In this case, the Complainant and Respondent are the same person, so I dispensed with the steps in the process that give each party the opportunity to receive and to respond to the other’s submissions.

10I received Councillor Leahy’s Complaint on October 7. I received his submissions on October 26.

11In coming to the conclusions in this report, I have considered the submissions of Councillor Leahy. I have also considered the perspective of Councillor Mulcahy and the impact on her. In addition, I have examined the documentary evidence provided, and the recordings of the October 4 (Regular Council) and October 18 (Committee of the Whole) meetings. I have also reviewed statements made in news media stories and social media.

Position of Councillor Leahy

12Councillor Leahy acknowledges that he contravened the Code.

13He explains that the comment was inadvertent as he thought he was on mute. He states, however, that the comment was inappropriate.

14Councillor Leahy states that he apologized several times: over the phone within 24 hours, in a televised Global News interview, in writing to all Council Members, and in-person at the October 18 meeting.

15He points out that October 18 was the first opportunity for him to apologize on the record and in the same forum in which the offensive comment was made. He also notes that Councillor Mulcahy said she accepted the October 18 apology.

16Councillor Leahy has taken the following additional steps: He completed a LinkedIn course on diversity and inclusion, and he accepted the CAO’s invitation to take Town-provided sensitivity training (available to all Members) and executive coaching, counselling, and conflict resolution services from Dr. J.P. Gedeon (also available to all Members).

Findings of Fact

17I rely on the findings of fact in the report Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell, 2021 ONMIC 38, and I apply them here.

Issues and Analysis

A. Did Councillor Leahy contravene the Code?

18This issue is not in dispute. Councillor Leahy acknowledges that he contravened section 4.1 of the Code of Conduct.

19Council Leahy “accept[s] that what [he] did was wrong.” He describes his comment as “ill-advised, hurtful, and disrespectful of a respected colleague.” He recognizes that his words caused pain.

20I explain in Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell that I disagree with the description “inadvertent comment.” “Inadvertent” means accidental or unintentional. The comment was not inadvertent. According to his own account, the inadvertence was Councillor Leahy’s failure to ensure his line was muted when he spoke. He meant to speak the insulting words; he did not mean for them to be broadcast or recorded. The distinction is important. This was not an inadvertent comment. It was an intentional comment, inadvertently broadcast.

B. What action should be recommended to Council?

21The reasons for my recommendation are set out in Mulcahy v. Leahy and Mitchell, at paragraphs 101 to 112. I conclude that Town Council should reprimand the body-shaming that occurred on October 4.

Recommendation

22Councillor Leahy’s body-shaming comment was, by his own acknowledgement, contrary to the Code of Conduct. I recommend that Council issue a reprimand.

Content

23Subsection 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 Town of Whityb December 15, 2021

Footnotes

1. 1By-law # 7245-17, as amended.
2. 2Section 14.1 of the Code indicates that “request” and “Complaint” are the same thing: “Any individual who believes that a Member has contravened the Code may make a request (the ‘Complaint’) that the matter be formally reviewed.”
3. 3Processed as Integrity Commissioner File No. 2021-04-CC. Reported as 2021 ONMIC 36.
4. 4Processed as Integrity Commissioner File No. 2021-05-CC. Reported as 2021 ONMIC 37.
5. 5Processed as Integrity Commissioner File No. 2021-06-CC. Reported as 2021 ONMIC 38.