Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Anderson, D. v. Pinto (No. 2), 2021 ONMIC 34 Date: December 31, 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 10.2, RES-27-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 8

Positions of the Parties. 10

Findings of Fact 11

Issues and Analysis. 12

A. Was confidential Information disclosed?. 12

B. Was section 6.4.1 contravened?. 13

C. Was section 6.15 contravened?. 13

Recommendation.. 14

Content 14

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 15

The Complaint

1. Mr. David Anderson (Complainant) alleges that Mayor Floyd Pinto (Respondent) contravened sections 6.2.1 c), 6.2.1 f), 6.4.1 a), 6.4.1 d), 6.15.4 and 6.15.5 of the Council Code of Conduct by disclosing to the news media the content of a closed session meeting.

2. This Complaint was previously the subject of an interim report to Council dated October 3, 2019: 2019 ONMIC 16. Further inquiry was paused after the adoption of resolution RES-480-2019.¹

3. Council considered the matter again on October 13, 2021, and adopted resolution RES-348-2021.² As a result of that action, I have been able to complete the inquiry and prepare this report.

Summary

4. Whether or not in 2019 the Respondent meant to tell the news media about an April 5 (not closed) meeting, or the May 6 (closed) meeting, at least some confidential information, as defined in the Code, was communicated.

5. Even if the intention was only to share information about April 5 (not a closed meeting), the result was a sharing of the substance of deliberation on May 6 (closed meeting).

6. I find that sections 6.4.1 a) and d) of the Code were contravened.

7. I cannot find that Code section 16.15.5 was breached. Whether section 16.15.4 was contravened is academic, given the contravention of 6.4.1 d).

Background

8. Nelson Aggregate Co. is the registered business name of a partnership that operates an aggregate mining business in eight locations across Ontario. The partnership also refers to itself as “Nelson Aggregates.”

9. Nelson’s “Alliston Pit” is located inside the Township, at the intersection of County Road 13 and Tosorontio Sideroad 5, on the northwest corner. The pit has been open since May 2020.

10. In October 2015, the Township approved an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law amendment to permit operation of the Alliston Pit.³ In January 2018, the Ontario Municipal Board (now the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) dismissed appeals from the Official Plan and zoning amendments.⁴ With one modification, the OMB accepted the conditions proposed by the Township.⁵ Shortly after the OMB decision, the Township and Nelson entered into a development agreement, incorporating the modified conditions.⁶

11. The Alliston Pit became an issue in the 2018 municipal election. Two candidates (sitting Councillors who subsequently were elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor) had participated in the OMB appeal.⁷

12. At its first Regular Meeting following the 2018 municipal election, Council directed a review by the Township’s engineers of various matters related to the Alliston Pit, including the potential effect of the gravel pit operation on flooding, on fisheries, on the Boyne River, and on a municipal drain flowing through the property, and whether new conditions ought to be included in the final site plan agreement.⁸

13. The engineers identified certain concerns and reported them to the Township.⁹ At its April 8, 2019, Regular Meeting, Council decided that Council would meet with a representative of Nelson to discuss how to address in the development agreement the engineers’ concerns.¹⁰

14. The staff recommendation had been that “Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to meet with a representative from Nelson Aggregate.”¹¹ Instead, the resolution adopted by Council was that Council as a whole would sit down with Nelson.

15. According to the Mayor, on April 5, he, the CAO, the Director of Infrastructure and Development, and David S. White, QC, a lawyer representing Nelson, met to discuss various concerns about the development agreement. I note that April 5, 2019, was three days prior to the April 8 Council meeting. The reason why Council amended the staff recommendation is unclear, but perhaps was related to the fact that a Mayor-CAO-Nelson meeting had already occurred.

16. The Mayor says participants in the April 5 meeting agreed that the next step should be a meeting between Nelson and all of Council. That is consistent with Council’s April 8 determination.

17. Later that month, Mayor Pinto told the Alliston Herald that he and staff would be sitting down with Nelson to seek “better terms” in the development agreement.¹² According to the April 28, 2019, news story, the Mayor declined to provide specifics:

A meeting will be taking place in the near future between the mayor and staff from Adjala-Tosorontio and Nelson Aggregates to discuss the development agreement that was approved last year for the Everett gravel pit.

Mayor Floyd Pinto said he cannot provide specifics of what the township will be requesting of the company other than “better terms” for the municipality.

Pinto is optimistic about the meeting.

18. The Mayor recalls speaking to the news media on April 24, 2019, while driving back from a meeting of Mayors and Deputy Mayors of South Simcoe. This timing is consistent with the publication of a news story on April 28.

19. Soon afterward, Council met with Nelson, during a closed session, as part of the May 6, 2019, Special Council Meeting. The Township’s legal counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, was also present.

20. The public agenda described the closed meeting as “Meeting with Representatives from Nelson Aggregates – Development Agreement.” The motion to go into closed session described the reason for going in camera as, “to consider a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality …”

21. The closed meeting occurred between approximately 9:30 a.m. and 10:46 a.m.

22. During the closed meeting, Nelson and the Council reached agreement on amendments to the development agreement. Lawyers for the Township and Nelson were asked to finalize the text of a revised development agreement that would give effect to the points agreed that morning.

23. Witness evidence confirms that the legal text of the revised development agreement did not substantively alter the amendments that were agreed on May 6. The text of revised development agreement conforms to what was discussed and agreed at the closed meeting.

24. The revised development agreement was executed by Nelson on June 27, 2019. It was approved by Council on July 10, 2019, and signed by the Mayor and Clerk that day.¹³

25. The Complaint is based on a news story that appeared (first online, then in print) after the May 6 closed meeting and before the revised development agreement was executed.

26. Eleven days following the closed meeting, Metroland published the following online article:

AdjaIa-Tosorontio reaches new deal with aggregate company

Site will only be allowed to operate on Saturdays for emergencies

News May 17, 2019 by Brad Pritchard Alliston Herald

Adjala-Tosorontio and Nelson Aggregates have agreed to a new set of terms for [the] company’s gravel pit operation in Everett.

Mayor Floyd Pinto said a meeting held recently with company officials to discuss the municipality’s request for a number of revisions to the previous agreement want “very well.”

“They agreed to a lot of our terms and they really want to work with us. I’m happy,” he said.

Pinto said the township will receive an additional $200,000 for the conveyance of land on the property that the previous council had planned to use for a walking trail.

Pinto said the trail would have been “a huge liability” for the township, noting half of the land would be under water during the operation.

He said the money will be paid to the township in the form of a levy, and it will be provided in addition to $100,000 in materials, labour or equipment that was already agreed to under the old agreement.

The company also agreed to not ship aggregate from the site on Saturdays unless there is an emergency, like if a municipality needs gravel during a flooding situation.

“It will still be under the call of the director in infrastructure,” he said.

Pinto said the company will pay the full costs of the roadwork that will be required from the entrance gate on the 5th Sideroad, east to County Road 13, and it will also repave the road when the operation is completed.

Under the old deal, the township was to pay 50 per cent.

The township also finally received an answer about a municipal drain that was identified at the property.

Pinto said it was installed during a previous pit operation, but it was never commissioned.

“They've given us assurances it won’t cause any flooding problems,” he said.

The company will also conduct a well monitoring program during the operation, which was lacking in the previous deal, and results will be posted regularly on the company’s website.

“That should have been a standard part of the agreement,” he said.

Once the lawyers finalize everything, Pinto said it will be brought to council for ratification.

The gravel pit has yet to begin operation, but Pinto said the work could start as early as this fall.

In an email, Nelson Aggregate president Quinn Moyer said the township “engaged in some great dialogue” that resulted in them “both working towards a long-term relationship."

“We both felt the meeting was necessary so they could understand how Nelson Aggregate would be operating within the community and they could understand what we could do to help their constituents not only during the pit operation but down the road after the site has been exhausted and rehabilitated,” he wrote.

27. As of today, the news story is still online, though behind a paywall.¹⁴

28. The same story subsequently appeared in the May 23, 2019, print edition of the Alliston Herald.

29. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent disclosed confidential information from the May 6 meeting and, in so doing, contravened the Code.

Process Followed

30. In 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).

31. This fair and balanced process includes the following elements: The Respondent receives notice of the Complaint and an opportunity to respond. The Complainant receives the Respondent's response and an opportunity to reply. More generally, the process is transparent in that the Respondent and Complainant get to see each other’s communications with me.¹⁵ As a further safeguard to ensure fairness, I will not help to draft a Complaint and will not help to draft a Response or Reply. I will, however, if necessary, ask a party to clarify a Complaint, Response or Reply.

32. The Complaint was submitted May 29, 2019.

33. I sought clarification of the Complaint, and it was promptly provided, June 13.

34. The Complaint cites six different provisions of the Code of Conduct: 6.2.1 c), 6.2.1 f), 6.4.1 a), 6.4.1 d), 6.15.4 and 6.15.5. Exercising my discretion under subsection 223.4(1) of the Municipal Act, I determined that I would conduct the inquiry under four of those sections.

35. I informed the parties that I would not be inquiring into the allegations under sections 6.2.1 c) and 6.2.1 f) of the Code. First, the other four sections of the Code already fully cover the real substance of the allegations. Second, even though it is labelled “General Standards of Conduct,” section 6.2 of the Code is more properly understood as setting out the context or the principles on which the substantive rules of the Code (that is, the other sections) are based. Statements of context and principle are important aids to interpreting the other sections of the Code, but they cannot, on their own, give rise to allegations of breach (in any event, not allegations that would lead to an inquiry): Newman v. Brown, 2021 ONMIC 11, at paras. 55-59; Re Kett (No. 2), 2017 ONMIC 14, at paras. 150-157.

36. On June 18, the Respondent received notice of the Complaint. The same day, I informed the Clerk of the existence of the Complaint, numbered 2019-CC-01, but did not provide any detail of its content.

37. The Respondent responded, June 19.

38. I redacted the Response to remove content that referred to the substance of deliberations in closed session. The redacted Response was provided to the Complainant, June 25.

39. The Complainant replied on July 2.

40. I determined that, in order to determine whether the Respondent contravened the Code, I needed to find out what occurred during the May 6 closed session and compare it to the content of the Respondent’s news media comments.

41. I started by interviewing the then-Clerk, who was, logically, a witness to what happened at Council meetings. The interview was conducted July 12, 2019. The Clerk was present at the closed meeting, but she did not recall sufficient, specific detail to enable me to assess whether the news media comments breached the confidentiality of closed session.

42. The Clerk did not take notes of the May 6 closed session. Given the nature of what was happening in closed session, she told me, notes were taken by the Township’s lawyers, Borden Ladner Gervais.

43. For reasons outlined in 2019 ONMIC 16 and at the beginning of this report, Mr. Isaac Tang (the lead Borden Ladner Gervais partner) and I were not able to conduct an interview until after Council’s October 2021 decision.

44. I have confirmed the former Clerk’s understanding that Borden Ladner Gervais took notes of the meeting. Mr. Tang reviewed those notes and relevant documents in his file prior to our interview.

45. In addition to interviewing Mr. Tang, I have reviewed the original development agreement and the revised development agreement. I have also reviewed numerous documents including Township records and news articles. I have also relied on the evidence of the parties.

46. It is not my practice to request witness interviews from members of the news media: see Re Brampton (Council Member) (No. 1), 2018 ONMIC 13. Consequently, I did not ask Mr. Brad Pritchard what Mayor Pinto told him. I also note that Mayor Pinto does not deny the statements attributed to him in the May 2019 news story. (He maintains that the information did not come from the closed meeting.)

47. It is also not my practice to rely on the recollections of meeting participants, years after an event, if there exists a better record of what occurred. I am satisfied that I have confirmed the points that were agreed during the May 6, 2019, closed session, based on notes taken contemporaneously and a revised development agreement drafted on that basis.

48. I have considered and taken into account all of the submissions of the parties.

Positions of the Parties

Complainant’s Position

49. The Complainant states that the Mayor’s comments in the May 2019 news story clearly contained new information about the revised development agreement. Examples include the additional $200,000 and elimination of the walking trail.

50. The Complainant feels that it is obvious that the information came from the closed meeting and that the Mayor was not authorized to make the information public. Consequently, the Mayor should have declined provide comment to the news media.

Respondent’s Position

51. The Respondent acknowledges communicating with the reporter and does not deny the accuracy of the May 2019 quotations attributed to him.

52. The Respondent also agrees that a closed meeting of Council took place on May 6, 2019, and that Council had not authorized disclosure of the meeting’s content.

53. The Respondent disagrees that his comments to the journalist were related to the May 6 meeting. According to the Respondent, he was giving the reporter information from the April 5 meeting – that is, the meeting among him, the CAO, the Director of Infrastructure and Development, and David S. White, QC. The Mayor notes that this meeting was not a Council or committee meeting under the Municipal Act as there was no quorum. In his view, the April 5 meeting was not a closed meeting and its content was not confidential.

54. The Respondent states that, on April 5, he asked for the road to be paved, while Nelson’s lawyer offered an additional $200,000 and agreed that the pit would only be used on Saturday in emergencies. He says these points were all agreed prior to the May 6 closed session meeting.

55. According to the Respondent, prior to the May 6 meeting, the news media contacted him to ask what came out of the April 5 meeting. Because the April 5 meeting was not confidential, “I found no harm in disclosing what was discussed. … I informed the press what we discussed at the April 5, 2019, meeting as it was not confidential as it was not an in-camera meeting.”

56. The Respondent stresses that what appeared in the May 2019 news story (the story on which the Complaint is based), “is what I discussed that I would like to see in the new agreement and not what is in the final agreement as discussed in-camera.”

57. The Respondent compares the news article to the actual revised development agreement and states that much the revised agreement’s content does not appear in the news article. (He cites several examples of items that appear in the revised agreement but not in the May 2019 news story.) In his submission, these many items prove both that the agreement changed after he had spoken to the news media, and that he did not disclose what occurred in camera.

58. The Respondent concludes by explaining:

I did state in the papers that the meeting went very well and we got what we wanted. But saying this does not disclose the details of the in-camera meeting and I was referring to the items that I discussed at the meeting with Mr. White on April 5, 2019, that was not an in-camera meeting and it was not even considered a Council meeting as there was no quorum it was just Mr. White, two staff and myself.

Complainant’s Reply

59. In reply, the Complainant states that the Respondent’s position is not consistent with the chronology of events. After the April 5 meeting but prior to May 6, the Mayor told the news media that he was unable to provide specifics. The news story in which the Complaint is based first appeared on May 17, nearly two weeks after the May 6 closed session. It does not make sense that the Respondent would have shared content from the April 5 meeting on May 17 after he was unwilling to do so on April 28.

Findings of Fact

60. Findings of fact appear in the Background section of this report, and below. Findings are based on the standard of the balance of probabilities.

61. I accept the Respondent’s evidence that he communicated with the news media on April 24, 2019. I find that the result was the story published in the Alliston Herald on April 28.

62. I find that a closed meeting of Council was held on May 6, 2019, and that, as of May 17, 2019, Council had not authorized the release of information from the closed meeting.

63. The Respondent does not challenge the accuracy of the quotations attributed to him. I find that he made the comments attributed to him the April 28 and May 17 Alliston Herald articles.

64. The May 17 news story refers to “a meeting held recently with company officials” which Mayor Pinto said went “very well.” In find that the “meeting held recently” is obviously the May 6 meeting and not the April 5 meeting.

65. The same article quotes the Mayor, indirectly, on next steps: “Once the lawyers finalize everything, Pinto said it will be brought to council for ratification.” I find that this sentence describes the results of the May 6 meeting; the lawyers on both sides were to finalize the legal text of what was agreed on May 6.

66. I have reviewed the original development agreement and the revised development agreement. Because certain provisions of the agreements are expressly stated to be confidential, I will refrain from citing specific passages of either document. I have also considered the information provided by the Township’s lawyers. On the basis of all the evidence, I make the following findings: All the information attributed to the Mayor in the May 2019 news story is found in the revised development agreement and all of it was discussed at the May 6 closed meeting. The precise words used in the May 2019 news story do not always align with the words of the revised development agreement, but the content is there.

67. The Mayor is correct that several features of the revised development agreement were not mentioned in the news story. Nonetheless, the comments attributed to the Mayor by the news story do reveal content of the revised development agreement, though not always described in the same language.

68. Even assuming that the same items were also discussed at the April 5 meeting, I find that they were communicated to the Alliston Herald in connection with the May 6 meeting.

Issues and Analysis

69. I have considered the following issues:

A. Was confidential information disclosed?

B. Was section 6.4.1 contravened?

C. Was section 6.15 contravened?

A. Was confidential Information disclosed?

70. Yes. According to the “confidential information” definition in section 4.1 of the Code, confidential information was disclosed.

71. I agree with the Mayor that his April 5, 2019, meeting with Nelson’s lawyer and two Township staff members was not a “meeting” according to the definition in section 238 of the Municipal Act. That is not, however, the only determinant of what constitutes confidential information. For example, the original and revised development agreements both contain language indicating that some of their content fits within the first paragraph of the Code of Conduct “confidential information” definition. (Relevant excerpts from the Code, including this definition, are reproduced in the Appendix.)

72. It is also likely that information from the April 5 meeting is described by the second paragraph of the “confidential information” definition.

73. Consequently, even accepting the Respondent’s explanation that what was shared with the news media came from the April 5, 2019, meeting, the content included confidential information.

74. In any event, I have found that the information provided to the news media disclosed the substance of what occurred at the May 6, 2019, closed meeting, and on that basis was confidential.

B. Was section 6.4.1 contravened?

75. Yes. Section 6.4.1 does not merely apply to the substance of closed meeting deliberations. Section 6.4.1 d) refers to closed meetings, but section 6.4.1 a) applies to any information that is confidential.

76. Even if the information related solely to the April 5, 2019, meeting, for the reasons already explained, on the basis of the April 5 meeting alone, some of the information provided to the Alliston Herald was confidential and released contrary to section 6.4.1 a).

77. Nonetheless, I have found that the information also related to the May 6, 2019, closed meeting. The information might also have related to the April 5 meeting, but it still related to May 6. More precisely, to use the words of section 6.4.1 d), it disclosed “the substance of deliberations, of an in-camera (closed) meeting” on May 6.

C. Was section 6.15 contravened?

78. Section 6.15.4 of the Code duplicates what is already covered by section 6.4.1 d). In light of my finding on section 6.4.1 d), I need not address section 6.15.4.

79. Section 6.15.5 instructs Council Members how to reply to news media inquiries about closed meetings. While I have found that the Respondent revealed the substance of closed meeting deliberations, I cannot find that he was asked about a closed meeting.

80. The Respondent’s evidence is that he was asked about the April 5 meeting – which was not closed. I have no basis to find that he was asked about May 6. Consequently, I cannot find that section 6.15.5 was breached.

Recommendation

81. I recommend that Council adopt the findings of this report.

82. In all the circumstances, I do not recommend that Council take any additional action.

Content

83. Subsection 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

December 31, 2021

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 For the purposes of this Code of Conduct:

8. “Confidential information” includes information in the possession of the Township that falls within the discretionary or mandatory exemptions from disclosure, under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) or other privacy legislation. Generally, information received in confidence from third parties of a corporate, commercial, scientific or technical nature, information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and information that is deemed to be “personal information” is subject to exemption from disclosure pursuant to MFIPPA.

Confidential information also refers to other information which is not available to the public and that, if disclosed, could result in loss or damage to the Corporation or could give the person to whom it is disclosed an unfair advantage. Such confidential information includes, but is not limited to the following:

i) information circulated to Members of Council and marked “Confidential”; and

ii) information disclosed for the purposes of, or discussed at a Closed Meeting of Council or its Boards and includes, but is not limited to, the following types of information:

• personal matters about an identifiable individual(s);

• information about suppliers provided for evaluation purposes which might, if made public, be used by others to gain advantage;

• matters relating to the legal affairs of the Township;

• sources of complaints where the identity of the complainant is given in confidence;

• matters under negotiation; and

• matters identified as solicitor-client privileged.

6 PROCESS

6.2 General Standards of Conduct

6.2.1 Members shall in exercising and discharging their Official Duties:

a) seek to advance the common good of the Township;

b) truly, faithfully and impartially exercise their office to the best of their knowledge and ability;

c) exercise care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances;

d) competently exercise their office by educating themselves either formally or informally, in matters pertaining to their official duties;

e) when appointed to committees and other bodies as part of their duties, must make every effort to participate diligently in these bodies with good faith and care;

f) uphold the law and conduct oneself in a positive, professional, honest, ethical and fair manner;

g) not make statements known to be false or make a statement with the intent to mislead Council or the public;

h) not to undermine or damage a debate or decision or otherwise erode the authority of Council;

i) ensure discourse is appropriate and professional and shall refrain from inappropriate or offensive language and shall avoid personalities;

j) respect the role of staff in the daily conduct of operations of the Township;

k) respect the office of other Members;

l) be respectful of the Corporation in all communications with the public, media, and staff;

m) conduct oneself with appropriate decorum at all times in the community or when making presentations on behalf of the Township;

n) not bully, threaten, coerce, or otherwise harass, or intimidate staff, the public, or public agencies;

o) not engage in any form of slanderous, malicious, or demeaning communications in regards to other Members, staff, or the public.

6.4 Confidentiality

The Township is bound by the provisions of both provincial and federal legislation as it relates to protection of privacy and disclosure of information. Members shall not access, use or disclose information in contravention of applicable privacy laws.

6.4.1 Members shall not:

a) disclose or release by any means to any person in oral or written form, any confidential information, acquired by virtue of their office, except when required by law or authorized by Council to do so;

b) use confidential information including information that they have knowledge of by virtue of their position that is not in the public domain, including e-mails and correspondence from other Members, staff, or third parties, for personal or private gain, or for the gain of relatives or any person or corporation or to cause detriment to the Township;

c) directly or indirectly benefit, or aid others to benefit, from knowledge respecting bidding on the sale of Township property or assets;

d) disclose the content of any such matter, including agendas, or the substance of deliberations, of an in-camera (closed) meeting until the Council or committee discusses the information at a meeting that is open to the public or releases the information to the public;

e) permit any person, other than those who are entitled thereto, to have access to information that is confidential;

f) access or attempt to gain access to confidential information in the custody of the Township unless it is necessary for the performance of their duties and not prohibited by policy, legislation, or licensing;

g) release confidential information and this obligation continues after the Member ceases to be a Member of Council.

6.15 Communication with the Media and Public

6.15.1 The Mayor and Members of Council are the public face of the Township and have the prime responsibility for dealing with the media regarding Council matters. The Chief Administrative Officer, represents the administrative function of the Township and has the prime responsibility for dealing with the media regarding administrative matters. Notwithstanding, Department Heads upon the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer may respond to media enquiries regarding administrative matters.

6.15.2 All Members shall accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and decisions of Council, even if they disagree with Council’s decision, such that respect for the decision-making process of Township Council is fostered.

6.15.3 Members shall acknowledge that official information related to decisions and resolutions made by Council will normally be communicated to the public and to the media by the Council as a whole or the Mayor as Head of Council or by those so designated.

6.15.4 Members shall convey information concerning adopted policies, procedures, and decisions of Council openly and accurately, whereas, confidential information will be communicated only when authorized by Council and in accordance with applicable legislation.

6.15.5 Members shall respond to enquiries about any matter dealt with during a Closed Meeting of Council, prior to it being reported publicly, shall be “this matter is still under investigation”, “no comment”, or words to that effect.

6.15.6 The release of any information about matters dealt with by Council at a Closed Meeting shall be by the Mayor or delegate.

Footnotes

1. 1RES-480-2019 prevented me from interviewing the Township’s law firm, which took the only notes of the relevant closed meeting. I subsequently reported to Council that I could take no further action on this file unless Council revisited the matter of my access to this witness. See item 11.7 of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting (November 13, 2019), online, https://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/document/11202?printPdf=true
2. 2“That the Integrity Commissioner be authorized to contact the Township Lawyers BLG with regard to get the information with regards to file 2019-07 and 2019-01.” RES-348-2021, item 6.3, at p. 3 of Minutes of Special Council Meeting (October 13, 2021), online, shorturl.at/kCOQ6
3. 3Official Plan Amendment 17 and By-Law No. 15-37, October 20, 2015.
4. 4Concerned Citizens In Adjala/Tosorontio Inc. v. Adjala-Tosorontio (Township), 2018 CanLII 3076 (ON LPAT)
5. 5Ibid., at paras. 13, 175, 198, 203.
6. 6By-Law No. 18-24, A By-Law to authorize the execution of an Agreement with Nelson Aggregates Co. (March 12, 2018).
7. 7Concerned Citizens In Adjala/Tosorontio Inc. v. Adjala-Tosorontio (Township), note 4, at para. 66.
8. 8RES-18-342, item 11.1, at pp. 9-10 of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting (December 10, 2018), online: https://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/5792?preview=5785
9. 9R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, Memorandum (March 7, 2019) to Geri Cale, Planner, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, in Regular Council Meeting Agenda Package (April 8, 2019), pp. 169-180, online, https://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/document/5138
10. 10“Resolved that Council authorizes Council to meet with a representative from Nelson Aggregate to discuss how the deficiencies addressed in the peer review report from Burnside Engineering will be incorporated into the development agreement.” RES-178-2019, item 11.10 of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting (April 8, 2019), online, https://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/document/6805?printPdf=true
11. 11Regular Council Meeting Agenda Package (April 8, 2019), p. 8, item 11.10, online, https://adjala-tosorontio.civicweb.net/document/5138
12. 12Brad Pritchard, “Township wants to revisit Everett gravel pit agreement: Company doesn’t see any deficiencies with current deal,” Alliston Herald (April 28, 2019), online, https://aware-simcoe.ca/2019/04/township-wants-to-revisit-everett-gravel-pit-agreement/
13. 13By-Law No. 19-24, A By-Law to authorize the execution of an Agreement with Nelson Aggregates Co. and to repeal By-Law 18-24 (July 10, 2019).
14. 14See https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/9354046-adjala-tosorontio-reaches-new-deal-with-aggregate-company/
15. 15I typically redact personal information such as residential addresses and phone numbers. In this case I also redacted information in the Response that could have prematurely disclosed the closed meeting content.