Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1

Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity Commissioner, Guy Giorno

Citation: Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1
Date: January 5, 2022

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 10.4, RES-30-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3 Summary. 3 Background. 3 Process Followed. 5 Positions of the Parties. 7 Findings of Fact 9 Issues and Analysis. 10 A. Can Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allegations be included in a Code of Conduct complaint?. 10 B. Was section 6.9.2 contravened?. 13 Recommendations. 14 Content 15 Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 16

The Complaint

1Mayor Floyd Pinto (Complainant) alleges that Councillor Scott Anderson (Respondent) contravened sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.5.2, 6.8.1, and 6.9.2 of the Council Code of Conduct by participating in decision-making on a grant to the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, an organization with which Councillor Anderson is associated.

Summary

2This Complaint was made under the Code of Conduct and not under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. It has been processed under the Code of Conduct and I am not addressing whether the MCIA was contravened, because the allegation of MCIA contravention was untimely, and for other reasons explained at paragraphs 70 to 88 of this report.

3The Code of Conduct language on private interests and personal benefits should be updated. First, the current language is not broad enough to cover all the circumstances that should be addressed by the Code. Second, there are too many different terms with similar meanings that are used inconsistently; the result is ambiguity and gaps. The Code would benefit from fewer terms used more precisely and consistently.

4The Respondent’s conduct did not fall under section 6.9.2 of the Code. The other sections of the Code were inapplicable.

5I find that Councillor Anderson did not contravene the Code of Conduct.

Background

6The Lisle Hall Recreation Association describes itself as “a community organisation founded in 1953,” whose purpose is “to enhance the moral, social, and recreational life of the community.” The legal structure of the association is considered in the Findings of Fact section of this report.

7The Lisle Hall Recreation Association operates the Lisle Community Hall, which was built by volunteers in 1970. The Association organizes and sponsors the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

8On March 8, 2019, the Chair of the Association, Mr. David Anderson, sent the following letter to the Township Council:

Please consider this letter as our request to seek a grant for the Township portion of taxes for the Lisle Community Hall and consideration of funding provided in previous years in regards to the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

As members of Council are aware, the Lisle Hall Recreation Association operates the Lisle Community Hall and holds events and provides activities for residents of all ages for the community of Lisle and area. These recreational and social events are important to a healthy and vibrant community.

The major undertaking of the year is the Lisle Santa Claus Parade, which is an annual event for the community in the Township and is enjoyed by many.

Your support is greatly appreciated and we thank you for considering our request.

9No specific amount was requested, but in 2017 and 2018 the Association had received $750, representing the combination of a property tax rebate and a grant to support the parade. Prior to 2017, the Association had for several years received property tax rebates.

10Approximately two dozen charities and non-profit organizations had received funding in 2018. Eleven of these organizations, including the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, wrote to request funding in 2019. Two new recipients also made written requests, and one organization that received funding in 2018 wrote to indicate that its 2019 event had been cancelled.

11Grant requests were considered at the April 11, 2019, Special Meeting of Council. The only other agenda item was the Treasury Department Council Orientation Session. The discussion of grants lasted more than 90 minutes.

12Mayor Pinto declared a pecuniary interest in one of the grant requests: the request from Community Living Association of South Simcoe, his then employer. He left the meeting for the discussion of the grant to CLASS. No other Council Member declared a pecuniary interest in any of the grants.

13As in many municipalities, grant requests are presented to Council without recommendations from the staff. The staff report included a table that listed current requesters and last year’s recipients, and then three columns of figures: last year’s grant amounts, this year’s request amounts, and an empty column where this year’s amounts would be written once decided. The empty column signified that the staff does not make recommendations on how Council should exercise its discretion.

14In 2019, Council again approved $750 for the Lisle Community Recreation Association. The breakdown was: $333.75 as reimbursement of property tax paid, and a $416.25 grant to support the parade.

15Grants are governed by the Township’s Community Grants and Donations Policy.

16In 2019, Council budgeted and spent $15,000 on community grants and donations. In 2020, the first year of the pandemic, $10,000 was budgeted, but only $3,397.86 was used.

17Council’s funding decision was made April 11. Mayor Pinto lodged the Complaint on October 24. He explained that it had just been brought to his attention that Councillor Anderson was associated with the Lisle Community Recreation Association, as a member and as Treasurer.

Process Followed

18In 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). Council has not adopted a formal complaint procedure, but I have written out a summary of the process that I follow and it is posted on the Township website.

19This 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.¹ 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.

20The Complaint was first submitted, as an email to me, October 24, 2019.

21I issued a Notice of Inquiry the same day, and sent it, along with the Complaint and Complaint materials, to the Respondent.

22The Respondent objected that the Complaint was not written on the official complaint form.

23The Code of Conduct does not require that Complaints be submitted on a particular form. As I have explained, Council has not mandated any procedure. The procedure summarized on the website is a fair and balanced process fashioned by me and used consistently.

24A Respondent is not entitled to insist on any particular formatting of a Complaint. The rights of a Respondent are to be informed of the substance of the allegations and to receive a meaningful opportunity to respond: Di Biase v. Vaughan (City), 2016 ONSC 5620, at paras. 138-149.

25I informed the parties that I was prepared to rule on whether the official complaint form needed to be used, but Mayor Pinto helpfully offered to resubmit the Complaint on the form and defused the issue.

26The Complaint was resubmitted October 27, and I provided it to the Respondent October 28.

27The Respondent responded to the Complaint on October 29, and the Complainant replied October 31.

28The Notice of Inquiry explained that I was exercising my discretion to conduct an inquiry into only the allegation that Councillor Anderson had contravened section 6.9.2 of the Code. For reasons explained later in this report, I determined that I would not inquire into an alleged contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (or of section 6.8.1 of the Code, which references the MCIA).

29I also declined to inquire into the allegations under sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.5.2 of the Code.

30In my view, sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 are statements of principle. They are not capable of being breached or of giving rise to a complaint. Statements of 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.

31Further, sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 are vague and unspecific, and in order to proceed with a complaint I would need to apply my own, subjective opinion of what terms such as “integrity” and “respect” mean – essentially to write new rules inside these sections. My interpretation is that Council did not intend for the Integrity Commissioner to do this, nor intend for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate allegations under section 6.3.1 and section 6.3.2.

32Section 6.5.2 deals with Gifts and Benefits. The Gifts and Benefits sections of the Code do not apply to decisions on the Township’s own grants and contributions.

33The Mayor filed the present Complaint within days of filing an unrelated application, against Councillor Anderson, under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Because of statutory time limits for processing MCIA applications, I dealt with the MCIA case first: see Pinto v. Anderson, 2020 ONMIC 9.

34That inquiry was underway when a series of new complaints and applications (including eight, from three individuals, in one week), followed by the pandemic, slowed the processing of inquiries. When activity resumed, the MCIA files again received priority. A complete description of events appears in a previous report, 2021 ONMIC 35, at paras. 1, 16-21.

35The submissions of the parties are thorough and complete, and there is no need to conduct interviews. I have retrieved and reviewed corporate records of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, Township records, and the detailed materials provided by the parties.

Positions of the Parties

Complainant’s Position

36The Mayor says that only in October 2019 did he become aware of Councillor Anderson’s connections to the entity (Lisle Hall Recreation Association) that received $750 in April. The connections cited are that the Councillor’s brother requested the donation, and the Councillor is the Treasurer and a member of the Association. The Mayor also notes that on the assessment roll of the Township, Councillor Anderson is listed as the contact for the Association.

37The Mayor notes that the Councillor did not declare a pecuniary interest, yet participated in the decision anyway – which the Mayor alleges was contrary to the MCIA and section 6.8.1 of the Code.²

38The Mayor states that, by failing to disclose his roles as Treasurer for the Association and as named contact on the assessment roll, Councillor Anderson was not transparent in carrying out duties.

39The Mayor also says that by failing to disclose his interest in the property tax rebate and voting in favour of a donation to an entity with which he and his family have a strong connection, the Councillor did not perform duties in a fair manner that promotes public confidence in the Councillor’s integrity.

40Further, the Mayor suggests that the Councillor and his family benefitted from the grant, because the local community would assume their contributions were supporting the Association when in fact funding came from the Township.

41The Mayor says there is no record that the Association appointed Councillor Anderson as its main contact with the Township.

42The Mayor alleges that the Councillor improperly used his influence when he participated in discussion and decision making on the grant to the Lisle Hall Recreation Association.

Respondent’s Position

43The Respondent states that the Mayor was fully aware that the Respondent is a member of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association. The information has been displayed on the Councillor’s website, and the Mayor was aware of the Councillor’s involvement in running the Lisle Santa Claus Parade and in operating an outdoor ice rink.

44He notes that his position as Treasurer is voluntary and unpaid. The Association is a community-based organisation run by a board of voluntary, unpaid Trustees.

45According to the Respondent, he did attend and take part in the April 11 meeting, but during discussion of the grant to the Association he refrained from commenting and allowed Council as a whole to decide whether to provide a grant.

46Council chose to maintain the grant at $750, the same level as in the previous two years. The Respondent notes that there was no specific vote on this or any line item.

47According to the Respondent, the discussion of the grant to the Association took approximately three to four minutes.

48He notes that the $750 was reimbursement of property tax paid and of expenses of running the Santa Claus parade.

49The Respondent maintains that he did not convince other Council Members to approve the grant. It took no convincing, because the good work of the Association, including the Santa Claus Parade and operation of a community hall, was known to Members of Council. (He states that every Member of Council, with one exception, had participated in the previous year’s Lisle Santa Claus parade.) He did not his use his influence as a Member of Council to sway either the Council or the staff.

50The Respondent points out that he has been very active in the Lisle community. He lives and works there, and serves the community as Ward 5 Councillor. During his service on Council he has avoided, as much as possible, conflicts of interest between Township business and the community groups on which he serves. Sometimes there is “crossover” because in a small, rural community, sometimes community groups conduct business with the Township.

51The Respondent states that he and his family derived no private advantage frm the grant and had nothing to gain.

Complainant’s Reply

52In reply, the Complainant focuses largely on the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

53He states that he did not know that Councillor Anderson was a member of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association. The Mayor says he only found out as he was gathering information about Councillor Anderson’s connection to the Lisle Astros, a baseball club.

54As the Mayor explains, “I only found out he was a Treasurer when I visited his web site to check about his association with the Lisle Astros Baseball club.”

55The Mayor is aware of the six-week deadline to file an application for an MCIA inquiry, as he filed an unrelated MCIA application around the same time as he filed this Complaint. Also, in connection with this Complaint, he mentioned the six-week requirement.

56Essentially, the Mayor is saying that he was unaware of the (alleged) conflict at the time of the April 11 grant approval meeting, only learned months later, and filed this Complaint within six weeks of learning.

57According to the Mayor, serving as Treasurer of the Association, even unpaid, as a volunteer, still puts Councillor Anderson in a conflict of interest, as the Association directly benefitted from the tax rebate.

58The Mayor disagrees with the assertion that there was no vote on individual grants. He states that while there was only an official vote on the overall direction to the staff (“That staff be directed to facilitate the 2019 Grants and Donations as approved by Council”³), Council conducted a straw vote on each individual item. The Mayor states that Councillor Anderson voted on the grant to the Lisle Hall Recreation Association.

59Finally, in his Reply, the Mayor asks that the inquiry be conducted either under the Code of Conduct or under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. He also offers to fill in the relevant forms (presumably to make an MCIA application). I address that request later in this report.

Findings of Fact

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

61The Lisle Hall Recreation Association is not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Ontario law November 8, 2010.

62The most recent corporate records filed with the Province state that Scott W. Anderson, that is, Councillor Anderson, has been a director of the corporation since January 17, 2011. Councillor Anderson has also been an officer of the corporation, holding the office of Treasurer, since January 17, 2011.

63The corporation records also show that Mr. David T. Anderson, whom I understand to be the Councillor’s sibling, has been a director of the corporation, and President, and Chairman, since January 17, 2011.

64Officers and directors of the corporation serve without remuneration.

65As a matter of law, an officer of a corporation can act for and bind the corporation. The Township did not need to receive special notification that Councillor Anderson is authorized to act on behalf of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association.

66The Mayor’s explanation about searching the Councillor’s website for a connection to the Lisle Astros aligns with a previous complaint against Councillor Anderson, filed a month earlier. The evidence he provided in support of that complaint included screen captures from Councillor Anderson’s website taken September 20. This is the same Website that states, “Treasurer of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association 2011 – present.”

67The Mayor states, “I only found out he was a Treasurer when I visited his website to check about his association with the Lisle Astros Baseball club.” That would have occurred by September 20 at the latest.

68Similarly, he states that from the website he also learned about Councillor Anderson’s membership in the Lisle Hall Recreation Association: “This came to my knowledge only when I was reviewing the concerns raised by residents about the Lisle Astros baseball club and I visited Councillor Anderson website.” The review that he describes would have occurred by September 20 at latest.

Issues and Analysis

69I have considered the following two issues:

A. Can Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allegations be included in a Code of Conduct complaint?

B. Was section 6.9.2 contravened?

A. Can Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allegations be included in a Code of Conduct complaint?

70In my opinion, no. The Legislature has established two routes to enforce the MCIA, and neither involves Codes of Conduct. First, one can apply directly to the Court under section 8 of the MCIA. Second, one can apply to an Integrity Commissioner under section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act and, following an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner can decide to apply to the Court under section 8 of the MCIA for a determination (and penalty).

71For more than a century in Ontario, the Court, and only the Court, possessed the authority to interpret the MCIA (and predecessor legislation dating back to s. 220 of the Consolidated Municipal Act, 1903), and to apply the legislation to the conduct of Council Members. There is no indication that the 2018 amendments⁴ to the MCIA and Municipal Act were intended to displace the sole authority of the Court to make ultimate MCIA determinations.

72Indeed, the contrary is true. The Legislature clearly intends that only the Court should ultimately determine whether the MCIA was been contravened, and only the Court should determine the consequences (reprimand, suspension of compensation, or removal from office) of contravention.

73Just because a municipality writes into its Code of Conduct a requirement that Members shall comply with the MCIA, the municipality and its Integrity Commissioner cannot usurp the Court’s exclusive role as the ultimate authority on MCIA compliance.

74While these comments apply generally, they are particularly applicable to the Adjala-Tosorontio Council Code of Conduct. Section 6.18.2 of the Code explicitly states that someone who alleges breach of the MCIA cannot proceed under the Code of Conduct but must instead used the legislated route of MCIA applications. (The text of this section, and of other relevant provisions of the Code, appears in the Appendix.)

75I note, however, that the language of section 6.18.2 has not been updated to reflect the 2018 amendments, in particular, the now current choice between processes (direct, or via the Integrity Commissioner) leading to an MCIA application to the Court. I recommend changes to update section 6.18.2.

76The legislated processes for MCIA enforcement impose a six-week deadline. An application must be made within six weeks after the applicant became aware of the alleged contravention. This is another reason to doubt that the Legislature intended to permit MCIA enforcement under Codes of Conduct. If Code of Conduct jurisdiction is broad enough to envelop MCIA compliance, then complainants could easily circumvent the six-week deadline.

77The legislated process under section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act requires a statutory declaration (akin to an affidavit), by the applicant, attesting to the fact that the applicant became aware of the contravention not more than six weeks before the date of the application. The onus is on the applicant to provide this attestation.

78In addition, according to the legislation, an MCIA application must be based on a belief that a Council Member has contravened section 5, 5.1 or 5.2 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and must set out the reasons for the belief.

79In this case, the alleged contravention occurred on April 11, 2019. Council Members saw that Councillor Anderson was present, that he participated in the meeting, and that he did not declare a pecuniary interest. Council Members also witnessed the Mayor’s declaration of pecuniary interest and withdrawal from decision making on the grant request from the Mayor’s employer. Any MCIA application against Councillor Anderson should have been commenced within six weeks, by May 23.

80The Mayor’s emailed Complaint was sent five months later, on October 24, well outside the six-week period.

81Even if the six-week deadline had started to run from a later date, the October 24 email did not mention the six-week time frame and did not mention the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, let alone reasons for believing the MCIA had been breached.

82The subsequent version of the Complaint (the written on the form) also did not mention an MCIA breach. It did mention six weeks, but not in a manner satisfying the legislated requirement for an MCIA application.

83On October 24, I informed both parties, in writing, that I would not consider an alleged MCIA contravention under the Code of Conduct. Instead, I explained that there was a separate process: “the Legislature has already provided a separate avenue for an application alleging that a Member has contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”

84An Integrity Commissioner must maintain neutrality, and cannot instruct someone to bring an application. On the other hand, an Integrity Commissioner can explain the process and its requirements, so people can make their own choices, which I did. On October 28, I explained the MCIA process to the Mayor, including the need for an application and a statutory declaration. I also sent him a blank application form with statutory declaration included. I wrote to him as follows:

MCIA issues also fall under the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner, but the mandatory process is slightly different. The different process is not the result of my choice. It is a decision of the Legislature, reflected in subsection 223.4.1(6) of the Municipal Act.

According to subsection 223.4.1(6), an application that alleges [a] breach must include a statutory declaration related to timing; it also must set out reasons for believing a breach of the MCIA has occurred. Again, this is not a requirement over which I have control; it was enacted by the Legislature.

A special form is available to commence an application, to the Integrity Commissioner, alleging an MCIA contravention. I have attached a copy. You will note that the form includes a statutory declaration that needs to be signed before a commissioner for taking affidavits.

85On October 31, the Mayor used this procedural information, as well as the form and declaration, to file a separate, unrelated MCIA application, also against Councillor Anderson. He had the statutory declaration declared before a commissioner of oaths in the Township office. This unrelated application is reported at 2020 ONMIC 9.

86On the other hand, in this case, the Mayor did not bring an MCIA application. His October 31 Reply did mention the possibility of bringing an MCIA application, but at a very late stage. Even assuming that the Mayor did not learn of Councillor Anderson’s roles as member of the Association and Treasurer of the Association until the September 20 website visit, the period of six weeks from September 20 expired on November 1. The Reply was submitted after 8:00 p.m. on October 31. Meanwhile, he had already filed his MCIA application in other proceeding.

87All of this indicates that the Complainant had the ability to proceed under the MCIA in this case, and chose instead to rely on the Code of Conduct.

88It is the Complainant’s right to choose to proceed under the Code of Conduct, but the result is that only Code of Conduct provisions can be considered.

89I take this opportunity to remind all Council Members that if any of them is a member of a body that has a pecuniary interest in a matter before Council, or is a director or senior officer of a corporation that has a pecuniary interest in a matter, then the Council Member has an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter, and the pecuniary interest must be disclosed.

B. Was section 6.9.2 contravened?

90As I explained to both parties when I received the Complaint, the only Code provision being considered in the inquiry is section 6.9.2.

91I find that Councillor Anderson did not breach section 6.9.2.

92Section 6.9 (in which section 6.9.2 is located) only covers use of one’s position as a Council Member to influence an outcome. The section does not cover the direct use of office to achieve an outcome. Council may wish to amend section 6.9 to broader it and make it more complete. I propose language to that effect.

93In this case, Councillor Anderson did not use influence. If anything, participation in a matter is not an exercise of influence; it is the direct exercise of the functions of the office.

94None of the circumstances listed in section 6.9.2 apply to this situation. Councillor Anderson did not attempt to influence the decision of another person. He did not attempt to secure preferential treatment beyond activities in which Members normally engage on behalf of their constituents as part of their official duties. He did not hold out the prospect or promise of future advantage through supposed influence within Council in return for present actions or inaction.

95The fact that the Respondent’s brother is a director and officer of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association is not relevant to section 6.9.2. First, there is no evidence that the brother, donating his time as a volunteer, stood to derive a private advantage from the funding. Second, section 6.9.2 does not refer to relatives other than parents, spouses and children. (Council may wish to consider expanding the provision to cover other relatives, too.)

96I find that Councillor Anderson did not contravene section 6.9.2.

97However, in the course of this inquiry, I have noted that the language of section 6.9.2 and related provisions is unclear, confusing, and inconsistent. The following are some examples.

98The Code uses at least eight different terms to refer to related concepts: private interest (used once), private/personal interest (defined and never used), personal or private gain (used once), private advantage (appears twice), personal benefit (appears four times), financial gain (used once), pecuniary interests (defined and never used), gain advantage (used once).

99Some terms, such as private/personal interest and pecuniary interests, are defined but never used. What constitutes private advantage is not defined, though section 6.9.3 identifies what does not constitute private advantage. The adjectives private and personal appear to be used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes to mean different concepts.

100Too many different terms with similar meanings are used inconsistently. The result is ambiguity and gaps. The Code would benefit from fewer terms used more precisely and consistently.

Recommendations

101I recommend that Council adopt the findings of this report.

102I recommend that Council consider making the following amendments to the Council Code of Conduct:

a) Rename section 6.9 from “Improper Use of Influence” to “Improper Use of Office.”

b) Add the underlined words to section 6.9.1: “Members shall not use their office or the influence of their office for any purpose other than to exercise official duties.”

c) Add the underlined words and punctuation to the first lines of section 6.9.2: “Examples of prohibited conduct are the use of office to obtain private advantage for, and the use of one’s status as a Member to improperly influence the decision of another person to the private advantage of, oneself [etc.]”

d) Expand sections 6.9.2 and 6.9.3 b) to include “other relatives,” not merely parents, children, and spouse.

e) Review the use of similar nouns benefit, advantage, interest, and gain, to ensure that different words are used only to denote different meanings, and otherwise to use the same word consistently when meaning is unchanged.

f) Review the adjectives personal and private, to ensure uniform and consistent use of each.

g) Amend section 16.18.2 b) to reflect the enactment of section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act, which gives Integrity Commissioners a limited role in MCIA enforcement. Suggested wording: “Municipal Conflict of Interest – allegations of breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should be pursued under section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act or section 8 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”

Content

103Subsection 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
January 5, 2022

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 For the purposes of this Code of Conduct:

11. “Family member” means “child”, “parent” and “spouse.”

12. “Official duties” means the public duties of a Member and includes functions performed by Members necessary to demonstrate responsible and accountable government with respect to matters within the Township’s jurisdiction, and which are done for the purpose of providing good government with respect to those matters.

13. “Parent” means a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a member of their family whether or not that person is the natural parent of the child.

14. “Pecuniary interests” are interests that have a direct or indirect financial impact or as defined under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as amended from time to time.

15. “Personal benefit” means forms of advantage other than financial such as seeking an appointment, promotion or transfer within the Corporation on behalf of a family member and includes the private interests of a Member.

16. “Private/personal interest” means all of the activities of a Member not included in the term defined as “Official Duties.”

6 PROCESS

6.3 Accountability and Transparency

6.3.1 Members are to be committed to carrying out their Township duties with integrity, accountability and transparency.

6.3.2 Members are expected to perform their duties and arrange their public affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the Member as well as fosters respect for Council and the Corporation.

6.5 Gift [sic] and Benefits

6.5.1 This section is intended to provide transparency around the receipt of incidental gifts and benefits and to establish a threshold whereby the total value could be perceived as potentially influencing a decision. Gifts and benefits are often received by elected officials in the course of their duties and attendance at public functions is expected and considered part of the role. Business-related entertainment and gift-giving can be a token of respect and admiration for the Member but can also be seen as an instrument of influence and manipulation.

To ensure and foster a culture of impartiality and objectivity, no Member shall directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept/receive a fee, advance, cash, gift, or personal benefit which may be tied or inferred to be tied directly or indirectly to their position or the performance of their duties of office unless permitted by the exceptions listed below.

a) compensation authorized by by-law or policy;

b) such gifts or benefits that normally accompany the responsibilities of office and are received as an incident of protocol or social obligation;

c) a political contribution otherwise reported by law;

d) services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time to a Member;

e) a suitable memento of a function honouring the Member;

f) sponsorships and donations for community events or initiatives organized or run by a Member or a third party on behalf of a Member where Council has authorized or endorsed the event or initiative;

g) admission to a training or education program, including meals and refreshments furnished to all attendees, if such training or education is related to the Member’s role;

h) food, lodging, transportation and entertainment provided by federal, provincial or other local or regional governments or by a foreign government within a foreign country, or by a conference, seminar or event organizer where the Member is either speaking or attending in an official capacity at an official event;

i) food and beverages consumed at banquets, receptions, or similar events, if:

(i) attendance serves a legitimate business purpose;

(ii) the value is reasonable and the invitations infrequent;

j) communication to the office of a Member including subscriptions to newspapers and periodicals related to the duties of Office;

k) business meals.

6.5.2 A fee or advance paid to or a gift or benefit provided with the Member’s knowledge to a Family member or to a Member’s staff that is connected directly or indirectly to the performance of the Member’s duties, is deemed to be a gift to that Member.

6.5.3 Each Member is individually accountable to the public and is encouraged to keep a list of all gifts and benefits received from individuals, firms or associations, with estimated values.

6.5.4 Except in the case of category a), d), h), or j) of 6.5.1, a Member may not accept a gift or benefit in excess of $250.00 or gifts and/or benefits from one source during a calendar year worth in excess of $250.00.

6.8 Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

6.8.1 Members shall recognize and be aware of their obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, as amended from time to time, and conduct themselves accordingly.

6.9 Improper Use of Influence

6.9.1 Members shall not use the influence of their office for any purpose other than to exercise official duties.

6.9.2 Examples of prohibited conduct are the use of one’s status as a Member to improperly influence the decision of another person to the private advantage of oneself, or one’s parents, children, spouse, staff members, friends, or associates (business or otherwise). This would include attempts to secure preferential treatment beyond activities in which Members normally engage on behalf of their constituents as part of their official duties. Also prohibited, is the holding out of the prospect or promise of future advantage through a Member’s supposed influence within Council in return for present actions or inaction.

6.9.3 For the purposes of this provision “private advantage” does not include a matter:

a) that is of a general application;

b) that affects a Member, his or her parents, children or spouse, Staff members, friends, or associates, business or otherwise as one of a broad class of persons; or

c) that concerns the remuneration or benefits of a Member as authorized by Council.

6.18 Compliance and Contravention

6.18.1 Members of Council shall respect the integrity of the Code of Conduct.

6.18.2 Where an individual has reasonable grounds to believe that a Member has violated a provision of this code (or legislation) related to the following, they may pursue action through the appropriate channels as cited next to the contravention below:

b) Municipal Conflict of Interest – allegations with respect to matters under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, are to be pursued by way of civil proceedings and individuals would discuss the course of action with their legal counsel;

Footnotes

1. 1I typically redact personal information such as residential addresses and phone numbers.
2. 2As explained below, the specific allegation of an MCIA contravention was not made immediately.
3. 3Minutes of Special Council Meeting (April 11, 2019), p. 2, RES-197-2019.
4. 4S.O. 2017, c. 10, Scheds. 1 and 3. The changes were enacted in 2017 but came into force March 1, 2018.