Bays v. Pinto and Meadows, 2022 ONMIC 16

Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Bays v. Pinto and Meadows, 2022 ONMIC 16 Date: August 3, 2022

INquiry ReporT

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/34547/

(see minutes of August 10, 2022, RES-360-2022, item 10.2, page 3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaints. 3

Summary. 4

Background. 5

Process Followed. 11

Positions of the Parties. 16

Findings of Fact 22

Issues and Analysis. 24

A. Did the Mayor or Deputy Mayor create a toxic work environment?. 24

B. Did Mayor Pinto contravene the Code when he objected to the reply of Councillor Bays to the CRAT flyer?. 25

C. Was the Mayor directly or indirectly responsible for the content of public communications by Concerned Residents of Adjala-Tosorontio (CRAT) and Concerned Citizens of Adj-Tos (CCAT)? 26

D. Did any other conduct of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in relation to the Colgan development contravene the Code?. 26

Conclusions. 30

Content 30

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 31

The Complaints

1. Councillor Annette Bays (Complainant) alleges that Mayor Floyd Pinto and Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows (Respondents) contravened multiple sections of the Council Code of Conduct in their external and internal communications related to the Colgan development, and in their dealings with Township employees and with other Council Members. She filed a separate Complaint for each Respondent and I assigned a separate file number to each,¹ but the supporting information is common to both Complaints and the Respondents are alleged to have breached the same 21 provisions of the Code. I am issuing a single report to Council.

2. The Complainant alleges that Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows contravened the following 21 sections of the Council Code of Conduct: 6.2.1 c), 6.2.1 d), 6.2.1 f), 6.2.1 g), 6.2.1 h), 6.2.1 i),² 6.2.1 j), 6.2.1 k), 6.2.1 l), 6.2.1 m), 6.2.1 n), 6.2.1 o), 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.9.1, 6.13.1, 6.15.2, 6.15.5, 6.16.1, 6.16.3 and 6.16.5.³

3. Under section 223.4 of the Municipal Act, I exercised my discretion to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Mayor Pinto under sections 6.2.1 h), 6.2.1 l), 6.2.1 n), 6.2.1 o), 6.15.2, 6.16.3, and 6.16.5, and the allegations against Deputy Mayor Meadows under sections 6.2.1 i), 6.2.1 n), 6.2.1 o) and 6.16.3.

4. As the Complaints are quite broad, I have exercised my discretion to group the allegations thematically and to report my findings in that manner. I grouped the allegations as follows:

Allegation against both Respondents

Creating a toxic staff work environment

Allegations against Mayor Pinto

Contradicting an official Township communication / criticizing the staff and Councillor Bays for their role in an official communication

Direct or indirect responsibility for content of public communications by Concerned Residents of Adj-Tos (CRAT) and Concerned Citizens of Adj- Tos (CCAT)

5. For completeness I have also considered whether any other conduct of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in relation to the Colgan development contravened the Code.

6. The most serious allegation was that the Respondents created a toxic work environment for the staff of the Township. Because the power imbalance might make employees particularly vulnerable to harassment by elected officials, and because it was suggested that many employees were too intimated to come forward on their own, I gave special attention to this allegation. Noting that the Code of Conduct did not originally include protection against reprisals taken against people who cooperate in Integrity Commissioner inquiries, I recommended that the Code be amended to prohibit reprisals, and Council adopted this recommendation.⁴ In the wake of this amendment, which protects employees (and others) who provide information the Integrity Commissioner, I conducted a wide-ranging review into the allegation of mistreatment of the staff.

7. On March 9, while this inquiry was underway, Council adopted a resolution of censure of the Mayor. Despite the appearance of similarity, I have treated the issues in this inquiry as distinct from the particulars of the censure resolution. This report does not address, and should not be interpreted as any sort of comment on, Council’s stated reasons for censuring the Mayor.

SUMMARY

8. After carefully examining several specific instances of alleged interference with the staff, I find no contravention of section 6.16, which governs Council-staff relations.

9. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor take a very hands-on approach to Township issues, other getting involved in minute details. While this style risks blurring the line between the roles of elected officials and the staff, and is not always conducive to the efficient management of Township issues, it does not constitute ethical misconduct and does not contravene the Code, in particular section 6.16.

10. The Deputy Mayor made a critical comment about the then-CAO on July 14, 2021, that he retracted later during the same meeting.

11. The Respondents – in particular the Mayor – have taken a determined approach to use all lawful tools available to meet their campaign commitments to oppose the Colgan development. It is argued that their strategy is indifferent to the legal obligations of the Township and consequently harmful to the Township’s legal interests. In my view, this is not a Code of Conduct issue, but a policy disagreement and political disagreement among Council Members. It is not the role of an Integrity Commissioner to determine who is on the right side of a local issue. An Integrity Commissioner has no business opining on legal controversies involving a municipality. I find that no relevant provision of the Code was breached.

12. Closely related are allegations that the Respondents have communicated falsely about local issues, about Council decision-making, and about the positions of their Council colleagues. While the Code requires Council Members to accurately describe the decisions of Council, it does not require that Members endorse positions with which they disagree and does not prevent Council Members from explaining their reasons for disagreement. Further, the obligation to be accurate in describing Council positions is general in nature. It does not require a microscopic examination of ever detail and does not authorize the Integrity Commissioner to function as the truth police (a role for which Integrity Commissioners are unsuited).

13. Council Members are entitled to mobilize public opinion on their side of an issue. Doing so is not contrary to the Code.

14. For the record, I find that the July 9, 2021, response communication issued by Councillor Bays was properly authorized by Council; consequently, the use of Township resources to approve it was appropriate. While the Mayor’s criticism of the response and staff involvement in it was not well-founded, he was not aware of Council’s approval. In any event, his criticism was not contrary to the Code.

BACKGROUND

15. Colgan Crossing is a development by Tribute Communities, located within the hamlet of Colgan in Adjala-Tosorontio. Its history dates back to 2006, when an Official Plan amendment application was filed.

16. In 2009, the Township and Tribute entered into minutes of settlement.

17. On December 9, 2010, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved a Draft Plan of Subdivision and conditions for the development.⁵

18. Several members of the community have opposed the development. These included Floyd Pinto and Annette Bays, before they were first elected to Council in 2010 and 2018, respectively. In the words of Councillor Bays, “I was fighting it many years ago and actually ran for this position mainly to fight it.”

19. On February 20, 2019, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the new name under which the OMB was continued), ordered that the Draft Plan of Subdivision be amended and approved subject to the fulfillment of amended conditions as set out in the order. LPAT also ordered that “the County of Simcoe shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51 (58) of the Planning Act.”⁶

20. On May 15, 2020, Tribute sued the Township for $165 million, alleging breach of contract and breach of the contractual duties of good faith, honest performance and fair dealing.

21. Several of the allegations in Tribute’s statement of claim related to comments by Mayor Pinto. (Mayor Pinto was not a named defendant.)

22. The Court dismissed the Township’s motion to strike paragraphs in the claim that mentioned Mayor Pinto. In her reasons for dismissing the motion, Master Barbara McAfee observed as follows:

A number of the impugned paragraphs concern alleged communications and opinions of one individual, Mr. Pinto. Mr. Pinto is a resident who was elected councillor in 2010, re-elected councillor in 2014 and elected Mayor in 2018. The Township argues that pleadings concerning Mr. Pinto do not relate to any actions taken by the Township, but rather refer to the alleged communications and opinions of one individual, who is not a named defendant, and are an attempt to colour the conduct of the Township. The Township argues that the pleadings concerning comments made by Mr. Pinto are not equivalent to the acts of the Township and therefore cannot be characterized as proof of intention or particulars of bad faith on behalf of the Township and are therefore irrelevant.

Where bad faith is alleged on the part of a municipality, statements and actions of individuals may be material indicia of bad faith. In Xentel DM Inc. v. Windsor (City), 2004 CanLII 22084 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 3656 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 35, 41, 43 and 64, the statements of individual councillors were found to be relevant to a determination of bad faith on the application.

The weight, if any, to be placed on Mr. Pinto’s personal opinions and interests will be a matter for the trial Judge.⁷

23. For a period of time after the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows declined to vote on Council decisions related to the Colgan development. They clearly and transparently explained that they were doing so “under duress” as a result of the Tribute lawsuit.

24. On June 30, 2022, Tribute announced that it had reached a settlement of issues with the Township and its lawsuit was withdrawn.

25. Meanwhile, on October 2, 2020, LPAT had ordered that “Final authority for clearance of the Draft Plan Approval Conditions and to administer final approval of the plans of subdivision ATT-601 and AT-T-701 shall be transferred from the Township to Simcoe County.”⁸

26. In making this order, the Tribunal commented as follows:

… the Tribunal does find that it is abundantly clear that the process of clearance of the Draft Plan Approval Conditions has not progressed in an efficient or timely manner since the 2010 OMB Order as revised by the 2019 Tribunal Order. It is the Tribunal’s view that both the Township and Tribute bear some responsibility for this unfortunate state of affairs However, it is unnecessary at this juncture for the Tribunal to determine a specific allocation in that regard as between the Township or Tribute. Ultimately, should the Civil Action proceed to conclusion, the Court may make rulings based on the actions of these Parties and may rule upon appropriate private law remedies. This is not within the purview of this Tribunal which instead must focus on how to assist the Township and Tribute to reach an expeditious resolution of the problems that have arisen leading to the impasse that has occurred.⁹

27. A significant portion of the case before LPAT involved comments and conduct by Mayor Pinto. In its decision, the Tribunal summarized the parties’ positions on this issue as follows:

Tribute’s lawyer further alleges that this conduct by the Township reflects its lack of good faith in discharging its statutory responsibilities, and demonstrates a pattern of conduct by the Mayor, implemented by Council, in opposition to Tribute’s development. Thus, the modified Conditions that Tribute seeks would transfer clearance of the Draft Plan Approval Conditions from the Township to the “satisfaction of Simcoe, in consultation with the Township”. Tribute also seeks to extend the expiry date on the Draft Plan Approval Conditions from November 26, 2021 to February 20, 2025.

Tribute’s counsel also portrays the Township Mayor Pinto in a very unfavourable light suggesting that he has deliberately misrepresented facts and has obstructed Tribute’s development plans due to his ongoing personal opposition to its project. The Tribunal is urged to draw an inference that Mayor Pinto is now trying to orchestrate through the Township Council what he could not successfully accomplish some ten years ago as a resident: the cessation of the subdivision development reflected in the Draft Plans. Most of these allegations are based on the circumstantial evidence outlined in the Zucchero Affidavit and the Clement Affidavit, upon which cross-examinations were conducted by counsel for the Township.

On the other hand, counsel for the Township vigorously opposed the ‘bad faith’ characterizations made by Tribute and the notion that the Township has engaged in deliberate obstruction in violation of the spirit and intent of the Minutes and of the 2010 OMB Order and the 2019 Tribunal Order. The Township’s lawyers also reject the argument that an adverse inference ought to be made by this Tribunal, in light of the failure of the Township to proffer an affidavit from Mayor Pinto.

The Township’s counsel further argues that Tribute’s counsel has ‘cherry-picked’ statements made by members of Council, and Mayor Pinto in particular (including statements that were made in an adversarial context 10 years ago), in an attempt to demonstrate that there is no intention on the part of Council to approve the development, or that Council desires to slow down the development. The Township maintains that this is a bald attempt to mischaracterize the actions of the Township.

The Township’s counsel has proffered a version of events that suggests that Tribute has not worked diligently or on a timely basis to provide information and reports that would enable this small municipality to properly complete the clearance process relating to the conditions in the Draft Plans. It was argued that the Township’s actions should be viewed in the context of Council’s legitimate concerns regarding growth management and sustainability of servicing, continued through with current Township Council. Counsel for the Township also argues that the relief sought by Tribute amounts to an improper request for the ‘re-delegation’ to Simcoe of approval authority that must remain solely with the Township because of its responsibility to manage the costs associated with the development and the obvious, direct short term and long term impact on the Township’s residents.¹⁰

28. On June 9, 2021, while the Tribute lawsuit remained active, Council was presented with a staff report that recommended approval of two Development Earthworks Agreements (one for each of the Colgan properties) between the Township and Tribute. According to the staff report:

Colgan 1 & 2 Subdivisions have Draft Approval Status and are advancing towards final drawing approval.

The developer, Tribute, is diligently working to secure a mutually agreeable Subdivision Agreements with the Township in order to advance subdivision construction as soon as practicable.

The sites require rough grading and imported fill to allow for the planned development to meet Township requirements. It is ideal to arrange for Earthworks and fill importation during the prime construction season.

Having such agreements would allow the work to commence while fully protecting the Township and its residents and providing for expeditious Subdivision construction activities upon the clearance of all Draft Plan Conditions.¹¹

29. Council was asked to “approve of execution of the [two] Earthworks Agreements.”¹² Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows declared pecuniary interests and did not participate in the discussion or voting. Execution of the Earthworks Agreements was approved by 4-1 vote, with Councillors Anderson, Bays, O’Leary and Pita voting in favour, and Councillor Hall-Chancey voting against.¹³

30. Within the next two weeks, a flyer from a group calling itself Concerned Residents of Adjala-Tosorontio (sometimes referred to as CRAT by the parties to the inquiry) began to be distributed to many households in Wards 1 and 2. The flyer mentioned the approval of the Earthworks Agreement, enumerated nine concerns about the Colgan development, and explained that a two-thirds vote of Council could reverse the June 9 decision to approve the Earthworks Agreements.

31. While the accuracy of the flyer of Concerned Residents of Adjala-Tosorontio is a matter of dispute in this proceeding, I note that the tone of the flyer is reasonable and professional. It does not use demeaning language or personal attacks.

32. Councillor Bays learned which residents had authored the CRAT flyer, and met with the authors to communicate her belief that the flyer contained inaccuracies and misinformation.

33. On July 2, 2021, several days following the meeting with Councillor Bays, the residents responsible for the CRAT flyer released a revised version. There were some modifications, but most of the flyer’s content was unchanged.

34. On July 7, 2021, another community group, Concerned Citizens of Adj-Tos, or CCAT, circulated the CRAT flyer to additional residents.

35. When Councillor Bays expressed concern directly to CCAT, a CCAT representative replied that, before the communication was circulated by CCAT it:

was vetted for accuracy through:

1. members of council (including yourself)

2. Adj/Tos concerned residents

3. CCAT board members

4. Following circulation of the CRAT flyer, and then again following CCAT’s recirculation of it, Councillor Bays heard from residents who were unhappy with her vote to approve the Earthworks Agreements.

5. Some of these communications were copied to other Council Members, such as the Mayor. The following is a representative reply email sent by the Mayor to a resident opposed to the Colgan development:

You are absolutely right. These were concerns that should have been addressed by Council prior to Council approving this project. As I had serious concerns with the project, the inaccurate statements in the report from staff and the misinformation that was provided to Council by staff that I had asked to be addressed many times and was not addressed I decided I will not take part in any discussion that is one way where Council has to accept reports with no chance for our residents’ concerns to be addressed.

38. In the same email, the Mayor invited the resident to communicate with Councillor Bays and Councillor Pita because they “supported this application … [and] made this decision.”

39. Meanwhile, on June 29, 2021, Council met in closed session to discuss the Tribute litigation. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor did not attend because at the time they were not participating in decision-making related to the Colgan development. During the meeting, Council discussed the CRAT flyer and approved of Councillor Bays circulating a rebuttal or response to the CRAT flyer. For an unknown reason, the decision was not minuted, but I find as a fact that Council approved of Councillor Bays sending a response and considered it to be an official reply to the CRAT flyer.

40. The response of Councillor Bays was printed by Township staff, on July 9, 2021. The response did not appear on Township letterhead and was presented as a response from Councillor Bays, not from Council or the Township. This manner of presentation proved to be confusing, as it obscured the fact that sending the response was the result of a decision of Council.

41. Upon learning of the response issued by Councillor Bays, the Mayor (who was not present at the closed session meeting where Council made the decision to send the response) objected, on that basis that the Township resources and staff should not be used to send private communications from individual Council members. The Mayor also objected to the content of the response, which he considered to be false and misleading.

PROCESS FOLLOWED

42. These are the most detailed complaint that I have received and the most wide- ranging inquiry that I have conducted in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, and possibly anywhere. In this report, I have grouped allegations thematically. Specifics that I mention are often representative or illustrative examples. While in this report I cannot possibly mention every specific allegation, I have considered every specific allegation and the facts relating to it, and this report is the outcome of that consideration.

43. In operating under the Code, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual bringing a Complaints (Complainant) and the Council Members responding to the Complaints (Respondents). Council has not adopted a formal complaint procedure, but I have written a summary of the process that I follow, and it is posted on the Township website.

44. This fair and balanced process includes the following elements: The Respondents receive notice of the Complaints and an opportunity to respond. The Complainant receives the Respondents’ responses and an opportunity to reply. More generally, the process is transparent in that the Respondents and Complainant get to see one other’s communications with me.¹⁴ 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.

45. I received the complaint forms on August 5, 2021. The Complainant provided additional information on August 9 and August 21. August 21 is the official receipt date of each Complaint.

46. I issued Notices of Inquiry on August 22 and sent them, along with the Complaints and Complaint materials, to the Respondents.

47. The Notices of Inquiry explained that I was exercising my discretion to conduct an inquiry into only the allegations that Mayor Pinto had contravened sections 6.2.1 h), 6.2.1 l), 6.2.1 n), 6.2.1 o), 6.15.2, 6.16.3, and 6.16.5, and the allegations that Deputy Mayor Meadows had contravened sections 6.2.1 i), 6.2.1 n), 6.2.1 o) and 6.16.3.

48. Based on evidence obtained during the course of the inquiry, I also considered section 6.2.1 j), which requires respect for the role of staff in the daily conduct of operations of the Township.

49. I exercised my Municipal Act discretion not to inquire into the allegations under sections 6.2.1 c), 6.2.1 d), 6.2.1 f), 6.2.1 g), 6.2.1 h), 6.2.1 k), 6.2.1 m), 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.9.1, 6.13.1, 6.15.5, and 6.16.1 of the Code.

50. I declined to inquire into the allegations under sections 6.2.1 c) and 6.2.1 d) because the facts alleged in the Complaints would not amount to breaches of these paragraphs. In any event, the paragraphs are too vague and general to form the basis of a complaint. I have previously noted that the mentions of competent exercise and educating oneself, in section 6.2.1 d), are statements of principle. This section is not a provision that is capable of being breached or of giving rise to a complaint. My interpretation is that Council did not intend for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate allegations related to failure to exercise office competently or failure to educate oneself.

51. I did not inquire into the allegation of breach of 6.2.1 f) because the words “conduct oneself in a positive, professional, honest, ethical and fair manner” are too vague and general to form the basis of a complaint. Other provisions are more specifically relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaints. Further, this section is another statement of principle. It is not a provision that is capable of being breached or of giving rise to a complaint. My interpretation is that Council did not intend for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate allegations of failure to uphold the law or to conduct oneself in a positive, professional, honest, ethical, and fair manner.

52. In relation to the Mayor, I declined to inquire into the allegation under section 6.2.1 g) because a known falsehood is difficult to establish. Other provisions are more specifically relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaint. In relation to the Deputy Mayor, no specific false or misleading statement is alleged.

53. I did not inquire into compliance with section 6.2.1 k). This provision is vague and general. Other provisions are more specifically relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaint.

54. I declined to inquire into the allegation of breach of 6.2.1 m), as the factual allegations do not suggest a breach of decorum “in the community” or in a presentation on behalf of the Township.

55. I exercised my discretion not to inquire into allegations made under sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 (Accountability and Transparency). There are no specific allegations, based on specifical alleged facts, that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor has contravened these vague and general provisions.

56. The inquiry did not include section 6.9.1 (Improper Use of Influence), because no alleged facts relate specifically to a breach of this paragraph.

57. I exercised my discretion not to inquire into the allegations under section 6.13.1 (Conduct at Meetings of Council). In the original Complaint there was no suggestion that Mayor Pinto displayed disrespect, discourtesy, or lack of decorum at a meeting. In relation to Deputy Mayor Meadows, I determined that alleged breaches of decorum, disrespect and discourtesy at a meeting should be addressed by the presiding officer when they occur, not by an Integrity Commissioner weeks or months after the fact.

58. The Complainant did send additional information about comments that took place at meetings after the Complaints were filed. I have considered section 6.13.1 in relation to it but find no contravention.

59. I did not include section 6.15.5 in the inquiry because that provision applies to closed meeting discussion before it has been communicated to the public. It is not relevant to the allegations in this case.

60. I excluded section 6.16.1 from the inquiry as this section states facts and is not a provision that can be contravened.

61. 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 give rise to allegations that would lead to an inquiry): Re Ford, 2013 ONMIC 12;¹⁵ Newman v. Brown, 2021 ONMIC 11, at paras. 55-59; Re Kett (No. 2), 2017 ONMIC 14, at paras. 150-157.

62. Deputy Mayor Meadows responded to the Complaint against him on August 28. On August 30, Mayor Pinto responded to the Complaint against him. Councillor Bays replied to their Responses on September 27.

63. Subsequently, Councillor Bays, Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows repeatedly sent me additional information that they felt was relevant to the inquiry. For example, well into 2022 Councillor Bays continued to send me additional examples of conduct of the Respondents that she believed was contrary to the Code. The additional material added to the scope, complexity and length of the inquiry. Nonetheless, I have considered everything that Councillor Bays, Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows provided to me.

64. Section 223.4 of the Municipal Act provides, in part, as follows:

(3) The municipality and its local boards shall give the Commissioner such information as the Commissioner believes to be necessary for an inquiry.

(4) The Commissioner is entitled to have free access to all books, accounts, financial records, electronic data processing records, reports, files and all other papers, things or property belonging to or used by the municipality or a local board that the Commissioner believes to be necessary for an inquiry.

65. I issued a delegation under subsection 223.3 (3) of the Municipal Act to Paul Burbank, a lawyer who works with me, authorizing him to conduct interviews and obtain documents from the Township. Mr. Burbank and I separately interviewed numerous witnesses, including municipal employees. Under section 223.4, we obtained and examined numerous potentially relevant documents, including a large number of emails from the Respondents to members of the staff.

66. Based on the witness interviews and the record that we had obtained, I drafted a Supplementary Notice of Inquiry which I issued to Mayor Pinto. The Supplementary Notice invited the Mayor to respond to a series of issues that I felt arose from the evidence that had been gathered.

67. Mayor Pinto replied to the Supplementary Notice in a series of six emails. Several of the emails requested additional information about the evidence I had obtained. (Also, the Mayor appeared to assume that the Complainant was the source of the additional evidence.) I declined to elaborate, on the ground that a respondent is entitled to sufficient detail of allegations to be able to respond, but is not necessarily entitled to all the evidence on which the allegations are based. In any event, given the disposition of this inquiry, the request for more information is moot.

68. In their Responses, both Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows allege that Councillor Bays contravened the Code of Conduct by making false and harmful statements about them. Mayor Pinto also argues that Council Bays breached the Code in issuing a response to the CRAT flyer. In any event, having reviewed the circumstances surrounding issuance of the response to the CRAT flyer I have seen no reason to conduct an inquiry into whether Councillor Bays contravened the Code.

69. This report is based on recordings of Council meetings, all the submissions of the parties, all the witness interviews, my communications with each of the parties, and all the materials, records and emails that I received from the parties, the Township, and witnesses.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Complainant’s Position

70. The Complainant’s allegations of a toxic work environment are best explained in her own words

As if all this wasn’t enough, I also feel Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows create a toxic staff work environment. They micromanage, check up on, insult, and accuse staff, publicly and privately, of lying and not doing their job, to the point where I am worried staff might leave en masse. I even worry that the consulting companies may eventually refuse to work with the township anymore as some of their members have been attacked in public so many times. At Council meetings the Mayor and Deputy Mayor question the integrity and professionalism of almost every staff member and consultant while wasting Council time by questioning the reports and professional opinions of those staff and consultants as if their own non-professional opinions override those of the professionals we employ to do the job. You will of course, have to speak to staff to verify with them, but I will provide (in Appendix 7) the dates of some meetings which I believe illustrate the staff abuses and inappropriate conduct of Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows. Their inappropriate treatment of staff members in Council meetings also paints all Council members with the same brush which is entirely unjust and I feel our reputation is damaged by association.

This Township cannot function without staff. We finally have a first rate staff team, recently and strenuously brought together by our new CAO Rhonda Bunn. I am seriously afraid that the behaviour of Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows could soon cause it all to be destroyed. We have already just recently lost the valuable staff member [redacted] who was negotiating the development agreements between the township and two large developments. I understand he felt he could no longer work under the toxic conditions caused by Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows. From what I understand a number of staff have left the township’s employ previously due to the behaviour of Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows. I also believe the Mayor's past public statements (Appendix 8) have made it difficult to attract staff so I fear if we lose staff now we may not be able to replace them with people of a similar caliber, if at all. This would put the whole Township in jeopardy.

71. The Complainant alleges that the Deputy Mayor made inappropriate comments about the CAO during a closed meeting, and then quickly apologized. I explain at paragraph 57 why the inquiry did not consider this allegation.

72. The Complainant describes several staff departures that she blames, at least in part, on the conduct of the two Respondents. (This report does not name the former employees mentioned by Councillor Bays.)

73. The Complainant also alleges that the Mayor was confusing the public by giving out inaccurate information, such as his position that the decision to let Tribute’s Colgan development proceed was not final.

74. The Complainant believes that the votes and comments of Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows in relation to the Colgan development created a risk of harm to the Township. She made specific reference to the Tribute lawsuit claiming that the Township was stalling the development.

75. Further, Councillor Bays feels aggrieved by the suggestion that support for the Earthworks Agreements was tantamount to support for the development. According to the Complainant, the development was a “done deal” before she was elected to Council, and she voted to approve the Earthworks Agreements on the basis that approval was a stand-alone decision of Council “coming forward at an appropriate time in the process.”

76. In the Complainant’s words:

… people were led to believe from the CRAT flyer that if we had voted against the Earthworks Agreements the development might not go ahead. Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows have done nothing to dismiss this misconception, and rather, seem to actually be reinforcing the idea with a vengeance (again contravening the Code of Conduct in numerous ways).

77. Councillor Bays states that the CRAT flyer (see paragraph 33, above), “was not only misleading, but confusing and full of half truths and absolute misinformation.” She believes the CRAT flyer was responsible for a series of critical emails and phone calls (which she describes as “hate mail”) that she received. She says that responding to the allegations in the flyer was “exhausting and absolutely unnecessary and left me feeling bullied and harassed.”

78. According to Councillor Bays, as a result of the CRAT flyer, the Mayor also received resident communications, but his replies did not defend the Township position and, in her view, aggravated the situation. She believes that the Mayor had an obligation to reduce tension in the community instead of escalating the situation.

79. Councillor Bays also alleges that the Mayor shares the opinion of the CRAT flyer, and was responsible for the flyer’s content because he had been “spreading this opinion far and wide.”

80. She also alleges that the Respondents breached the Code by vetting the CRAT flyer for accuracy prior to publication.

81. I have found as a fact (see paragraph 39) that Councillor Bays received approval from Council to issue a response to the CRAT flyer. Councillor Bays submits that Mayor Pinto contravened the Code of Conduct when he told residents that her response was “a mistake.” She also argues that the Code was breached when the Mayor objected to the response in communications with the CAO, including when he said that Councillor Bays and the staff who participated in the response had contravened applicable rules, and when he objected to the closed session meeting at which the response was approved. She argues further that Deputy Mayor Meadows contravened the Code when he claimed at a public meeting of Council that the closed session meeting was improper.

82. As I mentioned, for many months (well into 2022), the Complainant continued to send me additional examples of conduct of the Respondents that she feels contravened the Code. The following is a general summary of these additional claims.

83. Councillor Bays cites numerous examples of what she claims are improper, unreasonable objections by the Mayor to finalizing a subdivision agreement with Tribute. She cites numerous examples of the Mayor’s concerns that she believes lacked legal merit. She also claims that the Mayor was unwilling to call a Council meeting to advance decision making on the development.

84. Councillor Bays submits that the Mayor’s and Deputy Mayor’s objections to the development were intended to stall decisions and waste times. She takes issue with the repetitive nature of their arguments. She says Council Members and the staff were repeatedly made to listen to the same concerns.

85. The Complainant continued to cite instances of what she claim were misinformed and uninformed objections, of the Mayor, to decision making on the Colgan development. According to Councillor Bays, the Mayor refused to accept expert recommendations. She also objects to social media posts by the Mayor in which the Mayor provides his “personal unqualified opinions” that are at odds with what was told by “qualified individuals.”

86. The Complainant provided multiple examples of questions to the staff, by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, that she believed were unwarranted. She suggests that questioning of the staff was used, in part, to impede decision-making on the development. Again, she feels that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were stalling and wasting time. She also feels the questioning by both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor was disrespectful.

Position of the Respondent Mayor Pinto

87. Mayor Pinto submits that much of the Complaint against him consists of assumptions and vague allegations, with no details provided.

88. The Mayor provides specific information to rebut the Complainant’s allegations about staff departures. There is no need to repeat that personnel information in this report.

89. The Mayor also states that no employees have made complaints under the Township’s harassment policy. He questions a Council Member’s use of the Integrity Commissioner and Code of Conduct process to submit a complaint of bullying and harassment that staff members themselves have not made.

90. According to the Mayor, the reason Councillor Bays was receiving criticism from residents was not because of anything the Mayor had said, but because during the 2018 election campaign the Complainant had promised to fight the Colgan development and not was not delivering on the promise.

91. Mayor Pinto states that he was not responsible for the CRAT (Concerned Residents of Adjala Tosorontio) flyer whose content Councillor Bays found objectionable. He also states he was not responsible for the criticisms that she received from members of the public, noting that he, too, often receives negative communications.

92. He also notes that the flyer was issued by a group with which Councillor Bays had been associated prior to getting elected.

93. In the Mayor’s words:

Any person can put out whatever flyer they want. How can I be held accountable for a flyer that is put out by a resident? Councillor Bays has created this problem for herself by making promises to residents to get elected and not keeping her election promise.

94. As for the allegation that many statements in the CRAT flyer align with opinions held by the Mayor, the Mayor points out that most of the content of the pamphlet was public information and related to matters of public knowledge.

95. The Mayor takes that position that many of the allegations by Councillor Bays relate to the Mayor being responsive to residents.

96. On the specific recent decisions of Council related to Colgan, Mayor Pinto justifies his statements and actions. He states that as items come before Council, it has the choice to approve them or not. If Council has no freedom to decide a matter, he submits, that the matter would not come before Council in the form of a report and recommendation requiring a Council decision.

97. The Mayor also argues, in relation to the Colgan development, that he was legitimately raising concerns that specific conditions have not yet been satisfied.

98. Mayor Pinto denies saying that Council was wrong in its decision; he simply stated that certain resident concerns should have been addressed before the decision was made.

99. The Mayor explains that he referred a resident to Councillors Bays and Pita because the resident was communicating about a meeting and decision in which the Mayor had not participated: “I felt that since Councillor Bays and Pita took part in the discussion and I did not, as I declared a conflict, they would be the best to answer.”

100. The Mayor sets out a number of reasons why he feels that the response of Councillor Bays to the CRAT flyer was not properly a municipal expense, not appropriately authorized by Council, and not properly the subject of a closed meeting. He explains at some length why it was reasonable for him to voice these concerns to the CAO. He also claims that in distributing the flyer Councillor Bays contravened the Code of Conduct, though the Mayor did not formally file a Code of Conduct complaint.

101. The Mayor also argues that the response of Councillor Bays to the CRAT flyer was inaccurate, and unfairly critical of the past Council. He claims that her response to the CRAT flyer amounts to bullying and harassment of Council Members who served during the previous term.

102. The Mayor has provided specific responses to the additional issues that I presented in the Supplementary Notice of Inquiry.

Position of the Respondent Deputy Mayor Meadows

103. The Deputy Mayor acknowledges making one comment about the former CAO, for which he apologized later in the meeting. He felt the apology was accepted by the former CAO, and was surprised to find the incident made the subject of a Code of Conduct complaint by Councillor Bays.

104. The Deputy Mayor argues that it is Councillor Bays who has contravened the Code of Conduct by circulating false and damaging allegations about him and the Mayor throughout the community.

105. In relation to the Colgan development, the Deputy Mayor states that his position is that in moving forward the Township and Council must observe provincial legislation and LPAT’s conditions. He maintains that he has reasonably taken the position that concerns remain to be addressed. He adds that, until June 2021, this also was the position of Councillor Bays. He states that Councillor Bays used to be vocal in opposing the development; in fact, her 2018 election campaign was based on opposition to the development.

106. Deputy Mayor Meadows suggests that members of the public are upset with Councillor Bays, not because of anything the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have said, but because she stopped voting against the development. He says public criticism is a dilemma that Councillor Bays herself created, and he objects to being dragged into it.

107. According to him, it is accurate to state that approval of the Earthworks Agreements had an effect on the development, because digging began only after the Earthworks Agreements were approved.

108. The Deputy Mayor notes that the CRAT flyer came from residents, not him. He objects being blamed for the residents’ flyer. He states that he did not author the CRAT flyer, and notes that CRAT is an organization with which Councillor Bays used to be involved.

109. The Deputy Mayor states that he did not vet the CRAT flyer for accuracy, but notes that the flyer claims Councillor Bays did.

110. More generally, Deputy Mayor Meadows observes that he is not on social media and does not speak to the press, so could not have spread misconceptions as the Complainant alleges.

111. As for the response of Councillor Bays to the CRAT flyer, the Deputy Mayor asserts that her response was not properly on the in camera agenda of Council and, consequently, could not have been approved by Council. He also alleges that the printing and distribution of the response of Councillor Bays contravened several Township policies and rules, and contravened the Code of Conduct.

112. The Deputy Mayor argues that Councillor Bays is the one who acts disrespectfully and belligerently and yells during meetings, and often is called to order by the Mayor.

113. The Deputy Mayor agrees that many communications to Councillor Bays from members of the public raise issues and concerns that Mayor Pinto and Deputy Mayor Meadows have been voicing for years. He says that Councillor Bays used to voice those positions before she was elected to Council. In his words:

I read the e-mails from residents. These were the same issues and concerns that we have been asking for years and not answered. These were the same concerns she ran on during her campaign. Does Councillor Bays now see questions and concerns as harassment? In fact, our job is to answer questions and concerns.

114. According to the Deputy Mayor, residents will directly be affected by the Colgan development and have every right to ask questions, and in attempting to answer those questions the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were only doing their jobs. Under the Municipal Act it is collectively the role of Council, “to represent the public and to consider the well- being and interests of the municipality.”

115. His position, as I understand it, is that a Code of Conduct complaint cannot be predicated on an allegation that another Council Member is responsible for voicing policy concerns that lead to resident questions. He says questions from residents are not harassment – the residents have every right to ask questions, and receiving questions from residents is part of each Council Members’ job.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

117. Having diligently pursued the allegations of harassment and a toxic work environment for the staff, I cannot find evidence of this conduct.

118. Staff members who present directly to Council agree that the questions of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor can be challenging, and often repetitive. They also note that often the questions and comments reflect a misreading, misinterpretation, or misunderstanding of the background material. Despite these factors, several witnesses

indicated that in their experience the questioning is manageable and certainly not harassing or toxic.

119. I examined emails and interviewed staff members about a by-law enforcement issue involving the placement of fill on a property. I find that the Mayor did inadvertently provide inaccurate information to the resident about fees and permits but that he was respectful of the independence of by-law enforcement and did not interfere in the staff’s enforcement of the rules.

120. I examined communications, and my colleague Mr. Burbank interviewed witnesses, concerning a statement from the Mayor to the staff, stating that the Township should issue a reminder to residents of a certain location not to set off fireworks. The Mayor was of the impression that a previous Council decision (that the Township should provide notice not to use fireworks) was of continuing effect. While the prior decision probably was effective only on a one-time basis, I find its wording to have been sufficiently unclear that the Mayor could reasonably and sincerely believe that he was merely reminding the staff of a continuing Council direction.

121. I have examined the responses of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to residents who reported concerns about sediment in a waterway near the Colgan development, and communications from them to the staff, and interviewed individuals. I find that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were reasonably responding to and conveying resident concerns.

122. I examined the instance of the Mayor’s attempt to get the staff to answer the questions of a resident. I find no Code contravention in the assistance the Mayor attempted to provide to this individual.

123. I find that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor take a very hands-on approach to Township issues, often getting involved in minute details, but, as I explain below, this does not contravene the Code.

124. I find that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor do (or did, prior to the COVID pandemic) regularly access the staff areas of the Township administration building in order to communicate with the staff, but I also find that the CAO has the ability, if the habit is distracting or problematic, to limit Council Members’ access to individual employees’ offices and work stations. Roaming freely through employees’ work spaces is not a Municipal Act right of Council Members.

125. It is clear that the Respondents – in particular the Mayor – had taken a determined approach to use all lawful tools available meet their campaign commitments to oppose the Colgan development. However, as I explain below, this was not a Code of Conduct issue.

126. I find that the disagreements over the content of the CRAT flyer, over the response of Councillor Bays to the flyer, over the Facebook posts of the Mayor, and over the implications of the Earthworks Agreements, are matters of opinion more than matters of fact. It is impossible and inappropriate for an Integrity Commissioner to decide that a person’s political opinion on any of these matters is right or wrong.

127. I also find that the Mayor’s criticism of the Bays response to the CRAT flyer and of the staff’s involvement in production was understandable given that: (a) he was unaware that Council had approved the sending of a response to the CRAT flyer, (b) Council approval of sending the response did not appear in the closed session minutes, and (c) the response was issued in form that made it appear to be a communication from Councillor Bays as opposed to an official response from the Council.

128. I find that the difference between Councillor Bays and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor on handling of Council decision-making on the Colgan development is a matter of political opinion and political judgment, as opposed to an issue of ethics or appropriate conduct.

129. I find that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were not responsible for the content of the public communications from the CRAT and CCAT community groups.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

130. I have grouped my analysis under the following headings:

A. Did the Mayor or Deputy Mayor create a toxic work environment?

B. Did Mayor Pinto contravene the Code when he objected to the reply of Councillor Bays to the CRAT flyer?

C. Was the Mayor directly or indirectly responsible for the content of public communications by Concerned Residents of Adjala-Tosorontio (CRAT) and Concerned Citizens of Adj-Tos (CCAT)?

D. Did any other conduct of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in relation to the Colgan development contravene the Code?

A. DID THE MAYOR OR DEPUTY MAYOR CREATE A TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT?

131. Based on the findings in paragraphs 117 to 124, no.

132. In the specific examples that I examined carefully, I find that the Mayor’s conduct was reasonably explained and not contrary to the Code.

133. As mentioned, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor take a very hands-on approach to Township issues, often getting involved in minute details. While this style risks blurring the line between the roles of elected officials and the staff, and is not always conducive to the efficient management of Township issues, it does not constitute ethical misconduct and does not contravene the Code.

134. Assuming that the Complainant is correct that this occurred, asking time-wasting questions of the staff is not a Code of Conduct contravention.

135. Disagreeing with experts is not a breach. It not a contravention of the Code for a Council Member to question, or even to disagree with, the recommendation or analysis of a staff member or professional advisor who possesses greater expertise. As was observed in Sinnott v. McConkey, 2021 ONMIC 4, at para. 213:

In fact, our system of government assumes that non-experts will have oversight of experts. Politicians may be experts in certain matters, but expertise is not a requirement for election to office. It is the nature of our democracy that non-expert, elected officials oversee the operations of subject-matter experts who work in municipal, provincial, and federal governments. It may or may not be wise, but it is not unethical, for the non-expert to disagree with the expert. The Code of Conduct requires that elected officials show respect for the staff; it does not compel deferring to the staff’s advice in all cases.

136. Any issue caused by allowing a Council Member to roam freely through employees’ work spaces can be addressed by the CAO. It is not a Code of Conduct matter.

B. DID MAYOR PINTO CONTRAVENE THE CODE WHEN HE OBJECTED TO THE REPLY OF COUNCILLOR BAYS TO THE CRAT FLYER?

137. No.

138. I have found that the Mayor’s reaction was understandable. He was unaware that Council had approved the sending of a response to the CRAT flyer and the Council approval was not recorded in the minutes. Further, the response appeared to be a communication from Councillor Bays and not an official response from the Council.

139. It is not my place to determine whether Mayor Pinto or Councillor Bay was more accurate in commenting on the Earthworks Agreements.

140. Essentially they were engaged in political debate over Colgan and, in this particular case, over the Earthworks Agreements. As I have previously mentioned, the exchange of differing points of view during political debate is itself a means of upholding accountability. Using tools of political debate to respond to alleged inaccuracy is preferable to having an Integrity Commissioner police the debate: D. Anderson v. Pinto, 2022 ONMIC 6, at para. 128; Re Maika, 2018 ONMIC 11, at paras. 138-139; Linton v. Kitras, 2020 ONMIC 1, at para 86.

141. Further, the legal and technical questions related to the effect of the Earthworks Agreements are outside the competence of an Integrity Commissioner. This would be the case in any event, but especially when the Integrity Commissioner is invited by the parties to determine whose technical position is more accurate: D. Anderson v. Pinto, 2022 ONMIC 6, at para. 137; Newman v. Brown, 2021 ONMIC 11, at paras. 64-68; Campbell v. Schummer, 2020 ONMIC 8, at paras. 60-63; Re Maika, 2018 ONMIC 11, at paras. 130-139.

C. WAS THE MAYOR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS BY CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF ADJALA-TOSORONTIO (CRAT) AND CONCERNED CITIZENS OF ADJ-TOS (CCAT)?

142. No, based on the finding of fact at paragraph 129, above.

143. Further, I do not accept the Complainant’s position that the Mayor is responsible because the CRAT flyer contained views that the Mayor had also expressed. Elected officials are accountable under the Code for their own communications. They cannot be held accountable for communications by members of the public – even members of the public who share the same views: Greatrix v. Williams, 2018 ONMIC 6, at para. 187.

D. DID ANY OTHER CONDUCT OF THE MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR IN RELATION TO THE COLGAN DEVELOPMENT CONTRAVENE THE CODE?

144. No.

145. First, it is clear that the comments of Mayor Pinto in relation to the Colgan development have been issues before the Superior Court of Justice (in the lawsuit that was recently withdrawn) and before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which is now subsumed in the Ontario Land Tribunal. See paragraphs 22 and 27, above. These alone are reasons for an Integrity Commissioner not to purport to evaluate the propriety of the Mayor’s comments concerning Colgan. The issues lie outside an Integrity Commissioner’s expertise. They are properly issues for the Ontario Land Tribunal and the Courts.

146. Second, the issue must be considered in light of the roles of elected municipal officials in the democratic process. Adjala-Tosorontio is a democracy. Council Members are elected to office. The democratic nature of the office means that Council Members have political and representational roles in addition to their legislative (law-making) role. The Courts have confirmed that municipal councillors have hybrid political and legislative functions,¹⁶ that they are representatives of the communities that elect them,¹⁷ and that members of the public have the right to address their municipal representatives on issues of concern.¹⁸ The Municipal Act confirms that a role of the Council is “to represent the public.”¹⁹

147. It is part of the role of a Council Member to communicate with members of the public about municipal issues. This includes both initiating communication and responding to communication initiated by members of the public. In doing so, a Council Member is not limited to explaining and defending what the municipality is already doing. As part of the political process, a Council Member is entitled to form views, to hold views, to express views and, once in office, to give effect to those views.²⁰ Some of those views may involve a change in direction. Provided that a Council Member proceeds lawfully and in a manner consistent with the Municipal Act, the Code and other legislation and by-laws, nothing prevents a Council Member from taking, defending and seeking to implement a position that advocates change. Indeed, the Courts have clearly stated that as an elected representative of the public a municipal councillor is entitled to take “an open leadership role” on an issue.²¹

148. This means that Council Members are entitled to mobilize public opinion on their side of an issue. Doing so is not contrary to the Code.

149. I find that the positions and actions of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in relation to the Colgan development have been consistent with the roles of elected officials described above. Their desire to communicate to the public and to respond to the public falls squarely inside these roles. The comments and conduct are not contrary to the Code.

150. I expressly refrain from commenting on the Colgan-related legal implications, if any, of the comments and conduct of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. As I have started, those are questions for the Court and the Ontario Land Tribunal. They are not questions for an Integrity Commissioner under the Code.

151. It is clear that the Respondents – in particular the Mayor – had taken a determined approach to use all lawful tools available meet their campaign commitments to oppose the Colgan development. It is argued by the Complainant that their strategy was indifferent to the legal obligations of the Township and consequently harmful to the Township’s legal interests. In my view, this is not a Code of Conduct issue, but a policy disagreement and political disagreement among Council Members. It is not the role of an Integrity Commissioner to determine who is on the right side of a local issue. An Integrity Commissioner has no business opining on legal controversies involving a municipality. I find that no relevant provision of the Code was breached.

152. Ultimately, the position taken by each Council Member on votes related to the Colgan development has been a question of political judgment. The exercise of political judgment is not something that an Integrity Commissioner should second-guess. As was observed in Farr v. Murphy, 2017 ONMIC 19, at para. 39:

I am mindful that this Complaint arises from a dispute between two politicians … I use the word “politician” with deliberate reason. The positions that politicians espouse, their disagreements with other politicians, their comportment in public life, the ways they defend their reputations, and how they communicate with the public, including how they communicate with the public through the news media, are all matters of individual political judgment. As long as the conduct is lawful and inside the ethical boundaries of the Code of Conduct, individual political judgments are beyond the purview of an Integrity Commissioner. Subject to the law and rules of ethics, accountability for the exercise of political judgment resides in the political process, not in an Integrity Commissioner investigation.

153. The Code does not require that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must agree with the decisions of Council. In a democracy, the minority has the right to dissent. Even after a decision is taken, the right of dissent is not extinguished. Nothing in the Code removes the right of a Council Member to express an opinion, even an opinion contrary to the majority perspective.

154. While the Code requires Council Members to accurately describe the decisions of Council, it does not require that Members endorse positions with which they disagree and does not prevent Council Members from explaining their reasons for disagreement. Further, the obligation to be accurate in describing Council positions is general in nature. It does not require a microscopic examination of ever detail and does not authorize the Integrity Commissioner to function as the truth police (a role for which Integrity Commissioners are unsuited.

CONCLUSIONS

155. I find no contravention of the Code.

156. The finding that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor did not contravene the Code is not to be interpreted as any sort of comment or finding related to the Complainant. The Complainant’s conduct was not the subject of the inquiry and the findings are not about her.

CONTENT

157. 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

August 3, 2022

APPENDIX: EXCERPTS FROM COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT

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

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

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

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

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.

6.9 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.

6.13 Conduct at Meetings of Council

6.13.1 Members shall conduct themselves with decorum at Council and Committee Meetings in accordance with the provisions of the Township Procedural By-law, or other policies or by-laws governing conduct at proceedings. Members are to demonstrate courtesy and respect for delegations, fellow Members and staff and shall not distract from the business of the Council during presentations and/or when other Members have the floor.

6.14 Representing the Township

6.14.2 All communications shall be handled in a courteous and respectful manner. An objective and impartial attitude shall be maintained in dealing with the public recognizing they have the right to present their views.

6.14.3 Members shall encourage public respect for the Township and its by-laws and policies

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 Council 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.

6.16 Council and Staff Roles and Responsibilities

6.16.1 Members are elected legislators and representatives of all constituents. Staff are responsible for implementing the decisions of Council and ensuring the efficient and effective operation of municipal services. Mutual respect and cooperation are required to achieve the Township’s corporate goals and implement the Council’s strategic priorities.

6.16.3 Members are to be respectful of the role of Staff to advise based on political neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual Member or faction of the Council. Accordingly, no Member shall maliciously or falsely injure the professional or ethical reputation, or the prospects or practice of Staff, and shall show respect for the professional capacities of the Staff of the Township.

6.16.5 Only Council as a whole and no single Member has the authority to direct any Staff member to carry out a particular function, approve budget, policy, and other such matters, unless specifically authorized by Council. Members are, however, encouraged to contact Staff when they have questions or are seeking clarification about a report, service or program. Any such requests of Staff must align with services and information that would normally be available to any Township resident.

6.16.6 Members shall not compel Staff to engage in partisan political activities or be subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities. Nor shall any Member use, or attempt to use, their authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or influencing any Staff member with the intent of interfering with that person’s duties.

Reprisals and Obstruction

Each Member shall respect the integrity of this Code and inquiries conducted under it.

No Member shall engage in any reprisal or make a threat of reprisal against a Complainant or a witness or anyone who provides relevant information to the Integrity Commissioner.

No Member shall obstruct the Integrity Commissioner in the carrying out of the Integrity Commissioner’s responsibilities.

In response to a Complaint or on the Integrity Commissioner’s own initiative the Integrity Commissioner shall report to Council any breach of this section of the Code and recommend appropriate sanctions.

Footnotes

1. 1The complaint against Mayor Pinto was numbered 2021-03-CC and the complaint against Deputy Mayor Meadows was assigned number 2021-04-CC.
2. 2Section 6.2.1 i) was not mentioned on the complaint forms but is mentioned in the statement of allegations in support of the Complaints.
3. 3Section 6.16.5 was not included on the complaint forms but is mentioned in the statement of allegations in support of the Complaints.
4. 4On October 13, 2021, Council amended the Code by adding the following language:
5. 5Ontario Municipal Board, Decision and Order of the Board (December 9, 2010), File PL080016, p. 5.
6. 6Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, Decision and Order of the Tribunal (February 20, 2019), File PL080016, paras. 5-6.
7. 7Tribute (Cogan) Limited v. Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, 2021 ONSC 4746, at paras. 21, 23, 25.
8. 8Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, Decision and Order of the Tribunal (October 2, 2020), File PL080016, para. 39.
9. 9Ibid., at para. 38.
10. 10Ibid., at paras. 23-24, 29-31.
11. 11Community Development Services Report, “I&D 2021-16 Earthworks Agreement - Tribute, Colgan 1 & 2 Subdivisions” (June 9, 2021).
12. 12Ibid.
13. 13Minutes of Regular Council Meeting (June 9, 2021), Item 10.11, pp. 9-10.
14. 14I typically redact personal information such as residential addresses and phone numbers.
15. 15Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper observed that: “The statements of principle are not the foundation for a finding of a breach: this is reserved for the specific numbered provisions found in the body of the Code of Conduct.”
16. 16Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), 1990 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170 at 1196
17. 17Re Cadillac Development Corp. Ltd. and City of Toronto (1973), 1973 CanLII 818 (ON SC), 1 O.R. (2d) 20 at 43, cited with approval by Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc., note 16, at 1193.
18. 18Re McGill and City of Brantford (1980), 1980 CanLII 1741 (ON SC), 111 D.L.R. (3d) 405 (Ont. Dist. Ct.) at 411, cited with approval by Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc., note 16, at 1193-4.
19. 19Municipal Act, clause 224(a).
20. 20Re Cadillac Development Corp. Ltd. and City of Toronto, note 17.
21. 21Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. v. Winnipeg (City) (1989), 1989 CanLII 177 (MB CA), 58 Man. R. (2d) 255 (C.A.) at 264, affirmed 1990 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170.