Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4 Date: March 3, 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/30436/Amended%2010.1%20-%20Regular%20Council%20-%2009%20Mar%202022.pdf

(See minutes of March 9, 2022, Council Meeting, item 10.1, RES-110-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 4

Issues. 6

Findings of Fact 7

Analysis. 10

Content 15

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 16

The Complaint

1. Mayor Floyd Pinto (Complainant) alleges that Councillor Scott Anderson (Respondent) contravened sections 6.2.1(h), 6.6.1, 6.9.1, 6.9.2, 6.16.4, and 6.16.5 of the Council Code of Conduct in the course of organizing the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus parade and in particular by requesting Fire Department involvement in the parade.

Summary

2. Organization of a parade in a private capacity is generally not subject to the Code. Whether a parade complied with the rules of the road is a matter for by-law enforcement or law enforcement, and not within the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.

3. In any event, I find that the Respondent’s did not use the influence of office for a purpose other than the exercise of official duties and did not otherwise contravene the Code.

Background

4. The background of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, and Councillor Anderson’s role in the Association, are set out in a previous report, Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1.

5. The Association organizes and sponsors the Lisle Santa Claus Parade which, at the time of the relevant events, had been in existence for approximately five decades.

6. Usually scheduled on the first Sunday in December, the parade followed a standard route. It would start immediately to the west of CFB Borden, near the two points where Victoria Crescent meets Main Street. The parade travelled west to the main intersection in Lisle,¹ then south along County Road 13 to Princess Drive, then up Princess Drive to Market Street, then to King Street. The parade usually ended at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 559, near the intersection of King Street and Depot Street.

7. The parade was relatively small. It typically took 10 to 15 minutes to pass any given point, and it lasted approximately one hour. When assembled, all the participants in the parade (vehicles, horses, etc.) stretched no more than half the distance between CFB Borden and the main intersection.

8. Prior to 2019 (for approximately 15 years, according to one of the parade organizers), the Fire Department regularly participated. It would send one or more fire trucks to the event. Uniformed firefighters, usually wearing their bunker gear (i.e., personal protective equipment), would take part on an unpaid basis.

9. During the parade, Township firefighters, together with paramedics from Simcoe County, would collect non-perishable food items and toys for families in need.

10. The OPP typically took part in the parade. In fact, the parade was usually led by an OPP patrol car.

11. Routinely, some members of Township Council were part of the parade.

12. The 2019 request for Fire Department participation was sent by Councillor Anderson, on behalf of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, to the Fire Chief, on October 25, 2019.

13. On November 14, 2019, the Fire Chief emailed Councillor Anderson, to the Councillor’s official Township email address, as follows: “ATFD will be participating in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. Let us know what we can do to help in the parade.”

14. The next day, Councillor Anderson emailed the following reply from his Township email account:

Thanks Chief – just the normal traffic control and a truck for the parade works. I haven’t talked with OPP as of yet to see if they are sending anyone for traffic.

I did get a message from Simcoe County Paramedics, they are coming this year and will collect the toys while the fire dept. can get the food.

15. The Chief responded, three-quarters of an hour later: “Perfect. I will make sure we have 2 vehicles for food donations and P12 for the parade.”

16. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor objected to the manner in which the Fire Department’s participation had been requested. They took the position that Council approval was required. Ultimately, the Fire Department did not participate in the 2019 parade. A vintage fire truck, privately owned by a resident of the community, appeared in the place ordinarily filled by a Fire Department vehicle.

Process Followed

17. This complaint is one of several arising from the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus parade. As many of the complaints involve the same parties, I have exercised my discretion to treat each party’s submissions in all the related complaints as applicable to this complaint and all the others.

18. This complaint was made December 5, 2019.

19. Six other complaints and applications arrived at the same time as these Complaints. Additional complaints were received into the New Year.

20. On March 17, 2020, Ontario declared a state of emergency. The next day, Simcoe County declared a state of emergency. One day following, the Mayor declared a state of emergency in Adjala-Tosorontio.

21. During the state of emergency, having regard to the impact of COVID-19 on both residents and municipal governments, I originally suspended processing of Code of Conduct complaints.

22. Subsequently, upon further review, I determined that Ontario Regulation 73/20, which conferred discretion to suspend certain proceedings during the COVID-19 emergency, did not apply to code of conduct inquiries by municipal Integrity Commissioners. (During consultations on Ontario Regulation 73/20, the Government was asked to include Integrity Commissioners conducting code of conduct inquiries, but decided not to do so.)

23. However, because people in communities across Ontario were still dealing with the pandemic, I proceeded slowly and gave first priority to certain inquiries that were appropriately dealt with sooner. They included Pinto v. Anderson, 2020 ONMIC 9, Anderson v. Bays, 2020 ONMIC 10, and Anderson v. Pinto, 2020 ONMIC 11. These inquiries were conducted under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, so their gravity was obvious.

24. An Integrity Commissioner’s Municipal Act discretion to conduct inquiries includes the discretion to order the sequencing of multiple inquiries. An Integrity Commissioner needs this flexibility, not only because the discretion and operational independence conferred by the Municipal Act require it, but also so that the Integrity Commissioner can handle inquiries in a reasonable, fair, efficient, and financially responsible manner. See Sinnott et al. v. McConkey, 2021 ONMIC 4, at para. 154.

25. On December 31, 2021, following a delay that was explained in that report, I completed an inquiry report on two of the complaints: Re Meadows and Pinto, 2021 ONMIC 35

26. Subsequently I turned to the other complaints arising from the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus parade.

27. I have reviewed all relevant materials, records related to previous Lisle Santa Claus Parades, and photographic evidence. I also conducted a witness interview of the Township’s former Fire Chief.

28. In quoting from documents in an inquiry report, my practice is to edit punctuation and capitalization for consistency and to correct immaterial typographical and textual errors.

Issues

29. The Mayor submits that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.2.1 h) of the Code by directly eroding the authority of Council through disregard of Township by-laws that required proper road occupancy permits and applicable Township policies. I believe this allegation to refer to the Roads By-law, By-law 12-31, as amended, discussed later in this report. The Mayor argues that “blocking traffic with fire trucks” amounts to closing the road, which was subject to applicable Township, County, and provincial laws, including the Highway Traffic Act.

30. He states that, “Councillor Anderson’s use of the Township fire vehicles to block traffic is a direct violation of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.”

31. The Mayor submits further that the parade did not involve public education. He says that when he attended the 2018 parade, he saw no information being distributed.

32. The Mayor submits that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.6.1 by attempting to use the Township vehicles for activities (namely, a private event organized by him) not directly connected with the discharge of his official duties and used his Township email to contact the Fire Department and attempted to use Township Fire Department personnel and vehicles.

33. The Mayor submits that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.9.1 by using his official email to organize the Lisle Santa Claus parade (a private event that was not his official duty) and to contact the Fire Department.

34. The Mayor submits that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.9.2 because the use of his official Township email and his position as Councillor could have resulted in obtaining preferential treatment that would not have been available to any ordinary resident, given that the parade was a private event and not part of his official duties.

35. The Mayor submits that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.16.4: “Council directs staff through its decisions as recorded in the minutes, resolutions and by-laws. Staff, under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer, are responsible for implementing the decisions of Council and ensuring the efficient and effective operation of municipal services.by failing to follow Council policy when he did not contact the CAO and did not obtain the necessary approvals and permits.”

36. He also alleges that Councillor Anderson contravened section 6.16.5, which provides, in part, that “Only Council as a whole and no single Member has the authority to direct any Staff member to carry out a particular function …”

Findings of Fact

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

38. I adopt the findings of fact made in the previous report, Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1.

39. Councillor Anderson was chief organizer of the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

40. Prior to 2019, the Fire Chief was the one who made the annual decision to involve Fire Department vehicles and uniformed personnel in the parade.

41. The Lisle Santa Claus Parade was not the only community event in which fire vehicles and firefighters participated. The Fire Department regularly participated in other annual events including the Muscular Dystrophy Canada “Fill the Boot Drive,” the Jim Kenn Memorial Food Drive in Everett, Sheldon Creek Dairy’s “Day on the Farm,” the Breakfast with Santa organized by parents of Tosorontio Central Public School, and Canada Day celebrations. Of these activities, only Canada Day celebrations were an official Township event.

42. Decisions on participation in these activities have historically been made by the Fire Chief.

43. The former Fire Chief explained to me that participation in these community events is part of the education that is mandated by subsection 2(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997: “Every municipality shall, (a) establish a program in the municipality which must include public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention …”

44. According to the Fire Chief, during these events, firefighters would typically distribute informational literature. Also, he explained to me that, especially for young audiences, showing uniformed firefighters as active and engaged members of their communities is itself a component of public education. For example, children who see firefighters dressed in bunker gear will develop a positive association with the image. During an actual emergency, a child will understand that someone dressed in that gear is there to assist.

45. I find that the Fire Chief’s interpretation of public education is consistent with the understanding, across Canada and the United States, that public education about fire safety and fire prevention includes “show[ing] kids that firefighters aren’t scary.”² As one source explains: “Children can become frightened by a firefighter’s equipment and may hide in a rescue situation.”³

46. I find that Council was aware, or should have been aware, of the Fire Department’s educational activities. On May 6, 2019, the Fire Chief delivered a presentation, “New Council Orientation: Fire & Emergency Services.”⁴ One of the slides was titled, “Public Education is Always a Priority.” The slide mentioned, “Displays at Community Events, Canada Day Celebrations, Open houses.”

Another slide listed the Fire Department’s activities during 2018. The Lisle Santa Claus Parade was clearly mentioned.

48. At all relevant times, the Roads By-law dealt with the temporary closure of Township roads. Two different provisions addressed temporary closures. Section 6 of the By-law provided that a person could obtain a Permit for Road Occupation issued by the Public Words Superintendent. Alternatively, section 5.4 of the By-law authorized the Public Words Superintendent temporarily to close a road to traffic.

49. One of the circumstances covered by the Permit provision, section 6, was “seasonal or temporary use of roads for any recreational purposes.” One of the grounds for temporary closure by the Superintendent under section 5.4 was “civic purposes.”

50. In 2019, the fee for a Permit for Road Occupation was $50. The Roads By-law also required a permit holder to provide proof of liability insurance.⁵ According to the Permit form, minimum coverage of $1 million was required.

51. For the reasons set out below, it is not my place as Integrity Commissioner to interpret the Roads By-law or to apply it to the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. I find as a fact, however, that, at least in recent years prior to 2019, road occupancy permits were not obtained.

52. Simcoe County also issues road occupancy permits for temporary road closures. (Part of the parade route was on County Road 13.) I find as a fact that no County permit was obtained for the 2019 parade, but I make no finding on whether the parade was required to obtain one. It is not my place as Integrity Commissioner to interpret County by-laws and to apply them to the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

53. The evidence of the former Fire Chief – his evidence generally and not just in relation to this parade – is that the Fire Department and firefighters did not close roads, because they lacked the authority to do so. He explained that road closing is a police function and, while firefighters might assist with traffic control as instructed by the police, firefighters do not decide whether to close a road.

54. The former Fire Chief noted that a police car typically led the parade, which allowed participants (including Fire Department personnel) reasonably to conclude that the activity was lawful. My review of the photographic evidence confirms that, at least between 2014 and 2019, the lead vehicle was always a police cruiser.

55. The controversial issues that surrounded the 2019 parade were resolved in 2020. Following a written request from the Lisle Community Recreation Association, Council agreed that the Township would work with the Association on road closures and insurance coverage. It adopted a resolution reading in part as follows:

That Council directs the Chief Administrative Officer coordinate with the Lisle Hall Recreation Association to provide road closures and insurance coverage from the Municipality for the Lisle Santa Claus Parade; and further,

That a maximum of $1000.00 be allocated towards the purchase of giveaway items for kids to come from the Recreation Committee Events budget (GL 016008105200); and further,

That this parade will be open to all residents of the Township, and advertised on the Township website; and further,

That all Provincial and Public Health guidelines be followed.⁶

56. Ultimately, pandemic restrictions prevented the 2020 Lisle Santa Claus Parade from taking place. Council adopted a similar resolution in 2021,⁷ and the parade was conducted with Township support and Fire Department participation.

Analysis

57. The Complaint alleges both that Councillor Anderson used his public office and public resources to undertake a private activity, and that he contravened the Code because the private activity breached municipal and provincial laws applying to roads.

58. In my view, the two propositions cannot simultaneously be correct. If organizing the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was a private function, then the Council Code of Conduct did not apply to legal infractions by the parade organizer.

59. The statutory basis for municipal codes of conduct is subsection 232.2(1) of the Municipal Act: “A municipality shall establish codes of conduct for members of the council of the municipality and of its local boards.” It is implicit that a code of conduct may only apply to conduct that is connected to or affects one’s office as a Council Member or member of a local board.

60. Nothing in the Municipal Act or in Ontario Regulation 55/18 (Codes of Conduct – Prescribed Subject Matters) expressly authorizes a code of conduct to address a Council Member’s private conduct.

61. Further, the Township’s Code of Conduct itself indicates that the scope of its rules is confined to exercising and discharging Official Duties, and to representing and serving the public:

1.1 The Council Code of Conduct provides a standard for acceptable conduct for Members of Council in performing their role of representing the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio as a whole.

2.2 The Council Code of Conduct is a general standard that augments Provincial laws, municipal policies and by-laws that govern conduct. It is not intended to replace personal ethics. This policy is not intended to be exhaustive. This policy is intended to guide Members of Council in matters of conduct, to avoid any potential for conflict of interest and to assist Members in serving the public in a manner beyond reproach.

6.2 General Standards of Conduct

6.2.1 Members shall in exercising and discharging their Official Duties …

[emphasis added]

62. That is not to say that private conduct can never have an impact on official duties. The jurisprudence on conduct makes clear, however, that the test for applying codes to private conduct is strict.

63. For example, in the case of a school teacher, Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15,⁸ the Supreme Court of Canada explained that only in narrow circumstances will private conduct amount to professional misconduct:

It is on the basis of the position of trust and influence that we hold the teacher to high standards both on and off duty, and it is an erosion of these standards that may lead to a loss in the community of confidence in the public school system. I do not wish to be understood as advocating an approach that subjects the entire lives of teachers to inordinate scrutiny on the basis of more onerous moral standards of behaviour. This could lead to a substantial invasion of the privacy rights and fundamental freedoms of teachers. However, where a “poisoned” environment within the school system is traceable to the off-duty conduct of a teacher that is likely to produce a corresponding loss of confidence in the teacher and the system as a whole, then the off-duty conduct of the teacher is relevant. [emphasis added]

64. It should be noted that the Ross case dealt with virulent anti-Semitism, not failure to apply for a parade permit.

65. In this case, it is clear that organizing the parade did not involve exercising and discharging official duties or performing the role of representing the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio as a whole. How the parade operated – in particular, whether it complied with the rules of the road – was not subject to the Council Code of Conduct.

66. A second consideration is that an Integrity Commissioner is no position to interpret and apply laws of general application. In particular, an Integrity Commissioner cannot pronounce on compliance with any laws that do not fall within the scope of the Commissioner’s role under subsection 223.3(1) of the Municipal Act:

The application of the code of conduct for members of council and the code of conduct for members of local boards.

The application of any procedures, rules and policies of the municipality and local boards governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards.

The application of sections 5, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to members of council and of local boards.

67. The alleged non-compliance involves Township, County, and provincial laws governing the use of roads. These laws are not codes of conduct, not the MCIA, and not procedures, rules and policies governing the ethical behaviour of Members. Consequently, an Integrity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide whether these laws were broken.

68. In addition to the fact that these questions fall outside an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction under section 223.3 of the Municipal Act, section 223.8 makes clear that an Integrity Commissioner has no authority to determine whether someone breached provincial legislation such as the Highway Traffic Act.

69. Apart from the lack of jurisdiction, an Integrity Commissioner is not qualified to determine whether the Township’s Roads By-law, or the comparable County by-law, was contravened. Whether the parade constituted a private “work” that necessitated a permit under section 6 of the Roads By-law is a legal question on which an Integrity Commissioner possess no special expertise. The legal significance of the history (successive annual parades without permits), and its relevance to whether a contravention occurred, also lie outside an Integrity Commissioner’s specialized role.

70. Further, the Roads By-law contains its own enforcement and penalty provisions, in section 10. If a parade organizer is alleged to have contravened the Roads By-law, then enforcement under the By-law, as opposed to an Integrity Commissioner complaint, is the appropriate avenue. This observation is consistent with the Rule of Law, particularly the principle that rulers are subject to the same laws as the ruled. A Council Member who contravenes a traffic by-law should be subject to municipal by-law enforcement in the same manner as anybody else.

71. Whether the Fire Department’s participation in the parade constituted public education under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act is another legal question that is beyond the scope of an Integrity Commissioner. The former Fire Chief’s explanation about the need to familiarize children with firefighters seems compelling, though I note that the Mayor strongly disagrees. Even if, as argued by the Mayor, the parade served no educational purpose, that had no bearing on whether Councillor Anderson breached the Code.

72. Also irrelevant to Councillor Anderson’s responsibility under the Code is the difference of opinion, between the Mayor and the former Chief, over who could approve Fire Department parade participation. The understanding of the former Fire Chief was that the decision to release Fire Department vehicles and personnel belonged to him and lay in his discretion. I have found as a fact that the Fire Chief had exercised this function for several years. The Mayor argues strongly that approval of participation was a Council decision. Regardless of who actually possessed the authority to approve the involvement of fire trucks and firefighters, Councillor Anderson did not breach the Code when, as the organizer of the private event, just as in prior years, he asked the Fire Chief. Whether or not the Fire Chief should have referred the decision to the CAO or to Council – which is not an issue in this particular report – is not relevant to Councillor Anderson’s compliance with the Code.

73. The Mayor also makes arguments about risk and potential liability to the Township. These considerations may be relevant to who possessed approval authority (not an issue in this report) but they are not relevant to the making of the request by Councillor Anderson.

74. I now address the specific Code provisions cited in the Complaint.

75. Section 6.2.1 h) deals with eroding the authority of Council. The particular allegation is that the parade obstructed roads and did not have a permit. For the reasons explained above, the Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction do not apply to whether the parade observed the rules of the road.

76. Section 6.6.1 provides that Members may only use Township property for activities directly connected with the discharge of their official duties. Councillor Anderson was not proposing to use the fire trucks and firefighters. He was asking the Fire Chief for the Fire Department’s participation in the parade. Had participation occurred, it would have been the Fire Department, not Councillor Anderson, that used the trucks and the personnel.

77. A Township email address is part of a communication system that is covered by section 6.6.1 of the Code. In this case, Councillor Anderson’s use of Township email to communicate with the Chief about Fire Department participation was trivial, incidental, and not contrary to the Code. In making this finding, I take into account that fact that the Fire Department had routinely participated in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade and that Council was aware of its participation.

78. Section 6.9.1 states generally that a Member may not use the influence of office for any purpose other than to exercise official duties.

79. Section 6.9.2 provides specific examples of prohibited conduct:

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.

80. Dealing first with section 6.9.2, I find that Councillor Anderson was not asking for preferential treatment. As I have already found, the Fire Department regularly participated in many community events, including the Muscular Dystrophy Canada “Fill the Boot Drive,” the Jim Kenn Memorial Food Drive, the Sheldon Creek Dairy “Day on the Farm,” and the Tosorontio Central P.S. parents’ Breakfast with Santa. The Lisle Hall Recreation Association was not seeking preferential treatment.

81. I find that Councillor Anderson was not seeking a private advantage for himself or the Association. The Fire Chief viewed Fire Department participation as a form of public education under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Public education by the Fire Department is not a private advantage. (I understand that the Mayor disputes the educational character of parade participation but, as I have found, firefighters’ community engagement and outreach are generally understood to be a component of fire safety education of children.)

82. Further, section 6.9.3 of the Code excludes matters of “general application” from “private advantage.” Fire Department participation in a community Santa Claus parade is a matter of general application.

83. I observe, turning to section 6.9.1, that the Fire Chief informed me he viewed Mr. Anderson as both a Councillor and a parade organizer. This is understandable. It would have been impossible for the Chief not to recognize that he was communicating with a Council Member. Nevertheless, that fact, in isolation, does not mean that Councillor Anderson was using the influence of office as a Councillor when he communicated.

84. In this case, I take into account the following facts: For approximately 15 years, the Fire Department routinely participated in the parade. Council was aware of the Fire Department’s participation; Council Members had participated in the parade, and Fire Department involvement in the parade had been reported to Council as recently as May 6, 2019. The Fire Chief was being invited to engage in activities that involved public education through engagement at a community event. In these circumstances, I find that Councillor Anderson’s request was not a use of the influence of office.

85. The Mayor observes that the email exchange between Councillor Anderson and the Fire Chief did not mention public education, and did mention “normal traffic control and a truck for the parade works” as well as the collection of food. (Recall that during the parade, paramedics and firefighters would collect donations of toys and food for the needy.) I have already mentioned why the Fire Chief, with reasonable basis, viewed community engagement, e.g., collection of food, by uniformed firefighters, as an aspect of public education. Further, the Fire Chief’s evidence is that the Fire Department only engaged in traffic control under police direction. I am satisfied that the Fire Chief was able to evaluate Councillor Anderson’s request in the context of the Fire Department’s operational requirements and legal obligations. I also note that the Fire Chief and Councillor Anderson were not discussing something new: the parade had been in existence for five decades and the Fire Department had been taking part for approximately 15 years. The evidence before me is that the Fire Department’s role was established and understood. Given all these circumstances, when he sent that email, Councillor Anderson was not using the influence of his office and was not contravening any section of the Code.

86. Sections 6.16.4 and 6.16.5 deal with the principle that the staff, under the CAO’s direction, reports to Council as a whole and not to any individual member. Section 6.16.4 is not a rule; it sets out the principle on which the following section is based. It is not a provision that a Member can be found to have breached. Section 6.16.5 does contain an enforceable rule, but I find that Councillor Anderson did not give direction to any staff member. Section 6.16.5 did not apply.

87. In summary, I find no breach of the Code.

Content

88. 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

March 3, 2022

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct

1PURPOSE

1.1 The Council Code of Conduct provides a standard for acceptable conduct for Members of Council in performing their role of representing the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio as a whole.

2BACKGROUND

2.1 The Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes municipalities to establish a Code of Conduct for its Members of Council.

2.2 The Council Code of Conduct is a general standard that augments Provincial laws, municipal policies and by-laws that govern conduct. It is not intended to replace personal ethics. This policy is not intended to be exhaustive. This policy is intended to guide Members of Council in matters of conduct, to avoid any potential for conflict of interest and to assist Members in serving the public in a manner beyond reproach.

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 For the purposes of this Code of Conduct:

16. “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.

6 PROCESS

6.2 General Standards of Conduct

6.2.1 Members shall in exercising and discharging their Official Duties:

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

6.6 Use of Township Property, Services and Other Resources

6.6.1 Members may only use Township property, including land, indoor and outdoor facilities, equipment, supplies, services, staff or other resources (for example, Township-owned materials, computers, networks, websites) for activities directly connected with the discharge of their official duties or as appropriate, local municipal duties.

6.6.1.1 Notwithstanding section 6.6.1, use of Township facilities will be permitted for personal use, in accordance with Township policies.

6.6.1.2 Occasional or incidental personal use of Township computers or similar devices and communication systems is considered acceptable, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act and other Township policies. Such use may be subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

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.

6.16 Council and Staff Roles and Responsibilities

6.16.4 Council directs staff through its decisions as recorded in the minutes, resolutions and by-laws. Staff, under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer, are responsible for implementing the decisions of Council and ensuring the efficient and effective operation of municipal services.

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.

Footnotes

1. 1The intersection, a four-way stop, is the juncture of (to the west) Simcoe County Road 12, (to the south) Simcoe County Road 13, (to the east) Main Street, and (to the north) Concession Road 4.
2. 2Southwest Volunteer Fire Department, “Fire Prevention Starts with You” (2021), online: https://southwestvfd.us/fire-prevention
3. 3Prevention 1st, “Before the Fire: Prevention Works: Fire Safety Lesson Plans for Grades PreK-8” (2016), online: http://prevention1st.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Before-The-Fire-Prevention-Works-1.pdf
4. 4The presentation was dated May 13, 2019, which was the date of the Regular Council Meeting, but was actually delivered at a Special Council Meeting one week earlier.
5. 5By-law 12-31, as amended, s. 11.
6. 6RES-342-2020 (September 9, 2020).
7. 7RES-388-2021 (November 8, 2021): “Resolved that Clerk's Department Report 2021-16 entitled Lisle Santa Claus Parade be received as information; and further, That Council directs Staff to coordinate with the Lisle Hall Recreation Association to provide road closures and insurance coverage from the Municipality for the Lisle Santa Claus Parade on Sunday, December 5, 2021; and further, That Council authorizes the use of Township owned vehicles within the parade; and further, To include $1000 for giveaways for kids and decorations for the float, from the Community Development Committee Events Account; and further That this parade will be open to all residents of the Township, and advertised on the Township website; and further, That all Provincial and Public Health guidelines be followed.”
8. 81996 CanLII 237 (SCC), 1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, at para. 45.