Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Anderson, S. v. Meadows, 2022 ONMIC 5 Date: March 7, 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/33050/

(minutes of May 11, 2022, page 6, RES-210-2022, RES-211-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 8

Positions of the Parties. 11

Findings of Fact 13

Issues and Analysis. 18

A. Was the Lisle Santa Claus Parade a partisan activity?. 18

B. Did the Respondent make false or misleading statements?. 19

C. Did the Respondent breach the Code through demeaning communication about the staff or the Complainant?. 20

D. Did the Respondent breach the Code by failing to respect the role of the staff in the conduct of daily Township operations?. 21

E. Did the Respondent breach the Code by giving directon to a staff member?. 22

F. Did the Respondent breach the Code by using authority or influence to interfere in a staff member’s duties?. 22

Response to Draft Report 24

Conclusions. 25

Recommendations. 25

Content 26

Appendix: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 27

The Complaint

1. Councillor Scott Anderson (Complainant) alleges that Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows (Respondent) contravened several sections of the Council Code of Conduct in communications that the Deputy Mayor made about Fire Department involvement in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

Summary

2. The communications involved disagreements about how Township by-laws and policies applied to the use of fire vehicles in the parade and about how the parade should have been marketed. While the Deputy Mayor’s interpretation of the relevant by-laws was not correct, he did not contravene the Code by making the wrong interpretation. The Deputy Mayor also did not contravene the Code by expressing disagreement with how widely the parade had been promoted.

3. The Deputy Mayor’s social media post was an expression of opinion and did not contravene the Code.

4. In certain internal communications (email and oral), the Deputy Mayor did contravene the Code by issuing directions to the CAO, the Fire Chief, and one other employee, and by attempting to interfere in the exercise of the Fire Chief’s lawful duties.

Background

5. The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio was created effective January 1, 1994, by the amalgamation of virtually all of the former Township of Adjala, virtually all of the former Township of Tosorontio, and a small portion of the former Township of Sunnidale.¹

6. The hamlet of Lisle is located in the northern part of Tosorontio. For municipal electoral purposes, Lisle is located within Ward 5 of Adjala-Tosorontio, which has been represented since 2010 by Councillor Anderson.

7. The background of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association appears in a previous report, Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1. The background of the Lisle Santa Claus Parade, and of Councillor Scott Anderson’s role in organizing it, appears in another prior report, Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4.

8. The Lisle Hall Recreation Association, using its letterhead, on October 25, 2019, wrote to the Fire Department and invited it to participate in the annual Lisle Santa Claus Parade. The letter was signed by his Complainant in his capacity as chief organizer of the parade. The correspondence did not refer to the Complainant’s position as a Council Member.

9. On November 14, the Fire Chief confirmed the Fire Department’s attendance. The Fire Department ordered from the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, a provincial public body established by Part XI of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, educational materials to distribute at the parade.

10. On November 25, a Township employee noticed a Facebook post that provided details of the upcoming Lisle Santa Claus Parade. The employee circulated an email to other Township staff members, expressing concern that information about the event should have been made available to post on the Township’s website. The employee then forwarded that email to all of Council, and directed the message to Councillor Anderson:

Scott – can you discuss why Township information cannot be posted up on the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio website? It is now only less than a week away!

11. Councillor Anderson responded the same morning:

Thank you for the email with regards to the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

The parade as you are aware is to take place on December 1 in the hamlet of Lisle. The Clerk had emailed prior looking for information to be posted on the Township community calendar, however I declined the offer as the information for the parade has been posted to five Facebook pages in the area and 1800 flyers distributed to Lisle, Glencairn and Everett homes.

The Facebook page which bears the name of “The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio News” was not created by me, the advertisement for the parade was. Should the Township wish to pursue the removal of such page as it infringes on the Corporation's name I would suggest someone from the office contact Facebook directly.

Although the Lisle Santa Claus Parade is a community event it is run and directed by the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, [of] which I am a member, with various partnerships and all promotion is run through the Association. As mentioned advertisements have been distributed and the Association is content on the promotion.

12. Roughly two hours later, Deputy Mayor Meadows responded to Councillor Anderson’s email by sending the following email to the CAO, copying all of Council and all Township employees:

It concerns me that flyers were not distributed throughout the whole Township as all taxpayers in this community helped pay for this event. lt seems very inappropriate that our Township staff and Council were not invited to participate or be involved. Please inform all staff and Fire Dept. that any Township vehicles that are to be used for private events need approval by Council. This is not a Municipal event; it is put together by the Lisle recreation committee. Councillor Anderson has stated that this is a private event and is run and directed by the Lisle Hall Recreation Association which has nothing to do with the Township. lf the Association wanted or needed Township involvement now or in the future they have to follow the same rules, policies and bylaws as any other independent organization. This all could have been brought up for discussion at last week’s Council meeting especially as Councillor Anderson was fully aware of this event being organized and didn't even mention it to Council Members, staff or the CAO.

Thank you

Bob Meadows

Deputy Mayor Adjala-Tosorontio

13. Two days later, on the morning of November 27, the Deputy Mayor forwarded the above email to the Township’s IT Coordinator/Emergency Services, who worked with the Fire Chief. He instructed: “Could you please make sure all station Chiefs and [the Fire Chief] have received this message.”

14. The connection between parade participation and public education is discussed in an earlier report, Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 44-45. Normalizing the sight of firefighters, especially firefighters wearing protective gear, is widely accepted as an important aspect of fire safety education of young children. By November 27, the Fire Department had already received, from the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, the educational materials that were to be distributed at the parade.

15. Later the same day, the Fire Chief saw the Deputy Mayor in the Township’s administration building, approached him, and said that participation in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was a Fire Department public safety event. The Fire Chief mentioned the public education mandate in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

16. The Deputy Mayor told the Fire Chief that driving a fire truck in a parade was not public education.

17. The discussion between the Deputy Mayor and the Fire Chief continued in the CAO’s office, in the CAO’s presence. The Deputy Mayor said the Township’s vehicle policy² applied to all employees and needed to be followed. The Fire Chief replied that Fire Department vehicles were exempt. The Deputy Mayor said he was unaware of an exemption.

18. The Deputy Mayor continued to state that driving a truck in a parade was not public education. He also stated that Council needed to approve the Fire Department’s participation at any function of a “private organization,” citing as examples the Lisle Santa Claus Parade and the Sheldon Creek Dairy “Day on the Farm.”

19. The meeting in the CAO’s office became heated and ended abruptly when the Fire Chief said the Deputy Mayor was aware of public education occurring at prior years’ parades, the Deputy Mayor denied knowledge, and the Fire Chief said the Deputy Mayor was a liar.

20. After this meeting, the Deputy Mayor emailed the CAO to comment on what occurred and to explain his position on public education. He said he had only attended one Lisle Santa Claus Parade, on a float at the opposite end of the parade from the Fire Department, so he was not aware of what public education occurred there or was conducted generally by the Adjala-Tosorontio Fire Department.³ He added that, “In my opinion, handing out candy and pamphlets in a parade is not classified as public education as you do not have time to properly educate people if they have any question.”

21. I have omitted from this chronology the Mayor’s own emails concerning the topic.

22. The evening of November 27, the Fire Chief informed Fire Department personnel that Fire Department vehicles would not be participating in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade or the Breakfast with Santa (organized by Tosorontio Public School parents⁴).

23. The next day, the Lisle Hall Recreation Association was informed that the Fire Department would not participate in the upcoming parade, for the first time in approximately 15 years.

24. One day afterward, that is, November 29, at 4:09 p.m., Lisle Community Hall, the Facebook account of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, posted the following message:

The Lisle Hall Recreation Association who organizes the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was informed yesterday the Township Council will not allow Fire Department trucks to take part in this year’s parade. This is very unfortunate as we count on the Fire Department for traffic control and love to showcase some of their trucks, not to mention have you ever seen a parade without a fire truck?

The volunteer firefighters will still participate in the parade using their own vehicles and will be collecting non-perishable food items.

The parade is this Sunday starting at 1:30 pm. See you there!

25. This post was shared on other Facebook pages, including the page of a private community group, Village of Everett, Ontario, where it attracted several comments. A few hours later, Mayor Floyd Pinto posted the following Facebook response:

Dear Residents,

The Lisle Santa Claus Parade has been a Township-sponsored event, proudly supported by staff, Council and financially supported by all Adjala-Tosorontio ratepayers as this parade brings the whole Township together. However, this year, and without notice to staff and Council, the Lisle Recreation Committee (Councillor Anderson is a member, excluded the Township, Council and staff.

The Lisle Recreation Committee distributed flyers throughout Tosorontio, excluding Adjala residents. As well, when this event finally did come to the attention of Township staff and Council on November 25, Councillor Anderson stated in an email dated November 25, 2019, informing the Clerk that he did not want the parade advertised on the Township website.

According to our Township policies, any private organization, such as the Lisle Recreation Committee, must come to Council in order to request the use of Township staff, firetrucks and personnel. He had the opportunity at the November Council meeting to bring this to the attention of Council and Council would have fully supported the Lisle Santa Claus Parade just as Council took part in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade last year.

This situation could have been avoided had Councillor Anderson or the Lisle Recreation Committee approached Council or the CAO as required. This would have enabled the Township to contact Base Borden, the County of Simcoe, OPP, and the Township for proper authorization.

Council proudly supports and funds many community activities and events, and welcomes Township organizations to put forth their requests for support.

Floyd Pinto

26. This post also attracted comments. Later that day, Deputy Mayor Meadows posted his own comments on the same page:

27. According to the Deputy Mayor’s post, Fire Department participation at the Lisle Santa Claus Parade required a request to Township Council or the CAO. According to him, the parade organizers did not “inform the CAO or Municipality with regards to his [sic] event or the proper authorities.”

28. The Deputy Mayor’s post continued:

Proper policies and procedures were recently put in place by all on Council including Mr Anderson and staff for these events and all were present and neither him or other parties followed the policies or procedures putting this event on. … Mr. Anderson might have been able to correct this if he had contacted the CAO for approval or even if the Fire Dept had notified the CAO or Township of this event. We have nothing to gain by not having the Lisle Santa Claus Parade or other events but the Township does need to be notified so we can contact the proper authorities to get approvals for liability reasons.

Process Followed

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

30. This fair and balanced process includes the following elements: The Respondent receives notice of the Complaint and an opportunity to respond. The Complainant receives the Respondent's response and an opportunity to reply. More generally, the process is transparent in that the Respondent and Complainant get to see each other’s communications with me.⁵ 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.

31. The Complaint was sent to me December 2, 2019.

32. I issued a Notice of Inquiry on December 9 and sent it, along with the Complaint and Complaint materials, to the Respondent.

33. The Notice of Inquiry explained that I was exercising my discretion to conduct an inquiry into only the allegations that Deputy Mayor Meadows had contravened sections 6.2.1 g), 6.2.1 j), 6.2.1 o), 6.16.5, and 6.16.6 of the Code.

34. I declined to inquire into the allegations under sections 6.2.1 h) and 6.2.1 n) of the Code.

35. I did not inquire into the allegation under section 6.2.1 h) (Erode Authority of Council), because section 6.16.5 more accurately captures the Complainant’s allegation that the Deputy Mayor allegedly gave direction that only Council as a whole could give. Further, the Complaint does not allege facts that, if proved, would amount to an erosion of authority.

36. I did not inquiry into the allegation under section 6.2.1 n) (Bulling and Coercion) because nothing alleged in the Complaint, even if proved, would have amounted to bullying or coercion.

37. Deputy Mayor Meadows responded to the Complaint on December 15, and Councillor Anderson replied January 9.

38. This complaint was one of several complaints filed around the same time. At least five of them related to the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.)

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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

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

46. On March 3, 2022, I issued a report in Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4.

47. On March 6, I sent the Deputy Mayor a draft of the findings in this report and invited him to comment. The Deputy Mayor’s comments have been incorporated into this report.

48. I have reviewed all relevant materials, records related to the Adjala-Tosorontio Fire Department, the Rosemont District Fire Department, the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, and previous Lisle Santa Claus Parades, and photographic evidence. I conducted a witness interview of the Township’s former Fire Chief. I examined relevant policies and records of the Township. I also gathered information about fire departments, fire protection services, and fire safety public education.

49. This report is based on all the evidence and all the submissions of the parties.

50. 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.

Positions of the Parties

Complainant’s Position

51. The Complainant alleges that the Deputy Mayor made several misleading or false statements, contrary to section 6.2.1 g) of the Code. He states that, contrary to the claim that the Township staff was not invited to participate or be involved in the parade, the Lisle Hall Recreation Association invited the Fire Department (which is part of the Township) on October 25, 2019. He also argues that it was misleading for the Deputy Mayor to have written that the Association “had to follow the same rules, policies and bylaws as any other independent organization.”

52. The Complainant submits that, by providing direction to the CAO without the authority of Council, and by providing direction to the Fire Chief that contradicted the Fire Chief’s decision to participate in the parade, the Deputy Mayor contravened Code section 6.2.1 j), which states that a Council Member shall, “respect the role of staff in the daily conduct of operations of the Township.”

53. The Complainant states that the Deputy Mayor’s communications, described in the Background section of this report, were disrespectful and, consequently, demeaning of the staff and of Councillor Anderson, contrary to section 6.2.1 o).

54. The Complainant alleges that section 6.16.5 was breached when the Deputy Mayor directed the CAO, “Please inform all staff and Fire Dept. that any Township vehicles that are to be used for private events need approval by Council.” The section provides that no single Council Member has the authority to direct any Staff member to carry out a particular function.

55. Finally, the Complainant takes the position that the Deputy Mayor used his authority and influence as a Council Member to interfere with the CAO’s duties.

Respondent’s Position

56. The Deputy Mayor’s response is that it was actually Councillor Anderson who contravened the Code of Conduct, and the Deputy Mayor was merely informing the appropriate people of the problems in order to protect the Township.

57. The Deputy Mayor describes the Lisle Santa Claus Parade as a “partisan activity” for Councillor Anderson’s “own benefit.” He alleges that Councillor Anderson directed the Fire Chief to engage in partisan activity, contrary to the Employee Code of Conduct Policy which was binding on the Chief.

58. According to the Deputy Mayor, not only was the Lisle Santa Claus Parade “partisan,” it was also “illegal.” He outlines in much detail his position that the real problem was Councillor Anderson directing the staff to participate in an unlawful parade:

Using Township e-mail, Councillor Anderson, without Council’s approval, authorized the Lisle Santa Claus Parade using his title as Ward 5 Councillor to direct Township staff and the Fire Chief, as well as outside agencies, i.e., the O.P.P. and County of Simcoe paramedics, for his own interest. This is in direct violation of the Code. Thus, it was in fact Councillor Anderson who has, not only been directing staff, but counseling them to engage in an illegal event.

If Councillor Anderson had followed our by-laws and procedures and had communicated with the CAO to secure permits to hold a legal event, I would not have been put in a position where I had to react and inform the CAO that the event was not legal.

Furthermore, Councillor Anderson was fully aware of the Road Closure Permit – Roads By-Law June 3, 2013 – as he was on Council at this time. It’s rather negligent of Councillor Anderson to condemn me for intervening to protect the Township rather than reflecting on his own action for his own event.

… it is Councillor Anderson who has been directing staff, without Council’s approval, authorized the Lisle Santa Claus Parade using his title as Ward 5 Councillor to direct Township staff and the Fire Chief , and outside agencies, i.e., the O.P.P. and County of Simcoe Paramedics. This is in direct violation of the Code.

In fact, Councillor Anderson directed the Chief and Fire Department using his position and violated the Township policy and bylaw.

59. The Deputy Mayor explains his understanding that only Township Council as a whole has the authority to close down roads, authority that he says has not been delegated. He states that neither the Fire Department nor the OPP can close a road without Council’s approval.

60. He draws attention to the admission of one of the parade organizers that permits were not obtained.⁶ The Deputy Mayor suggests that Councillor Anderson should have obtained permits and that the Fire Chief should have pointed out that permits were required. He criticizes Councillor Anderson for choosing not “to rectify [the] situation in order to have a safe, legal parade.”

61. The Deputy Mayor further alleges that Councillor Anderson placed the Township at risk by failing to obtain the necessary permits, permission, and insurance coverage. He explains that “I informed [sic] staff – the CAO, Council and fire chiefs in order to protect the Township staff and vehicles from legal liabilities and acted in the best interests of the municipality.” He states that, “it would have been negligent of me not to bring this to the attention of the appropriate people.”

62. He explains that in sending his communications he was discharging his:

fiduciary responsibility not only to this Township but also to the County. I did this by informing the appropriate staff CAO Gagan Sandu of a violation by Councillor Anderson (Lisle rec committee) with regards to not having all the needed requirements for this event.

63. The Deputy Mayor submits that Council did not know about the parade. He concedes that the Fire Department was invited but states, “nobody on Council or staff, other than the Fire Department, knew …”

Findings of Fact

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

65. I adopt the findings of fact made in the previous reports, Pinto v. Anderson, 2022 ONMIC 1 and Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4.

66. The Deputy Mayor was a long-time (approximately 12-year) volunteer firefighter with the Rosemont District Fire Department, whose response area includes portions of Adjala-Tosorontio, Mono and Mulmur. During the current Council term, he is a member of the Rosemont District Fire Department Joint Board of Management, representing Adjala Tosorontio.

67. While I accept the Deputy Mayor’s statement that the practices of Rosemont and Adjala-Tosorontio were different, I note that the Rosemont Fire Department is active in public education which includes “attending many local events in the community spreading the message of fire and life safety.” Prior to and during the Deputy Mayor’s service on the Board of Management, Rosemont Fire Department has annually budgeted $1000 for public education. Given his background, the Deputy Mayor was aware that Fire Departments have public education responsibilities.

68. In addition, given his background, the Deputy Mayor knew, or reasonably should have known, that a fire chief has responsibility for the operations and administration of a fire department.

69. Deputy Mayor Meadows had participated in the prior year’s Lisle Santa Claus Parades. In 2018, the Deputy Mayor walked in the parade by a Township truck that was pulling a float on which five other Council Members were standing.

70. The Agenda package for the April 11, 2019, Special Council Meeting included a letter from the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, addressed to Council, requesting funding. The third paragraph of the letter read, “The major undertaking of the year is the Lisle Santa Claus Parade, which is an annual event for the community in the Township and is enjoyed by many.”

71. The Deputy Mayor attended the April 11 meeting at which Council approved a $750 grant for the Lisle Community Recreation Association. In fact, he was mover of the motion.⁷ The breakdown of the $750 grant was: $333.75 as reimbursement of property tax paid, and a $416.25 grant to support the parade.

72. The Deputy Mayor attended the May 6, 2019, meeting at which the Fire Chief delivered the presentation, “New Council Orientation: Fire & Emergency Services.” He moved the motion that the Fire Chief’s presentation be received for information.⁸ The presentation mentioned public education and Fire Department participation in the previous year’s Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

73. The Lisle Santa Claus Parade had been in existence for approximately five decades, and Fire Department participation had been routine for approximately 15 years.

74. I find as a fact that Council Members were aware, or reasonably should have been aware, that the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was an annual event in which the Fire Department participated.

75. I find that when the Deputy Mayor emailed the CAO on November 25, he did not mention any concern that the parade was unlawful. Instead, his principal concerns, as reflected by words of his email, were that flyers had not been distributed across the entire Township, that Township staff and Council had not been invited to participate or be involved, and that this was, therefore, a private event, not a Township event. He stated that, because the event was private and not municipal, Council approval of the use of Township vehicles was required.

76. At the relevant time, the Township had a Use of Corporate and-Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure, but this Policy and Procedure did not apply to the Fire Department.⁹

77. The Fire Department had its own Standard Operational Guidelines that applied to use of its vehicles. As did the Township’s Policy and Procedure, these Guidelines addressed safety and compliance with rules of road.¹⁰ They did not, however, identify any circumstances in which the use of fire vehicles was subject to Council approval or CAO approval.¹¹

78. By-law 11-24, the Fire Department By-law, enacted by Council, conferred on the Fire Chief, or the Fire Chief’s designate, the authority to approve the use of Fire Department equipment.¹² The only reference to the Council, in connection with equipment use, was contained in a requirement to inform (not seek approval from) the Council when “the public raising of funds under representation of the fire department” occurred.¹³ I find that this case did not involve the public raising of funds under representation of the Fire Department.

79. By-law 11-24 also confirmed the responsibility of the Fire Department for public education, and the responsibility of the Fire Chief for all its functions including public education, which was expressly mentioned.¹⁴

80. The Fire Department By-law described the reporting relationship as follows: “The fire chief of the department is responsible to council through the chief administrative officer for the proper administration and operation of the department.”¹⁵

81. The Fire Department By-law also recognized that the Fire Chief exercised powers under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.¹⁶

82. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act requires that every municipality “establish a program in the municipality which must include public education with respect to fire safety and certain components of fire prevention.”¹⁷ By-law 11-24 assigned that function to the Fire Department under the administrative and operational responsibility of the Fire Chief.¹⁸

83. The Act states that, “A fire chief is the person who is ultimately responsible to the council of a municipality that appointed him or her for the delivery of fire protection services.”¹⁹ Fire protection services are defined to include fire safety education.²⁰

84. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act further contemplates that firefighters, including volunteer firefighters, may be assigned to undertake fire protection services, which include fire safety education.²¹

85. At all relevant times the decision that firefighters and fire vehicles would or would not participate in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade and other community events belonged to the Fire Chief, not to the CAO or Council, and decisions about how to deliver public education belonged to Fire Chief, not to the CAO or Council.

86. As I have previously reported, such decisions have historically been made by the Fire Chief. In particular, 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.²²

87. As I have previously reported, community engagement activity by uniformed firefighters is itself recognized as a component of public education.²³

88. In the course of this inquiry, I have found that fire departments’ and fire trucks’ participation in Santa Claus parades is extremely common across Ontario. Some of the nearby fire departments that drive fire apparatus in Santa Claus parades are Barrie Fire Department, Caledon Fire and Emergency Services, Clearview Township Fire Department, Essa Fire Department, Grand Valley & District Fire Department, New Tecumseth Fire Rescue, Orangeville Fire Department, Shelburne and District Fire Department, and Springwater Fire and Emergency Services. These are just some of the many, many Ontario fire departments whose vehicles participate in Santa Claus parades.²⁴

89. The perspective of the previous Fire Chief of Adjala-Tosorontio, that parade participation is an aspect of public education, is shared by other fire departments. As one fire department states: “Each event offers a unique and proactive opportunity to educate more of our citizens about how to prevent fires.”²⁵ Another explained that:

Another major part of our fire prevention program is public education; we achieve this through exposure at many public functions and educational seminars such as: … Municipal Santa Claus parade²⁶

90. This report is not to be interpreted as drawing conclusions about what is and is not properly considered fire safety public education.²⁷ My finding is that determinations about public education belonged to the Fire Chief. That is the only finding about public education necessary for purposes of this inquiry.

91. I find that the Lisle Hall Recreation Association did invite Township participation in the 2019 Santa Claus Parade. Specifically, it invited the Fire Department, which is part of the Township.

92. The Association’s invitation was not addressed to any particular individual. It was addressed to the “Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Fire Department”, and it began, “Dear Sir.” Nonetheless, the letter ended up with the Fire Chief who was empowered by the Township By-law to authorize the participation of fire apparatus in the parade, and who did so.

93. Based on the meaning of partisan set out at paragraph 98 of this report, I find that the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was not in any way partisan. It was organized by a private, not-for-profit Association that was incorporated for community-focused, community-minded purposes.²⁸ It is true that the chief organizer of the 2019 parade was a Council Member, but that fact did not make the parade partisan. It is true that the parade was advertised in a part of the Township and not all of the Township, but that did not make the parade partisan. I find that it was reasonable and unremarkable for the Lisle Santa Claus Parade organized by the Lisle Hall Recreation Association to be marketed closer to Lisle and not everywhere in Adjala-Tosorontio.

94. Further, I find that the event was not partisan merely because the parade route was located in the ward that Councillor Anderson was elected to represent. The Municipal Act permits a municipality to divide itself into wards,²⁹ and Adjala-Tosorontio has done so. Under a ward system, all communities are placed in wards that are represented by councillors. Obviously, every community activity, such as a parade, will take place in a ward that someone (or, depending on the council structure, more than one individual) represents. The facts of geographic location and political representation are inevitable consequences of the ward system; they do not mean that a community event is partisan.

Issues and Analysis

95. I have considered the following issues:

A. Was the Lisle Santa Clause Parade a partisan activity?

B. Did the Respondent make false or misleading statements?

C. Did the Respondent breach the Code through demeaning communication about the staff or the Complainant?

D. Did the Respondent breach the Code by failing to respect the role of the staff in the daily conduct of Township operations?

E. Did the Respondent breach the Code by giving direction to a staff member?

F. Did the Respondent breach the Code by using authority or influence to interfere in a staff member’s duties?

A. Was the Lisle Santa Claus Parade a partisan activity?

96. No. It was not partisan.

97. The Township’s Code of Conduct uses word “partisan” but does not define it. Nowhere does Ontario municipal law define the term “partisan.” I am left to interpret the word according to its ordinary and accepted meaning in the political context: namely, something that supports or opposes the election of a particular candidate, or supports or opposes an answer to a question on a municipal ballot. In my view, this meaning is consistent with the scope of regulation of advertising under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996,^{30 31} and consistent with the definition of “partisan material” in the provincial context under the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994.³²

98. There is absolutely no evidence that the Lisle Santa Claus Parade was partisan.

B. Did the Respondent make false or misleading statements?

99. No. The Deputy Mayor made inaccurate statements about Township by-laws but I do not believe that in doing so he breached the Code.

100. According to section 6.2.1 of the Code of Conduct, “Members shall in exercising and discharging their Official Duties … g) not make statements known to be false or make a statement with the intent to mislead Council or the public.”

101. What the Deputy Mayor wrote about the need for Council approval was wrong. The Fire Department By-law, By-law 11-24, confirmed that decisions about the use of fire vehicles belonged to the Fire Chief. No other Township by-law overrode the Chief’s authority in this regard. The Use of Corporate and-Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure did not apply to the Fire Department.

102. The Deputy Mayor’s statements were inaccurate, but there is no evidence that he knew them to be false or made them with the intention of misleading anyone. Consequently, he did not contravene section 6.2.1 g).

103. It is important to note that the Deputy Mayor was, essentially, communicating his interpretation of what the Township’s rules and policies required. While an interpretation may be incorrect – in this case, the interpretation was incorrect – it is not possible to categorize an interpretation as true or false (or known to be false). Attempting to regulate interpretations and other opinions based on their truth or falsity is a daunting task. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, there is “difficulty [in] conclusively determining total falsity”,³³ “a statement that is true on one level for one person may be false on another level for a different person,”³⁴ the distinction between fact and opinion is “slippery,”³⁵ the prohibition of false speech may be used to punish deviation from “currently accepted ‘truths’” that later turn out of be wrong,³⁶ historically, restrictions on so-called false speech have been used to suppress the speech of minority and disadvantaged groups,³⁷ and false statements may sometimes have value.³⁸

104. In another case, the Supreme Court of Canada observed: “The scope of constitutional protection of expression is, therefore, very broad. It is not restricted to views shared or accepted by the majority, nor to truthful opinions.”³⁹ [emphasis added]

105. An Integrity Commissioner is unable to police the truth or falsity of political speech: City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-030-192;⁴⁰ at p. 3; City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-32-1112, Commissioner, at pp. 2-3;⁴¹ 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.

106. For these reasons, I interpret section 6.2.1 g) to be inapplicable to statements of opinion, statements of interpretation, and statements of policy. How section 6.2.1 g) might apply to statements of fact is not an issue in this case.

C. Did the Respondent breach the Code through demeaning communication about the staff or the Complainant?

107. No. His communications were not demeaning.

108. The Deputy Mayor had a policy disagreement with the Fire Chief and a political disagreement with the Complainant. Specifically, the Deputy Mayor disagreed with the Fire Chief on whether Council approval was required, and he disagreed with Councillor Anderson about how widely the parade should have been marketed, including whether the Council should have specifically been invited.

109. Section 6.2.1 o) provides that a Council Member shall “not engage in any form of slanderous, malicious, or demeaning communications in regards to other Members, staff, or the public.” In my view, the bar for a finding that a communication was “demeaning” should be set very high.

110. First, the ordinary meaning of the word “demeaning” is causing a lowering of someone’s dignity,⁴² “a severe loss of dignity or respect,”⁴³ or, as the Supreme Court of Canada stated in one case, an affront to person’s dignity.⁴⁴

111. Second, according to the noscitur a sociis principle of interpretation, the word “demeaning” must be understood in association with “slanderous” and “malicious,” the adjectives that precede it. (The complete phrase is, “any form of slanderous, malicious or demeaning communications.”) In this context, slanderous, malicious, and demeaning are of the same nature or category.⁴⁵ Like slanderous and malicious communications, a demeaning communication is one that causes real, objectively measurable, non-trivial harm.

112. Third, the Code of Conduct should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right of freedom of expression: Re VanLeeuwen, 2021 ONMIC 13, at para. 179. We must assume that the Code is not intended to violate the Charter: Newman v. Brown, 2021 ONMIC 11, at para. 68.

113. Fourth, as I have mentioned, the Deputy Mayor was expressing his policy disagreement with the Fire Chief and his political disagreement with Councillor Anderson. An Integrity Commissioner should be reluctant to interfere in how a politician chooses to communicate political ideas: Linton v. Kitras, 2020 ONMIC 1, at paras. 76-81; Re Murphy (No. 1), 2017 ONMIC 20, at para. 31.

114. For these reasons, the finding that a communication as “demeaning” is subject to a high threshold. A demeaning communication is not merely a comment that somebody finds offensive. It causes more than hurt feelings. It causes real harm in the form of a loss of dignity.

115. I find that the Deputy Mayor’s communications about the Fire Chief and the Complainant were not demeaning.

D. Did the Respondent breach the Code by failing to respect the role of the staff in the conduct of daily Township operations?

116. Section 6.2.1 j) of the Code states that a Member shall “respect the role of staff in the daily conduct of operations of the Township.”

117. This rule is too vague for me to conclude that the Deputy Mayor contravened it.

118. It is unclear what is meant by respecting the staff’s role in the daily conduct of Township operations – unclear whether the rule is a prohibition of interference, a prohibition of criticism, an obligation of deference, or something else.

119. The Deputy Mayor did intervene in (and succeeded in getting reversed) a decision that had been made by the Fire Chief, but I am not certain that this is what Council intended when it enacted a requirement to respect the role of the staff in daily obligations.

120. “Council Members are subject to penalties if they contravene the rules in the Code; it necessarily follows that the rules must be clear, certain and unambiguous. Council Members must be able to understand clearly the conduct that is required”: Re Partner, 2018 ONMIC 16, at para. 32; Moore v. Maika, 2018 ONMIC 7, at para. 85.

121. In the absence of certainty about what section 6.2.1 j) means, I do not find a contravention.

E. Did the Respondent breach the Code by giving directon to a staff member?

F. Did the Respondent breach the Code by using authority or influence to interfere in a staff member’s duties?

122. I have considered these questions together. The answer to each is yes.

123. The relevant passages of the Code are the first sentence of section 6.16.5 and the second sentence of section 6.16.6:

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. [second sentence omitted]

6.16.6 [first sentence omitted] 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.

124. I accept that the Deputy Mayor believed that Township policy required Council approval of the use of fire vehicles in the parade. Drawing the CAO’s attention to a prior Council decision with the goal of upholding the Council decision does not necessarily contravene the Code. This is true whether or not the Council Member correctly interprets the prior Council decision: Greatrix v. Williams, 2018 ONMIC 6 at paras. 158-167.

125. Sections 6.16.5 and 6.16.6 cannot be interpreted to prevent a Council Member from mentioning a prior Council decision with the goal of upholding the prior decision. Council’s intention in enacting the Code cannot have been otherwise. It is nonsensical to suggest that the only way to uphold a prior Council decision would be to raise the matter as an item of business at a subsequent Council meeting. Such a restriction could actually undermine Council’s decision making, which obviously is not the intent of the Code.

126. Merely directing the attention of the CAO and Fire Chief to a prior Council decision would not, in my view, have contravened the Code of Conduct. This would have been true even though the Deputy Mayor was incorrectly interpreting the relevant policies and by-laws.

127. In this case, the Deputy Mayor did more than draw the CAO and Fire Chief’s attention to a prior Council decision that the Deputy Mayor believed was not being upheld.

128. First, the Deputy Mayor added to the email thread all employees of the Township. This was unnecessary to the objective of drawing attention to a prior decision, and was more consistent with attempting to give direction to the staff: Greatrix v. Williams, 2018 ONMIC 6 at para. 167.

129. Second, the Deputy Mayor issued an instruction to the CAO: “Please inform all staff and Fire Dept. that any Township vehicles that are to be used for private events need approval by Council.” This went beyond drawing attention to a prior Council decision, and constituted giving direction to a staff member.

130. Two days later, the Deputy Mayor instructed another employee: “Could you please make sure all station Chiefs and [the Fire Chief] have received this message.” Again, this went beyond drawing attention to a prior Council decision, and constituted giving direction to a staff member.

131. Third, the Deputy Mayor’s argument with the Fire Chief about the role of parades in public education had nothing to do with drawing attention to a prior Council decision. It does not matter who was right about what constitutes public education, and it is not the place of an Integrity Commissioner to decide what proper fire safety education entails. The issue under the Code is that a Council Member was not entitled to direct the Fire Chief as to what did and what did not constitute public education under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act and the Fire Department By-law.

132. I find that the Deputy Mayor contravened section 6.16.5 of the Code on the following occasions: when he instructed the CAO to communicate with the staff about the use of Township vehicles; when he instructed another employee to recirculate the earlier instruction to the CAO; and when he gave direction to the Fire Chief about what constitutes public education.

133. I find that the Deputy Mayor contravened section 6.16.6 of the Code by interfering with the exercise of the Fire Chief’s lawful duties. In particular he used his office and influence as Deputy Mayor to interfere with (and ultimately get overturned) the Fire Chief’s decision that the Fire Department and fire vehicles would participate in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade. This was a decision that the Fire Chief was entitled to make: see paragraph 85, above.

134. Whether or not the 2019 parade complied with Township and County by-laws or with the Highway Traffic Act is not relevant to these findings. The communications that breached sections 6.16.5 and 6.16.6 were made before the parade even took place. Further, even if the parade were non-compliant with the rules of the road (something that is not for an Integrity Commissioner to decide), the appropriate way to address such non-compliance would have been Highway Traffic Act enforcement and by-law enforcement. I also note that the November 25 email to the CAO, and the November 27 argument with the Fire Chief about whether public education includes parade participation, did not mention traffic safety and liability concerns.

Response to Draft Report

135. I shared with the Deputy Mayor a draft of this report, including the findings of fact, the analysis of issues, and the findings of contraventions.

136. The Deputy Mayor provided comments, which I reproduce below in their entirety:

I am confused by your analysis. This parade did not come to Council for approval nor did the individual go to the Township for permission from the CAO. It was not the Township that permitted this parade it was a single Councillor. OPP were not informed by the Township; it was the Councillor who called the OPP. In fact, the OPP thought he was asking on behalf of the Township. They did not realize he was working on his own. This is not a parade sanctioned by Council yet put on by one individual. Informing staff and the CAO about potential litigation because permits were not issued both by the Township and the County or road closures by the OPP. I am totally confused on how informing staff of potential litigation issues is wrong. If someone died or injured themselves while the road was blocked our Township would have been liable. What other alternative did I have but report it? The root cause of the problems are procedures bylaws are not being followed.

It was never my intent to stop the parade; it was just to follow the proper Township procedures in having one. All events and road closures require permits on Township and County property. All staff know permits are required for road closures and events along with outside insurance. There are legal repercussions when things are not done according to Township and County bylaws. No one on Council was informed about this parade and Council never approved.

I was only acting in the best interest of the Township.

137. I have carefully considered these comments. I accept that the Deputy Mayor felt that he was acting in the best interests of the Township. I am recommending that Council take this into account.

138. I accept the position that the parade was not a Township event but instead was organized by a private community association. The chief organizer was a Council Member acting in a private capacity. Though this was a privately organized event, the Fire Chief, in the exercise of his responsibility and authority under the Fire Department By-law, had accepted the request for Fire Department participation, including the participation of vehicles, because he determined participation was consistent with the Fire Department’s public education mandate. (The Fire Department had in past engaged in public education at other privately organized events.) This was the Fire Chief’s decision to make, and it was with this decision of the Fire Chief that interference occurred.

139. Paragraph 134, above, is responsive to the comments about road closure.

Conclusions

140. The Deputy Mayor’s social media post, which was an expression of opinion, did not contravene the Code.

141. In certain internal communications (email and oral), the Deputy Mayor did contravene sections 6.16.5 and 6.16.6 of the Code by issuing directions to the CAO, the Fire Chief Fire Chief, and one other employee, and by attempting to interfere in the exercise of the Fire Chief’s lawful duties.

Recommendations

142. I recommend that Council accept this report.

143. Because I am reporting to Council my opinion that Deputy Mayor Meadows contravened sections 6.16.5 and 6.16.6 of the Code of Conduct, the Council may, if it decides, impose a penalty under subsection 223.4(5) of the Municipal Act. The decision on whether to impose a penalty and what it should be belongs to the Council and not the Integrity Commissioner.

144. I recommend that Council take into account that the Deputy Mayor felt he was acting in the best interests of the Township.

Content

145. 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 7, 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) conduct oneself with appropriate decorum at all times in the community or when making presentations on behalf of the Township;

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

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

6.16 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.

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.

Footnotes

1. 1County of Simcoe Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 33, s. 2. Small portions of Adjala and Tosorontio, near the former Town of Alliston, were amalgamated into New Tecumseth. The remainder of Sunnidale became parts of the Township of Clearview, the Township of Essa, and the Town of Wasaga Beach.
2. 2He was referring to the Use of Corporate and-Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure.
3. 3The Deputy Mayor was a volunteer firefighter with the Rosemont Fire Department, which serves parts of Adjala-Tosorontio, Mono, and Mulmur, and was established by an agreement among the three municipalities.
4. 4See 2022 ONMIC 4, at para. 41.
5. 5I typically redact personal information such as residential addresses and phone numbers.
6. 6A news story quoted a parade organizer as saying, “had staff informed us that we required the permits, we would have acquired them.”
7. 7RES-197-2019: “Deputy Mayor Meadows moved, seconded by Councillor Hall-Chancey, Resolved That the 2019 Community Grants and Donations dated April 11, 2019 be received; and further That staff be directed to facilitate the 2019 Grants and Donations as approved by Council.”
8. 8RES-235-2019.
9. 9Section 3: “This procedure is applicable to all Drivers who are authorized to drive a Township Vehicle in the course of performing their duties, except: Fire Department personnel who fall under the jurisdiction of the Fire Services Operational Guideline covering the operation/use of Fire Department vehicles.”
10. 10Unlike the Township’s Policy and Procedure, they expressly required compliance with the Highway Traffic Act.
11. 11Standard Operational Guidelines 0-03C (Equipment Operations) and 5-08A (Apparatus Operation).
12. 12By-law 11-24, s. 10.
13. 13Ibid.
14. 14By-law 11-24, ss. 6 c), 6 d), 8 1).
15. 15By-law 11-24, s. 6.
16. 16By-law 11-24, ss. 6 c), 9.
17. 17S.O. 1997, c. 4, subs. 2(1).
18. 18By-law 11-24, ss. 6, 8 1).
19. 19S.O. 1997, c. 4, subs. 6(3).
20. 20Ibid., subs. 1(1).
21. 21Ibid.
22. 222022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 40, 42.
23. 232022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 44-45.
24. 24A very incomplete list includes Alnwick/Haldimand Fire Department, Brantford Fire Services, Cambridge Fire Department, Erin Fire & Emergency Services, Grimsby Fire Department, Guelph-Eramosa Fire Department, Kingston Fire & Rescue, Kingsville Fire and Rescue, Ladysmith Fire/Rescue, Markham Fire & Emergency Services, Mapleton Township Fire & Rescue, McNab/Braeside Fire Department, Minden Hills Fire Department, Minto Fire Department, North Grenville Fire Service, Oshawa Fire Services, Owen Sound Fire & Emergency Services, Pembroke Fire Department, Petawawa Fire Department, Prescott Fire Department, Renfrew Fire Department, Sault Ste. Marie Fire Services, Uxbridge Fire Department, Vaughan Fire and Rescue Service, Walkerton Fire Department, Whitby Fire and Emergency Services, and Wilmot Fire Department.
25. 25Municipality of Brockton, Fire & Emergency Services, 2019 Year End Report, p. 10-11.
26. 26Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, Fire & Rescue, Report on Fire Protection Services for the municipality for the year 2012, p. 2.
27. 27See Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4, at para. 71.
28. 28Specifically, the objects for which the Association was incorporated are: “1. To improve the spiritual, moral, social and recreational life of its members and others of the community. 2. To operate, maintain and provide a Community Hall as a recreational and social facility for the community.”
29. 29Municipal Act, s. 222.
30. 30S.O. 1996, c. 32, Sched., subs. 88.3(1): “‘election campaign advertisement’ means an advertisement in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting or supporting the election of a candidate.”
31. 31Ibid., subs. 1(1): “‘third party advertisement’ means an advertisement in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that has the purpose of promoting, supporting or opposing, (a) a candidate, or (b) a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to a question referred to in subsection 8 (1), (2) or (3) ...”
32. 32S.O. 1994, c. 38, subs. 9.1(6): “‘partisan material’ means material that supports or opposes a particular candidate, party or issue and is not related to the Government of Ontario’s work for the public at large or a member of the Assembly’s work for their constituency at large.”
33. 33R. v. Zundel, 1992 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, at 758.
34. 34Ibid., at 756.
35. 35Ibid., at 768.
36. 36Ibid., at 769.
37. 37Ibid., at 766, 772.
38. 38Ibid., at 754-755, 758.
39. 39Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, at para. 60.
40. 40City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-030-192 (December 4, 2012), Integrity Commissioner Donald Cameron, online: https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/meetings-agendas/City%20Council%202010/20121214cc_L1.pdf
41. 41City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-32-1112 (December 18, 2012), Randy Pepper, Delegate of the Integrity Commissioner, online: https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/meetings-agendas/City%20Council%202010/20121219spcc_C1.pdf
42. 42Findlay v. Mike's Smoke and Gifts (No. 4), 1993 CanLII 16461 (ON HRT), at para. 95.
43. 43R. v. Ibrahim, 2016 ONSC 7665, at para. 74.
44. 44Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, at 1284.
45. 45R. v. Daoust, 2004 SCC 6, at para. 51.