Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Anderson, D. v. Pinto, 2022 ONMIC 6 Date: March 10, 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 7, RES-213-2022, RES-214-2022)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Complaint 3

Summary. 3

Background. 3

Process Followed. 9

Positions of the Parties. 12

Findings of Fact 16

Issues and Analysis. 21

A. (External) Did the Mayor’s social media posts contravene the Code?. 21

B. (Internal) Did the Mayor’s dealings with Township employees contravene the Code? 25

Response to Draft Report 27

Indoor Management Rule / Mayor as CEO.. 30

Conclusions. 37

Recommendations. 38

Content 38

Appendix 1: Respondent’s Comments on Draft of this Report 39

Appendix 2: Excerpts from Council Code of Conduct 43

The Complaint

Mr. David Anderson (Complainant) alleges that Mayor Floyd Pinto (Respondent) contravened several sections of the Council Code of Conduct in internal and external communications that the Mayor made about Fire Department involvement in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

Summary

The Mayor’s social media posts, an exercise of his freedom of expression, did not contravene the Code.
The Mayor contravened section 6.16.5 of the Code by directing the CAO to block the participation of Fire Department vehicles in the parade, without Council’s specific authority to give direction.
The Mayor contravened section 6.16.6 of the Code by interfering in the Fire Chief’s lawful exercise of responsibilities, through the use of his mayoral office to interfere, intimidate, threaten, coerce, command, and influence the Fire Department.
In April 2015, the Respondent (and the entire 2014-2018 Council) received a presentation containing incorrect advice about the scope of a Mayor’s authority to act unilaterally. I recommend that Council take this into account when deciding about sanction.

Background

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
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.
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 a summary of Councillor Scott Anderson’s role in organizing it, appear in another prior report, Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4.
The Complainant in this case, Mr. David Anderson, is an officer of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, an organizer of the Lisle Santa Claus Parade, and the brother of Councillor Scott Anderson.
Using its letterhead, on October 25, 2019, the Lisle Hall Recreation Association wrote to the Fire Department and invited it to participate in the annual Lisle Santa Claus Parade. The letter was signed by Councillor Anderson in his capacity as chief organizer of the parade. The correspondence did not refer to his position as a Council Member.
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.
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!

At 10:20 a.m., November 25, approximately 70 minutes after receiving the employee’s email, the Mayor sent the following email directly to the CAO:

Good morning [name],

Can you please make sure that all staff are informed from Public Works and the Fire Department that no Township-owned vehicles are to be used for any functions that are privately organized by a Councillor. As this Lisle Santa Claus Parade is not a Township-organized event and the Township Council is not invited to the function nor is Township Council informed of the event by Councillor Anderson, Township vehicles should not be allowed to participate in this event.

Please let all staff know that if any Township vehicles are used for private functions contrary to the Township policy it may result in immediate termination of employment.

Please consider this as important and inform all staff immediately.

Thank you

Floyd Pinto

Two days later, the CAO forwarded the Mayor’s November 25 email to the Fire Chief, the Clerk, and three other department heads. The CAO did nor formulate his own instruction; he merely adopted the Mayor’s direction. Specifically, the CAO wrote: “FYI below – please let your respective staff know who needs to know.”
That evening (November 27), the Fire Chief composed the following communication and asked that it be distributed to the Fire Department (ATFD):

Please forward to all ATFD

We will not be taking any Fire Department vehicles to Breakfast with Santa at Tosorontio PS or the Lisle Santa Claus Parade.

All use of Fire Department vehicles for purposes other than response need prior approval from myself or the CAO, [name], until further notice.

Please refer to the email below for reasons. Any questions or concerns please contact your Station Chief.

Chief [name]

The mention of “email below” meant the CAO’s email forwarding the Mayor’s email.
The CAO forwarded the Fire Chief’s communication to the Mayor, and the Mayor emailed a response to the CAO, the Fire Chief, the Clerk, and two employees, on November 28, at 3:00 p.m.:

Good Afternoon staff,

I would like to clarify the email sent by Fire Chief [name] with regards to the Adjala-Tosorontio Fire Department not taking part at the Breakfast with Santa at the Tosorontio Public School.

At no time have I stated that the Fire Department cannot take part at the Breakfast with Santa. This function at the public school is not funded by donations from the Township nor is a Member of Council directly involved ln organizing this event, compared to the Lisle Santa Claus Parade which is publicly funded by donations from taxpayers of the entire municipality. Staff, council and half the municipality south of Highway 89 were not invited to this event. Further, neither the Mayor, Council nor the CAO were ever informed about this event taking place on December 1, 2019. As per direction given by Councillor Anderson to the Township staff, he did not feel it necessary to post any information about the Santa Claus Parade on the Township website as Councillor Anderson stated this is not a Township event. There is a vast difference between the Lisle Santa Claus Parade and the Breakfast with Santa at the Tosorontio Public School.

[Name of CAO], please inform all fire personnel at both stations that Council appreciates everything they do for our community. Please also inform them that they are free to attend all school events and take the necessary training fire apparatus.

Thank you,

Floyd Pinto

The Mayor’s November 28 email referred to an earlier communication from Councillor Anderson, which I reproduce below:

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.

The Mayor’s November 28 email and the Fire Chief’s November 27 communication both mentioned a Breakfast with Santa. This was an event organized by Tosorontio Public School parents.²
On November 28, the Fire Chief forwarded the Mayor’s email to Councillor Anderson as representative of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association. The Fire Chief wrote:

Just to inform [you] as my contact from the Lisle Community Association [sic]. Your Fire Department will be unable to use Fire Department vehicles to provide public education at the Lisle Santa Claus Parade due to the below communication from our Mayor.

The next day, 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!

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

The issue of Fire Department involvement in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade was the subject of much online commentary, only a portion of which is reproduced below.
The Complainant posted a response, November 29:

As the Chairman of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association we provide the following: The Lisle Santa Claus Parade has been a tradition in the community since the 1960s. The Fire Department has participated and supported the parade for many of those years. The parade has always been open to anyone wishing to participate in it, and the Township Mayor and/or Council has taken part in some form for at least 13 years. The Association sent a letter to the Fire Department in November, asking for their participation. We received a response from the Fire Chief saying that once again they would participate and help in any way they could. It was yesterday that the Fire Chief informed us he was directed not to provide fire trucks for the event. Contrary to your position approvals have never been submitted to Council but we have always had the full support of the Fire Department and the Township in providing this enjoyable Santa Claus Parade for our community. We have never been asked to provide anything for approval to Council or the CAO to host the parade and have been supported in the past by the OPP, Base Borden Military Police and the County of Simcoe. The Township does support our Association financially with part of the $750 grant going towards covering the property taxes for the community hail and the remainder going towards the parade. The grant to the parade has only been provided for the last three years. We do not have the means to advertise throughout the Township as the cost would be too great, but do advertise in the area that we serve as laid out in our mandate. This parade was advertised on five different Facebook pages, 1800 flyers distributed, and signs posted in Lisle, however everyone is welcome to attend. We do not wish for this event to be politicized. Our original intent of the post was so inform residents that there would be no fire trucks in the parade but that the department would still be collecting food for the food bank.

Mayor Pinto, Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows, Councillor Ronald O’Leary, and Councillor Anderson all took part in the social media exchanges.
The following is one of the Mayor’s responses to residents’ comments:

Good morning [name]. Thank you for your long post. This new Council was elected for change as in past policies and procedures were not followed. Councillor Anderson has stated that he prides himself in following policies and procedures, so why was it not followed this time. I have never stopped the Breakfast with Santa or the Remembrance Day celebration, I clearly told the CAO to inform the Fire Chief and Fire Dept that the Santa breakfast will go forward. [Name], before you point a finger at me or other members of Council you need to know the facts and what is happening, the CAO will be speaking with all the firemen shortly and then you will know why these steps needed to be taken to get the proper permissions and approvals. It is wrong to pass a judgement on someone without knowing what is happening. This has nothing to do with any political agenda. There is a lot more to it and the entire Fire Department will be having an update shortly. I am sorry you feel I have let you down. As elected representatives we have to protect the Township and had proper procedure been followed this would not have happened. Thanks. Floyd

Councillor Anderson disagreed with the Mayor’s assertions about Township policy and Council approval. The following are two posts from November 29:

For the last 15 years I have been the lead organiser of the Lisle Parade as a member of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association.

Each year the Association informs the Township through the Fire Department of the parade. The same process was followed this year and the Fire Department advised they would participate. On Thursday we were advised they couldn’t use the fire trucks. Had we needed the use of other Township trucks or personnel, a letter would have been sent to the CAO or Public Works; this was not the case.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Association distributed flyers and posted on social media satisfying our advertising needs. Members of Council have participated in the parade for a number of years without having to be invited every time. ln particular staff who are no longer with the Township arranged for Council to take part in the parade for the last few years. Personal invitations are not sent to everyone each year. Many of our participants contact the Association to be part of the parade.

Contrary to the opinion of the Deputy Mayor and Mayor, I am unfamiliar with a policy or procedure other than requesting from the Fire Chief directly the Fire Department involvement in the parade. There was no mix up in communication with the Association. Had there been a change in policy the Association was not informed by the Township.

Councillor O’Leary communicated his position that Council had not been involved in the decision to withdraw the fire trucks. He posted several times, including the following, on December 1:

COUNCIL has not asked [CAO] to convey the message [about using fire vehicles]. I want to know who did. I was and still am a Member of Council with six other Members to the best of my knowledge and was not consulted with regards to the parade. I tried to contact all the Members of Council. I only talked to two and they did not know anymore than I did. They had not been called. …

Process Followed

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 a summary of the process that I follow, and it is posted on the Township website.
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.³ 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.
The Complaint was dated December 3, 2019.
I issued a Notice of Inquiry on December 9 and sent it, along with the Complaint and Complaint materials, to the Respondent.
The Notice of Inquiry explained that I was exercising my discretion to conduct an inquiry into only the allegations that Mayor Pinto had contravened sections 6.9.1, 6.14.2, 6.15.4, 6.16.3, 6.16.5 and 6.16.6 of the Code.
I declined to inquire into the allegations under sections 6.2.1 d), 6.2.1 f), 6.4.1 b), and 6.14.3 of the Code.
I declined to inquire into the allegation under section 6.2.1 d) because the mentions of competent exercise and educating oneself are statements of principle. This section is not a provision that is capable of being breached or of giving rise to a complaint. My interpretation is that Council did not intend for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate allegations related to failure to exercise office competently or failure to educate oneself.
Similarly, I declined to consider the allegation under section 6.2.1 f), which is another statement of principle. It is not a provision that is capable of being breached or of giving rise to a complaint. My interpretation is that Council did not intend for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate allegations of failure to uphold the law or to conduct oneself in a positive, professional, honest, ethical, and fair manner.
Statements of principle are important aids to interpreting the other sections of the Code, but they cannot, on their own, give rise to allegations of breach (in any event, not give rise to allegations that would lead to an inquiry): Re Ford, 2013 ONMIC 12;⁴ Newman v. Brown, 2021 ONMIC 11, at paras. 55-59; Re Kett (No. 2), 2017 ONMIC 14, at paras. 150-157.
I declined to inquire into the allegation under section 6.4.1 b) (Confidential Information), because the Complaint does not indicate what confidential Township information was used or misused contrary to section 6.4.1 b).
In relation to section 6.14.3 (Public Respect for Township and its By-laws and Policies), I determined that, even if everything in the Complaint could be proved, the allegations did not involve discouraging public respect of the Township or of its by-laws and policies.
The Respondent responded to the Complaint on December 9 and provided additional information December 15. The Complainant replied December 23.
The Complainant’s reply included the Fire Chief’s November 28 email to Councillor Anderson, which included the Mayor’s November 25 email and the CAO’s November 27 email. It also included correspondence between Councillor Anderson and the OPP, related to OPP participation in the parade.
On January 6, 2020, the Respondent objected to the fact that the Complainant, “a member of the public,” had access to these emails.
The emails were received and sent by Councillor Anderson in his private capacity as an officer of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association and as chief organizer of the Santa Claus Parade. That he was acting in a private capacity was covered in a previous report, Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 57-58, 65. Anything received or sent by Councillor Anderson in his capacity as an officer and representative of the Association would of course be accessible to the Complainant, who is also an officer of the Association.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
Subsequently I turned to the other complaints arising from the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus parade.
On March 3, 2022, I issued a report in Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4.
On March 7, I sent the Mayor a draft of the findings in this report and invited him to comment.
I have reviewed all relevant materials, records related to the Adjala-Tosorontio 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.
This report is based on all the evidence and all the submissions of the parties. I have also considered the Mayor’s response to the March 7 draft of this report.
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

The Complainant states that at no time was the Lisle Hall Recreation Association informed by Council or Township staff of a change in policy related to Fire Department involvement in the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. The Fire Chief was always the contact who responded and said the Fire Department would attend the parade.
The Complainant alleges that Mayor Pinto made the decision (that the fire vehicles would not participate) by himself without consulting Council. The Mayor directed one staff member (the CAO) to renege on a commitment made by another staff member (the Fire Chief). The Complainant states that this showed a complete disregard for the procedures and processes of Council – exactly what the Mayor had claimed about the Association.
The Complainant also observes that, in addition to giving direction to the CAO, the Mayor threatened Fire Department members. According to the Complainant, these actions were an attack on the staff and contrary to the Code, including section 6.16.5 and section 6.16.6.
According to the Complainant, inaccurate and misleading statements made by the Mayor on social media include: stating that the Township funded the parade (the Complainant states that the Township’s grant only covers some of the advertising in the communities of Glencairn, Lisle and Everett, and that other donors support the actual event); stating that Council and the Township were unaware of the parade; claiming the parade was a Township event when it was not; also stating that the Township and Council had no role in the parade, when Council had approved grant funding that was used for advertising; and offering contradictory explanations why fire vehicles could not participate.
The Complainant also takes issue with the Mayor’s social media criticism of the Association, Councillor Anderson, Councillor O’Leary, and residents supporting the parade. The Complainant feels that the Mayor attacked the Association on social media.
The Complainant suggests that the Mayor’s real concern was not a breach of policy, but that the Mayor felt slighted by not being specifically invited to the event. The Complainant notes that the Mayor’s November 25 instruction to the CAO did not mention policy; it did mention that Council had not been invited and the parade was not organized by the Township.
In the Complainant’s words, “At no point in the Facebook posts were there discussions of road closures/permits, but yet that seems to be Mr. Pinto’s main issue in his response, other than the fact he did not get a personal invite to a parade.”
The Complainant clarifies that Council was never excluded from the event. Council Members had always been welcome to participate, and had participated, without formal invitations. The event had been held on the first Sunday in December for many years and that regular date was known to the Township. In 2019, the Township, through the Fire Department, was formally notified of that year’s parade.
The Complainant observes that nobody in the Township told the Association that it needed to seek approval from the CAO or Council, and the Association would have done this if so informed. The Complainant also states that the Mayor’s positions were inconsistent: sometimes saying the Association needed CAO approval and sometimes saying it needed Council approval.

Respondent’s Position

In sending the Response, Mayor included his November 25 email to the CAO (see paragraph 13 of this report). In an inquiry, an Integrity Commissioner already has a right of access to all relevant records and files (including electronic records) of the municipality,⁵ but I appreciated the Mayor’s candour in volunteering this important communication.
According to the Mayor, he did not improperly use the influence of his office. He did not contact Public Works and Fire Department employees directly but instead had the CAO ensure that they were all aware of the rules on use of Township vehicles under the Employee Code of Conduct Policy,⁶ which provides, in part, as follows:

10 USE OF TOWNSHIP PROPERTY AND ASSETS

Employees shall not make use of any property of the Township for their personal benefit, gain or enjoyment, other than property specifically provided by the Township for such use as a benefit of employment.

Employees shall only use the Township’s property, equipment, supplies, and services for activities associated with the discharge of their duties, unless proper authorization has been granted by the Chief Administrative Officer.

11 COMPLIANCE AND INTERPRETATION

As a condition of employment with the Township, employees shall comply with the Township’s Employee Code of Conduct and related Township policies and procedures. Employees have the responsibility to seek clarification from their supervisor or Human Resources.

Violations of the Township Employee Code of Conduct will be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including discharge and legal prosecution.

No staff shall engage in partisan political activities or be subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities. Any staff found to be engaging in such activities during office hours or while on duty will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge

The Mayor states that he followed the proper process by going to the CAO. Asking the CAO to remind the staff to follow policies, procedures and by-laws is not improper.
The Mayor takes the position that he did not make any decision on his own. The Employee Code of Conduct Policy was adopted by Council, and he asked the CAO to inform the staff.
The CAO informed the Fire Department personnel of the following, the Mayor said:

The CAO informed the firefighters that they are free to attend the Lisle Santa Claus Parade as residents but not in uniform or with our Township vehicles as if they directed traffic using Township uniforms and Township equipment without proper road occupancy permits and if there was an accident it would result in a huge liability to the Township and the firefighters involved in the road closure as they had no proper permits to close the road.

The Mayor denies having spoken ill of the Lisle Recreation Hall Association or Councillor Anderson. He says that on social media he was merely “clarifying” inaccurate information. He denies ever suggesting that the staff was incapable. “Asking staff to follow policies, procedures and bylaws is not questioning their capabilities.”
The Mayor states that if the former Fire Chief did not follow proper policies and procedure and gave the Association the wrong information, then the Association’s problem is with the former Fire Chief. If the Association had contacted the CAO, then it would have been given the correct information about policies and required permits.
In response to the fact that in prior years the Fire Chief was the one who authorized Fire Department involvement in the parade, the Mayor observes, “just because things were not done properly, and proper permits were not obtained in the past does not mean that we continue that way. Policies have to be and will be followed going forward.”
The Mayor adds that policies, procedures, and bylaws are put in place for a reason. They protect residents, the staff, firefighters, and fire equipment, and they protect the Township from liability.
The Mayor argues that just because the Township provided the Association with some grant funding, the Council was not necessarily aware of when the parade was taking place. He says that Councillor Anderson or the Complainant should have come to Council in November and told Council the date.
The Mayor also makes submissions about road closure. He states that the OPP confirmed to him, the Deputy Mayor, and the CAO, that the OPP does not have authority to close a road unless a proper permit is in place. According to the Mayor, the Roads By-law required a permit, failing which Council could have commenced legal action against the parade organizers. He adds that the OPP was “under the impression that the proper documentation was in place.” The Mayor cites a news story in which the Complainant acknowledges that permits were not obtained.⁷
The Mayor provided a copy of an email to him from Simcoe County’s General Manager, Engineering, Planning and Environment, that reads as follows

FW: [EXTERNAL] Closing of County Road 13, Lisle

Hello Floyd – [name] forwarded your email to me for response.

In this case, County staff were not informed or approached about this road closure.

Our normal process for a short duration closure such as this is to require a road occupancy permit.

There is a formal application and we ask for proof of insurance. We inform the applicant that they need to issue notice to the Town and emergency services and we provide the contact information.

Depending on the location and duration we may also require temporary traffic control through OPP.

I hope this helps . Please let me know if you would like us to contact the parade organizers (we would need the contact information). T hanks for contacting us about this.

The Mayor points out that the Fire Department has no authority to close a road, except in the case of an emergency or an accident, until the arrival of the police. “This parade was neither an accident nor an emergency,” he observes.
The Mayor takes the position that the above problems arose because the Complainant and Councillor Anderson decided not to contact Council or the CAO.

Findings of Fact

Findings of fact appear in the Background section of this report, and below. Findings are based on the standard of the balance of probabilities.
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.
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.”
The Mayor attended and chaired the April 11 meeting at which Council approved a $750 grant for the Lisle Community Recreation Association. The breakdown of the $750 grant was: $333.75 as reimbursement of property tax paid, and a $416.25 grant to support the parade.
The Mayor attended and chaired the May 6, 2019, meeting at which the Fire Chief delivered the presentation, “New Council Orientation: Fire & Emergency Services.” This presentation specifically mentioned public education and it mentioned the 2018 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.
The Mayor had participated in the 2018 Lisle Santa Claus Parade
The Lisle Santa Claus Parade had been in existence for approximately five decades, and Fire Department participation had been routine for approximately 15 years.
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. At the same time, I find that, prior to 2019, Council received annual reminders, usually provided at the November meetings, and that these reminders facilitated Council’s attendance. In each of 2015, 2016 and 2017, at its regular November meeting, Council was explicitly reminded of the date and time of the annual parade. In 2017, Councillors were additionally reminded to arrive 30 minutes before the official start time.
It is important to note that on these occasions in November 2015, November 2016, and November 2017, the three specific examples provided to me, Council did not approve, and Council was not asked to approve, the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. Councillors were reminded of the date (always the first Sunday of the month), told the time, and invited to participate. That is all.
I find that in 2019 the typical November reminder of the date and time was not provided to Council. I also find that the Lisle Hall Recreation Association did indeed invite Township participation in the 2019 Santa Claus Parade. Specifically, it invited the Fire Department, which is part of the Township.
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 made its way to the Fire Chief who was empowered by the Township by-law (see paragraph 105, below) to authorize the participation of fire apparatus in the parade, and who did so.
I find that, when the Mayor emailed the CAO on November 25, he did not mention any concern that the parade was unlawful. Instead, his rationale, as reflected by the words of his email, was that “this Lisle Santa Claus Parade is not a Township-organized event and the Township Council is not invited to the function nor is Township Council informed of the event by Councillor Anderson …” This, according to the November 25 email, was the Mayor’s reason for stating that, “Township vehicles should not be allowed to participate in this event.”
Notably, the Mayor’s November 25 email to the CAO did not say anything about the requirement of approval – approval by the Council, the CAO, or anyone. The email stated, “no Township-owned vehicles are to be used.” This email did not even suggest the option of seeking/granting approval.
I find that Council had not authorized the Mayor to send the November 25 email to the CAO.
In his explanation three days later, I find that the Mayor still was not expressing concern that the parade was unlawful or a liability risk. I find that his November 28 email makes clear what the Mayor saw as the issues:

I find as a fact that the Mayor’s November 25 and November 28 emails (see paragraphs 13, 17, and 94, above) accurately convey his reasons for wanting to block fire vehicle participation in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade.
At the relevant time, the Township had a Use of Corporate and-Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure, but the Policy and Procedure did not apply to the Fire Department.⁸ 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.⁹ They did not, however, identify any circumstances in which the use of fire vehicles was subject to Council approval or CAO approval.¹⁰
At the relevant time, the Township had an Employee Code of Conduct Policy.¹¹
The Employee Code of Conduct Policy expressly states that it does not apply to volunteer firefighters.¹²
Section 10 of the Employee Code of Conduct Policy states that, “Employees shall not make use of any property of the Township for their personal benefit, gain or enjoyment, other than property specifically provided by the Township for such use as a benefit of employment.” I find as a fact that the use of fire vehicles or personal protective gear in a community parade, in the circumstances of this case, did not and would not have constituted usage for personal benefit, gain or enjoyment.
Section 10 of the Employee Code of Conduct Policy further states that, “Employees shall only use the Township’s property, equipment, supplies, and services for activities associated with the discharge of their duties, unless proper authorization has been granted by the Chief Administrative Officer.”
This sentence was the result of Council’s clear intention and conscious decision-making. On April 8, 2019, before adopting the Employee Code of Conduct Policy, the Council adopted two amendments. One of them was:

That the Employee Code of Conduct Policy TRE 2019-05, Section 10 be amended to read “Employees shall only use the Township’s property, equipment, supplies, and services for activities associated with the discharge of their duties, unless proper authorization has been granted by the Chief Administrative Officer”¹³

It is obvious that Council wanted to curtail the non-official use of Township equipment, by prohibiting such use unless the CAO authorized it. As I discuss below, however, the restriction and requirement of CAO approval do not apply when the use is “for activities associated with the discharge of their duties.”
There is no reference in the Employee Code of Conduct Policy to the granting of authorization by the Council. I find that it was wrong to interpret this policy as requiring Council authorization of the use of fire vehicles. That is not what the policy provides.
I also note that section 10 of the Employee Code of Conduct Policy expressly contemplates the use of Township equipment for activities associated with the discharge of duties. I find that the Fire Chief, not the Mayor, CAO, or Council, possessed the lawful responsibility to determine which activities were associated with the discharge of Fire Department duties.
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.¹⁴ 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.¹⁵ I find that the Lisle Santa Claus Parade did not involve the public raising of funds under representation of the Fire Department.
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.¹⁶
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.”¹⁷
The Fire Department By-law also recognized that the Fire Chief exercised powers under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.¹⁸
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.”¹⁹ By-law 11-24 assigned that function to the Fire Department under the administrative and operational responsibility of the Fire Chief.²⁰
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.”²¹ Fire protection services are defined to include fire safety education.²²
The Fire Protection and Prevention Act further contemplates firefighters, including volunteer firefighters, being assigned to undertake fire protection services, which include fire safety education.²³
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 Mayor, CAO, or Council, and decisions about how to deliver public education belonged to Fire Chief, not to the Mayor, CAO, or Council.
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.²⁴
As I have previously reported, community engagement activity by uniformed firefighters is itself recognized as a component of public education.²⁵
When the Employee Code of Conduct Policy was adopted in 2019, Council did not repeal the Fire Department By-law. The Fire Department By-law remained, and still remains, in force. The Employee Code of Conduct Policy must be applied, and was intended to apply, in harmony with the Fire Department By-law and other by-laws. In particular, in the context of the Fire Department, the reference in section 10 of the Employee Code of Conduct Policy to “activities associated with the discharge of their duties” means activities and duties pursuant the Fire Department By-law.
Consequently, section 10 of the Employee Code of Conduct Policy had no effect on the use of fire apparatus and on the participation of uniformed firefighters in public education activities authorized by Fire Chief. Any suggestion to the contrary was wrong.
I find that, to the extent it applied to fire apparatus, the Mayor’s November 25 email to the CAO was wrong. The Fire Chief had already approved the participation of fire vehicles, in the 2019 parade, as public education. Consequently, the following statements, as they applied to the Fire Department, wrongly stated the applicable rules: “no Township-owned vehicles are to be used for any functions that are privately organized by a Councillor” and “Township vehicles should not be allowed to participate in this event.”
This report is not to be interpreted as drawing conclusions about what is and is not properly considered fire safety public education.²⁶ 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.

Issues and Analysis

In the analysis below, I address all six sections of the Code that were issues in the inquiry. Nonetheless, I consider it clearer and more understandable to divide the analysis into two parts, and to focus separately on the Mayor’s external communication and his internal conduct.
The breakdown of the analysis is as follows:

A. (External) Did the Mayor’s social media posts contravene the Code?

B. (Internal) Did the Mayor’s dealings with Township employees contravene the Code?

No. The Mayor’s exercise of the right of freedom of expression on social media did not breach the Code.
For the following reasons, the threshold for Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner interference in a Council Member’s political communications is high.
First, 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. (Buck v. Morris, 2015 ONSC 5632, which is occasionally cited on this point, is not a Charter of Rights case and contains no Charter analysis.²⁷)
Occasionally someone will point to the fact that Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits. This is an incomplete and inadequate observation. Charter rights are subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Once a prima facie breach of a Charter right is found, the onus shifts to the law maker to justify the limit according to criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The legislative purpose must be pressing and substantial. The limit on the right or freedom must be rationally connected to the law’s purpose, it must minimally impair the right or freedom, and there must be proportionality between the deleterious and salutary effects of the law.²⁸ A permissible restriction on Charter rights requires something more meaningful and substantial than the cursory claim that a limit is reasonable.
An Integrity Commissioner cannot strike down a Code of Conduct provision on Charter grounds, but an Integrity Commissioner can and should interpret the Code in a manner consistent with the Charter.
Second, 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.
Third, in this case, the Mayor’s comments about the Lisle Santa Claus Parade were subject to online debate and scrutiny. They were rebutted and criticized, applauded and defended. Notably, on behalf of the Lisle Hall Recreation Association, the Complainant and Councillor Anderson both used the same social media platform as the Mayor to respond to the Mayor’s comments, correct the record, and defend their position.
The online reaction illustrates the accountability inherent in the exchange of differing points of view during contentious political dialogue. “When an issue arises in the context of political debate, political debate offers its own remedies,” and using the tools of political debate to respond is preferable to having an Integrity Commissioner police the debate: Re Maika, 2018 ONMIC 11, at paras. 138-139.
As was noted in Linton v. Kitras, 2020 ONMIC 1, at para 86:

If an unfair or inaccurate criticism is made in the course of political debate, then political debate offers its own remedies to address those inaccurate or misleading comments. Specifically, the other side has the ability to correct the record, to provide context, to counterattack, and to defend the conduct.

Correcting the record, providing context, defending the conduct, and even counter attacking, were what occurred online in this case. This context is relevant to an assessment of how the Code of Conduct applies to the situation.
Of the Code of Conduct provisions considered in this inquiry, sections 6.14.2, 6.15.4, and 6.16.3 are relevant to the Mayor’s external (online) comments.
Section 6.14.2 requires that “communications shall be handled in a courteous and respectful manner.” This is an objective standard, and not based on whether someone took offence. It must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principles discussed above. Simply disagreeing with someone, or merely expressing a different opinion, is not a contravention.
I have carefully considered the Mayor’s online posts and find no contravention of section 6.14.2.
Section 6.15.4 purports to require accuracy in communication: “Council Members shall convey information concerning adopted policies, procedures, and decisions of Council openly and accurately …”
This provision cannot have been intended to prohibit, and does not prohibit, a Council Member from communicating an opinion on how a Council policy or decision is to be interpreted or applied – even if that opinion is wrong.
As I have explained, what the Mayor posted online about the need for Council approval of fire vehicle use 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. The Employee Code of Conduct Policy expressly contemplates use of Township equipment in activities associated with the discharge of duties. In any event, the policy he cited did not mention Council approval of equipment use.
Nonetheless, in these posts, the Mayor was communicating his interpretation of what the Township’s rules and policies required. While an interpretation may be wrong –and, in this case, the interpretation was wrong – it is not possible to categorize an interpretation as accurate or inaccurate. 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”,²⁹ “a statement that is true on one level for one person may be false on another level for a different person,”³⁰ the distinction between fact and opinion is “slippery,”³¹ the prohibition of false speech may be used to punish deviation from “currently accepted ‘truths’” that later turn out of be wrong,³² historically, restrictions on so-called false speech have been used to suppress the speech of minority and disadvantaged groups,³³ and false statements may sometimes have value.³⁴
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.”³⁵ [emphasis added]
An Integrity Commissioner is unable to police the truth or falsity of political speech: City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-030-192; at p. 3;³⁶ City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-32-1112, at pp. 2-3;³⁷ 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.
For these reasons, I interpret section 6.15.4 to be inapplicable to statements of opinion, statements of interpretation, and statements of legal position on the meaning and application of by-laws of the municipality and decisions and policies of Council.
Section 6.16.3 states, in part:

Accordingly, no Member shall maliciously or falsely injure the professional or ethical reputation, or the prospects or practice of Staff, and shall show respect for the professional capacities of the Staff of the Township

In my view, the Mayor’s online comments did not contravene this provision.

B. (Internal) Did the Mayor’s dealings with Township employees contravene the Code?

Yes.
I find that the Mayor gave unilateral direction to the CAO, contrary to section 6.16.5 of the Code, and interfered in the lawful exercise of responsibilities of the Fire Chief, contrary to section 6.16.6.
The relevant passages of these sections are the first sentence of section 6.16.5 and the second sentence of section 6.16.6:

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.

When the Mayor emailed the CAO on November 25, 2019, he did not make any reference to Council approval or CAO approval, and he did not mention the option of granting/seeking approval. He also did not invite or encourage the CAO to make an independent assessment of the situation. Instead, the Mayor directed the CAO to block the use of Township vehicles in the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade. The words by which he directed the CAO included the following:

Please let all staff know that if any Township vehicles are used for private functions contrary to the Township policy it may result in immediate termination of employment.

There is no way to interpret these words as anything other than direction to the CAO, direction that was not authorized by Council, to carry out a particular function. This is precisely the conduct that section 6.16.5, first sentence, prohibits.
The Mayor subsequently cites the Employee Code of Conduct Policy as the rationale for the November 25 email to the CAO. Even if the Mayor had the Employee Code of Conduct Policy in mind when he composed the November 25 email, that does not justify what occurred. I have already explained that the Employee Code of Conduct Policy did not and does not restrict the use of fire apparatus in public education activities authorized by the Fire Chief.
Even if the Employee Code of Conduct Policy had applied in this circumstance, the words “unless authorization has been granted by the Chief Administrative Officer” would have been applicable. The Mayor’s November 25 email did not acknowledge, recognize, or respect such right of the CAO to grant authorization; instead, it told the CAO what should occur: “Township vehicles should not be allowed to participate in this event.” In other words, even if the Employee Code of Conduct Policy did apply to the situation, the Mayor was directing how the CAO should exercise the CAO’s discretion under the policy, direction which would have been contrary to section 6.16.5 of the Code.
I also find that the 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 Mayor to block and overturn 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 112, above.
I should add that the manner in which the Mayor blocked implementation of the Fire Chief’s lawful decision involved the use of mayoral office for all five of the purposes proscribed by section 6.16.6 of the Code: intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, and influencing. This is evident from the following words of his November 25 email: “Please let all staff know that if any Township vehicles are used for private functions contrary to the Township policy it may result in immediate termination of employment.” [emphasis added]
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 have already noted that the November 25 email to the CAO, and the November 28 further explanation, did not mention traffic safety and liability concerns.
Given the finding of contraventions of sections 6.16.5 and 6.16.6, it is not necessary for me to consider section 6.9.1 (use of influence for any purpose other than official duties).
I find that the Mayor’s internal communications did not contravene section 6.16.3 (respect for the staff’s political neutrality and objectivity).
Sections 6.14.2 and 6.15.4 were considered in the context of the Mayor’s social media postings, not his internal emails.

Response to Draft Report

I shared with the Mayor a draft of this report, including the findings of fact, the analysis of issues, and the findings of contraventions.
The Mayor provided comments, orally and writing. His oral comments did not include anything not also contained in writing.
Some of the Mayor’s responsive comments relate to Councillor Anderson and the other parade organizers. Out of fairness, I am reproducing the Mayor’s entire response, but this does not mean I adopt or accept his comments about other people. The only issue in this inquiry is the Mayor’s compliance with the Code. This report should be interpreted as addressing solely that topic.
At Appendix 1, I reproduce the Mayor’s entire written response to the draft report, with the exception of the first 15 lines. I have omitted the first 15 lines for the following reasons: This portion of the response summarizes legal advice received from the Township’s solicitors at a closed meeting of Council held March 7, 2022. It is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The legal advice dealt with two topics: one topic was unrelated to this inquiry; the other topic was the “indoor management rule.” I have considered the summary of the advice concerning the indoor management role and find it to be consistent with my observations below.
From the Mayor’s written response, I have redacted names, except the names of current and former Council Members. I have also redacted a former CAO’s personal information that is not relevant to this inquiry.
The Mayor’s written response to the draft report included the following additional items:

Agenda of April 27, 2015, Special Council Meeting, and 15-page presentation titled, “Post Retirement Benefits Update”
Excerpt from November 9, 2015, Regular Council minutes that lists Lisle Santa Claus Parade under heading “Upcoming Events”
Excerpt from November 14, 2016, Regular Council minutes that lists Lisle Santa Claus Parade under heading “Upcoming Events and Announcements”
Excerpt from November 13, 2017, minutes that lists Lisle Santa Claus Parade under heading “Upcoming Events and Announcements”
List of Council minutes from 2018 showing that the inaugural Council Meeting took place December 4 (after the Lisle Santa Claus Parade)
Excerpt from November 13, 2019, minutes containing an “Upcoming Events and Announcements” list that does not include Lisle Santa Claus Parade
Screen capture of online news headline related to a matter unconnected to this inquiry
Screen capture from Lisle Community Hall, the Facebook page of the Lisle Recreation Hall Association, showing photos from 2018 Lisle Santa Claus Parade
Photograph of six Council Members at 2018 Lisle Santa Claus Parade
Excerpt from November 8, 2021, Regular Council minutes that shows resolution RES-388-2021

The last three items on the list I had previously seen and considered.
The Mayor also emailed me comments that read as follows:

Hello Mr. Giorno,

As discussed, I have included my reply to your findings and the indoor management rule that was presented to Council in 2015; sorry it was not 2017 as I informed you. Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows and I were going by this rule as it gave us broad powers to give direction to staff, CAO, give wage benefit changes, etc. Under this rule we could basically approve and question anything to ensure the smooth operation of the Township. Ensuring that proper process was followed and permits obtained to protect residents and Township vehicles was considered by me to be within the scope of the indoor management rule. This indoor management rule was legal advice we got from the Township lawyer [name]. I am surprised now that I am being told that I do not have these powers under the indoor management rule, so neither will Bob Meadows (Deputy Mayor).

We listened to legal advice and took it to be accurate information. I do not see how I can be held responsible and penalized for following legal advice we got from the Township lawyers. As per page 10 of the presentation that deals with the indoor management rule, the Township does not have any bylaws passed specifically to restrict these powers.

I have also included below minutes of November 2017, 2016, and 2015 showing Council was always informed by Councillor Scott Anderson or the organizers about the Santa Claus parade.

Minutes for 2019 show no mention of the parade and that is what upset Councillor Bays, Councillor Hall-Chancey, Deputy Mayor Meadows and they called me.

The 2018 parade was held on December 2, 2018, as indicated on the right side of the pictures. The picture after that shows us all attending the 2018 parade. However, this was before the new Council inauguration and Councillor Scott Anderson advised us by email or a call; I do not recollect. So Council was always informed.

The 2021 [minutes] show it coming back to Council on the agenda for approvals.

The last image last line shows the inauguration on December 4, 2018.

[last paragraph redacted – deals with a matter unconnected to this inquiry]

I accept that for several years prior to 2019 (with the exception of election year 2018), typically at its Regular meeting in November, Council was specifically informed of the date of the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. I note that the November 13, 2017, minutes included the following specific detail of timing: “Council requested to arrive at 1:00 p.m.” I have included in paragraphs 87 to 89 of the final report specific findings to this effect.
I accept the fact that, upon being reminded by email of the date of the 2019 Lisle Santa Claus Parade, three Council Members contacted the Mayor to express their concern that the parade had not been mentioned at the November Regular Council meeting. I note, however, that the concerns (counting the Mayor) of four Members, constituting a majority of the seven Council Members, have no legal significance unless they take the form of a resolution adopted at a Council meeting.
I accept that Council may have had very good reasons to limit the use of Township vehicles for non-official purposes. Based on the evidence I obtained during the course of the inquiry, I believe that the Mayor is referring in particular to the Employee Code of Conduct Policy. On April 8, 2019, before adopting the Employee Code of Conduct Policy, Council made two amendments to it. One amendment explicitly provided for CAO approval of the use of Township equipment other than use in activities associated with the discharge of duties. I have now inserted, in paragraphs 101 to 102, details of Council’s very clear decision and intention.
Under the Employee Code of Conduct Policy, the requirement of CAO approval only applies to non-official use of Township equipment. CAO approval is not required to use equipment (including vehicles) for activities associated with the discharge of duties. I have found that the Fire Chief, not the Mayor, CAO, or Council, possessed the lawful responsibility to determine which activities, including public education, were associated with the discharge of Fire Department duties: see paragraphs 104 to 112.
To the extent that the Mayor is referring to the Use of Corporate and Personal Vehicle Policy and Procedure, I observe that this document does not apply to the Fire Department. It expressly states that it does not apply to “Fire Department personnel who fall under the jurisdiction of the Fire Services Operational Guideline covering the operation/use of Fire Department vehicles”: see paragraph 96, and footnote 8.
I have nonetheless considered the Mayor’s submission that the exemption of the Fire Department from the vehicle policy was intended only “for fire or emergency purposes, [and] any non-emergency had to come to the CAO and Council for approval.”
The actual text of the exemption (see paragraph 168) is not so narrow. The Fire Department exemption is not limited to emergencies. Even if the exemption were limited to emergencies, meaning that the Use of Corporate and Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure otherwise applied, vehicle use for official purposes would nonetheless have been permitted.
Section 4 C) of the Use of Corporate and Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure stated: “The use of a Township Vehicle shall be strictly limited to official Township business and shall not be used for personal use without the express prior consent of the Township.” The Use of Corporate and Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure did not define official Township business, but did define approved duties as: “duties which a Driver has been requested to conduct on behalf of or to the benefit of the Township.” Further, it stated that any driving as part of authorized duties is not personal use.
If, as the Mayor submits, the Use of Corporate and Personal Vehicles Policy and Procedure were supposed to apply to fire vehicles, then it would have been the Fire Chief, and not the Mayor, CAO, or Council, who determined authorized duties and official use. The Fire Chief, not the Mayor, CAO, or Council, would have been the one who determined the responsibilities of firefighters and the Fire Department under the Fire Department By-law and the Fire Protection and Prevention Act – including responsibilities of public education. Effectively, it would have been the Fire Chief who determined whether the use of a fire vehicle was for “official Township business.”
I do not believe that the Mayor’s distinction between “fire or emergency purposes” and “any non-emergency” reflects an accidental choice of words. This inquiry and the related ones³⁸ have revealed that some Council Members view non-emergency activities, such as parade participation, as outside the scope of the Fire Department’s ordinary responsibilities. All Council Members must recognize: first, that responsibilities under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act and the Fire Department By-law are broader than just fires and emergencies; and second, that a Council Member cannot interfere in the Fire Chief’s decisions about how to discharge those responsibilities.

Indoor Management Rule / Mayor as CEO

The final, and most extensive, portion of the Mayor’s response to the draft of this report relates to the “indoor management rule” and the role of the Mayor as Chief Executive Officer.
When the Mayor mentioned the indoor management rule in his oral response to the draft report, I was surprised. The indoor management rule is not a source of authority. It is a legal concept that protects persons outside an organization who contract with the organization in good faith.
The Mayor stated that the indoor management rule had actually been included in a presentation to Council. He said that he was acting on the basis of what he had been told. In his subsequent written response, he included a copy of a 2015 report to Council that does indeed describe the indoor management rule.
In the following paragraphs, I summarize the indoor management rule, explain why it does not apply to municipalities, review the 2015 presentation to Council (including its mentions of the indoor management rule and of the role of the Mayor as CEO), and make findings about the implications for this inquiry.
The indoor management rule, first articulated in 1856, simply means that someone who deals in good faith with a company does not need to inquire whether the company has complied with its internal rules and procedures but can assume that these have been followed.³⁹
An Ontario judge has explained the principle this way:

The principle is that if a corporation holds someone out as a director, officer or agent to third parties, the corporation cannot deny that the person is duly appointed or that he or she has the authority customary or usual for such a director, officer or agent. A person dealing in good faith with a corporation is entitled to assume that the corporation’s internal procedures have been followed. The outsider is not required to conduct an inquiry into compliance with those procedures unless that person has actual knowledge to the contrary or where the person ought to have had knowledge to that effect. The rule is based on the assumption that the company, which has hired and supervises its officers and holds them out as its agents, should bear the burden of their unauthorized activity, as opposed to the outsider dealing with the company in good faith who has no opportunity to investigate compliance with the company’s internal procedures.⁴⁰

For example, if an officer with apparent authority signs a document or enters into a contract on behalf of company, then a person dealing with the company is entitled to assume that the officer had such authority, and the company will not be able to avoid responsibility by arguing otherwise.⁴¹
The words indoor management refer to the fact that someone external to a company will not necessarily know what goes on inside the company (indoors), and therefore cannot be presumed to have knowledge of an internal irregularity:

… the mere failure to comply with a formality such as a proper appointment or the presence of a quorum of directors, will not affect a person dealing with the company from outside and without knowledge of the irregularity. He is presumed to know the constitution of the company, but not what may or may not have taken place within doors that are closed to him.⁴²

Originally a common law (judge-made) rule, the concept has now been incorporated into legislation. For example, section 19 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) provides, in part, as follows:

Indoor management rule

A corporation or a guarantor of an obligation of a corporation may not assert against a person dealing with the corporation or with any person who has acquired rights from the corporation that,

(d) a person held out by a corporation as a director, an officer or an agent of the corporation has not been duly appointed or does not have authority to exercise the powers and perform the duties that are customary in the business of the corporation or usual for such director, officer or agent;

(e) a document issued by any director, officer or agent of a corporation with actual or usual authority to issue the document is not valid or not genuine; or

(f) a sale, lease or exchange of property referred to in subsection 184(3) was not authorized,

except where the person has or ought to have, by virtue of the person’s position with or relationship to the corporation, knowledge to that effect.

Significantly, the indoor management rule is not a source of authority.⁴³ It does not empower an officer or a director to act or make decisions. Quite the contrary. The rule applies when authority or adherence to internal rules is lacking. In such an event, the indoor management rule protects an external person who is unaware of the irregularity or lack of authority. Applied to people inside the company, the indoor management rule does not give them additional authority or to legitimize their irregular acts.
In short, the indoor management rule does not mean what the Respondent suggests. It does not create authority.
The second problem with the Respondent’s submission is that the indoor management rule does not apply to municipalities. Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have confirmed numerous times that municipal corporations are not subject to it.⁴⁴
Consequently, a Mayor cannot act, outside of the Mayor’s existing authority, and justify it on the basis of the indoor management rule.
In this context, I consider the April 27, 2015, presentation to Council, and its comments about the indoor management rule. Entitled “Post Retirement Benefits Update,” the presentation was made by the staff. The current Mayor and Deputy Mayor were Council Members in 2015 and received the presentation.
One of the slides was headed, “The Legal Opinion: Authority.” My understanding is that this slide was not prepared by legal counsel but was prepared by the Township staff in an attempt to summarize the advice of legal counsel. (The Township’s current law firm, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, was not the firm that provided the advice summarized on the slide.)
The slide contained a heading and four bullets. The version provided to me includes handwritten notes, written by the Respondent, during the meeting at which the CAO delivered the presentation. (The Respondent explains that he was not able to attend the April 27, 2015, Special Council meeting, so the CAO presented to him separately.) There is more handwriting on the page than there is printed text.
The printed text reads as follows:

The Legal Opinion: Authority

Mayor acted as agent for the Township and had the capacity to bind the Township (Indoor Management Rule)
Reasonable to assume that the Mayor as CEO has the authority to offer wage and benefit enhancements unless specifically excluded through further municipal laws
Benefits have been instituted as part of an employment contract
Possible to reduce benefits, but … [ellipses in original document]

The Respondent’s handwritten notes consist of a short (one-line) passage and a long passage. They read as follows:

Mayor can bind without Council approval

Mayor/Deputy Mayor have unlimited (broad) powers to hire/fire, give direction to staff to perform tasks & duties without approval of Council as they are the heads of Council.

Going forward Mayor/Deputy Mayor can change benefits & salaries as they feel is necessary. Require specific by-law to state Mayor/Deputy Mayor cannot change salaries/benefits or give direction to staff & to hire or fire employees. Without such by-law unrestricted powers as Head of Council to manage Township directly with CAO.

If Deputy Mayor in charge in Mayor[’s] absence Deputy Mayor will have to keep Mayor updated

Authority to consult with Township lawyers/consultants to get procedural/other clarification on matters pertaining to the Township

Unfortunately, the first two bullets on the slide, and the entirety of the handwritten notes, do not correctly state the law in Ontario.
The first bullet incorrectly states that the indoor management rule applies to municipalities, and incorrectly states the meaning of the rule.
The second bullet refers to the Mayor’s status as chief executive officer but misapplies it.
It is true that sections 225 and 226.1 of the Municipal Act identify the Mayor as chief executive officer of the municipality:

225 It is the role of the head of council,

(a) to act as chief executive officer of the municipality;

(b) to preside over council meetings so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively;

(c.1) without limiting clause (c), to provide information and recommendations to the council with respect to the role of council described in clauses 224 (d) and (d.1);

(d) to represent the municipality at official functions; and

(e) to carry out the duties of the head of council under this or any other Act.

226.1 As chief executive officer of a municipality, the head of council shall,

(a) uphold and promote the purposes of the municipality;

(b) promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities;

(c) act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promote the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and

(d) participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.

There are, however, no inherent, automatic, or additional powers that come with the designation as chief executive officer. The Mayor’s responsibilities as CEO are set out in section 226.1 of the Municipal Act, and they are: upholding and promoting the purposes of the municipality; promoting public involvement in the municipality’s activities; acting as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality, and promoting the municipality locally, nationally and internationally; and participating in and fostering activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality and its residents.
It is well established that a Mayor has no powers beyond those conferred by legislation and by-law and delegated by Council. As long ago as 1911, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that a mayor cannot transact business for a municipality unless authorized by by-law.⁴⁵ Much more recently, according to the Ontario Superior Court in Vaughan (City) v. Ruffolo,⁴⁶ a mayor’s

duties appear to not include an ability to personally bind the municipality. If the municipal council sees fit to delegate the right to bind the municipality to the mayor (assuming even that were possible) we would have a different situation

In various Ontario cases, the courts have held that a mayor lacks authority to approve payment of a retiring allowance to a senior municipal employee,⁴⁷ lacks authority to tell someone that a particular use is permitted under a zoning by-law,⁴⁸ lacks authority to waive solicitor-client privilege on behalf a municipality,⁴⁹ and in a legal proceeding may not give answers that bind the municipality.⁵⁰ Courts in other provinces have held that a mayor does not possess the authority to fire an employee,⁵¹ to hire an employee,⁵² to agree to the sale of municipal property,⁵³ and to make a commitment concerning a road extension.⁵⁴
Consequently, the second bullet of the slide and most of the content of the Respondent’s handwritten notes were fundamentally wrong in law.
I am mindful of the context in which the April 27, 2015, presentation was made. At the time, benefits for retired Township employees were a contentious local political issue. Without Council approval, post-retirement benefits had been extended to age 75, and then to age 80. Councillors Pinto and Meadows argued that the Mayor lacked authority to negotiate or approve such benefits. Council then received a presentation informing it that the Mayor had authority to bind the Township and that the Mayor’s role as CEO, unless expressly limited by by-law, conferred the authority to offer benefit enhancements. Now Mr. Pinto and Mr. Meadows are, respectively, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Mayor Pinto relies on the fact that Council received this advice in April 2015.
As I have explained, the April 2015 advice about the Mayor’s unilateral authority was wrong. Nonetheless, it is a fact that Mr. Pinto received the advice and remembered it once he became Mayor. The receipt of bad advice does not affect the meaning and application of the Code of Conduct, but it may be relevant to Council’s determination of an appropriate sanction.
In my view, the fact that the Respondent (and the rest of the 2014-2018 Council) received bad advice about mayoral authority is a mitigating factor.
On the other hand, several factors suggest it was not entirely reasonable for the Respondent to rely on that bad advice.
First, as early as 2015, the Respondent appeared to have doubts about the correctness of the advice. For example, on December 19, 2015, the Respondent posted online: “Why does she [the Mayor] not provide a copy of the by-law showing that authority was given to the past Mayor in a by-law to negotiate salaries and benefits?” In a May 3, 2016, online post, the Respondent questioned the authority of a working group consisting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Treasurer and CAO. These posts, and others challenging a Mayor’s authority absent direction from Council, imply disagreement with the April 2015 advice.
Second, the report of the subsequent OPP investigation⁵⁵ and the May 2018 integrity commissioner report⁵⁶ both alluded to gaps in the municipality’s decision-making and approval process. Neither report directly addressed the April 2015 advice, but each implicitly challenged the assertion of unilateral mayoral authority. According to the OPP, “none of the 13 remuneration enhancements were executed in accordance with the standard set out in By-law 94-44.”⁵⁷ ⁵⁸ According to the company that conducted the integrity commissioner inquiry, “It appears to us that it is largely the shortcomings of the administrative policies and procedures at the Township that are at fault.”⁵⁹
Third, even if the April 2015 advice were correct, the advice stated that mayoral authority was subject to being expressly limited by Council. Subsequent adoption of the Council Code of Conduct, including sections 6.16.4, 6.16.5, and 6.16.6, on June 23, 2016, placed limits on any right of unilateral mayoral action that might previously have existed.
Fourth, on June 21, 2019, I delivered a Council education session in which I specifically addressed the issue of giving direction to the staff. (The relevant slide is reproduced below.) I explained that “Only Council as a whole may direct the staff,” and “Council’s direction is contained in minutes, resolutions and by-laws.”

Conclusions

The Mayor’s social media posts, an exercise of his freedom of expression, did not contravene the Code.
The Mayor contravened section 6.16.5 by directing the CAO to perform a function without Council’s specific authority to give direction. The Mayor contravened section 6.16.6 of the Code by interfering in the Fire Chief’s lawful exercise of responsibilities through the use of his position as Mayor to interfere, intimidate, threaten, coerce, command, and influence the Fire Department.
This report contains no conclusions about other persons and should not be interpreted as commenting on the conduct of other persons.

Recommendations

I recommend that Council accept this report.
Because I am reporting to Council my opinion that Mayor Pinto 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.
I recommend that Council consider the fact that, in April 2015, the Respondent (and the entire 2014-2018 Council) received a presentation containing incorrect advice about the scope of a Mayor’s authority to act unilaterally. I recommend that Council also consider my comments about whether it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on the bad advice.

Content

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 10, 2022

Appendix 1: Respondent’s Comments on Draft of this Report

Hello Mr. Giorno,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer to your findings. [remainder of first 15 lines redacted: see paragraph 159, above]

Coming to my reply to your findings, when [employee name] sent the email to all on Council, I got a call from Councillor Annette Bays, Councillor Deborah Hall-Chancey and Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows as to how is this proceeding with no permission from the CAO nor Council as a whole as required. Councillor Hall-Chancey told me Councillor Scott Anderson had enough time to come to Council to get permission for permits, etc., and did he get permission from the CAO? As I was not at home and did not know what was happening, I called Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows and asked him to attend to it as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have wide powers under the Indoor Management Rule. I do not recall when the Deputy Mayor sent out any emails but I do know some correspondence occurred. However, all that the Deputy Mayor and I did was based on what we were told we could do under the Indoor Management Rule and Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows was part of that meeting on April 27, 2015.

When I reviewed the article on Facebook, I called the CAO [name] so I could get back to the Members of Council who contacted me. [CAO name] informed me no permission was given and asked me what to do as the Fire Chief stated the vehicle policy does not apply to the Fire Department. I informed [CAO name] to review the policy and ask staff to help find the policy (I think it was [employee name]). [CAO name] asked me if I could send him an email which he could forward to staff which I did Point 12 as it was a request from [CAO name] and it was within my and the Deputy Mayor’s authority under the indoor management rule.

Just to clarify, the vehicle policy was created as there were many complaints from residents about Township vehicles being seen at shopping malls on Saturday, Sundays and evenings, Township vehicles taken on vacation, fire trucks taken to fill swimming pools and for birthday parties, Public Works equipment seen working on private property on weekends. During discussion of the vehicle policy, Council exempted the Fire Department vehicles only if it was for fire or emergency purposes, any non-emergency had to come to the CAO and Council for approval and that was supposed to [be] reflect[ed] in the operational guidelines.

Past Santa Claus Parades

The Lisle Santa Claus Parade always came to Council as information from Councillor Scott Anderson or the organizers under “Upcoming events.” I have attached as evidence the minutes of the Council meetings for November 2015, November 2016, November 2017.

2018 was election year. The Lisle Santa Claus Parade took place on December 2, 2018 and our Inauguration was on December 4, 2018, so it was not on the November Agenda. However, we all attended as Councillor Anderson sent us an email informing us about the event (attached picture).

November 2019 minutes for “Upcoming events” shows no mention of the Lisle Santa Claus Parade. This is what upset Councillor Bays, Councillor Hall-Chancey, and Deputy Mayor Meadows, and they called me to find out why did Councillor Scott Anderson or the organizers not mention anything at the November 2019 Council meeting; we as Council have to find it out from a Facebook post when every previous year Councillor Scott Anderson or the organizers mentioned it at the Council meetings. The 2019 parade Councillor Bays, Councillor Hall-Chancey, Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows and I did not attend as it was not announced at the Council meeting, Councillor O’Leary attended and I do not know if Councillor Pita attended. There was never any intent to stop a parade or override any staff member and this whole issue could have been avoided had Councillor Scott Anderson or the organizers informed Council as they always did as per the minutes of the past years’ Council meetings. I was following up on complaints from Councillors and I asked Bob Meadows to look into it as it was under the Indoor Management Rule.

November 2020 there was no parade due to pandemic restrictions and the emergency declaration.

November 2021 minutes show it comes back to Council and Council pays for permits, gifts for kids. etc., and Council [Members] all take part in the parade.

When it was brought to Council’s attention that no permits were issued for the road closures, Council asked that all parades or road closures for events come to Council for approval, to ensure all permits are in place.

As the parades benefit the Township residents, the Township will bear the cost of all permits.

Indoor Management Rule

The Indoor Management Rule document was done in consultation with the Township lawyer [name] and presented to council by the then CAO [name] on April 27, 2015. That presentation was done as Bob Meadows, Sam Keenan and myself, then councillors, had raised concerns with the Post Retirement Benefits and how they were approved without coming to Council.

I could not attend the Council meeting on April 27, 2015, so the Mayor asked me to sit with the CAO and get answers [to] all my questions which I did. Bob Meadows (now Deputy Mayor) informed me that the CAO informed Council at the meeting that under the Indoor Management Rule the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had broad powers, to hire/terminate staff consulting with the CAO, give wage and benefit increases, provide direction to staff and the CAO to perform tasks and duties as we have Council meetings only once a month. This Indoor Management Rule gave the Mayor and Deputy Mayor the ability to keep the Township running smoothly. The reason the Deputy Mayor was also included in the Indoor Management Rule was because if the Mayor is at a meeting, conference, and something needed to be done, the Deputy Mayor could give direction to staff and the CAO and approve the work.

At my meeting with the CAO, I clarified what the Mayor and Deputy Mayor can do in their roles besides the wage and benefit enhancements. During the meeting I took notes and the CAO clarified that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor can change wages [and] benefits, as one example in the presentation, in addition hire or terminate employees consulting with the CAO, give direction to staff and the CAO to perform tasks and duties; they can contact the Township lawyers and consultants for advice on any matters coming to Council. I asked if councillors can consult lawyers and consultants and was told “No,” only the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, as they are heads of Council. Based on this advice that was provided by the CAO in consultation with the Township lawyer [name], Council never questioned the Mayor or Deputy Mayor when direction was given to staff or the CAO on numerous minor projects done around the Township.

Under this Indoor Management Rule, the past Mayor and Deputy Mayor gave salary raises and changed benefits for individual employees without consulting Council. Under this Rule, they directed minor public work projects to commence without coming to Council and gave direction to the CAO or staff directly. No one on Council objected as they were allowed to do it under the Indoor Management Rule. We were told when the OPP did their investigation and found 25 other forms of wage increases they could do nothing as the Township said the Mayor and Deputy Mayor had the power to take these steps without Council approval as they are heads of Council and had the power under this rule.

As the past Mayors and Deputy Mayors had these powers under the Indoor Management rule to give direction, Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows and myself also continued with the advice we got at the April 27, 2015, meeting that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor continue to have these powers to give directions to staff and the CAO, raise wages, change benefits, etc., as there is no bylaw passed to specifically exclude this authority.

Appointment of Interim CAO

When the new council was elected in 2018, the old CAO [name] retired before the inauguration, [redacted: personal information about a former CAO unrelated to this inquiry]

As the Township did not have a CAO or and Acting CAO and Bob Meadows was elected as Deputy Mayor and I was elected as Mayor, I explained to some on Council that given the powers we have under the Indoor Management Rule, I could be appointed as Interim CAO/Mayor till we find a full time CAO, as the Indoor Management Rule gave me the authority to give direction to staff, approve wage and benefit changes, approve minor works, approve use of vehicles etc. as per my meeting with the past CAO.

However, it was unanimously defeated as Council felt that it would be a conflict of interest on how I could be an employee and Mayor the same time. This was at the January 2019 meeting.

The CAO informed me that Council was told at the April 27, 2015, meeting that the Mayor as CEO and the Deputy Mayor also has the authority when the Mayor is busy unless specifically excluded through further municipal bylaws, the CAO gave the wage enhancements as one example of authority under the Indoor Management rule. As no by-laws were passed to specifically exclude any of the authority given to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the CAO informed us about we carried out our duties as Mayor and Deputy Mayor as per the Indoor Management Rule as we were protected under this rule. I am surprised to hear now that the advice given to Council in 2015 by the Township lawyer [name] is not accurate as Deputy Mayor Bob Meadows and I were going by his legal advice.

Appendix 2: 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.

6.9 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.

6.14 Representing the Township

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

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

6.15 Communication with the Media and Public

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

6.16 Council and Staff Roles and Responsibilities

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

6.16.4 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

County 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.
See 2022 ONMIC 4, at para. 41.
I typically redact personal information such as residential addresses and phone numbers.
Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper observed that: “The statements of principle are not the foundation for a finding of a breach: this is reserved for the specific numbered provisions found in the body of the Code of Conduct.”
Municipal Act, subs. 223.4(4).
Policy TRE 2019-05, adopted April 8, 2019, RES-164-2019.
The Complainant is quoted as saying, “had staff informed us that we required the permits, we would have acquired them.”
Section 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.”
Unlike the Township’s Policy and Procedure, they expressly required compliance with the Highway Traffic Act.
Standard Operational Guidelines 0-03C (Equipment Operations) and 5-08A (Apparatus Operation).
See note 6.
Employee Code of Conduct Policy, section 4, “Employee” definition.
RES-164-2019 (April 8, 2019).
By-law 11-24, s. 10.
Ibid.
By-law 11-24, ss. 6 c), 6 d), 8 1).
By-law 11-24, s. 6.
By-law 11-24, ss. 6 c), 9.
S.O. 1997, c. 4, subs. 2(1).
By-law 11-24, ss. 6, 8 1).
S.O. 1997, c. 4, subs. 6(3).
Ibid., subs. 1(1).
Ibid.
2022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 40, 42.
2022 ONMIC 4, at paras. 44-45.
2022 ONMIC 4, at para. 71.
According to the Court, at para. 28: “It is worth pausing at this point to note that this is a defamation action. This is not an action in which anyone’s freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is on trial.”
R. v, Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at 138-139; R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 906 at 938, para. 58.
R. v. Zundel, 1992 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, at 758.
Ibid., at 756.
Ibid., at 768.
Ibid., at 769.
Ibid., at 766, 772.
Ibid., at 754-755, 758.
Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, at para. 60.
City 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
City 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
Pinto v. Anderson (No. 2), 2022 ONMIC 4; Anderson, S. v. Meadows, 2022 ONMIC 5.
AOD Corporation v. Miramare Investment Incorporated, 2022 ONCA 95, at para. 20; Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co (1875), L.R. 7 H.L. 869, at 894.
The Midas Investment Corporation v. Bank of Montreal, 2016 ONSC 3003, at para. 4.
McCann v. Temiskaming Hotel Company Limited et al., 1943 CanLII 86 (Ont. C.A.)
Pacific Coast Coal Mines Ltd. v. Arbuthnot (1917), 1917 CanLII 453 (UK JCPC), 36 D.L.R. 564 (J.C.P.C.), at 569.
Dun-Rite Plumbing & Heating Ltd. v. Walbaum, 2009 SKQB 174, at para. 533.
Pacific National Investments v. Victoria, 2000 SCC 64, at para. 68; Barrie (City) v. 1606533 Ontario Inc., 2005 CanLII 24746 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 8; Ottawa (City) v. Letourneau, 2005 CanLII 1407 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 154; SOS-Save Our St. Clair Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2005 CanLII 40559 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at para. 85; Sherway Contracting (Windsor) Ltd. v. Kingsville (Town), 2002 CanLII 9291 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 78; Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Surrey (City), 2004 BCCA 499, at para. 23.
City of Winnipeg v. Brock, 1911 CanLII 64 (SCC), 45 S.C.R. 271, at 280.
2009 CanLII 38509 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 34.
Ottawa (City) v. Letourneau, 2005 CanLII 1407 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 210.
Mawhiney v. Norfolk County, 2021 ONSC 1928, at paras. 37, 53.
Guelph (City) v. Super Blue Box Recycling Corp., 2004 CanLII 34954(Ont. S.C.), at para. 84.
Vaughan (City) v. Ruffolo, note 46, at para. 12.
O’Neil v. Hodgins and Belledune (Village), 1988 CanLII 7822 (NB QB), at para. 47.
Girvan v. The Mayor, etc. of St. John, 1866 CanLII 1, 11 N.B.R. 411 (NB QB), at 414.
Knudsen v. Roche Percee (Village), 2005 SKPC 51, at para. 4.
Attorney-General of New Brunswick ex rel. University of New Brunswick v. City of Fredericton, 1967 CanLII 611, 68 D.L.R. (2d) 45 (NB CA), at 66.
Ontario Provincial Police, “Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Post-Retirement Benefits Investigation: Report to Council” (September 28, 2016).
Amberley Gavel Ltd., Report to Council (May 27, 2018).
OPP Report, note 55, p. 5. The OPP investigation also found, at pp. 4-6, in relation to each of the 2006, 2009, 2011, and 2012 benefit enhancements: “Investigators were not provided with any evidence confirming Council was informed of this benefit enhancement or provided direction in the form of a letter of direction.” If the April 2015 advice were correct, then Council direction would have been unnecessary.
The OPP found, not an absence of wrongdoing, but “no evidence [that] anyone committed a criminal offence.” It did find (p. 7), failure(s) to comply with by-laws: “… individual employees or perhaps individual members of Council could have been held accountable by the corporation for not following the direction set out in By-Law 94-44 … Council also has the ability to appropriately deal with any financial consequences that may have been caused by decisions of any of its former and current employees (and/or members of Council) in relation to remuneration and post-retirement benefits.”
Amberley Gavel Ltd., note 56, p. 2. The integrity commissioner company also referred to difficulties in “achieving compliance with prevailing municipal standards.” The company’s findings applied, at least in part, to retirement benefits decision making. Most of the allegations in the Code of Conduct referral were related to the retirement benefits issue and subsequent OPP investigation. The witness statement and exhibits on which the inquiry was based dealt largely with retirement benefits and the OPP investigation.