MICO 2023

The CAO of the City of Greater Sudbury filed a complaint alleging that three municipal councillors breached the Code of Conduct by participating in a public meeting where defamatory statements were made about City staff.

The Integrity Commissioner found that Councillor Leduc breached the Code by publicly disclosing the personal relationship of two City employees, recommending a 30-day suspension of remuneration.

Councillor Montpellier was found to have breached the Code by asking a rhetorical question that impugned staff competence, resulting in a recommended 10-day suspension.

The complaint against Councillor Vagnini was dismissed as his comments did not impugn staff.

The Complainant alleged that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct through two social media posts regarding international student housing and alleged workplace toxicity at a local college.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the posts related to the councillor's office and the Code applied, they did not contain insulting language or constitute inappropriate treatment of a member of the public.

The complaint was dismissed, though the Commissioner recommended social media training for council members.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest regarding a council decision on the local community centre.

The Respondent owned residential property near the centre, and his wife had an interest in a nearby commercial property.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the council's decision to renovate the existing arena, rather than close it or change its use, did not have a real and present potential to affect the value of the Respondent's properties.

Furthermore, even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was so remote and insignificant that it fell under the exception in section 4(k) of the Act.

The Integrity Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from voting on a 10-year capital forecast concerning a local community centre.

The respondent owned a home approximately 140 metres from the community centre.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent did not have a real and present pecuniary interest, as the potential impact of the community centre's continued use on the respondent's property value was speculative.

Furthermore, even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the respondent, particularly given his good faith and focus on the community's best interests.

The Integrity Commissioner declined to apply to a judge for a determination of a contravention.

Municipal integrity commissioner’s report into a former mayor’s consensual personal relationship with a staff member and related workplace, influence, and conflict-of-interest issues.

The report found no contravention of the City’s human rights policy because the relationship was consensual and the sexual harassment test was not met, but concluded the former mayor breached the human resources and ethical framework for members’ staff by failing to disclose and properly manage the relationship in the workplace.

The report also found no improper influence in securing outside employment for the staff member and no misuse of official travel or in-office advancement, but held that the former mayor breached the improper influence provision by voting on FIFA World Cup matters that had direct bearing on the staff member’s employment at MLSE while they were in a personal relationship.

No penalty was recommended because the former mayor had already resigned office.

The Complainant, Deputy Mayor of North Bay, alleged that the Respondent, a City Councillor, violated the City's Code of Conduct through discriminatory and harassing emails and a disparaging social media post.

The Acting Integrity Commissioner found that the Respondent's emails referencing the Complainant's age and pregnancy were insulting, discriminatory on the basis of age and sex, and amounted to harassment.

Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the Respondent's Facebook post, which falsely claimed she was denied access to budget information, was disparaging and abusive.

The Commissioner concluded that the Respondent breached Articles VI and VIII of the Code of Conduct and recommended that City Council accept the report.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated two complaints against a City Councillor regarding his public tweets criticizing senior City staff.

The Commissioner found that the Councillor violated the Code of Conduct by falsely injuring the professional reputation of one staff member and engaging in discreditable conduct towards both by subjecting them to public humiliation on social media.

Furthermore, the Commissioner found that the Councillor engaged in reprisal against one of the complainants during a committee meeting after being notified of the investigation.

The Commissioner recommended a reprimand and a 10-day suspension of remuneration.