Re Parnell, 2025 ONMIC 10

CITY OF Peterborough Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Re Parnell, 2025 ONMIC 10 Date: December 19, 2025

Report on Complaints

Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal councils and, in some cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal councils. 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://pub-peterborough.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=41550 (City Council Minutes, January 19, 2026, pp. 2-3)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statutory Context 3

The Complaints. 3

Background. 4

Process. 5

Issues and Analysis. 7

A. Can Integrity Commissioner review procedural rulings of meeting Chair?. 7

B. Can Commissioner review whether Strong Mayor Powers properly exercised?. 9

C. Can Integrity Commissioner enforce Planning Act?. 9

D. Are Council decisions subject to Integrity Commissioner review?. 10

E. Do Complaints allege conduct that contravened Code?. 11

Conclusion. 11

Statutory Context

[1]. This is a report to City Council under subsection 223.6 (2) of the Municipal Act containing my opinion on whether the Code of Conduct was contravened on February 24.

[2]. Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act creates “Special Powers and Duties of the Head of Council.” Part VI.1 authority is more commonly referred to as “Strong Mayor Powers.” Strong Mayor Powers were extended to the City of Peterborough by section 1, paragraph 32, of Ontario Regulation 530/22.

The Complaints

3. Between February 27 and March 7, five individuals separately filed Complaints alleging contraventions of the City of Peterborough Council Code of Conduct, By-law Number 19-028, related to the chairing of the February 24 General Committee meeting. I numbered the Complaints, collectively, as File No. 2025-01-CC.

[4]. All five Complainants allege that Councillor Lesley Parnell, who chaired the public meeting under the Planning Act, contravened the Code. Three Complainants also allege that Mayor Jeff Leal, who exercised Strong Mayor Powers that evening, contravened the Code. One Complainant alleges that Councillor Gary Baldwin contravened the Code.

[5]. The Complaints contain a litany of allegations about the February 24 meeting, including but not limited to, the following:

a. Allegation that Chair Parnell ignored or improperly handled points of order.

b. Allegation that Chair Parnell improperly handled a challenge to the Chair.

c. Allegation that Chair Parnell did not follow Robert’s Rules of Order.

d. Allegation that the proposed by-laws were amended close to the meeting and Chair Parnell did not allow sufficient time for review and understanding.

e. Allegation that Chair Parnell improperly muted another Council Member’s microphone.

f. Allegation that Chair Parnell improperly threatened to remove a Member.

g. Allegation that Chair Parnell interrupted certain delegations and did not allow delegations to answer certain questions.

h. Allegation that Chair Parnell let someone speak off topic while other speakers were ruled out of order for doing the same.

i. Allegation that Chair Parnell said, “be quiet.”

j. Allegation that Chair Parnell would not entertain a request to defer the decision.

k. Allegation that the meeting was chaired in a one-sided manner.

l. Allegation that the Mayor worked secretly with the proponent to get the proposal approved.

m. Allegation that the Mayor failed to provide the reasons required by clause 284.11.1(3)(b) of the Municipal Act.

n. Allegation that the open house was held after the seven-day deadline imposed by subsection 34(14) of the Planning Act.

o. Allegation that residents did not receive timely notice.

p. Allegation that the proponent provided inadequate information to the public.

q. Allegation of lack of consultation and lack of notice.

r. Allegation that the Mayor’s exercise of Strong Mayor Powers frustrated the public’s right to inquire, to ask questions, and to understand the proposal.

s. Allegation that the General Committee heard from a delegation (the proponent) not on the agenda.

t. Allegation that the proponent spoke longer than other delegations.

u. Allegation that the proponent was allowed to speak several times.

v. Allegation that a Councillor attempted to distract from the alleged procedural failings of the meeting by expressing concern about a news story.

w. Allegation that the Procedure By-law was not followed.

Background

[6]. Strong Mayor Powers authorize the Mayor to propose a by-law that, in the Mayor’s opinion, could potentially advance a prescribed provincial priority.¹

[7]. The Mayor may require City Council to consider and vote on the proposed by-law at a meeting.²

[8]. The Mayor may exercise these powers despite the City’s Procedure By-law.³

[9]. Such a by-law proposed by the Mayor is passed if more than one-third of Council Members vote in favour.⁴ The Mayor is entitled to vote on the by-law.⁵

[10]. At the February 24 General Committee meeting, using Strong Mayor Powers, the Mayor proposed two by-laws: a By-law to exempt development at 738 Chemong Road from Site Plan Control, and a By-law to amend the Zoning By-law for the lands known municipally as 738 Chemong Road.

[11]. The effect of the proposed by-laws was to permit transitional housing at a site operated by Brock Mission.

[12]. At the General Committee meeting, Councillor Parnell assumed the chair.

[13]. During the Planning Act public meeting portion of the meeting, 15 individuals plus the Brock Mission’s Executive Director addressed the Committee.

[14]. At the conclusion of the General Committee meeting, four Council Members, including the Mayor, voted in favour of the two by-laws. Seven Council Members voted against. More than one-third of the General Committee having voted in favour, the Committee adopted a recommendation to Council that the By-laws be approved.

[15]. At the Council Meeting later the same evening, on the same 4-7 vote, the by-laws were passed and enacted as By-Law Number 2025-051 and By-Law Number 2025-052, respectively.

Process

[16]. Under section 223.4 of the Municipal Act, an inquiry into the Complaints is not automatic. Subsection (1) uses the words, “if the Commissioner conducts an inquiry …” The Divisional Court has confirmed that whether to commence an inquiry lies within the Integrity Commissioner’s discretion.⁶

[17]. I carefully considered whether it was appropriate to conduct an inquiry. On April 17, I sent the Complainants a status update. I wrote:

At this stage, I have neither commenced an inquiry nor taken the first step which is to forward the Complaints to the Respondent.

The reason for the current status is that I continue to consider and to research the threshold issue of whether I have jurisdiction over the matter.

[18]. Then I paused consideration of these Complaints to complete the joint report in the Therrien-Hale et al. v. Leal and Lachica v. Leal inquiries, 2025 ONMIC 4.

[19]. I issue reports based on the order in which complaints are received. Since issuing the joint report, I have moved promptly to complete the remaining reports, including this one.

[20]. In exercising my discretion to conduct an inquiry, I consider whether the issues raised in a complaint fall within an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction, whether the allegations (if proven) would constitute a breach of the Code, and whether an inquiry is appropriate.

[21]. At this stage, I assume that the factual assertions in the Complaint(s) are true or capable of proof. This is the usual approach taken in a legal proceeding where a preliminary issue is whether there is jurisdiction to proceed.⁷

[22]. However, in this particular instance I did review the recording of the February 24 meetings. I have considered the review in reaching my conclusion.

[23]. If a Complaint does not fall within an Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction, then I decline to conduct an inquiry. If the allegations, even if proven, would not constitute a breach of the Code, then I decline to conduct an inquiry. (I may also decline to conduct an inquiry if for other reasons it would not be appropriate to conduct one.)

[24]. While the guidance of the provincial Ombudsman is not binding on municipal integrity commissioners, I note that my process is consistent with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s publication, Codes of Conduct and Integrity Commissioners: Guide for Municipalities.

[25]. The Ombudsman’s guidance includes the following:

a. “Integrity commissioners must act within their legislated mandate and limit their reviews to issues within their legal authority.”⁸

b. “Generally, integrity commissioners can also dismiss a complaint or application if it is clear that even if the allegations are proven, there would be no breach of the code of conduct ... Some can also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”⁹

c. “The Ombudsman’s position is that integrity commissioners should have the discretion to refuse to conduct an inquiry, in order to ensure they use the municipality’s resources efficiently.”¹⁰

d. “When declining to conduct an inquiry or review a matter further, the commissioner should provide reasons for that decision in writing to the complainant/applicant.”¹¹ This is my practice in every case.

[26]. In light of my conclusion that nothing alleged amounts to a breach of Code and the matter is outside my jurisdiction, and for other grounds set out in this report, I have not initiated an inquiry and will be closing the file.

Issues and Analysis

27. I have considered the following issues:

A. Can the Integrity Commissioner review procedural rulings of a meeting Chair?

B. Can the Integrity Commissioner review whether Strong Mayor Powers were properly exercised?

C. Can the Integrity Commissioner enforce the Planning Act?

D. Are Council decisions subject to Integrity Commissioner review?

E. Do the Complaints allege conduct that contravened the Code?

A. Can Integrity Commissioner review procedural rulings of meeting Chair?

[28]. No.

[29]. I previously addressed this issue in Ayotte v. Akapo (2022). Procedural matters arising at a meeting should not be the subject of an Integrity Commissioner inquiry. An Integrity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with a procedural ruling made during a meeting.¹²

[30]. Earlier this year, I addressed the issue again:

First, procedural matters arising at a meeting should be dealt with by the Chair and should not be the subject of an Integrity Commissioner inquiry under the Code of Conduct. Second, a procedural ruling made during a meeting is final, and an Integrity Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with it or to entertain a complaint about it.¹³

[31]. As I have observed before, a long line of Integrity Commissioner reports takes the position that Integrity Commissioners should not interfere in procedural matters arising in Council and in committee. Proponents of this view include a succession of City of Toronto Integrity Commissioners, led by Professor David Mullan¹⁴ (the first municipal Integrity Commissioner ever appointed in Canada), Lorne Sossin¹⁵ (now Justice Sossin), Janet Leiper¹⁶ (now Justice Leiper), and Valerie Jepson.¹⁷ As Integrity Commissioner Jepson explained:

The strong policy principle behind this approach is that the Integrity Commissioner ought not to interfere with the conduct and management of any particular meeting. This makes good sense. The Speaker, or any Chair of a meeting, requires a certain degree of autonomy to ensure that a meeting is conducted in accordance with the procedural bylaw and as specifically stated therein, to oversee order and behaviour of members (s. 27‑43(C)). … There would be little gained by a subsequent referral to the Integrity Commissioner to review the actions.¹⁸

[32]. Other integrity commissioner reports uphold the view that, once the presiding officer of a meeting has ruled on an issue of order, the Integrity Commissioner should not make parallel findings under a code of conduct.¹⁹

[33]. All the allegations against Chair Parnell relate to what she (allegedly) did or (allegedly) did not do in her role as Chair of the meeting. Her authority to chair that meeting came from the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law, not from the Council Code of Conduct or me. As Integrity Commissioner, I have no business second-guessing how she handled points of order, made speakers stay on topic, and enforced time limits. It is not my role to assess how well a Chair applies Robert’s Rules of Order. Part V.1 of the Municipal Act and the Council Code of Conduct give me no such authority.

[34]. The Procedure By-law says decisions of the Chair are final.²⁰ “Final” means, among other consequences, that the Integrity Commissioner is bound by the decision.²¹

[35]. Much of the Complainants’ criticism of Chair Parnell stems from the fact that she did not accept attempts to delay Council’s decision making and did not entertain objections based on the Procedure By-law. While it is not the role of an Integrity Commissioner to enforce the Strong Mayor Powers created by legislation, I cannot ignore the law’s clear and obvious effect. I note that in this instance the use of Strong Mayor Powers overrode the Procedure By-law and required that the Mayor’s proposal be considered and voted on at the February 24 meeting.²² It would be irresponsible for me to conduct an inquiry premised on ignoring what the Strong Mayor Powers legislation provides.

B. Can Commissioner review whether Strong Mayor Powers properly exercised?

[36]. No. This is not my role.

[37]. It is true that Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act attaches a few requirements to the Mayor’s exercise of Strong Mayor Powers. For example, he needs to provide reasons for a proposed by-law.

[38]. However, nowhere does the Municipal Act give Integrity Commissioners the authority to determine whether Mayors are properly exercising Strong Mayor Powers.

[39]. Section 284.14 of the Municipal Act says that an exercise of Strong Mayor Powers is not “open to review in whole or in part by any court” on the ground that the exercise was unreasonable. If a judge cannot review the Mayor’s exercise, then definitely a mere Integrity Commissioner lacks such authority.

C. Can Integrity Commissioner enforce Planning Act?

[40]. No. Integrity Commissioners do not have authority to enforce the Planning Act.

[41]. Jurisdiction under the Planning Act belongs to the Ontario Land Tribunal and the courts.

[42]. Failure to comply with Planning Act requirements is not a breach of the Code of Conduct and is not properly the subject of an Integrity Commissioner inquiry.

[43]. In this case, there is some suggestion that, given the absence of a formal application, the Planning Act process did not apply. Whether or not that is the case, Planning Act enforcement is not within my jurisdiction.

D. Are Council decisions subject to Integrity Commissioner review?

[44]. Absolutely not. An Integrity Commissioner cannot review, investigate or overturn a decision of Council.

[45]. According to the Divisional Court, whose rulings on Integrity Commissioner jurisdiction are binding on me:

In simple terms, the Commissioner reports to and is responsible to City Council. City Council is not responsible to and is not subject to having its decisions reviewed by the Commissioner.

[46]. By-Law Number 2025-051 and By-Law Number 2025-052 have been duly enacted, and I have no jurisdiction to review, let alone overturn, that result.

[47]. As I have previously explained:

Nothing in the Municipal Act permits an Integrity Commissioner to second-guess the decision-making process of Council, let alone to determine that a Council resolution or by-law is invalid.²³

[48]. A person who wished to challenge Council’s February 24 decision would be required to apply to the Superior Court of Justice under section 273 of the Municipal Act, or to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Planning Act, not complain to the Integrity Commissioner.

[49]. Further, a Code of Conduct complaint about the procedure followed by Council in reaching its decision is an impermissible collateral attack on the decision itself. An attack on the February 24 decision (the two by-laws) must be made in the appropriate forum,²⁴ that is, Superior Court of Justice or the Ontario Land Tribunal. An Integrity Commissioner inquiry is not the appropriate forum.

E. Do Complaints allege conduct that contravened Code?

[50]. None of the allegations in the Complaints refers to alleged conduct that would contravene the Council Code of Conduct.

[51]. I base this conclusion on review of the Complaints, review of the recording of the February 24 General Committee and Council meetings, and the analysis above.

Conclusion

[52]. In my opinion, the allegations in the Complaints do not amount to breaches of the Council Code of Conduct.

[53]. Further, the subject matters of the Complaints are outside my jurisdiction.

[54]. The Council Code of Conduct and an Integrity Commissioner inquiry are not the places to challenge decisions of Council.

[55]. Procedural rulings of a meeting Chair cannot be appealed to the Integrity Commissioner.

[56]. The Mayor’s exercise of Strong Mayor Powers cannot be overruled by the Integrity Commissioner.

Respectfully submitted,

Guy Giorno

Integrity Commissioner

City of Peterborough

December 19, 2025

Footnotes

1. 1Municipal Act, subs. 284.11.1(2).
2. 2Ibid.
3. 3Ibid.
4. 4Municipal Act, subs. 284.11.1(4).
5. 5Municipal Act, subs. 284.11.1(5).
6. 6Dhillon v. Brampton (City), 2021 ONSC 4165, paras. 34, 40.
7. 7Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 531, para. 8; Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2019 ONCA 1, para. 27.
8. 8Ontario, Ombudsman, Codes of Conduct and Integrity Commissioners: Guide for Municipalities (2024), at 31.
9. 9Ibid., at 35.
10. 10Ibid., at 34.
11. 11Ibid., at 35.
12. 122022 ONMIC 8, para. 79.
13. 13Therrien-Hale v. Leal, 2025 ONMIC 4, para. 246.
14. 14City of Toronto, Report on Complaint (April 6, 2005), Integrity Commissioner David Mullan, at 4.
15. 15City of Toronto, Integrity Commissioner Annual Report-2009 (July 29, 2009), Interim Integrity Commissioner Lorne Sossin, at 12.
16. 16City of Toronto, Integrity Commissioner Annual Report-2010 (June 28, 2010), Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper, at 4.
17. 17City of Toronto, Report from the Integrity Commissioner on Violation of Code of Conduct: then-Mayor Rob Ford (September 22, 2015), Integrity Commissioner Valerie Jepson, at 10.
18. 18Ibid.
19. 19Sinnott v. McConkey, 2021 ONMIC 4, para. 180; Regional Municipality v. Neal and Schummer, 2021 ONMIC 15, para. 108.
20. 20Procedure By-law, ss. 28.7, 32.
21. 21Regional Municipality v. Neal and Schummer, note 19, para. 115.
22. 22Municipal Act, subs. 284.11.1(2).
23. 23Ayotte v. Akapo, note 12, para. 64.
24. 24R. v. AI Klippert Ltd., 1998 CanLII 821 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737, at 746, para. 13.