Kehoe v. Nix, 2025 ONMIC 2

Citation: Kehoe v. Nix, 2025 ONMIC 2 Date: February 1, 2025

Reasons for Decision

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.

No council decision. This is an inquiry under section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act which requires the Integrity Commissioner to publish the reasons for decision directly, instead of reporting them to council.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Context 3

The Application.. 3

Decision.. 4

Background. 4

Process Followed. 10

Positions of the Parties. 11

Applicant’s Position.. 11

Respondent’s Position.. 11

Applicant’s Reply. 12

Respondent’s Response to Draft Decision.. 12

Findings of Fact 13

Issues and Analysis. 16

A. Was Deputy Mayor Nix a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club?. 17

B. Did The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club have a pecuniary interest in the resolution?. 17

C. Did an exception apply?. 20

D. Should I make an application to a judge?. 24

Decision.. 26

Publication. 26

Appendix. 27

Context

Among their responsibilities, municipal Integrity Commissioners in Ontario conduct inquiries into applications alleging that council members or members of local boards have contravened the Municipal Council of Interest Act. At the end of such an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner shall decide whether to apply to a judge under section 8 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for a determination as to whether the member has contravened section 5, 5.1 or 5.2 of that Act, and shall publish reasons for the decision. Such decision is not subject to approval of the municipal council and does not take the form of a recommendation to council. There is, therefore, no municipal council resolution necessary to give effect to the decision.
This inquiry involved the Town’s dealing with a charity – in particular, giving the charity access to a piece of land. This conflict of interest inquiry has nothing to do with the merits of the charity and its charitable work. The inquiry is not about the Town’s relationship with the charity; indeed, the charity’s mandate has, historically, been seen to align with the Town’s interests. This is not an inquiry into the soundness of Town Council’s decision; after all, the Town has provided similar support, in the form of access to Town property, on prior occasions.
The only question raised by this inquiry is whether a member of the charity who serves on Council should have participated in the decision to let the charity use Town land. The decision to help the charity could have been made by remainder of Council. Was the fifth Council member – the one who belongs to the charity that benefits from the decision – permitted to vote?

The Application

Section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act allows an elector or a person demonstrably acting in the public interest to apply in writing to the Integrity Commissioner for an inquiry concerning an alleged contravention of section 5, 5.1 or 5.2 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by a member of council or a member of a local board.
Ms Elaine Kehoe (the Applicant) alleges that Deputy Mayor Fred Nix (the Respondent) contravened the MCIA by moving a motion and voting on a matter related to the Caledon Hills Club of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, at the October 22, 2024, meeting of Council.

Decision

Subsection 223.4.1 (15) of the Municipal Act states that, upon completion of an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner may, if the Integrity Commissioner considers it appropriate, apply to a judge under section 8 of the MCIA for a determination whether the member has contravened section 5, 5.1, or 5.2 of that Act.
According to the MCIA, the member of a body with a pecuniary interest in a matter has an indirect pecuniary interest in the same matter. Mr. Nix is a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy which had a pecuniary interest in the motion. Consequently, Mr. Nix had an indirect pecuniary interest in the motion.
After considering all the evidence and the submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that, because Deputy Mayor Fred Nix is a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, he had an indirect pecuniary interest in the October 22 motion, he should have declared his pecuniary interest orally and in writing, he should not have moved the motion or participated in decision-making on it, and, consequently, he contravened section 5 and section 5.1 of the MCIA.
Had Mr. Nix made different choices, this inquiry could have been avoided. Based on my previous advice to him, and other factors, he should not have participated in the decision.
Despite my belief that the MCIA was breached, considering the cost to the Town of a court application, I have decided that I will not apply to a judge for a determination of whether Deputy Mayor Nix has contravened the MCIA.
Under the legislation, the Applicant has the right to apply personally to a judge for a determination of whether Deputy Mayor Nix contravened the MCIA, if she does so within six weeks after receiving this decision.
Subsection 223.4.1 (17) of the Municipal Act requires me to publish written reasons for my decision. These are my reasons.

Background

The mission of The Bruce Trail Conservancy is, “Preserving a ribbon of wilderness, for everyone, forever.” Its vision is, “The Bruce Trail secured within a permanently protected natural corridor along the Niagara Escarpment.”
In a previous inquiry (under the Code of Conduct, not under the MCIA), I found that Deputy Mayor Nix was a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy and of its Caledon Hills Club (also known as the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club). See Re Nix, 2022 ONMIC 17.
As of October 22, 2024, Deputy Mayor Nix was still a Bruce Trail Conservancy member.
Two representatives of the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club made an in-person presentation to the October 22 meeting of Council.
During the oral presentation, one representative explained how The Bruce Trail Conservancy was attempting to improve the existing Trail network by avoiding a section currently running for 1.1 km along the steep, heavily-travelled Second Line. It has already made significant progress by acquiring two small properties (approx. 7 acres total) and purchasing a large property (238 acres); in combination, those lands will accommodate a trail running between Second Line and Hockley Road.
The next step of its plan, and the subject of the October 22 presentation, was to obtain access to the use of additional land that would accommodate a trail between Hockley Road and Hockley Valley Provincial Nature Reserve. The representative explained that the Club had identified three properties that, in combination, would offer the opportunity “to create a good trail,” with “a viewpoint that looks over the entire Hockley Valley and [is] really spectacular,” connecting Hockley Road and the Nature Reserve. One of the three properties, a long, narrow property of approximately two acres, belongs to the Town.
In the written presentation, the Club made two requests of the Town:

In the short term, give permission to build part of the Bruce Trail on town-owned land north of Hockley Road (All landowners who host the Trail on their property are covered by the BTC liability insurance policy).

In the longer term, start the process to determine if this property is needed by the Town. If deemed “surplus,” the BTC would be interested in buying this parcel.

Town staff had circulated to Council Members the following draft motion that might be moved following the presentation:

THAT we direct staff to proceed with the process to declare CON 2 E W PT LOT 8 (Roll # 6-10700) surplus, in accordance with Bylaw 2022-41 Sale and Disposition of Lands.

The Town’s formal process for the disposition of surplus property includes at least one public meeting and, subject to certain exceptions, an appraisal of value.¹
Councillor Davie asked whether the property was suitable for development. The Chief Administrative Officer explained that this very issue would be explored as part of the surplus lands process, were Council to give that direction. In the meantime, there had been no investigation of whether the land was developable.
The staff’s draft motion was never moved. Instead, Deputy Mayor Nix moved the following motion: “THAT the Town of Mono allow the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club to build a trail on CON 2 E W PT LOT 8 [property roll identifier omitted].”
Mr. Nix’s original motion referred only to Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club. The CAO advised Council to consider whether the correct legal entity had been named. A representative of the Club explained that The Bruce Trail Conservancy is an incorporated body, while the Club is unincorporated. Councillor Capes offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that the motion refer to the Club and The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
With the friendly amendment, the Deputy Mayor’s motion read, “THAT the Town of Mono allow the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, on behalf of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, to build a trail on CON 2 E W PT LOT 8.”²
The Deputy Mayor explained that the intent of the motion was to avoid the surplus land question and simply to allow Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club to build a trail on the land.
As noted above, the Town owns the land that was the subject of the both the motion drafted by the staff and the motion moved by the Deputy Mayor.
The Deputy Mayor’s motion carried. Deputy Mayor Nix voted in favour.
Deputy Mayor Nix did not orally declare that he had a pecuniary interest in the motion, nor did he file a written declaration. In fact, just before the presentation began, he informed Council that he would not be declaring a pecuniary interest on the matter, and he mentioned conversations with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk as the reason.
After the motion was adopted, the CAO confirmed with the Mayor and Council that the next step would be for the staff to bring forward to Council a proposed agreement between The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Town confirming the use of the land for trail purposes. Typically, the first draft of such an agreement is prepared by The Bruce Trail Conservancy for the Town’s review and consideration.
Immediately following that discussion, the Applicant was allowed to come forward, briefly, to address Council. She explained her concern that Mr. Nix should not have moved the motion because he was in a conflict of interest. The Deputy Mayor stated in reply:

I checked with both the Clerk and the CAO and I sent an information email to the Integrity Commissioner, so I am just doing what I was told I could do.

I confirm that I received an email from Deputy Mayor Nix on October 16. The email was addressed to the Clerk. The CAO, the Mayor and I were all copied. The bottom portion of the email was addressed to me:

Guy: as our Integrity Commissioner, please note that I am not asking you these questions. I am simply giving you a heads up as to questions I may ask after I hear from our Clerk. [emphasis added]

The Clerk emailed the Deputy Mayor to say, “I believe you have a conflict on item 1 (Bruce Trail) …” I did not hear from the Deputy Mayor (until after the Application was filed) and he did not ask me for advice on the October 22 agenda item.
I had previously given advice to Mr. Nix concerning his obligations, under the MCIA, in connection with the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club.
Under the Municipal Act, subsection 223.1 (1), paragraph 6, one of an Integrity Commissioner’s functions is to handle, “Requests from members of council and of local boards for advice respecting their obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.”
Subsection 223.1 (2.1) requires that any request for advice from the Integrity Commissioner be made in writing. Subsection 223.1 (2.2) requires that the Integrity Commissioner’s responsive advice be in writing.
On February 22, eight months prior to the Council meeting that is the subject of this inquiry, I provided written advice to Deputy Mayor Nix concerning another matter, before Council, involving the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club. A lengthy excerpt from my advice is reproduced in the Appendix at the end of this decision.
My advice to Deputy Mayor Nix included the following observations:

If you are a member of a body that has a pecuniary interest in a matter considered by Council or a committee, then you possess a pecuniary interest in the matter, you must disclose the interest, and you must not vote or participate in decision-making on the matter or try to influence the decision … unless one of the exemptions in section 4 of the MCIA applies.

An exemption in section 4 does not mean that a pecuniary interest (direct or indirect) is absent. An exemption means that, even though a pecuniary interest is present, the restriction on voting and participating in decision-making does not apply.

When I last examined the issue of your involvement in BTC, I understood the following:

The Bruce Trail Conservancy is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated in 1963 as The Bruce Trail Association. Its name was changed in 2007.
Membership in The Bruce Trail Conservancy includes membership in one of its nine affiliated clubs. One of these nine clubs is the Caledon Hills Club (also known as the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club).
For many years, you have been an active member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club. In this capacity, you have volunteered to help maintain a portion of the Trail.
Other than active membership, you hold no official position in The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club.
Your biography on the Town website used to mention that you were a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
Typically, when any matter that involves the Bruce Trail comes before Council, you inform Council Members and the public that you are a member.

If any of the above statements is no longer correct, please let me know, because the correction might affect my advice to you.

In my 2022 report about the complaint related to parking near the Bruce Trail, I observed that you often contributed to Council discussions from your perspective as a member of the BTC and/or by sharing information and input the BTC conveyed to the Town through you. In paragraph 81 of that report, I observed:

They [the Complainants] wrote a letter to the Town, seeking assistance from the Town because, in the Complainants’ view, The Bruce Trail Conservancy had failed to address their concerns. Then, at the Council meeting where the Complainant’s correspondence was discussed, a Council Member (the Respondent) [you], who happens to be a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, articulated the position of the Conservancy. During the course of those remarks, [you] alternated between referring to the Conservancy in the third person (“they”) and using the first person (“we”) in an ambiguous manner that created reasonable doubt whether “we” meant the Town or the Conservancy.

As explained above, the MCIA provides that mere membership in the BTC is sufficient to give you a pecuniary interest in any matter in which the BTC has a pecuniary interest. I assume you are still a member of the BTC. If this is correct, then you possess an indirect pecuniary interest in [the matter before Council at that time].

I understand that you have no financial interest in the BTC and, consequently, no financial interest in [the matter before Council at that time]. That is not relevant to whether you have an indirect pecuniary interest. If you are a member of the BTC, then its pecuniary interests are … considered to be your pecuniary interests.

Is Your Indirect Pecuniary Interest Exempt?

I have considered the exemption in clause 4(k): “an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.” I have considered, in particular, cases that dealt with membership in bodies – the same issue that arises here.

According to several cases, the absence of any personal financial impact on a member is a relevant factor that suggests a pecuniary interest is, “so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.”

See, for example, Tolnai v. Downey, 2003 CanLII 40120 (Ont. S.C.) and Cooper v. Wiancko, 2018 ONSC 342.

However, the personal impact on you is not the only factor relevant to whether the pecuniary interest could “reasonably be regarded as likely to influence” you. The jurisprudence states that additional factors might be relevant.

One such factor is whether your relationship with another person or entity influences your approach to issues before Council, or whether a reasonable person would regard the person’s or interests interest to be likely to have such an influence. See Ferri v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 683, at paras. 16-18.

In my view, it is relevant that, during Council meetings, you mention your membership in the BTC and sometimes explain the BTC’s perspective and views to the rest of Council. As I noted in my 2022 report, sometimes, in discussing the BTC before Council, you used the pronoun “we” to describe the BTC.

Because you do associate yourself with the BTC, and discuss the BTC in terms of your membership and involvement, a reasonable person may well regard the pecuniary interest of the BTC (which is indirectly your pecuniary interest under section 2 of the MCIA) as likely to influence you.

Consequently, I believe that the exemption in clause 4(k) does not apply to you in this situation. You are not exempt from the obligation – in order words, you are required – to disclose the interest in [the matter before Council at that time], not to participate in discussion, decision-making, or voting, and not to do anything to influence the voting.

While you can do with the advice as you wish, I am required by the Municipal Act to keep this advice confidential and I may not share it with anyone except in certain specific circumstances outlined in the Municipal Act. For example, I may release this advice in the following circumstances: … If an application alleging a Municipal Conflict of Interest Act contravention is made to me, then I may disclose this advice in the reasons for my determination.

Process Followed

The Municipal Act does not direct the procedure that an Integrity Commissioner must follow in handling MCIA applications. I have chosen to follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual making the application (Applicant) and the Council Member alleged to have contravened the MCIA (Respondent).
This fair and balanced process usually begins with me issuing to both parties a Notice of Inquiry that sets out the issues. The Notice of Inquiry includes a copy of the Application for an MCIA Inquiry. The Respondent is made aware of the Applicant’s name. I do, however, redact personal information such as phone numbers and email addresses.
The Respondent has an opportunity to respond. The Applicant receives the Respondent’s Response and is given an opportunity to reply. I may accept supplementary communications and submissions from the parties, generally on the condition that parties get to see each other’s communications with me. I do this in the interest of transparency and fairness.
I typically set deadlines for the submission of a Response and a Reply, but give reasonable extensions when requested.
The Application was received November 5. I assigned it File No. 2024-03-MCIA, and I reviewed it and the accompanying material.
On November 30, I issued a Notice of Inquiry. In the Notice, I informed the parties that I was commencing an inquiry into whether the Respondent had contravened subsection 5 (1) and section 5.1 of the MCIA. The Notice explained that the general question of compliance with subsection 5 (1) and section 5.1 would be further divided into the following two issues that formed the basis of the inquiry:

A. On October 22, was Deputy Mayor Nix still a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club?

B. Did The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club have a pecuniary interest in Resolution #3-17-2024?

Deputy Mayor Nix responded in writing, December 3. The Applicant replied and provided additional submissions on December 19. I invited Deputy Mayor Nix to address the Applicant’s reply; he informed me that he had nothing to add to his original Response.
In early January, I interviewed two witnesses, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk. I also reviewed relevant documents, examined the Town’s recording of the October 22 Council meeting, and studied how The Bruce Trail Conservancy acquires land and obtains access to land.
In making my decision, I have taken into account all the submissions of the parties and all of the evidence obtained during the inquiry.
On January 10, I sent Deputy Mayor Nix a copy of a draft of this decision, including the findings and reasons, and invited him to comment. On January 23, Mr. Nix sent a very detailed, six-page response to the draft decision. I have carefully considered his response, taken the submissions into account, and addressed them in this final decision.

Positions of the Parties

Applicant’s Position

Ms Kehoe states that Deputy Mayor Nix regularly used to declare pecuniary interests in, and withdraw from discussion on, matters related to The Bruce Trail Conservancy. On this occasion, he remained, took part in the discussion, moved a motion, and voted.
The Applicant understands that the Deputy Mayor thought there was no conflict of interest because there was no monetary value in the motion. However, in her words, “Monetary value does not have to be money but anything that gives one favour over another.”
The Application included a copy of a written declaration of pecuniary interest filed by the Respondent as recently as August 20. In it, the Deputy Mayor stated, “I am an active member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.”

Respondent’s Position

Deputy Mayor Nix confirms that he is a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy. He states the he is active through one of the nine Bruce Trail clubs – namely, the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club – but his membership is with The Bruce Trail Conservancy. He states that he has made declarations, in the past, whenever matters had financial implications for The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
In this case, however, he did not think a pecuniary interest existed, because, in his view, there are no financial implications to the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club building a trail. The Club would build the trail by using volunteer labour and possibly a few donated supplies such as nails, boards, and signs.
He also explains that, if the motion had not passed, then the Club would have built the trail elsewhere, on land The Bruce Trail Conservancy already owns. Passage or defeat of the motion would have no impact on The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s land.
Had the staff’s draft motion been moved, then he would have declared a pecuniary interest and would not have participated because, in his view at the time, declaring the land surplus would involve a financial issue. (He says that he learned after the meeting that declaring the land surplus does not involve a pecuniary interest.)
The Deputy Mayor also states that, prior to the meeting, both the CAO and the Clerk, separately, told him that, in their opinion, he had no conflict of interest.

Applicant’s Reply

The Applicant, who was present on October 22, says the Deputy Mayor’s motion was prepared prior to the meeting because he read the motion from his laptop computer.
She asks rhetorically why the Club asked to build the trail on Town land if the Conservancy already had land that can be used for a trail. Presumably, it was because the Club and the Conservancy had an interest in getting Town land for free.

Respondent’s Response to Draft Decision

As explained in paragraph 48, the Deputy Mayor was given the opportunity to review and to respond to a draft of this decision, and provided detailed submissions. A summary of his response to the draft is as follows.
In his January 23 reply, Deputy Mayor Nix states that it is “unnecessary” for me to make findings, as will be further detailed below, about the conversations he had with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk immediately prior to the relevant Council meeting. He also asserts that I “omit[ted] the most important parts” of the conversations.
Second, he argues that I am error in finding that the Town, by allowing The Bruce Trail Conservancy to build a trail on its property, is enabling The Bruce Trail Conservancy to derive an economic benefit, which, as explained below, I consider to be “pecuniary interest” under section 5 and section 5.1 of the MCIA. The Deputy Mayor said that I did so:

without introducing any evidence that the [Bruce Trail Conservancy’s] revenues, expenses, asset values, finances, economic prospects or anything else change …

You do not recognize in your analysis that, while the [Bruce Trail Conservancy] benefits because the permission to hike on this unused land helps fulfill its vision, the main beneficiary is the general public who gets to hike on a new trail at no cost. And, in this particular case, the general public benefits by getting to hike on a trail, not along a gravel road (Second Line) and a very busy paved road (County Road 7).

Finally, the Deputy Mayor submits, in the alternative, that, if I find The Bruce Trail Conservancy has a “pecuniary interest,” then I must consider in this decision the application of the exemption contained in MCIA clause 4(j) (pecuniary interest in common with electors generally).

Findings of Fact

In making my determination, I rely on the facts in the Background section of this report, and in this Findings of Fact section.
Findings of fact are made based on the standard of the balance of probabilities. The findings are based on the evidence gathered.
The Bruce Trail Conservancy is a corporation continued under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (Ontario). It is also a registered charity.
Its clubs, including the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, are not incorporated. Clubs are established and terminated by The Bruce Trail Conservancy pursuant to section 7.4 of its By-laws.
The By-laws of the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club acknowledge that it is, “a Bruce Trail Club within The Bruce Trail Conservancy.” Significantly, section 12 of the Club’s By-laws provides that, upon dissolution, the Club’s assets (after discharge of debts and liabilities) shall become property of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
According to the Membership Policy of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, one must be a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy in order to be a member of a club, but a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy is not required to join any club.
This means that it is possible for the Deputy Mayor to be a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy without being a member of the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club. Deputy Mayor Nix states that he belongs only to The Bruce Trail Conservancy. This membership information differs from the situation discussed in paragraph 11 of my 2022 report, Re Nix, 2022 ONMIC 17, and from the scenario described in my February 2024 written advice to Deputy Mayor Nix, presented in the Appendix. Nonetheless, because of the relationship between The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, for purposes of this inquiry it does not matter whether the Deputy Mayor is a member of both entities or only one of them.
The land that was the subject of the motion was acquired by the Town from the Province several decades ago, when the corporation that owned it became insolvent. The property was forfeited to the Public Guardian and Trustee who, by quitclaim deed, disclaimed any interest in the land. Since then, the Town has not disposed of, or found a use for, the property. It is a vacant wood lot, unused by the Town.
Resolution #3-17-2024 gives the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, on behalf of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, the use of this Town property, without payment to the Town.
Both the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk remember speaking to the Deputy Mayor about this Council agenda item, in separate conversations, the day of the meeting, before it started.
The CAO remembers it as a brief conversation. He remembers informing Deputy Mayor Nix that he should exercise restraint in discussion of the item.
According to the Deputy Mayor (in his reply to the draft of this decision), the CAO began the conversation saying, “You can stay in the meeting,” or words to that effect. From the Deputy Mayor’s viewpoint, this meant that the CAO saw no conflict of interest issue. The Deputy Mayor states that he “probably did not hear” the CAO informing him to exercise restraint in discussion of the item, as he was “focused on someone else” at that time.
The Clerk remembers it as a very brief conversation. He remembers informing Deputy Mayor Nix that the staff’s opinion on conflict of interest does not substitute for advice from the Integrity Commissioner.
According to the Deputy Mayor, during the same discussion, the Clerk also stated this his (the Clerk’s) opinion was that the Deputy Mayor did not have a conflict.
Both the CAO and the Clerk remember that their comments were based on the staff’s draft resolution, not the motion introduced by Deputy Mayor Nix. The Deputy Mayor’s motion came as a surprise to both the CAO and the Clerk.
Having considered Mr. Nix’s response to the draft of this decision, I confirm that I am prepared to accept Mr. Nix’s recollections as set out in paragraphs 74 and 76, above. However, his conversations with the CAO and the Clerk are not relevant to my decision. It is well established that each individual member is personally responsible for MCIA compliance, and that this responsibility cannot be shifted to the municipal staff.³ What the CAO and Clerk said to him does not affect whether he was in compliance with the MCIA.
I find that The Bruce Trail Conservancy is interested in potential purchase of the property in question. The Club’s presentation to Council included the following statement: “If deemed ‘surplus,’ the BTC [The Bruce Trail Conservancy] would be interested in buying this parcel.”
Land acquisition is one of The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s significant activities in support of the mission and vision described in paragraph 13, above. It acquires land and the use of land in different ways: purchase, accepting land donation, easement, and “handshake agreements” with owners of land along the Bruce Trail. The latter are agreements by which landowners allow the Bruce Trail to pass over their lands.⁴ The owners retain title and they (or new owners) can terminate at any time. Some agreements, such as those with the Town of Mono, involve more than handshakes; these are signed documents that address matters such as insurance and responsibility for litter.⁵
On an annual basis, The Bruce Trail Conservancy purchases much more land than it receives in donations. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, it preserved an additional 942 acres of land: 35 acres were donated, 18.5 acres were the subject of an easement, and the remaining acres were purchased with funds from various sources.⁶ During that period, the Bruce Trail Conservancy spent $11.4 million to purchase land and easements, and an additional $1.6 million to purchase land held for sale.⁷
While a handshake agreement does not secure “the permanent conservation corridor we seek as part of our mission,” it is, nonetheless, clearly of value to The Bruce Trail Conservancy. Such agreements “have made the Trail’s existence possible.” The Conservancy calls each a “generous gift of permission [that] is appreciated and recognized” and it acknowledges “the generosity of private landowners.”⁸
I find, based on the discussion during the October 22 Council meeting, that the proposal that was debated and approved by Council involved more than a “handshake agreement,” because it would be documented and would address, at minimum, The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s responsibility for insurance coverage.
I agree that mere permission to use land is less valuable to The Bruce Trail Conservancy than title to land obtained by purchase or donation. Nonetheless, I find that the permission granted by Council’s resolution is of some economic benefit to the Conservancy. I base this finding on the following factors. First, the Conservancy describes even mere permission as a “generous gift.” If permission were worthless, then it would be neither a gift nor generous. Second, such permission helps make the Trail’s existence possible, which helps the Conservancy achieve its goals. Third, the Conservancy invests millions of dollars to acquire land, so clearly it values the land on which the Trail runs; permission to use a thing of value is itself of economic benefit, though obviously on a reduced scale. Fourth, the presentation to Council stated that the Conservancy would be interested in purchasing this particular property. Since the Conservancy was interested in perhaps paying money for this property, getting to use the property for free is surely of some economic benefit to it.

Issues and Analysis

Subsection 5(1) and section 5.1 of the MCIA read as follows:

5 (1) Where a member, either on his or her own behalf or while acting for, by, with or through another, has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any matter and is present at a meeting of the council or local board at which the matter is the subject of consideration, the member,

(a) shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof;

(b) shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter; and

(c) shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question.

5.1 At a meeting at which a member discloses an interest under section 5, or as soon as possible afterwards, the member shall file a written statement of the interest and its general nature with the clerk of the municipality or the secretary of the committee or local board, as the case may be.

It is clear that, if Deputy Mayor Nix did possess a pecuniary interest (unless an exemption applied), then he did not comply with subjection 5 (1) and section 5.1. He did not disclose an interest prior to consideration of the matter, he took part in the discussion and voting, and he did not file a written statement of the interest.
I have considered the following issues:

A. On October 22, was Deputy Mayor Nix still a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club?

B. Did The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club have a pecuniary interest in Resolution #3-17-2024?

C. Did an exception apply?

D. Should I make an application to a judge under section 8 of the MCIA?

A. Was Deputy Mayor Nix a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club?

Yes. On October 22, Deputy Mayor Nix was a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy. He acknowledges this.
For purposes of this inquiry, it suffices that Mr. Nix is a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy. As explained in paragraph 69, because of the relationship between The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, it does not matter whether the Deputy Mayor is also a member of the Club.

B. Did The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club have a pecuniary interest in the resolution?

Yes. I find that both The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club had a pecuniary interest in Resolution #3-17-2024.
Under the MCIA, a “pecuniary interest” means a financial, monetary or economic interest.”⁹ (In his reply to the draft of this decision, Mr. Nix notes that, despite my statement, the MCIA does not include the words, “financial, monetary or economic interest.” He is correct; those words are not in the MCIA. This is why I write, “under the MCIA.” According to judicial interpretation, a “pecuniary interest” under the MCIA means a financial, monetary or economic interest.)
In his reply to the draft, Mr. Nix cites the following authorities on what constitutes a pecuniary interest: Toronto, Office of the Integrity Commissioner, “Identifying and Declaring Pecuniary Interests at Meetings” (February 2019); Alex Wideman, “Municipal conflict of interest registries are required in Ontario” (September 9, 2024); Ontario Education Services Corporation, “Good Governance for School Boards: Trustee Professional Development Program,” Module 11: Part B (The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act); City of Barrie, “Conflicts of Interest | Council & Committee Members” (undated); and LSD.Law, “pecuniary interest” (undated).
These sources explain that a pecuniary interest is one that is financial, economic, or monetary, including one related to asset value. Mr. Nix’s sources are consistent with the jurisprudence, and I agree with them. I make the decision based on this understanding of “pecuniary interest.”
In his response to the draft decision, Mr. Nix claims that the draft confuses the term “benefit” with “pecuniary interest.” He points out that not every benefit constitutes a pecuniary interest, and only the latter is covered by the MCIA. I accept Mr. Nix’s point that the issue here is pecuniary interest. In the draft he reviewed, the word “benefit” and its derivatives (“benefits,” “benefitted”) appeared nine times. In six instances, the term used was “economic benefit.” In a seventh instance, the unmodified word “benefit” appeared after “economic benefit” had already been used twice in the same paragraph. The two other unmodified uses occurred in summary statements at the beginning and at the end of the decision. This decision does not confuse the MCIA standard. The issue is pecuniary interest. An economic benefit, the only type of benefit considered in this decision, is a pecuniary interest.
The resolution gives the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, on behalf of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, the use of property belonging to the Town, without payment.
The use of land has value. Consequently, The Bruce Trail Conservancy has a pecuniary interest in obtaining the use of land without payment for it.
It is relevant that The Bruce Trail Conservancy would consider purchasing the property, were the Town to offer it for sale. I realize that this is not a firm commitment to buy, just an expression of interest. However, it does indicate that the property is of value to the organization. It follows that permission to use the property is also of value.
For these reasons, and based on the findings in paragraphs 79 to 84, I conclude that The Bruce Trail Conservancy had a pecuniary interest in the motion.
As O’Connor and Rust‐D’Eye explain about what constitutes a pecuniary interest:¹⁰

It does not matter whether the pecuniary interest is large or small (subject to the exceptions contained in section 4); positive, negative or maintaining the status quo; direct or indirect; or easily quantifiable; nor is it relevant whether the member votes for or against his or her interest; whether that member’s vote carries the question; or whether the outcome of the vote itself serves or defeats the member’s interest. It is the fact that the member has a pecuniary interest in the matter that imposes the duty, not the direction or result of the vote. It is the act of participating in the debate or voting on the matter in contravention of the duties prescribed by the statute that constitutes the offence. [emphasis added]

It does not matter whether the value of the pecuniary interest is precisely known. It simply matters that the interest is of a pecuniary nature.
The size of the interest is irrelevant to whether a pecuniary interest exists. However, once a pecuniary interest is found to exist, its size is relevant under clause 4(k), which exempts, “an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.” This exception is discussed under the next heading.
According to section 2 of the MCIA, the member of a body with a pecuniary interest in a matter has an indirect pecuniary interest in the same matter. Mr. Nix is a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy. It had a pecuniary interest in the motion. Consequently, Mr. Nix had an indirect pecuniary interest in the motion.
I have considered the Deputy Mayor’s position that, because the motion involved no cost to The Bruce Trail Conservancy, it did it not involve a pecuniary interest. Cost to the Conservancy is not the only factor. Gifts are free, but they deliver economic benefit. Gifts involve a pecuniary interest. The same applies here. Permission to use the land without paying for it is of economic benefit to the Conservancy. That is why the Conservancy had a pecuniary interest in the motion, and why Mr. Nix did, too.
The Conservancy’s status as a charity is irrelevant.¹¹ Nothing prevented the Town Council from voting to let the charity build a trail on Town land. It was completely open to Council to decide that the Town’s interests were advanced by granting permission to the Conservancy. The merits of the Town’s support for The Bruce Trail Conservancy are not at issue. The question is whether a member of the charity was permitted to help make Council’s decision to confer an economic benefit on the charity.
In his response to the draft of this decision, Deputy Mayor Nix argues against the finding that The Bruce Trail Conservancy derives an “economic benefit” from the motion. Neither the Conservancy’s revenues nor its expenses are impacted. Its economic prospects and asset value do not change. The Town can “kick The Bruce Trail Conservancy off whenever it feels like it.” According to Mr. Nix, “I cannot find any evidence in your report or in my own experience that the revenues, expenses, asset values, finances, economic prospects or anything else [of The Bruce Trail Conservancy] change as a result of the October 22 decision.”
The Deputy Mayor argues that the benefit is intangible or, at least, it is a benefit that cannot be reduced to money
I have considered Mr. Nix’s submission. Respectfully, I disagree. The interests that he mentions (such as revenues and expenses) are examples of pecuniary interests, but the list of potential pecuniary interests is not closed. This case involves land. Land has value. The value of land is a pecuniary interest. The Bruce Trail Conservancy routinely pays for land, and it was interested in purchasing this land. That is evidence of a financial or economic interest: in other words, a pecuniary interest. Just as land has value, the use of land has value. Here, the vote was on giving The Bruce Trail Conservancy the use of land for free. Receiving valuable use for free is a matter of financial or economic interest: in other words, a pecuniary interest.
As discussed above, the permission to use the property is of economic interest to The Bruce Trail Conservancy, and thus constitutes a pecuniary interest for the purposes of section 5 and section 5.1 of the MCIA.
Mr. Nix argues that it is not The Bruce Trail Conservancy but the general public that benefits from a trail on “Town-owned land that is not otherwise used”:

By agreeing to build a trail on town-owned land … [The Bruce Trail Conservancy] is benefiting the general public who, without paying any entrance fee, gets to hike on the trail. In this particular case, the general public also benefits by not having to walk along approximately 1.3 kilometres of the Second Line of Mono and not having to walk along County Road #7 (Hockley Road).

I accept the premise that walking on a trail might confer an intangible benefit, not monetary, financial or economic, on a member of the public. Nonetheless, it does not follow that the charity, given free use of a piece of land on which to build the trail, lacks a pecuniary interest in getting to use the piece of land for free.

C. Did an exception apply?

No. I believe that the Deputy Mayor’s indirect pecuniary interest was not exempt from disclosure and recusal.
Section 4 of the MCIA sets out eleven exceptions to the requirement to declare a pecuniary interest and withdraw from decision-making and voting. One exception is clause (k).

Sections 5 and 5.2 do not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have ... (k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.

It should be noted that section 4 does not negate the existence of a pecuniary interest. Section 4 merely provides that the pecuniary interest does not need to be declared and that the Member does not need to withdraw from decision-making, voting and attempting to influence others.
The test, under clause 4(k), of what can be reasonably regarded as likely to influence, is based on the standard of a reasonable elector fully apprised of all the circumstances.¹²
Under clause 4(k), the amount or extent of a pecuniary interest does matter. If the interest is so insignificant – for example, so small – that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the Council Member, then sections 5 and 5.2 of the MCIA do not apply.
The situation here differs from Duncan v. Thurlow, a Saskatchewan case in which the councillor argued the real estate involved was worth nothing.¹³ This case involves land that The Bruce Trail Conservancy, an entity that spends millions annually on land acquisition, is interested in buying. The property is not worthless.
The Bruce Trail Conservancy had sufficient interest in use of the land that the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club appeared on its behalf to request permission from Council. That indicates that the matter was significant, at least to the Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club.
In my view, the pecuniary interest of The Bruce Trail Conservancy interest is not so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the Council Member.
The same is true of the indirect pecuniary interest of Mr. Nix. It is not so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence him.
I have taken into account the absence of any personal financial impact on Mr. Nix. This is relevant to whether the pecuniary interest is, “so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.”¹⁴ However, it is not the only factor.
According to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ferri v. Ontario (Attorney General), another relevant factor is whether Mr. Nix’s relationship with some other person or entity influences his approach to issues before Council, or whether a reasonable person would regard the person’s or entity’s interests to be likely to have such an influence.¹⁵¹⁶
It is relevant that, during Council meetings, including October 22, the Deputy Mayor mentions his membership in The Bruce Trail Conservancy and sometimes explains The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s perspective and views to the rest of Council. As I noted in my 2022 report, sometimes, in discussions before Council, Mr. Nix uses the pronoun “we” to refer to The Bruce Trail Conservancy.¹⁷
Because the Deputy Mayor associates himself with The Bruce Trail Conservancy, and discusses The Bruce Trail Conservancy in terms of his membership and involvement, a reasonable person may well regard the pecuniary interest of The Bruce Trail Conservancy (which is indirectly Mr. Nix’s pecuniary interest under section 2 of the MCIA) as likely to influence him.
In my view, by openly discussing his membership and Bruce Trail involvement during Council decision making, Mr. Nix has created a situation in which a reasonable observer would be unsure whether Mr. Nix is representing the interests of the Town or the interests of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.¹⁸ ¹⁹
The Deputy Mayor believes that, on this motion, the interests of the Town and the interests of The Bruce Trail Conservancy were the same. This is essentially the position taken by the late Hazel McCallion during Justice Cunningham’s inquiry: she felt entitled to advocate on behalf of her son’s development project because it was good for the City of Mississauga.²⁰ Justice Cunningham concluded that her actions were inappropriate and her win-win interpretation of conflict of interest was mistaken, narrow and incorrect.²¹
Consequently, I believe that the exemption in clause 4(k) did not apply to Deputy Mayor Nix in this situation. He was not exempt from the obligation – in order words, he was required – to disclose his pecuniary interest orally and in writing and not to participate in discussion, decision-making, or voting.
I repeat that the issue has nothing to do with the importance of the Bruce Trail or the merits of the Town’s cooperation with The Bruce Trail Conservancy. This report is about the participation, by a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy, in Town decision-making that benefitted The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
In his response to the draft of this decision, Mr. Nix argues that I should also consider the exemption in clause 4(j) of the MCIA. Clause 4(j) exempts from the MCIA’s requirements of disclosure and recusal “a pecuniary interest which is an interest in common with electors generally.”
His argument is that, because The Bruce Trail Conservancy is going to build a trail that benefits the general public, any interest is shared with the public.
At Mr. Nix’s suggestion, I have considered clause 4(j). In my opinion, the exemption does not apply to him in this circumstance.
“Interest in common with electors generally” means “a pecuniary interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction.”²² The term does not necessarily include all electors; “it is those affected electors who are to be regarded when considering the issue of conflict of interest.”²³
“The purpose of section 5 of the MCIA, as qualified by [clause] 4(j), is to restrict participation in the debate of a measure by Council to: a) those whose interest in it is no greater than that of all other electors affected by the decision …”²⁴
Moreover, “it is not the nature of the interest, but the breadth of those who share the interest” that determines whether clause 4(j) of the MCIA applies.²⁵
In the case at hand, The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s initiative may indeed be laudable and in the public interest, and its desired actions may very well be supported by many electors in the Town, including in the area of the proposed new trail. As I have previously mentioned, the charity’s mandate has, historically, been seen to align with the Town’s interests.
However, public support for a charity’s role in a municipal transaction, or public benefit that flows once the charity completes the transaction, does not give the public a pecuniary interest in the transaction – certainly not the same pecuniary interest as the charity itself.
With great respect, I believe that the argument about a common interest is a version of the Hazel McCallion mistake considered by the Cunningham Inquiry.²⁶ In that case, electors generally shared an interest in appropriate development of Mississauga’s core, but electors generally did not have a pecuniary interest in the mayor’s son’s company. In this case, even if we accept that electors generally share an interest in appropriate utilization of Town land, and in promotion of outdoor recreation such as hiking, when it comes to giving the land, or the use of the land, to a charity, electors generally do not possess the same pecuniary interest as the charity and its members.
The determination of how this piece of Town land is used and ultimately may be transferred is one in which The Bruce Trail Conservancy has a stronger interest²⁷ than the breadth of the community of electors, who themselves may be divided on the question.
As Deputy Mayor Nix himself observes in his January 23 reply to the draft of this decision, Town residents have held mixed views about other trails of The Bruce Trail Conservancy:

There has been some argument that land values increase when The Bruce Trail [Conservancy] builds a trail nearby (“land for sale, across from the Bruce Trail”). But we also have had very vehement arguments from Mono landowners that the value of their land goes down when the Bruce Trail is built close to their properties.

For these reasons, I conclude that, on October 22, the Deputy Mayor’s interest (which is The Bruce Trail Conservancy’s interest) was not in common with the electors who might have been affected by the motion. The exemption in clause 4(j) of the MCIA did not apply to him.

D. Should I make an application to a judge?

The Municipal Act provides that the Integrity Commissioner must decide whether to take the MCIA allegation to the Superior Court of Justice. I believe that Mr. Nix breached the MCIA, but only a judge can determine whether he did so. Only a judge can impose a penalty.
Significantly, the Ontario Legislature, in section 223.4.1 of the Municipal Act, has left the decision to Integrity Commissioners. Councils do not get to ratify or approve Integrity Commissioners’ MCIA litigation. Under section 223.4.1, Integrity Commissioners do not make recommendations on litigation; they decide.
The cost of a Integrity Commissioner’s court application would be borne by the Town. Such litigation can be expensive. Even in small municipalities, some Integrity Commissioners have launched costly litigation under the MCIA.
A former Integrity Commissioner of Elliot Lake took an MCIA case to court, and then appealed (and lost²⁸), at a cost to the municipality of $263,259.²⁹ Council did not support the appeal and had terminated the Integrity Commissioner’s appointment, but was powerless to stop the case from continuing at municipal expense.³⁰
While other Integrity Commissioners clearly are emboldened by the power to launch litigation for which their municipalities must pay, I view this power as imposing on Integrity Commissioners the responsibility to act prudently and responsibly.
The guidance of the provincial Ombudsman is not binding on municipal Integrity Commissioners, but I agree with the observation in the Ombudsman’s publication, Codes of Conduct and Integrity Commissioners: Guide for Municipalities, that Integrity Commissioners should “ensure they use the municipalit[ies’] resources efficiently.”³¹
The Deputy Mayor would have avoided this situation had he applied my February 22 advice to the situation at hand, had he asked for my advice in October, had he taken the Clerk’s written advice (even though it is not the responsibility of the staff to guide members in conflict of interest), “I believe you have a conflict on item 1 (Bruce Trail),” or had he followed up with me afterward.
Given his familiarity with The Bruce Trail Conservancy, the Deputy Mayor knows the value the Conservancy places on land for the Trail. He would have avoided this inquiry had he realized the issue before the Town was whether to confer an economic benefit on the Conservancy, in the form of permission to use land for free.
The Bruce Trail Conservancy is a charity that does good work and operates in cooperation with the Town of Mono. The Deputy Mayor would have avoided this situation if – as in past – he left the decision-making process to his four colleagues who were not members of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
On the other hand, I do not feel that expensive litigation, at significant cost to the Town, would be in the best interests of Mono. I feel that, if the Deputy Mayor and the rest of Council view the inquiry and this report as a learning experience, a teaching moment, then the process will have a salutary effect without the need for legal and court costs.
Consequently, I have decided not to apply to a judge for a determination as to whether the Deputy Mayor contravened sections 5 and 5.1 of the MCIA.

Decision

I will not apply to a judge under section 8 of the MCIA for a determination as to whether Deputy Mayor Nix contravened the MCIA on October 22, 2024.
Under the legislation, the Applicant has the right to apply personally to a judge for a determination of whether Deputy Mayor Nix contravened the MCIA, if she does so within six weeks after receiving this decision.

Publication

The Municipal Act requires that, after deciding whether or not to apply to a judge, the Integrity Commissioner shall publish written reasons for the decision. This decision will be published by providing it to the Town to make public and by posting on the free, online database as decision 2025 ONMIC 2.
Subsection 223.5 (2.3) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in these written reasons such information as in my opinion is necessary. All the content of these reasons is, in my opinion, necessary.

Guy Giorno

Integrity Commissioner

Town of Mono

February 1, 2025

Appendix

Except from written advice from Integrity Commissioner to Deputy Mayor Nix, February 22, 2024

Relevant Provisions of MCIA

In particular, under the MCIA, you have an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter if any of the following applies:

You are a director or senior officer of a corporation that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
You are a shareholder in a private corporation (i.e., corporation that is not publicly traded) that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
You have a controlling interest in a publicly-traded corporation that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
You are a member of a body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter. [in the original, this bullet was not underlined but it was highlighted in yellow]
You are employed by an individual, corporation or body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
You are a partner (in the sense of a business partnership) of a person that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

You will note the scenario that I have highlighted. If you are a member of a body that has a pecuniary interest in a matter considered by Council or a committee, then you possess a pecuniary interest in the matter, you must disclose the interest, and you must not vote or participate in decision-making on the matter or try to influence the decision … unless one of the exemptions in section 4 of the MCIA applies.

One of the exemptions in section 4 of the MCIA appears in clause 4(k): “an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member.”

Background Facts

As I understand, The Bruce Trail Conservancy has two applications currently before the Town:

Application B03-23, which seeks to sever from the property at 713403 1st Line East of Hurontario Street a lot occupied by a house, so that BTC can sell the house to raise funds.
Application B09-23, which seeks to sever from the property at 953096 7th Line East of Hurontario Street a lot occupied by a dwelling and a garage, so that BTC can sell the residential lot to raise funds.

Before Council on February 27 will be a request by BTC that the Town waive one of the conditions of approval of Applications B03-23 and B09-23, namely, the condition (Condition 7) that BTC pay a parkland levy unless it is demonstrated that the condition does not apply to BTC.

When I last examined the issue of your involvement in BTC, I understood the following:

The Bruce Trail Conservancy is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated in 1963 as The Bruce Trail Association. Its name was changed in 2007.
Membership in The Bruce Trail Conservancy includes membership in one of its nine affiliated clubs. One of these nine clubs is the Caledon Hills Club (also known as the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club).
For many years, you have been an active member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy and the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club. In this capacity, you have volunteered to help maintain a portion of the Trail.
Other than active membership, you hold no official position in The Bruce Trail Conservancy or the Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club.
Your biography on the Town website used to mention that you were a member of The Bruce Trail Conservancy.
Typically, when any matter that involves the Bruce Trail comes before Council, you inform Council Members and the public that you are a member.

If any of the above statements is no longer correct, please let me know, because the correction might affect my advice to you.

How the MCIA Applies to the Applications and the Request to Waive Condition 7

In my view, The Bruce Trail Conservancy has a pecuniary interest in both Application B03-23 and Application B09-23. In each case, the severance will allow the BTC to sell residential property to generate revenue. This is clearly a matter of pecuniary interest to the BTC.

In addition, the BTC has a pecuniary interest in the request to waive Condition 7. Whether or not the BTC must pay a parkland levy is clearly a matter of pecuniary interest.

I understand that you have no financial interest in the BTC and, consequently, no financial interest in Applications B03-23 and B09-23 and the request to waive Condition 7. That is not relevant to whether you have an indirect pecuniary interest. If you are a member of the BTC, then its pecuniary interests are … considered to be your pecuniary interests.

Is Your Indirect Pecuniary Interest Exempt?

See, for example, Tolnai v. Downey, 2003 CanLII 40120 (Ont. S.C.) and Cooper v. Wiancko, 2018 ONSC 342.

Consequently, I believe that the exemption in clause 4(k) does not apply to you in this situation. You are not exempt from the obligation – in order words, you are required – to disclose the interest in Applications B03-23 and B09-23 and the request to waive Condition 7, not to participate in discussion, decision-making, or voting, and not to do anything to influence the voting.

About This Advice

My advice to you is based on the information set out in this Background Facts section of this email. If the information above is inaccurate or incomplete, then please do not rely on the advice. Instead, please let me know about the inaccuracy or incompleteness so that I may modify the advice accordingly.

This advice is provided under the provisions of the Municipal Act. The advice is yours to handle as you wish. You may share it or make it public. The decision to make it public is yours. You are, however, under no obligation to make this advice public if you wish to keep it confidential.

I may release this advice with your written consent.
If you release only part of this advice, then I am free to release part or all of it.
If an application alleging a Municipal Conflict of Interest Act contravention is made to me, then I may disclose this advice in the reasons for my determination.
If an application is made to a judge alleging that you contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, then I may disclose this advice in that application.

Thank you.

Footnotes

By-Law Number 2022-41.
Resolution #3-17-2024.
According to subsection 9(2) of the MCIA, obtaining advice, if any, from the Integrity Commissioner, may be a relevant consideration. The MCIA provides no basis for relying on guidance from the staff.
The Bruce Trail Conservancy, “Handshake Agreements” (undated), online: https://brucetrail.org/our-conservation-process/
Marilyn Ross, President, Caledon Hills Bruce Trail Club, Letter to Fred Simpson, Clerk, Town of Mono (April 24, 2022).
The Bruce Trail Conservancy, “2023-2024 Annual Impact Report: Protecting Nature Today for the Generations of Tomorrow,” at 10.
The Bruce Trail Conservancy, Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2024, at 4.
“Handshake Agreements,” note 4.
Ferri v. Ontario, at para. 16.
2012 SKQB 179.
Tolnai v. Downey, note 11, at para. 29; Cooper v. Wiancko, 2018 ONSC 342, at para. 80.
Ferri v. Ontario, at paras. 16-18.
I have previously criticized Ferri v. Ontario, as well as cases such as Amaral v. Kennedy, note 18, for introducing subjective factors into the interpretation of the MCIA’s exceptions and weakening the Act’s application: Deutschmann v. Ostner, 2023 ONMIC 5, at paras. 16-18; Davis v. Carter, 2020 ONMIC 5, at paras. 63-65. Here, the Deputy Mayor’s participation in decision-making on the motion did not even satisfy the subjective factors and lower standard of Ferri and Amaral.
Re Nix, 2022 ONMIC 17, at para. 81.
Amaral v. Kennedy, [2012] O.J. No. 3766 (Div. Ct.), at para. 41.
See discussion of Amaral v. Kennedy in note 16.
J.D. Cunningham, Report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry: Updating the ethical infrastructure (2011), at 82.
Ibid., at 149-154.
Yorke et. al. v. Harris, 2020 ONSC 7361, at para. 56.
Ibid., at para. 57.
Gammie v. Turner, 2013 ONSC 4563, at para. 76.
Tuchenhagen v. Mondoux, 2011 ONSC 5398, at para. 43.
See paragraph 125, above.
As previously explained, a pecuniary interest of The Bruce Trail Conservancy constitutes an indirect pecuniary interest of Deputy Mayor Nix.
City of Elliot Lake v. Pearce, 2021 ONSC 7859 (Div. Ct.)
City of Elliot Lake, Staff Report, Review of Legal / Integrity Commissioner Fees (October 11, 2022), online: https://pub-elliotlake.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=4853, at 4. The row titled “Conflict of Interest Councillor Pearce” shows costs of the MCIA proceedings.
City of Elliot Lake, “City’s Integrity Commissioner Appealing Judge’s Decision in Pearce Case” (June 9, 2021), online: https://www.elliotlake.ca/Modules/News/index.aspx?feedid=bdf1ae07-dd3a-45a8-800d-df1b26836bdc&newsId=17a70d6b-ad0f-438c-b633-c94900b97a04
Ontario, Ombudsman, Municipal Integrity Commissioners: Best Practice Guide (2024), at 24.