CITY OF Peterborough Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: Anderson v. Parnell, 2025 ONMIC 5 Date: December 15, 2025

INQUIRY Report

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

The Complaint 3

Timing. 3

Summary. 3

Process. 3

Positions of the Parties. 6

Complainant’s Position. 6

Respondent’s Position.. 7

Complainant’s Reply to the Response. 8

Evidence and Findings of Fact 9

Issues and Analysis. 9

A. Did Respondent ask certain residents to take down lawn signs?. 11

B. Did she intimidate or attempt to intimidate them, contrary to section 10?. 11

C. Did she misuse influence of office, contrary to section 29?. 12

Conclusions. 12

Content 12

The Complaint

1. Ms Penelope Anderson (Complainant) alleges that Councillor Lesley Parnell (Respondent) contravened the Council Code of Conduct by attempting to get two households to remove “Save Bonnerworth Park” lawn signs.

2. I have numbered the Complaint as File No. 2024-03-CC.

Timing

3. I issue reports based on the order in which complaints are received.

4. Since issuing the joint report in the Therrien-Hale et al. v. Leal and Lachica v. Leal inquiries, 2025 ONMIC 4, I have moved promptly to complete the remaining reports.

Summary

5. The Complaint is not frivolous or vexatious. It raises an important issue about protecting freedom of expression.

6. Intimidation, coercion and misuse of influence, to try to stop people from expressing themselves, are all contrary to the Code. On the other hand, merely trying to persuade someone does not contravene the Code.

7. The Respondent did communicate with a couple of residents with the intention of persuading the removal of lawn signs. She did so in compliance with the Code. She did not intimidate or attempt to intimidate contrary to section 10. She did not use or attempt to use her position as Councillor to influence removal of the signs contrary to section 29.

Process

8. In operating under the Council Code of Conduct, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual bringing the Complaint (the Complainant) and the Council Member responding to the Complaint (the Respondent). This fair and balanced process begins with me issuing a Notice of Inquiry that sets out the issues in the inquiry. The Complaint, including any complaint material, is attached to the Notice. The Respondent is given the opportunity to respond, and then the Complainant receives the opportunity to reply to the Response. The Respondent is made aware of the Complainant’s name. I do, however, redact personal information such as personal phone numbers and email addresses. I may accept supplementary communications and submissions from the parties, generally on the condition that each party gets to see the other’s communications with me. I do this in the interest of transparency and fairness.

9. On May 30, 2024, I received by email a Code of Conduct complaint form,

10. I subsequently discussed the inquiry process with the Complainant and obtained clarification of the allegation. I also took steps to confirm that the allegation in the Complaint was capable of being investigated, were I to conduct an inquiry; on June 6, I confirmed that this was the case. June 6 is the effective date of the Complaint.

11. The original Complaint alleged that the Respondent contravened paragraph 10 c) and paragraph 29 a) of the Code.

12. 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.¹

13. The Divisional Court has also confirmed that an Integrity Commissioner may reformulate a complaint to identify more clearly an alleged breach.²

14. I assessed that the opening words of section 10 and the opening words of section 29 of the Code most closely relate to the Complainant’s allegation.

15. Sections 10 and 29 of the Code are reproduced before. I have underlined the provisions relevant to the Complaint:

16. Each Member has the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public, each other Member and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation, and to ensure that the City’s work environment is free from discrimination and Harassment. Without limitation, a Member must not:

a) use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions toward any other Member, any member of staff or any member of the public;

b) speak in a manner that is discriminatory to any individual, based on that person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability; or

c) engage in any Harassment of any other Member, any member of staff or any member of the public.

29. No Member may use the influence of her or his office for any purpose other than for the lawful exercise of her or his official duties and for City purposes. Without limitation, no Member may:

a) use her or his office or position to influence or attempt to influence the decision of any other person, for the Member’s private advantage or that of the Member’s parent, child, spouse, staff member, friend or associate, business or otherwise;

b) attempt to secure preferential treatment beyond activities in which Members normally engage on behalf of their constituents as part of their official duties; or

c) hold out the prospect or promise of future advantage through the Member’s supposed influence within Council, in return for any action or inaction.

16. I determined that it was appropriate to reformulate the Complaint on this basis and to conduct an inquiry.

17. On June 10, I issued a Notice of Inquiry that set out the following issues, based on sections 10 and 29 of the Code, to be considered in the inquiry:

A. Did the Respondent ask certain named residents to take down their “Save Bonnerworth Park” lawn signs?

If so:

B. Did she intimidate or attempt to intimidate these members of the public, contrary to section 10 of the Code?

C. Did she use the influence of her office for a purpose other than the lawful exercise of her official duties and City purposes, contrary to section 29 of the Code?

18. Paragraph 10 c) and paragraph 29 a), though mentioned in the Complaint, were not considered in the inquiry. My reasons for not considering them follow.

19. Paragraph 10 c) deals with harassment. While the definition of “harassment” in the Council Code of Conduct seems broad, in Ontario it is generally understood that harassment involves a course of conduct or a pattern. This finding is consistent with the City of Peterborough Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy, which defines harassment as, “Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” Unless the incident is severe,³ a single incident does not amount to a course of conduct and is not harassment.⁴ The allegation is that the Respondent contacted two households. In my view, a course of conduct or a pattern had not been alleged. Consequently, the inquiry did not investigate the incident as an alleged case of harassment.

20. Paragraph 29 a) deals with using one’s office to influence for private advantage. The Complaint does not allege that the Respondent was motivated by a private advantage as that term is used in the Code. Consequently, the inquiry did not consider paragraph a) of section 29. It only considered the opening words of section 29.

21. I received a Response on June 12.

22. After reviewing the Response, I shared it with the Complainant. On June 28, the Complainant replied.

23. I spoke to the Complainant, the Respondent, and several residents. I also reviewed street maps, background on the issue addressed by the signs (Bonnerworth Park redevelopment), and Council meeting records related to Bonnerworth.

24. In making my findings and reaching my conclusions, I have taken into account the submissions of both parties and all of the evidence obtained during the inquiry.

Positions of the Parties

Complainant’s Position

25. The Complainant explains that the “Save Bonnerworth Park” lawn signs were part of a city-wide initiative.

26. The Complainant observes that signs are an important use of freedom of expression:

The sign is a form of silent protest and a means of exercising a right foundational to our democratic system of government – the freedom of expression and shows the power of that expression through a collective form.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association states that when government actors are allowed to decide which opinions can be expressed and cannot, an open, vibrant and diverse society quickly breaks down. Informed debate requires that this right be strongly protected and it is only through free expression that individuals can take action to ensure that our governing institutions are held accountable.

27. According to the Complainant, the Respondent contacted two residents and asked them to take down their lawn signs, because the Council decision had already made (was a “done deal”) and there was no need for the signs (“waste of time”). One resident took down the sign, and the other did not.

28. The Complainant states that “there were no threats involved.” However, the resident who took down the sign was “annoyed” and the resident who did not remove the sign was “upset.”

29. Prior to submitting this Code of Conduct complaint, the Complainant emailed Council. The following excerpt from that email reflects the Complainant’s position:

First off, the Coalition to Save Bonnerworth Park is furious about this Councillor’s actions, which verge on intimidation; the [resident] feels harassed. Because of the Councillor’s behaviour, this [resident] now wants more signs, as do other [residents] … Can they expect phone calls, too?

As a democracy, of course, we have certain rights and I'm sure you have heard that many times. Intimidation by political representatives has no place, anywhere, anytime, in our society. This Councillor has crossed the line with this outrageous and egregious behaviour; it needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Councillor should apologize publicly to the Mayor, Council … and all citizens of Peterborough.

Secondly, as mentioned above, this same Councillor states (and has done so on more than one occasion) that Bonnerworth is a “done deal.” With this statement, the Councillor is indicating the City intends to ignore the noise, traffic, parking, stormwater, and geotechnical studies now underway, no matter what the studies and the public say. Does this Councillor speak on behalf of the Mayor and fellow Councillors in this regard? These comments only serve to reinforce the high level of distrust we have heard residents across the City express for the Mayor and Council.⁵

30. To be clear, while the email above mentions the Coalition to Save Bonnerworth Park, the Complaint was filed in an individual capacity and not on behalf of an organization.

Respondent’s Position

31. The Respondent explains that two residents were contacted and asked what was said to them when they were asked to take lawn signs. According to the Respondent, one resident had been given misinformation and, once the Respondent explained the actual plan for Bonnerworth, decided to remove the sign.

32. At another address where a sign was displayed, the Respondent spoke to a resident who did not know the background to the sign, as it has been put up by a co-resident. The Respondent never spoke to the co-resident.

33. According to the Respondent, neither conversation involved intimidation or improper use of the position of Councillor. In neither conversation was removal of the sign demanded.

34. The Respondent notes that she and other Council Members who supported the Bonnerworth redevelopment were subjected to protests, even swarming, and criticism in the news media and on social media. One protest sign decried a “Putin-Parnell P’ball Paradise.”

35. According to her, criticism of the plans was subject to so much misinformation that the City needed to post a statement setting the record straight.⁶

36. The Respondent observes that the allegation in the Complaint has also been published in a newspaper opinion column.⁷

37. The Respondent submits that the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious.

Complainant’s Reply

38. The Complainant says the Response acknowledges the signs were what motivated the contacts, so clearly, there was an attempt to influence. Further, telling a resident that a decision is a “done deal” or signs are as “waste of time” is an attempt to influence or intimate.

39. The Complainant denies the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious. Its purpose is not to annoy the Respondent but to uphold freedom of expression.

40. The Complainant notes that approximately 400 signs were displayed across the City, but only two residents were contacted by the Respondent about their signs.

41. The Complainant clarifies that she (Complainant) was the one who removed the sign from one of the two residents, placing it on the lawn of the second address at the request of its resident.

42. The Complainant agrees no demand was made to remove a sign. A request was made. According to the Complainant, that in itself was inappropriate.

43. The Complainant says the Respondent is mistaken in associating the Complainant with a group of protestors.

44. The Complainant notes that many passages of the Response reflect disagreement with people exercising freedom of expression. While the Respondent may disagree, residents still have the right to express their views.

45. The Complainant observes that the Respondent’s comments about misinformation and protests are irrelevant to the issue in this inquiry, which is whether the Respondent was wrong to request the removal of lawn signs.

Evidence and Findings of Fact

46. Most findings of fact appear under this heading. Some findings appear in the Issues and Analysis section that starts at page 24 below.

47. Findings of fact are made based on the standard of the balance of probabilities.

48. The parties agree that the Respondent’s communications did not involve demands to remove signs and did not involve threats.

49. On the other hand, it is clear that the signs were the reason the Respondent reached out.

50. I find that the Respondent disagreed with the signs and preferred their removal. However, as discussed under the next heading, this finding does not necessarily establish a breach of the Code.

51. I find that the Respondent’s tone was reasonable and professional.

52. I find the resident who was most concerned about the Respondent’s contact was not the resident at that address to whom the Respondent spoke.

53. I have taken care to avoid identifying the residents with lawn signs. For example, I have not commented on the locations of their properties.

54. I find that the Respondent communicated with the residents in her capacity as a Councillor.

55. However, I find that the Respondent did not use or attempt to use her position as Councillor to influence removal of the signs. I base this finding, in part, on information about the relationship between the Councillor and the residents – information I am not including in this report so as not to identify the individuals.

Issues and Analysis

56. Before turning to the specific issues in the inquiry, I state the following conclusions.

57. First, I find that the existence of protests and criticism, the dissemination of alleged misinformation, and the merits of either side of the debate on Bonnerworth Park, are not relevant to whether the Code of conduct was contravened.

58. Second, I do not find the Complaint to be frivolous or vexatious. Regardless of the result of this inquiry, I agree that the Complainant was genuinely motivated by a desire to protect freedom of expression.

59. I accept and endorse the paragraphs of the Complaint, quoted in paragraph 24, above, that describe the importance of freedom of expression and the role of lawn signs in facilitating people’s free expression.

60. As Peter Downard wrote in the Supreme Court Law Review:

… in recent decades there has been an increasing consciousness among legislators and the judiciary of the importance of freedom of expression in democratic societies. Free expression advances intelligent democratic self-government, the determination of truth and persons’ individual self-fulfillment. Freedom of expression protects listeners as well as speakers.⁸

61. Freedom of expression belongs to everyone. In the case of Bonnerworth Park, both sides had the right to express their views freely. Councillor Parnell had as much a right to express herself as did the Complainant and the residents with lawn signs.

62. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to persuade others. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The ability to engage in effective speech in the public square means nothing if it does not include the ability to attempt to persuade one’s fellow citizens through debate and discussion. This is the kernel from which reasoned political discourse emerges. Freedom of expression must allow a citizen to give voice to her vision for her community and nation, to advocate change through the art of persuasion in the hope of improving her life and indeed the larger social, political and economic landscape.⁹

63. Just as the Complainant and residents possessed the right to persuade others of their views on Bonnerworth, the Respondent enjoyed the same right. The Respondent had the right to attempt to persuade others – including the right to try to persuade people to remove their “Save Bonnerworth Park” signs.

64. The right to persuade does not include the right to intimidate: see Council Code of Conduct, section 10. People have the right to try to persuade others, but the others have the right to be free from intimidation and coercion.¹⁰

65. Against this backdrop, I have considered the following issues:

A. Did the Respondent ask certain residents to take down their “Save Bonnerworth Park” lawn signs?

B. Did she intimidate or attempt to intimidate these members of the public, contrary to section 10 of the Code?

C. Did she use the influence of her office for a purpose other than the lawful exercise of her official duties and City purposes, contrary to section 29 of the Code?

A. Did Respondent ask certain residents to take down lawn signs?

66. Yes.

67. More specifically, I find the Respondent communicated with two residents in an attempt to persuade them not to display “Save Bonnerworth Park” signs.

B. Did she intimidate or attempt to intimidate them, contrary to section 10?

68. No. The Respondent did not threaten or intimidate and did not contravene section 10.

69. The relevant portion of section 10 reads as follows:

Each Member has the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public, each other Member and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation …

70. At least one resident did not want to be persuaded to remove the lawn sign. Receiving an unwelcome request is not the same as being intimidated.

71. The Code does not define intimidation, but the ordinary meaning of the word is often linked to threatening and/or fear. See the dictionary definitions set out in Therrien-Hale et al. v Leal, 2025 ONMIC 4, para. 264.

72. The Respondent’s communications with residents did not constitute intimidation according to the ordinary meaning of the word or as used in section 10 of the Code.

C. Did she misuse influence of office, contrary to section 29?

73. No. As I have found, the Respondent did not use or attempt to use her position as Councillor to influence removal of the signs: see paragraph 53, above.

Conclusions

74. In the circumstances considered by this inquiry, Councillor Parnell did not contravene the Code.

75. There is a line between trying to persuade someone to remove a sign and trying to intimate or misusing influence to achieve that result. The Respondent did the former, not the latter.

76. However, precisely because the public has the right to exercise freedom of expression without interference, all Councillor Members should in future be wary about attempting to persuade people to stop expressing themselves.

Content

77. 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

City of Peterborough

December 15, 2025

Footnotes

1. 1Dhillon v. Brampton (City), 2021 ONSC 4165, paras. 34, 40.
2. 2Di Biase v. Vaughan (City), 2016 ONSC 5620, para. 42.
3. 3B.C. v. London Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1644, paras. 46-48.
4. 4Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362, 2008 SCC 39, para. 73.
5. 5In quoting documents, my practice is to correct obvious typographical errors without drawing attention to the correction unless the correction is material. This report also edits punctuation and capitalization for consistency.
6. 6City of Peterborough, “Statement on Bonnerworth and Knights of Columbus Parks,” online: https://www.connectptbo.ca/bonnerworth-park/news_feed/statement-on-bonnerworth-park-project
7. 7Sylvia Sutherland, “Bonnerworth and loss of trust: The pickleball ‘deal’ may be ‘done’ – and so may some members of council,” Peterborough Examiner (June 12, 2024).
8. 8Peter A. Downard, “The Defence of Responsible Communication” (2010), 51 S.C.L.R. (2d) 159 at 159-160.
9. 9Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827 at 841, para. 16. See also R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156, 2002 SCC 8, para. 32; U.F.C.W., Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., 1999 CanLII 650 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083, para. 43.
10. 10In an analogous context (labour relations): Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local 1288P, 1999 CanLII 651 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1136, at 1153, para. 28.