CITY OF Peterborough Integrity COMMISSIONER, Guy Giorno

Citation: People and Culture Division v. Riel, 2025 ONMIC 9 Date: December 19, 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 Referral 3

Timing. 3

Summary. 3

Background. 5

Removal of Encampment 6

Meeting with Local Businesses. 15

Bi-Weekly Meetings with the Staff 17

Other Issues. 18

Process. 18

Positions of the Parties. 20

Employee’s Position.. 20

Complainant’s Position. 21

Respondent’s Position.. 21

Findings of Fact 23

Emailed Comments. 24

Meeting with Business Representatives. 26

Preliminary Issue. 27

Similar Fact Evidence and Pattern Evidence. 27

Issues and Analysis. 28

Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy. 29

Portfolio Chairs By-law.. 30

A. Did Respondent contravene paragraph 4.1.6 b) of Policy?. 32

B. Did Respondent contravene section 10 of Code?. 35

C. Did Respondent contravene section 13 of Code?. 36

Conclusions. 36

Recommendations. 37

Content 38

The Referral

1. On September 2, 2024, I received a referral from the Director (Acting), People and Culture. The Director was forwarding a complaint from a staff member that alleged conduct by Councillor Keith Riel that possibly contravened the Member of Council-Staff Relations Policy and the Council Code of Conduct.

2. The Director forwarded the staff complaint to me for two reasons: First, complaints under the Member of Council-Staff Relations Policy are to be directed to the Integrity Commissioner. Second, the People and Culture Division was functioning as Complainant under the Council Code of Conduct to ensure that the issues are also considered under the Code and to include in the inquiry additional, allegedly similar conduct of Councillor Riel.

3. This report refers to the People and Culture Division as the Complainant, to Councillor Riel as the Respondent, and to the staff member who complained to People and Culture as the Employee.

4. I assigned to this matter File No. 2024-05-CC.

Timing

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

6. 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

7. The issues in this inquiry arise partly from Peterborough’s practice (established by by-law) of assigning Councillors to handle “Portfolios” that correspond to functions of the City staff. The Portfolio system perhaps blurs the line between the role of Councillors and the role of the staff. Council may wish to review the Portfolio Chairs By-law in light of this report.

8. My jurisdiction does not include interpreting the Portfolio Chairs By-law but does include reviewing the Respondent’s conduct. In reviewing his conduct, I find that the Portfolio Chairs By-law gave the Respondent a reasonable belief that responding to media and public inquiries was part of his role and gave him a reasonable belief that he should receive from the staff the information necessary to handle those inquiries. His interpretation of the By-law may have been mistaken, but his belief was reasonable and genuine.

9. Indeed, the Respondent’s confusion was understandable. The Portfolio Chairs By-law states or implies that Portfolio Co-Chairs are to receive inquiries from third parties (such as residents and journalists) but does not clearly guarantee the supports, including access to information, that might be needed to handle such inquiries.

10. The Respondent sent emails in which he expressed frustration that he and the other Portfolio Co-Chair did not receive advance information about the location of a temporary shelter during the eviction of an encampment. Even if he had misinterpreted the Portfolio Chairs By-law, he was entitled to express his opinion about the lack of sharing of information.

11. A careful, fair and reasonable review of the Respondent’s emails about the eviction of the encampment reveals no breach of section 10 or section 13 of the Code or paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy. The emails were a mix of fact and reasonably-held opinion, they did not make personal attacks, and they included some hyperbolic and petulant content. Hyperbole and petulance do not contravene the Code or the Policy.

12. Based on conflicting recollections, it is not possible to find that the Respondent made a comment, at a meeting with representatives of local businesses, intended to marginalize the contribution of a staff member. Public humiliation of a staff member would clearly contravene the Policy and section 13 of the Code, but no such finding could be made.

13. Because there were no findings that the matters raised in the original employee complaint involved breaches of the Code and/or the Policy, it would be unfair to find different, new contraventions based on the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence, in the form of additional emails, that the Complainant subsequently provided. This technical result does not vindicate the conduct reflected in the additional emails, as some of it is disturbing. The Respondent is on notice that, going forward, the full weight of the Policy and the Code will apply to any email that treats the staff disrespectfully or unprofessionally or that comments on a staff member’s performance (unless directed solely to the CAO).

14. The Respondent believes that the City staff dealt with him in ways that contravened the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy and the Portfolio Chairs By-law. My jurisdiction covers complaints about Council Members not complaints against the staff, so I could not directly handle the Respondent’s allegations. However, as part of my jurisdiction to review the Respondent's conduct, it was appropriate for me to consider whether (mis)application of that Policy or that By-law might justify, explain or mitigate his conduct. I find that the By-law is relevant context for the Respondent’s conduct, and I have summarized my findings about it above. On the other hand, I found nothing in how the Policy and its application that offered support for the Respondent’s position.

Background

15. City Council’s Portfolio system has existed for 40 years. In February 2024, the system was updated by enactment of By-law 24-017, the Portfolio Chairs By-law, which provides for the delegation of authority to individual Councillors who are designated as Portfolio Co-Chairs.

16. The Portfolios correspond to the City’s administrative Departments, each of which is headed by a Commissioner.

17. At the time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, the Community Services Department corresponded to two Portfolios. One Portfolio corresponded to three of the Department’s Divisions (Arts and Culture, Library Services, Social Services), and the other Portfolio corresponded to the remaining two Divisions (Recreation and Parks, Fire Services). Councillor Riel and Councillor Alex Bierk were Co-Chairs for the Community Services (Arts and Culture, Library Services, Social Services) Portfolio.

18. The Social Services Division is responsible for housing and homelessness. Consequently, at the relevant times, Councillors Riel and Bierk were the Portfolio Co-Chairs for housing and homelessness.¹

19. The correspondence between the Portfolios and the staff’s responsibilities is clear from the Portfolio Chairs By-law. It defines “Portfolio” as “each of the following six (6) categories of subject matter that is the responsibility of a Department and the Department’s Commissioner.”² [emphasis added]

20. The Portfolio Co-Chairs are to consult with third parties, to consult with individual Council Members, and to “consult and share information with the Commissioner including respecting matters under consideration by the Commissioner related to the Portfolio.”³

21. The By-law implies that Portfolio Co-Chairs will be the face of Council in dealing with third parties. When a Council Member who is not a Portfolio Co-Chair receives an inquiry or communication, from a third party, about a Portfolio, that Member is expected to share it with a Co-Chair of that Portfolio.⁴

22. The By-law provides that the Commissioners and the Chief Administrative Officer may disclose confidential information to Portfolio Co-Chairs, but it does not require them to do so.⁵

23. According to the By-law, a Councillor (whether or not the Councillor is a Portfolio Co-Chair) may not direct a Commissioner or the City staff in any way. An exception is made for authority that is delegated a Councillor by Council or the Mayor.⁶

Removal of Encampment

24. The causes of outdoor sleeping and tenting by people who experience homelessness are beyond the scope of this inquiry. For present purposes, it suffices to say that the situation is common.

25. Last year, 80,000 Ontarians were known to experience homelessness – an increase of 25 per cent in just two years.⁷ Within the City of Peterborough, as of October 8, 2024, By-Name Data identified 331 individuals who were experiencing homelessness.⁸ The United Way’s Point in Time Count, November 18-19, 2024, identified 343 people.⁹ The figures suggest a homelessness rate slightly lower than the provincial average (0.34-0.36 per cent versus 0.50 per cent),¹⁰ but still a significant human challenge. According to the Commissioner of Community Services, the figures reveal “a high-need for homelessness programs and supports in the community.”¹¹

26. Many who experience homelessness live and sleep outside, some in tent encampments. Last year, the Canadian Human Rights Commission pronounced that “Canada’s homeless encampments are a national human rights crisis.”¹²

27. A 2022 federal study reported that the principal drivers of encampment use were (in order): shelters’ restrictive rules and eligibility criteria; lack of shelter capacity; concerns about safety and security in shelters; non-alignment between family makeup and shelter type or bed availability; and lack of privacy, autonomy, dignity, and/or respect at shelters.¹³

28. Evictions of encampment are a common occurrence, both across Canada¹⁴ and in Peterborough itself.^{15 16}

29. The eviction giving rise to this inquiry occurred in July 2024, near the CP Rail property on Wolfe Street. Before leaving on vacation, the Commissioner of Community Services informed Councillors Riel and Bierk, the Portfolio Co-Chairs, that action would be taken to remove the encampment and the Co-Chairs would receive further information once a plan was in place.

30. During the first half of the Commissioner’s absence (July 16-23), the Employee was acting Commissioner. During the second half (July 24-31), another official served as acting Commissioner but, for continuity, the Employee continued to be responsible for the eviction and related social services issues.

31. On Friday, July 19, the Employee emailed the Respondent and Councillor Bierk. The email read, in part, as follows:

I spoke with [Councillor Bierk] yesterday and understand that [the Commissioner] had spoken with you both before his vacation about possible movement on the tenting situation on Wolfe Street.

This is a quick update to let you know that the team is working on it, but I don’t have any concrete details that I’m able to share at this time. As I’m sure you can understand, there are many moving pieces that we’re trying to coordinate as we consider the best way to move forward with things in the best interest of all the parties involved.

I will send a message to all the Councillors when I have more information about the path we’re taking and when.

I also appreciate that you’re both aware of the confidential nature of all the information connected to this issue.¹⁷

32. About one-half hour later, the Respondent replied:

[Employee]: Thank you for your email. It is true that both [Councillor Bierk] and I were briefed on a plan to address the ongoing tenting at Wolfe St. It was my understanding from [Commissioner] before he went on holidays that this plan was being implemented immediately. The tenting problem has been an ongoing issue and undermines all the work that we have done on Wolfe St. to house people and to discourage tenting. This cloak and dagger mentality of senior staff must stop as all City Councillors are fielding emails and phone calls every day about what is happening in our City. I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark, and professional staff are mak[ing] all of the decisions. If this continues, I will gladly hand over the reins of my Portfolios and furnish the public with your names, phone numbers and emails so that you can address the public’s concerns directly. Keith

33. The next day, Councillor Bierk concurred: “Agree with [Respondent] and will wait for a response from staff. We were briefed on the details. but I understand those details have changed.”

34. Meanwhile, the acting CAO, who had been copied by the Respondent, had already emailed to reassure the Employee: “Please disregard the Councillor’s harsh words and no reply is necessary or recommended at this time. … Thanks for your leadership.”

35. The plan to remove the encampment was executed starting the following Monday, July 22, with the issuance of trespass notices. Later the same morning, the Employee emailed all Council Members to inform them what was occurring:

This morning, a plan was implemented to address the tenting on Wolfe Street. The plan was enacted after a significant amount of planning by staff across the Corporation, including those from Social Services, Enforcement, Facilities, Recreation & Parks, Public Works, and Communications. It was truly a team effort to address the situation.

As I’m sure you can understand, there were many moving pieces to coordinate as we all considered the best way to move forward with the necessary changes in the best interest of all the parties involved.

Some of the details I can share are as follows:

• The Municipal Law Enforcement Services Division issued trespass notices to individuals tenting, and Public Works will be on hand to help with clean up as needed. The notices were for the immediate removal of persons from the property.

• A temporary road closure was implemented in the area around Wolfe Street; access was maintained for residents of adjacent properties and their guests/visitors.

• Temporary fencing around the area where the tenting was occurring is being installed.

• Information provided to the neighbourhood liaison committee for Modular Bridge Housing Community to inform them of the activity that will be occurring.

• CP Rail was informed of our actions and will be making its own arrangements for enforcement on its lands.

A temporary overnight shelter will operate from Monday at 9 p.m. to Friday at 8 a.m. at the Morrow Building (where the indoor farmers’ market is held).

Letters are being hand delivered to residents around the Morrow Building to inform them of the temporary overnight shelter, its duration nightly from Monday night until Friday morning, and security and property maintenance while the shelter is operating.

Please do not directly associate the temporary shelter with the enforcement activities – they are distinct activities.

Below we’ve provided some suggested speaking notes if you are contacted about the enforcement activities or the temporary shelter that is being established:

• Tenting is prohibited except where permitted.

• The City’s By-law Enforcement is taking an Inform, Educate, Enforce approach to by-law enforcement. Notices are provided to individuals informing them that they are in contravention of the prohibition of tenting before enforcement occurs.

• The City administers a shelter network with approximately 82 beds plus the overnight drop-in program at Trinity Community Centre that offers an additional 45 spaces. Last fall, the City opened the 50-unit Modular Bridge Housing Community to provide a new option for people who cannot or will not access the traditional shelter network.

• The temporary shelter that will operate at the Morrow Building will add some 30 additional spaces for four nights this week. This will temporarily supplement the existing shelter system until Friday morning this week.

• Social services outreach workers regularly connect with people who are experiencing homeless to assist them with accessing available housing and shelter services.

• Homelessness is a challenge across our country. Peterborough is investing in homelessness services and housing.

I will provide updates to you as I have them available to share.

36. Within roughly 90 minutes, Councillor Bierk emailed the Mayor and the Respondent to express his and the Respondent’s concern about their lack of involvement:

[Councillor Riel] and I are very frustrated with the series of events and the lack of communication over the last few weeks with plans to respond to the encampment at Wolfe St.

We have voiced our concern to [the CAO], and subsequent senior staff covering each other off for vacation – and we have not received any response back.

It was through our involvement at this time last year that we were able to make the right decisions about the previous encampment. Quite a contrast as now we are out of the loop – and senior staff are making decisions without our involvement or knowledge.

And, we continue to take meetings and respond to emails, all while on our “break” – we will surely do the same for the plan at Morrow Park which we were JUST made aware of.

37. On Tuesday, July 23, at 10:30 a.m., the Employee reached out to the Respondent and Councillor Bierk to offer “a phone call with each of you to update you both on the tenting situation.” Councillor Bierk and the Employee spoke. The Respondent did not reply to the email.

38. During the discussion with the Employee, Councillor Bierk expressed concern that he and the Respondent were not included in discussions about the eviction plans. The Employee explained that the two Councillors were not on the list of people to receive that information. (In fact, no Councillors were.)

39. The Employee later explained to me the reasons to restrict information to the City staff members who needed to know. Removal of an encampment is a complex by-law enforcement and technical operation, involving the police, municipal law enforcement officers, and City workers, that must be executed in manner that is safe for everyone concerned and respectful of the rights and dignity of those directly affected. For obvious reasons, law-enforcement operations are not disclosed in advance. Further, confidentiality helps to protects the safety of all who are involved. Premature disclosure that attracts onlookers creates risks to the safety and privacy of encampment residents. Premature disclosure of the operation also creates obvious risks for the employees who must enforce the by-law and execute the plan. It is logical that such an operation must be planned on a need-to-know basis and that Councillors are not an audience that needs to know beforehand.

40. That same morning, a journalist’s question triggered a lengthy internal email discussion about the role of the Portfolio Co-Chairs and their access to information. Below, I have reproduced what I consider to be the most relevant portions of the email exchanges.

8:38 a.m., July 23, from Journalist to Strategic Communications Director

I am hoping to get some information on the City’s decision to set up a temporary shelter at the Morrow Building. According to the notices received by residents, the shelter will operating for five nights – my first question is, what happens after that? Does the City have a plan?

Furthermore, did the City advise the residents of the encampment prior to the removal on Tuesday morning?

Why was the Morrow Building selected?

Also, I should mention that we’ve heard from residents that they only learned of the plan yesterday. I suppose the question arising might be how long has the City had this plan, and if it was longer than 24 hours than why weren’t residents notified?

9:09 a.m., July 23, from Journalist:

Quick follow-up for clarification: Why was today selected as the date to dismantle the encampment and how long has the City planned for this to happen today?

10:18 a.m., July 23, from Strategic Communications Director:

The Morrow Building is temporarily being used as shelter to temporarily add 30 beds to the shelter network until Friday morning. After Friday morning, the Morrow Building will revert to its typical uses.

The spaces in the regular shelter network would be used before using the temporary shelter spaces at the Morrow Building this week.

None of the 30 beds at the Morrow Building were used on Monday night.

The City’s emergency shelter services plan includes funding and administering a shelter network with 82 beds through Brock Mission, Cameron House and YES shelter, plus an additional 45 spaces at the overnight drop-in centre operated by One City at the Trinity Community Centre. The use of the Morrow Building is a temporary addition to the shelter network for four nights this week.

On Monday, there were 25 spaces available in the 82-bed shelter network, including nine at Brock Mission and 16 at YES for youth and families.

As of this morning, there are 28 beds available in the 82-bed shelter network, including 11 at Brock Mission at 17 at YES for youth and families.

Before adding a temporary shelter location for four nights this week, the City reviewed various City facilities for the use. Morrow Building was selected based on its ability to be quickly converted for the use without disrupting other existing uses and programming, as well as for fire safety considerations that would allow the space to be used for an overnight shelter.

On your question about by-law enforcement activities related to tenting, tenting is prohibited on City parks and property except where permitted. For enforcement related to tenting, the City takes an Inform, Educate and Enforce approach to enforcement. Notices were provided to individuals who are tenting on City property in the Wolfe Street area on Monday.

10:23 a.m., July 23, from Strategic Communications Director to City Council and City’s senior leadership:

[Publication, including Journalist’s name] has contacted the City about the Morrow Building use and the Wolfe Street tenting.

[Journalist]’s questions and the provided response are copied below.

2:11 p.m., July 23, from Councillor Bierk:

Hey – 2 weeks ago at our Homelessness meeting [Respondent] and I were told that the Brock and Trinity were full.

Please advise.

2:35 p.m., July 23, from Social Services Director to Councillor Bierk, copying only Commissioner, Employee (acting Commissioner), Strategic Communications Director, and Homelessness and Data Program Manager:

The number of people staying at the Brock and Trinity varies from night to night. The shelters provide regular updates on their numbers.

2 weeks ago, they were full. They’re not full now. This is fairly normal fluctuation – especially in the summer.

2:44 p.m., July 23, from Councillor Bierk, adding the Respondent:

Yes, but I told the press today that the shelters were full because [Respondent] and I have been left out of communication on this

3:12 p.m., July 23, from Social Services Director:

We provide updates in our biweekly meetings – but the numbers do fluctuate. If you need a current number, I suggest that you contact staff to get an update prior to talking to the media.

A reminder that Council was requested not to discuss shelter numbers if asked about the enforcement activities – they are separate and distinct.

If you need support beyond the speaking notes provided, [Strategic Communications Director] is happy to help.

3:43 p.m., July 23, from Councillor Bierk:

Bi-weekly? When’s our next meeting?

8:24 p.m., July 23, from Respondent, adding Mayor and CAO:

… Respectfully, what staff do we contact to get these numbers, as half of you at any given times are on holidays, and the ones left in charge have no idea what I need? In a conversation with Councillor Bierk today, he was told by the acting Commissioner [Employee] he and I are not on a list of who’s to know.

9:07 p.m., July 23, from Employee (acting Commissioner):

That’s not exactly what I told [Councillor Bierk] today on the phone.

I did say those words, but I was speaking in the context of the enactment of the plan that was put in place yesterday.

Things were coming together quickly with many moving pieces being coordinated. As I mentioned in my email message to you, I was not in a position to share information with anyone beyond the immediate group of staff involved. I appreciate that you wanted to know, but it was not possible to share that information for several reasons.

I did send you an email message earlier today offering to speak with you at your convenience to discuss the situation, but I have not heard back from you yet.

I find it difficult to provide you with information when there’s an assumption that I know what you want or need.

If you’d like to know something, please ask, and I will do my best to respond in [Commissioner’s] absence.

8:21 a.m., July 24, from Respondent:

[Employee:] I am or shame on me for thinking I was a part of the group. Because of my portfolio as chair of Housing and Homelessness I need to know. [Councillor Bierk] and I field questions daily for the public and news media. This is about to change as the emails and phone calls that I receive will now be forwarded to you to explain to the public or to the persons that you and the group have impacted.

8:30 a.m., July 24, from CAO:

Good morning [Respondent],

Please be advised that when [Commissioner] joins back from his vacation then a meeting will be set up in my office for you, [Councillor Bierk], [Commissioner], and I to set the expectations as I need to understand what type of information is discussed/shared when [Commissioner] does his Portfolio meeting with you and [Councillor Bierk].

Moving forward if you need any information on any matter then feel free to send me an email or call me and I will do the needful.

9:03 a.m., July 24, from Councillor Bierk:

No, [CAO] – you’re missing the point. We don’t need a babysitter.

If any other Councillors want to take on our meetings for the rest of the week and step in – we can hand off the Homelessness Portfolio if it’s not working out.

9:06 a.m., July 24, from CAO:

No one is doing babysitting here as staff very well know their duties and limitations. Every day, expectations change and that is why there is need to sit to discuss it, and doing email exchanges cannot fix it.

41. While these emails were being exchanged, the Respondent and Councillor Bierk were receiving inquiries from the news media and residents.

42. On July 23, the Respondent told a reporter that he (Respondent) had been kept in the dark on the decision to use the Morrow Building as a temporary shelter. He had been under the impression the temporary shelter would be set up at the Main Library. According to the news story:

“The plan that I was told was the removal of the tenting on Wolfe Street, the fencing off of the complete area and then we were told that the library was going to be used as an interim shelter,” Riel said on Tuesday afternoon.

Riel also clarified that from his understanding, “up to a week or so, the plan was to get some sort of temporary shelter for these people – and that was supposed to be the library – and then the property (at Wolfe Street) itself would be fenced off to precipitate people not being able to tent.”¹⁸

43. The same evening, a resident mailed Councillor Bierk and two other Council Members the link to a news story, “‘We’re all hurting right now – all of us’: Tent encampment on Wolfe Street dismantled: Evicted people say they woke up on Tuesday morning to security and police officers forcing them off of municipal property.” The resident asked, simply, “What the hell is this?”

44. The next morning, Councillor Bierk responded to this email and copied the Respondent and the Employee. “I’m forwarding this to staff who can comment,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, [Respondent] and I weren’t made aware of the details until the plan was in action.”

45. Within three minutes, the Employee reassured the resident, “I’d be happy to answer your questions.”

46. The volume of media and resident inquiries to the Portfolio Co-Chairs is not overwhelming and, as this incident demonstrates, the City staff is available to respond. However, it is a fact that Portfolio Co-Chairs do sometimes receive questions on actions in which they are not involved or about which they lack information. For example, just a few weeks ago, CBC Radio reported that the Respondent, despite being Homelessness Portfolio Co-Chair, was apparently unaware of the closure of a temporary shelter after only three months of operation.¹⁹

47. On Friday, July 26, as scheduled, the Morrow Building ceased operation as a temporary shelter. Though it had been available since Monday, no individual used it.

Meeting with Local Businesses

48. In May 2024, the Peterborough + Kawarthas Chamber of Commerce invited the Respondent and Councillor Bierk to attend a meeting with representatives of neighbourhood businesses to discuss issues related to the operation of a shelter in the Trinity Community Centre. Participation in this meeting fell squarely within the Portfolio Co-Chairs’ role, under the by-law, to consult with third parties.

49. The meeting occurred May 10. More than a dozen business owner and residents attended. Operation of the shelter at Trinity was a contentious neighbourhood issue. Attendees addressed their concerns to the Respondent and Councillor Bierk, and the meeting was very emotional.

50. The Respondent and Councillor Bierk promised the group that they would bring the concerns to the attention of the charity that operated the shelter on the City’s behalf. Subsequently, they met with the charity’s executive director.

51. On July 11, the Chamber of Commerce requested a follow-up meeting – this time, “a small group discussion [that] might make things easier to manage.” Councillor Bierk and the Respondent agreed, with the Respondent making clear to the Chamber that his participation was conditional on a small group of three to four from the neighbourhood.

52. The meeting was scheduled for Friday, July 26. On Tuesday evening, the Respondent suggested that the Chamber should invite the Employee (acting Commissioner),²⁰ who “may be able to shed some light on the City’s plans to help the neighbourhood around Trinity.”

53. The Chamber’s executive director was happy to invite the Employee, because ordinarily the City’s staff did not attend these meetings. During previous discussions, the Respondent and Councillor Bierk had stressed that Council not staff was the decision maker.

54. The Employee attended the July 26 meeting, along with the Respondent, Councillor Bierk, three representatives of local businesses, and the Chamber’s executive director.

55. Between the two Portfolio Co-Chairs, Councillor Bierk did most of the talking. The Respondent’s intention was mostly to listen.

56. The meeting was contentious, as the neighbourhood representatives pressed for action to address their concerns about the shelter at Trinity.

57. The community representatives made three requests. First, they wanted to ensure the shelter operator was satisfying all obligations under its agreement with the City. Second, to protect health and safety, they wanted to end drug use on the entire property, not just in the parts of the building used to deliver funded services. Third, they wanted 24-7 security.

58. I express no opinion on the merits of the positions taken. This is an inquiry into the Respondent’s conduct, not an inquiry into a particular shelter or the organization that operates it. I mention the community concerns only as relevant context for the inquiry into the Respondent. It is not my role to evaluate them. This report cannot be interpreted as drawing any conclusion about the Trinity shelter or its operator; that would fall outside my role under the Municipal Act and the Code. (For this reason, I did not interview the charity or ask it to address the neighbourhood concerns. Doing so would stray beyond my mandate.)

59. Due to work location, the Employee’s regular duties (when not representing the Commissioner) involve frequent contact with individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals living with addiction. The Employee brought that perspective to the meeting and, in a thoughtful and empathetic way, confirmed the challenges (including the strain on City employees) of striving to keep people safe. The business representatives welcomed her understanding of the situation.

60. More generally, the Employee acted in a professional manner throughout.

61. At one point, the Respondent told everyone that the Employee’s role at the meeting was to take notes. How this was said and what it meant are matters of disagreement. The occurrence is described in greater detail starting at paragraph 130, below.

Bi-Weekly Meetings with the Staff

62. The Respondent and Councillor Bierk, as Portfolio Co-Chairs, met bi-weekly with the Commissioner of Community Services. At the suggestion of the Respondent and Councillor Bierk, the July 23, 2024, bi-weekly meeting was skipped.

63. Before the Commissioner left on holidays, the Commissioner’s executive assistant emailed the Respondent and Councillor Bierk to inform them that the Commissioner would be absent on July 23, “but the meeting will continue with the remaining City staff.” The Commissioner then suggested cancelling the scheduled July 9 bi-weekly meeting as he was not aware of any specific need, adding, “Let me know if you would still like to meet.”

64. The Respondent and Councillor Bierk both replied that they wanted the July 9 meeting to proceed and identified discussion items. Councillor Bierk added that they could “then take the next meeting [July 23] off” as the Commissioner would be away.

65. The date of the skipped meeting turned out to be the Tuesday of the encampment eviction. As week later, July 30, Councillor Bierk emailed the Respondent, the Employee, the CAO and two other employees:

I’m concerned that our bi-weekly meetings have come to a standstill, and as a result, urgent community issues are piling up. [Respondent] and I have several follow-up items from recent community meetings that require immediate attention.

Can we please establish a schedule for our next meeting as soon as possible?

66. A few hours later, the Employee replied, adding the Commissioner to the email exchange:

Your next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 6 when [Commissioner] is back from his vacation.

If anything is critical and can’t wait until then, please loop me in and I’ll do what I can.

I do think it’s best to wait until that meeting though.

67. On August 6, the Respondent and Councillor Bierk, as Portfolio Co-Chairs, met with the Commissioner of Community Services. It was the next bi-weekly meeting and the first since the Commissioner’s return. During the discussion, they updated the Commissioner on their July 26 meeting with business representatives concerning Trinity.

Other Issues

68. The emails described under this sub-heading of the report were subsequently provided to me by the Complainant. I refer to them as similar fact evidence and evidence of pattern.

69. In July 2024, the Recreation and Park Services Director sent Council facts about the emptying of waste receptacles in City parks and along City trails, with an offer to provide a draft email response to concerned residents. The Respondent replied:

Thank you for your email but I do not need metrics or a drafted response to residents. What we need is the garbage picked up and someone with the management skills to deploy people to get the job done.

70. In August 2024, the Respondent sent the Employee a one-line email: “How much do people pay for the use of the pickleball courts?”

71. In November 2024, the Respondent replied to advice to Council from the City Solicitor (also Commissioner, Legislative Services) stating, “Whatever you and your team are doing is not meeting the needs or expectation of the taxpayers of the City.”

72. In December 2024, a resident emailed all Council Members concerning a property issue before Council. The Respondent replied to the resident and everyone else by calling out one Councillor who allegedly changed position on the issue.

73. This past February, the Respondent was again critical of advice given by the City Solicitor on a Municipal Act matter.

74. The Complainant suggested that other Council Members might have similar experiences and share concerns similar to those contained in the Complaint.

75. One additional contentious internal email exchange was shared with me.

Process

76. 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. 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.

77. After receiving the referral described in paragraph 1, I determined that it would be appropriate to conduct an inquiry.

78. On September 13, 2024, I issued a Notice of Inquiry that set out the following issues to be considered in the inquiry:

A. Did the Respondent contravene paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Member of Council-Staff Relations Policy?

B. Did the Respondent contravene section 10 of the Council Code of Conduct?

C. Did the Respondent contravene section 13 of the Council Code of Conduct?

79. In the Notice, issues B and C were combined: “Did the Respondent contravene sections 10 and 13 of the Council Code of Conduct?” I have separated them here for clarity. The combination and separation of the issues have no effect on the fairness or the substance of this inquiry.

80. The Councillor submitted a Response on September 26.

81. Because this inquiry was based on a referral from a nominal Complainant who did not have first-hand knowledge of the occurrences, I did not invite the Complainant to reply to the Response. Instead, I interviewed the Employee (individual directly affected) and through that interview obtained the Employee’s perspective and position on all relevant issues.

82. I reviewed extensive email exchanges, City reports, maps, and background information. I examined relevant instruments, including the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy, the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy, the Portfolio Chairs By-law, and the Procedure By-law. I interviewed the Employee, and the Respondent, as well as Councillor Bierk, the CAO, a Director, and a participant in the July 26 meeting. I received additional information from the Employee, two Directors, and a third party. Another third party declined to be interviewed; I determined that the cost and effort associated with issuing a summons would be disproportionate to the value of the individual’s evidence.

83. Much of the documentation is self-explanatory. It is not my practice to conduct interviews for the sole purpose having someone describe the content of an email exchange that is obvious from a plain reading of it.

84. In November 2024 and February 2025, I was sent additional information suggesting that the conduct alleged in the original Complaint was part of a continuing pattern: see paragraphs 64-70. I was invited to expand the inquiry to include the additional material.

85. This report refers to news stories. I mention the stories because they form part of the chronology and provide context for what the Respondent said and did. I have not based my findings of fact on news stories and am not using news stories as evidence.

86. In making my findings and reaching my conclusions, I have considered all the evidence and carefully considered the submissions of the Employee, Complainant and Respondent.

87. On December 17, before finalizing this report, I sent the Respondent a draft of it, including the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and I invited comment. The Respondent acknowledged the draft but made no comments that caused me to amend the document.

Positions of the Parties

Employee’s Position

88. The Employee feels that the Respondent’s behaviour was unacceptable and should not be accepted or tolerated.

89. Exception is taken to the email reproduced at paragraph 28, above. This is the email in which the Respondent attributed to the senior staff a “cloak and dagger mentality” and said should he continue to be “kept in the dark” he would “gladly hand over the reins of my Portfolios and furnish the public with your names, phone numbers and emails so that you can address the public’s concerns directly.”

90. Of similar concern was a subsequent email in which the Respondent said, “shame on me for thinking I was a part of the group,” and said that in future emails and phone calls to him would be forwarded to the Employee to explain the City’s actions.

91. The Employee also mentions the email in which the Respondent asked a Manager: “Respectfully, what staff do we contact to get these numbers, as half of you at any given times are on holidays, and the ones left in charge have no idea what I need?”

92. According to the Employee, at the July 26 meeting with business representatives, the Respondent “said something along the lines of [Employee] is here to represent the City and take notes, but we’ll have to wait until [Commissioner] is back for something to be done.”

93. The Employee adds:

While the sentiment of the statement itself wasn’t untrue, it was the dismissive tone and attitude with which it was said. It was obvious to me that I was “less than” in that situation.

94. On the issue of notice to the Respondent about the eviction, the Employee states that she emailed and left a phone message for the Respondent, but he did not respond.

95. The Employee does not want an apology from the Respondent. Instead:

I would like him to be made aware of his behaviour and the effect it has on others. His actions and words in this situation were far from respectful and courteous. He wasn’t professional and was openly critical of staff in his emails to colleagues, the CAO, and senior leadership. His behaviour is hurtful and uncalled for.

I’m left wondering at how he normally interacts with staff if this was his behaviour over two weeks with me. It’s unfortunate that someone believes that they can speak to others with such animosity and be respected in return.

Complainant’s Position

96. The People and Culture Division (Complainant) notes that several other staff members as well as some Council Members have experienced comments similar to those described by the Employee.

97. The Complainant expresses concern about the Respondent’s “very public disparaging remarks” on employee health, morale and retention.

98. The Complainant also cites the inability of meeting chairs to manage the Respondent’s conduct.

99. The Complainant explains that it is the responsibility of the City as employer, represented by the People and Culture Division, to secure a third-party investigation of complaints about the Respondent’s conduct.

100. The Complainant also relies on the City’s Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

Respondent’s Position

101. The Respondent takes the position that he is the one aggrieved because senior management violated the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy and violated his “powers” and right to information under the Portfolio Chairs By-law.

102. The Respondent states that the Employee and other members of senior management, when they are the ones making decisions, need to make themselves available to the news media and the public to answer questions.

103. The Respondent confirms being made aware, on July 9, of a plan to evict the Wolfe Street encampment. However, he was under the impression that the Main Library would be a temporary overnight shelter.

104. He objects to not being told until after the fact that the Morrow Building, as opposed to the Library, had been identified as the temporary shelter. He notes that on Friday, July 19, he was told the staff was still working on a plan. Yet, by Monday, the Morrow Building had been identified. According to the Respondent, “Something this complex does not happen over the weekend.”

105. The Respondent argues that, as the relevant Portfolio Co-Chairs, he and Councillor Bierk belong on the need-to-know list.

106. On the issue of notice about the plans, the states that the Employee did not email and leave a phone message until July 23, after the plan had been launched on July 22.

107. According to the Respondent, on July 22 his phone and email inbox “lit up” with communications from residents angry about using the Morrow Building as a temporary shelter. He asks rhetorically:

Do you know how embarrassing it is as the Chair of Housing and Homelessness to tell them [residents] and the news media that you know nothing about the plan to house people at Morrow Park?

108. This motivated the Respondent to tell the Employee that the Employee ought to answer the public and the news media. In his words, his email

was in response to [Employee’s] email that we, as Co-Chairs of Housing and Homelessness, were not on a list to know, which I felt was a violation of the Portfolio [Chairs] By-law that clearly sets out my role and duties by City Council. I, at the time, was being inundated with phone calls and emails from the public and the news media about the decision to use Morrow Park for the homeless. I had no prior knowledge of this decision by the [Employee] and [felt] that she should be fielding these questions and supplying the public and the news media her phone number or email address so that she could answer there concerns. I only pointed out that if senior staff wanted to do my job and make decision then they should post how people can reach them to get their questions answered. My response to the [Employee] by email was to reaffirm my position that if she wants to make [the] decision and leave myself and Councillor Bierk out of the decision-making process then she should make herself available to answer the public’s questions.

109. The Respondent says that, on August 6, the Commissioner took responsibility for the instruction not to give the Respondent and Councillor Bierk advance (that is, pre-public) notice of the decision to use the Morrow Building as a shelter. He concludes that keeping him in the dark (his words) was a pattern of behaviour by senior management.

110. The Respondent alleges that the failure to provide information to him (and Councillor Bierk) violated the following provisions of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy:

• 3.0, definition “Code of Conduct for Members of Council”

• 4.1.1, Guiding Principles: Shared Purpose

• 4.1.2, Guiding Principles: Division of Responsibilities

• 4.1.3, Guiding Principles: Leadership and Professionalism

• 4.1.4, Guiding Principles: Cooperation and Effective Municipal Outcomes

• 4.1.5 b), Guiding Principles: Communication and Accountability Structure: flow of information between Members of Council and Staff

• 4.2.3, Clarifying Roles: Chief Administrative Officer

• 4.2.4, Clarifying Roles: Senior Leadership

111. The Respondent’s perspective is that the role of a Portfolio Co-Chair is not just to receive information and input from the community. To him, the role entails shouldering a workload and taking leadership on Portfolio issues.

112. Concerning the July 26 meeting, the Respondent states that the discussion was heated and the local representatives vigorously outlined their concerns.

113. He says that either he or Councillor Bierk introduced the Employee as acting for the Commissioner and, after the meeting, he thanked the Employee for coming.

114. The Respondent denies saying the Employee was there to take notes. Instead, he recalls the Employee explaining that she was taking notes about would report back to Commissioner. He recalls that she did take notes.

115. The Respondent denies stating that it would be necessary to wait for the Commissioner’s return before making decisions. He suggests that the Employee had originally suggested that decisions not occur until the Commissioner was back.

Findings of Fact

116. Most findings of fact appear in this section and in the Background section which starts at page 7, above.

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

118. I find the Respondent and Councillor Bierk were told in advance that the encampment would be evicted. They were not given the specific date. They were not told that the Morrow Building would be designated as a temporary shelter.

119. Given the nature of the eviction operation, I find that the Respondent should not have expected to be informed of its specific date or time.

Emailed Comments

120. The interpretation of an email written by a municipal politician is not the same as the interpretation of a contract or statute:

It is important to remember that Council Members, when they send emails, use the language of ordinary people and not of legal drafters or judges. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to pick apart the wording of a Council Member’s email as if it were a legal contract or a judicial decision.²¹

121. Court decisions confirm that words should not be parsed as by a lawyer or grammarian, but “approached on the basis of the impression created in the mind of an ordinary person reading” them.²² Impressions of written content must be “assessed from the perspective of someone reasonable … rather than someone with an overly fragile sensibility.”²³ Sense is determined through the eyes of an average reader, “not the painstaking parsing of a scholar in his study.”²⁴

122. I have assessed the Respondent’s emails according to these principles and in the words’ full context, without nitpicking, cherry-picking, or aggressive and unreasonable parsing.

123. The comment, “professional staff are mak[ing] all of the decisions,” was factual. These were operational matters that should have been and were decided and handled at the staff level.

124. The reference to being kept in the dark (“I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark”) was also factual. It is commonly agreed that certain information was not shared with Council Members until execution of the plan began. There were legitimate reasons why this occurred, but it was factual for the Respondent to state that he was kept in the dark.

125. The reference to the role of Portfolio Co-Chairs (“I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark”) was a reasonable statement of opinion about the withholding of information. There were legitimate reasons why information was shared; nevertheless, the Respondent was reasonably expressing a contrary opinion, based on what he understood to the roles of a Portfolio Co-Chair.

126. The comment about the “cloak and dagger mentality of senior staff” needs to be understood in context of the comments I have just described. The Respondent had written:

This cloak and dagger mentality of senior staff must stop as all City Councillors are fielding emails and phone calls every day about what is happening in our City. I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark, and professional staff are mak[ing] all of the decisions.

127. I interpret “cloak and dagger mentality” to be just another, albeit colourful, way of expressing the points discussed in paragraphs 119-121, each of which was factual and/or a reasonable comment. To interpret these words as a personal attack would require exaggerated interpretation, microscopic scrutiny, and unfair parsing.

128. The comment, “In a conversation with Councillor Bierk today, he was told by the acting Commissioner he and I are not on a list of who’s to know,” was factual. While there was a misunderstanding about what information was covered by the need-to-know list, it is common ground that the Respondent and Councillor Bierk were not on it.

129. The comment, “half of you at any given times are on holidays” is a fact-based statement tinged with hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally. It was summer and some people were on vacation. A sensible, reasonable interpretation means some, not precisely 50 per cent.

130. The comment, “the ones [staff members] left in charge have no idea what I need,” is a statement of opinion about whether the Respondent’s needs are understood. Knowledge or lack of knowledge of his perceived needs could be attributable to many factors, such as whether the Respondent has communicated the needs and whether a staff member has previous experience working with this Portfolio Co-Chair. Because of the many possible reasons for unawareness of needs, is not reasonable to interpret the comment as a criticism of staff competence or professionalism. The words “no idea” are somewhat hyperbolic but do not personalize the comment. The comment cannot reasonably be interpreted as a personal attack.

131. The comments about sharing staff members’ names, phone numbers and email addresses with the public so the staff members could respond to inquiries²⁵ were expressions of frustration. The Respondent was making the point that he was fielding inquiries without the information needed to respond. The comments meant: since you have the information, you should respond to the inquiries. (See paragraph 103.) He did not seriously intend to disclose the contact information himself.

Meeting with Business Representatives

132. One witness recalls the Respondent telling the Employee: You are just here to take notes. The comment was made after the Employee commented on her and her co-workers’ experiences working in proximity to individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals living with addiction.

133. The Employee recalls the comment slightly differently but agrees that its implication was to marginalize her role. see paragraphs 87-88.

134. The Respondent denies he was the one who raised the issue of note-taking: see paragraph 109.

135. Another witness agrees that the Respondent did not tell the Employee to take notes or just to take notes.

136. Prior to the meeting, it was the Respondent who suggested the Employee’s attendance: see paragraph 47. The Respondent described the Employee in writing as “acting Commissioner” and proposed a substantive role, namely to report on the City’s plans. To relegate her to the position of mere note-taker would have been inconsistent with what he had previously written.

137. There is general agreement that the Employee did take notes. There is also general agreement among all the City representatives, including the Respondent, that there would be post-meeting follow-up with the vacationing Commissioner.

138. There is no consensus on whether the Respondent made a dismissive, marginalizing comment about note-taking in an attempt to convey that the Employee should be present but not participate. Given the very different recollections, I make no finding on this point.

Preliminary Issue

Similar Fact Evidence and Pattern Evidence

139. The Employee’s original complaint involved specific events, related to the eviction and to a meeting arranged by the Chamber, that occurred over two weeks while the Commissioner was on vacation. The Respondent’s comments and conduct during these events is reported at paragraphs 27, 35, 49-56, 103, and 123-138 of this report.

140. The People and Culture Division, as Complainant, has sought to broaden the inquiry to include additional examples of the Respondent’s conduct – many of them arising after the Complaint was filed – on the basis that these examples involve similar conduct and demonstrate a pattern.

141. I have considered how to handle the similar fact evidence and evidence of an alleged pattern in a matter that is fair to all concerned, particularly the Respondent.

142. I have determined that, if I conclude that one or more contraventions arose from the incidents covered by the original complaint, then I may consider additional similar fact and pattern evidence (provided, of course, that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to address it). On the other hand, if I conclude that the Employee’s original complaint does not disclose a breach, then I should not use the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence to look for a brand-new, different contravention.

143. In criminal cases, the general rule is that similar fact evidence must be excluded because it may capture the attention of the trier of fact to an unwarranted degree and has great potential for prejudice, distraction and time consumption – disadvantages that will almost always outweigh its probative value.²⁶ Whether particular evidence is an exception to the general rule depends on whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.²⁷ In civil proceedings, the bar for admitting similar fact evidence is lower.²⁸

144. Similar fact evidence can help to establish a party’s knowledge, understanding or state of mind. For example, if a party asserts that something occurred because of misunderstanding or coincidence, similar fact evidence can be introduced to counter that claim.²⁹

145. The relevance of similar fact evidence assumes the Respondent contravened the Code or the Policy as alleged in the original complaint.³⁰ If there is insufficient evidence of an originally alleged breach, then similar fact evidence cannot be used to establish a contravention.³¹

146. Evidence of pattern is relevant in cases where harassment is alleged. The established Canadian legal meaning of harassment encompasses a course of conduct or pattern of behaviour.³² While the Code defines harassment to include, “any comment, conduct, action or gesture that is unwelcome or that ought reasonably known to be unwelcome that could affect a person’s dignity or a person’s psychological or physical health,” the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct …”

147. In every case, the raising of new allegations can only be permitted where a party is not prejudiced and fairness is respected.³³ It is unfair to make a respondent chase a moving target.³⁴

148. For these reasons, my approach is first to determine whether there were contraventions during the two-week period covered by the original complaint, and only then to consider the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence, provided that fairness to the Respondent is observed.

Issues and Analysis

149. I have considered the following issues:

A. Did the Respondent contravene paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy?

B. Did the Respondent contravene section 10 of the Code?

C. Did the Respondent contravene section 13 of the Code?

150. Before addressing the above issues, I must consider the Respondent’s arguments that senior management’s treatment of him violated the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy and the Portfolio Chairs By-law.

151. A municipal Integrity Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over the conduct of municipal employees. I have no authority to entertain complaints about senior management or to make findings that staff member contravened a City policy.

152. The issue in this inquiry is the Respondent’s conduct. I am considering the Respondent’s submissions about alleged contraventions of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy and the Portfolio Chairs By-law only to the extent they might justify, explain, or mitigate his conduct.

Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy

153. As explained above, it is not my role to assess whether a staff member has upheld a City policy. In the case of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy, the CAO is responsible for handling complaints of alleged non-compliance by the staff.³⁵

154. To support his position, the Respondent cites seven different provisions of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy.

a. The Policy’s definition of “Code of Conduct for Members of Council” has no bearing on the issues in this inquiry.

b. Section 4.1.1, Guiding Principles: Shared Purpose, does not assist consideration of the issues.

c. Section 4.1.2, Guiding Principles: Division of Responsibilities, confirms the distinction between Council’s role and the staff’s role. Council collectively, as opposed to a Councillor individually, provides direction to the staff. Council, not the staff, makes policy and service-level decisions. The staff, not Council, manages municipal operations and service delivery. Eviction of the encampment and selecting a temporary shelter were matters of operations and service delivery – in other words, a staff function.

d. Section 4.1.3, Guiding Principles: Leadership and Professionalism: Both Councillors and staff members must demonstrate leadership and professionalism. There is no suggestion that the staff acted unprofessionally. Even if that were not the case, the Councillors would still be required display professionalism. No grievance against the staff justifies unprofessional behaviour by the Respondent or any other Council Member.

e. Section 4.1.4, Guiding Principles: Cooperation and Effective Municipal Outcomes: Councillors should trust that staff members will perform their roles in good faith and in the best interests of the Municipality. Council Members and the staff must keep each other apprised of important information that may impact the ability to fulfill their roles. The Respondent might read into this section a need to give him advance notice that the Morrow Building was selected as a temporary shelter, but the provision does not explicitly say this.

f. Paragraph 4.1.5 b), Guiding Principles: Communication and Accountability Structure: flow of information between Members of Council and Staff: According to this provision of the Policy: “Communications to or from Members of Council related to municipal business will be conducted through the CAO or appropriate Senior Leadership. Senior Leadership work closely with Council Portfolio Chairs but it is generally understood that staff serve Council as a whole, rather than any individual Member of Council. Information from the CAO or Senior Leadership will be communicated to all Members of Council. Members of Council who need to engage Staff should do so through Senior Leadership, whether in-person, in writing, or through electronic messages. Routine Enquiries from a Member of Council can be provided to the appropriate Staff member(s) the same way it would be provided by the public.” While the provision does contemplate a close working relationship between the senior leadership and Portfolio Co-Chairs, its general thrust is that significant information is to be shared with all Council Members, not just one or two.

g. Section 4.2.3, Clarifying Roles: Chief Administrative Officer, is not directly relevant to the issues in this inquiry.

h. Section 4.2.4, Clarifying Roles: Senior Leadership, speaks generally about the responsibilities of the senior leadership but is not of direct assistance in this inquiry.

155. In summary, I find nothing in the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy that justifies or explains the Respondent’s conduct or should be considered as a mitigating factor.

156. The Respondent does not cite paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Policy. This provision is considered below, starting at paragraph 171.

Portfolio Chairs By-law

157. In my view, the Respondent misinterprets the Portfolio Chairs By-law, but the By-law is confusing and the Respondent’s misunderstanding is genuine and was reached in good faith.

158. Contrary to the Respondent’s understanding, the Portfolio Chairs By-law does not confer any “powers” on the Portfolio Co-Chairs. It assigns them three roles: a) to consult with third parties; b) to consult with individual Council Members; and c) to consult and to share information with the appropriate Commissioner.³⁶

159. No evidence obtained in this inquiry suggests that the Respondent encountered interference in the exercise of these three roles.

160. The Portfolio Chairs By-law does not empower a Portfolio Co-Chair to give direction to a staff member. It states the opposite: giving direction to the staff is prohibited.³⁷

161. Section 9 of the Portfolio Chairs By-law would confer a power to strike and to dissolve advisory committees, but section 9 is not yet in effect, so the power does not exist.³⁸ Even if this power did already exist, the striking and dissolution of advisory committees are not relevant in this inquiry.

162. Contrary to the Respondent’s understanding, the Portfolio Chairs By-law does not create a right to receive information from the staff. Instead, the By-law gives discretion to the CAO and Commissioners. The CAO or a Commissioner may (not must) disclose confidential information to a Portfolio Co-Chair.³⁹

163. Consequently, the Portfolio Chairs By-law did not expressly give the Respondent the right to advance notice of the selection of the Morrow Building as a temporary shelter location.

164. The By-law does, however, create a reasonable expectation that a Portfolio Co-Chair will receive third-party communications that were sent to other Council Members. The By-law specifically states that a Council Member should share with the relevant Portfolio Co-Chair any third-party communication or third-party inquiry related to the Portfolio.⁴⁰

165. The reference to third-party inquiries is both significant and confusing. It is significant for two reasons. First, if a Portfolio Co-Chair is to be sent the third-party inquiries received by other Councillors, then it is within contemplation of the By-law that a Portfolio Co-Chair may also receive inquiries directly from third parties, such as journalists and residents. Second, the expectation that a Portfolio Co-Chair be sent a third-party inquiry implies that the Portfolio Co-Chair should respond, or is entitled to respond, to the third party. For this reason, I find it was reasonable for the Respondent to believe that part of his role as Portfolio Co-Chair was to respond to third parties, such as the news media and members of the public.

166. At the same time, the reference to third-party inquiries is confusing. It is implied that Portfolio Co-Chairs will respond to inquiries, but the By-law does not expressly state so. Further, to respond to inquiries, Portfolio Co-Chairs require information. In my view, it is implicit that they should be able to access the information necessary to respond to the inquiries that the By-law says will be forwarded to them. However, the By-law creates no express right to obtain or receive information.

167. Section 8 of the By-law also implicitly contemplates the receipt of information. The roles of a Portfolio Co-Chair include providing input on “matters under consideration by the Commissioner.” This implies knowledge of what a Commissioner may be considering. The roles also include external consultation. Arguably, some amount of information must be possessed by the Portfolio Co-Chair so that the Co-Chair can meaningfully and effectively consult.

168. I am unsure whether the Portfolio Chairs By-law is meant to confer the right to obtain information from the staff, but making a definitive interpretation of the By-law is outside my jurisdiction as Integrity Commissioner.

169. My jurisdiction is to review the Respondent’s conduct. In reviewing his conduct, I find that the Portfolio Chairs By-law gave him a reasonable belief that responding to media and public inquiries was part of his role and gave him a reasonable belief that he should receive from the staff the information necessary to handle those inquiries.

170. My conclusion on this point is bolstered by the fact that Councillor Bierk has the same belief: namely, that a Portfolio Co-Chair is supposed to respond to inquiries from residents and the news media, and a Portfolio Co-Chair needs information to do so. That he and the Respondent share a common understanding indicates that the understanding is not unique to the Respondent and suggests that the understanding is not unreasonable.

A. Did the Respondent contravene paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy?

171. During the events described in the original complaint, the Respondent did not contravene paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Policy.

172. The relevant portions of paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy read as follows:

• Members of Council and Staff are expected to show respect and professionalism toward one another.

• Members of Council and Staff are to avoid discriminatory, disparaging, or vexatious comments, behaviour, or conduct toward one another.

• Members of Council and Staff will refrain from publicly criticizing an individual Member of Council or Staff which could lead to public embarrassment or reputational damage.

• Comments on Staff performance shall be directed through the CAO or respective Senior Leadership.

173. The Respondent reasonably believed that his role under the Portfolio Chairs By-law was to respond to inquiries from the news media and members of the public and that to do so he needed information from the staff. His interpretation of the By-law may have been mistaken, but his belief was reasonable and genuine.

174. Based on his reasonable and genuine belief, the Respondent reasonably and genuinely felt overwhelmed and frustrated: He did not know how he could possibly engage the public and the news media without proper information. While the Respondent was required to comply with the Code and the Policy, he was not required to hide his frustration. Provided his comments did not cross the line established by the Code and the Policy, the Respondent was allowed to reveal his frustration. Neither the Code nor the Policy requires a Council Member to pretend everything is OK when the Member believes things are not.

175. In this context and in light of the Policy, I have carefully considered the comments and conduct of the Respondent reported in paragraphs 27, 35, 49-56, 103, and 123-138 of this report.

176. Writing that, “professional staff are mak[ing] all of the decisions,” was factual: see paragraph 123, above.

177. The comment, “I have to wonder why we have Portfolio Chairs when we are kept in the dark,” reveals frustration but was not a breach: see paragraphs 119-125.

178. The comment, “This cloak and dagger mentality of senior staff must stop” is reasonably interpreted as consistent with the entire email in which the comment appeared and not reasonably interpreted as a personal attack: see paragraphs 121-122, above.

179. Writing that “he [Councillor Bierk] and I are not on a list of who’s to know,” was factual: see paragraph 123, above.

180. The following statement is partly a reasonable question, partly a fact-based statement not meant literally, and partly a statement of opinion that does not attack anyone personally: see paragraphs 124-125. “Respectfully, what staff do we contact to get these numbers, as half of you at any given times are on holidays, and the ones left in charge have no idea what I need?”

181. The comment, “shame on me for thinking I was a part of the group,” is petulant but not a breach of the Policy.

182. The comment, “Because of my portfolio as chair of Housing and Homelessness I need to know,” is a statement of position. That position may be correct or incorrect but is not a contravention.

183. I am unable to make a finding that, at the July 26, 2024, meeting on Trinity, the Respondent told the Employee, in the presence of several business representatives, that the Employee’s role was to take notes – the implication being that she should not actively participate: see paragraphs 127-133. (Allegedly this occurred after the Employee spoke in a manner that showed empathy for neighbourhood concerns, and it contradicted the Respondent’s original suggestion that she attend as “acting Commissioner” and describe the City’s plans.) In the absence of a factual finding, I cannot conclude that the Policy was breached at the July 26 meeting. Had I been able to make a finding that a staff member had been humiliated in this manner, I would have concluded that paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy was breached. For future reference, Council Members should be aware that public humiliation of a staff member is contrary to both the Policy and the Code.

184. The Respondent did appear to overstep his role when he wrote about giving the names and numbers of staff members to news media and the public. The issue is not that these comments were petulant (they were) but that it isn’t a Council Member’s place to dictate which member of the City staff should respond to external questions. Ultimately, it is the CAO’s responsibility to ensure that the municipal organization has the capacity to address external inquiries. It is inappropriate for a Councillor to assign which particular staff member is to respond to a resident or a journalist.

185. I state that the Respondent appeared to overstep his role because I have found that he was not serious about giving out staff members’ names and numbers as a way of assigning them to respond to inquiries: see paragraph 126. In future, even in frustration or in jest, the Respondent must not give direction to any member of the staff. Doing so again will be a contravention of paragraph 4.1.5 a) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy⁴¹ and section 11 of the Portfolio Chairs By-law⁴² that cannot be mitigated or explained away as a misunderstanding or genuine error.

186. Because I have found that – in the circumstances of the incidents described in the original complaint – the Respondent did not breach the Policy, there is no basis to apply the Policy to the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence.

187. However, the Respondent is placed on notice that this technical result applies in this instance only. Some of the emails provided as similar fact evidence and pattern evidence are disturbing. In future, paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy will be applied to comments such as “What we need is the garbage picked up and someone with the management skills to deploy people to get the job done” and “Whatever you and your team are doing is not meeting the needs or expectation of the taxpayers of the City” when made to any staff member. Such comments do not exhibit respect and professionalism. To the extent they are meant as commentary on performance, they should be provided to nobody but the CAO, and never to an audience.

B. Did the Respondent contravene section 10 of the Code?

188. No, not during the events described in the original complaint. In this context, the Respondent did not contravene section 10 of the Code.

189. The following is section 10:

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.

190. There is no suggestion of discrimination, so paragraph 10 b) was not contravened.

191. As concerns the opening words of section 10, as well as paragraphs a) and c), I apply the conclusions in paragraphs 171-180, above, and cannot conclude that these provisions were contravened.

192. Because I have found that – in the circumstances of the incidents described in the original complaint – the Respondent did not breach section 10 of the Code, there is no basis to apply section 10 to the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence.

193. This technical result is not a conclusion that no issues are raised by the emails described in paragraphs 63-67 and 69. Their content, on its face, is disturbing. Should future, similar emails be sent, then the weight of the Code will apply.

C. Did the Respondent contravene section 13 of the Code?

194. I cannot conclude that, during the events described in the original complaint, the Respondent contravened section 13 of the Code.

195. Section 13 of the Code states that “Each Member must show respect for staff, and for their professional capacities and responsibilities.”

196. The emails described in paragraphs 171-177 reflect frustration and some petulance, but frustration and petulance, by themselves, do not contravene section 13. Some of the content is hyperbolic, but hyperbole does not contravene section 13. Some emails are factual, while others express opinion that can reasonably be held, but none contravene section 13.

197. As noted, I am unable to make a finding that, at the meeting with community business representatives, the Employee was marginalized after speaking in a manner that showed empathy for neighbourhood concerns. Had I been able to make a finding that a staff member had been humiliated in this manner, I would have concluded that section 13 was breached. For future reference, Council Members should be aware that public humiliation of a staff member is contrary to section 13 of the Code, as well as the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy.

198. Because I have found that – in the circumstances of the incidents described in the original complaint – the Respondent did not breach section 13 of the Code, there is no basis to apply section 13 to the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence. This technical result by no means vindicates the emails described in paragraphs 68-73 and 75. In future, a comment such as “What we need is the garbage picked up and someone with the management skills to deploy people to get the job done” or “Whatever you and your team are doing is not meeting the needs or expectation of the taxpayers of the City” will be treated as a contravention of section 13.

Conclusions

199. The emails that were the subject of the original complaint did not contravene section 10 or section 13 of the Code or the paragraph 4.1.6 b) of the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy.

200. In the absence of a finding that the Respondent humiliated a staff member at the July 26, 2024, meeting with business representatives, no conclusion of a breach occurring at that meeting can be made.

201. Because the incidents described in the original complaint did not give rise to any conclusion of contravention, it would be inappropriate and unfair to expand the complaint to consider new and different allegations associated with the additional similar fact evidence and pattern evidence. This technical result does not vindicate the additional emails included in the similar fact evidence and pattern evidence. Future incidents of the same or similar conduct will be subject to the weight of the Code and the Policy.

Recommendations

202. Council Members should note than the public humiliation of a staff member contravenes the Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy and section 13 of the Code.

203. This inquiry has dealt primarily with emails. Consequently, the inquiry did not address the Complainant’s submission that meeting Chairs have been unable to manage the Respondent’s conduct. To the extent meeting activity is a concern,⁴³ I note that the Procedure By-law makes it the duty of each meeting’s Chair to enforce order and decorum,⁴⁴ prohibits personal criticism and questioning of motives of colleagues and the City staff,⁴⁵ indirectly but clearly prohibits disrespecting the staff, ⁴⁶ and empowers the Chair to remove a Member who fails to comply.⁴⁷ If necessary, Council Members may wish to seek advice from the City Clerk and/or City Solicitor on how Chairs can use their authority, in real time, to protect the staff.

204. The Portfolio system perhaps blurs the line between the role of Councillors and the role of the staff. Council may wish to consider the Portfolio Chairs By-law in light of the events described in this report. In particular, it may wish to consider whether there is a need to reset expectations about the roles, informational access and staff relationships of Portfolio Co-Chairs given that the managerial and operational responsibilities reside with the City’s staff.

205. Some of the emails that I reviewed in the inquiry were communications among a majority of Council Members and sometimes all of them. Council may wish to request refresher advice from the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Legislative Services on the Municipal Act implications of “quorum emails.”

206. Council may wish to consider whether to harmonize the “harassment” definition of the Council Code of Conduct and the “harassment” definition of the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

Content

207. 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 19, 2025

Footnotes

1. 1On November 4, 2024, after the events giving rise to this inquiry, By-law 24-078 amended the Portfolio Chairs By-law to adjust the correspondence between Portfolios and the Community Services Department. The reprofiled Portfolios are Community Services (except Homelessness) and Community Services (Homelessness). Councillors Bierk and Riel became Co-Chairs of the Community Services (Homelessness) Portfolio.
2. 2Portfolio Chairs By-law, para. 5 l).
3. 3Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 8.
4. 4Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 10.
5. 5Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 14.
6. 6Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 11.
7. 7Association of Municipalities of Ontario, “Municipalities Under Pressure: The Growing Human and Financial Cost of Ontario’s Homelessness Crisis” (January 2025), p. 1.
8. 8Sheldon Laidman, Commissioner, Community Services, Report CSSS24-026, “Homelessness Budget Recommendations” (November 18, 2024), p. 1.
9. 9United Way Peterborough & District, “Point-in-Time Count 2024: A Survey of People Experiencing Homelessness in the City of Peterborough” (October 14, 2025), p. 4.
10. 10Based on 2024 population estimates of 16,145,000 (Ontario) and 96,058 (Peterborough).
11. 11Sheldon Laidman, note 8.
12. 12Canadian Human Rights Commission, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Upholding dignity and human rights: the Federal Housing Advocate’s review of homeless encampments – Final report (February 13, 2024), p. 2.
13. 13Canada, Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, “Homelessness Data Snapshot: Findings from the 2022 National Survey on Homeless Encampments” (November 3, 2023), online: https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/encampments-survey-2022-enquete-campements-eng.html
14. 14Canadian Human Rights Commission, note 11, p. 12.
15. 15Sebastian Johnston-Lindsay, Peterborough Examiner, “‘We can’t take the bus with our stuff’: Encampment evictions continue across Peterborough; enforcement costs unknown” (September 4, 2025), online: https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news/we-cant-take-the-bus-with-our-stuff-encampment-evictions-continue-across-peterborough-enforcement-costs/article_61379890-1f15-5b06-bca9-6dea79c354c5.html
16. 16Will Pearson, Peterborough Current, “Encampment evictions are an ‘every day’ reality in Peterborough: Hundreds of ‘illegal tenting’ incidents have been responded to at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars” (August 21, 2023), online: https://peterboroughcurrents.ca/housing/encampment-evictions-are-an-every-day-reality-in-peterborough/
17. 17In 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.
18. 18Sebastian Johnston-Lindsay, Peterborough Examiner, “Councillors left in dark over decision to turn Morrow Building into temporary homeless shelter” (July 24, 2024), online: https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news/councillors-left-in-dark-over-decision-to-turn-morrow-building-into-temporary-homeless-shelter/article_1a73654b-9788-5e6e-ac4d-45a9b633db65.html
19. 19CBC Radio, Ontario Morning with Ramraajh Sharvendiran, “Peterborough shelter closes” (November 25, 2025), online: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-112-ontario-morning/clip/16183761-peterborough-shelter-closes
20. 20As noted in paragraph 25, the Employee was acting Commissioner only until July 23 but thereafter continued to be responsible for the Wolfe Street eviction and related social services issues.
21. 21Greatrix v. Williams, 2018 ONMIC 6, para. 164.
22. 22Lawson v. Baines, 2011 BCSC 326, para 47, aff’d 2012 BCCA 117.
23. 23Color Your World Corp. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1998), 1998 CanLII 1983 (ON CA), 38 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.)
24. 24Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe (1966), 366 F.2d 649 at 655 (U.S. Ct. App. D.C.).
25. 25On July 19, the Respondent wrote, “If this continues, I will gladly hand over the reins of my Portfolios and furnish the public with your names, phone numbers and emails so that you can address the public’s concerns directly.” On July 24, he wrote, “[Councillor Bierk] and I field questions daily for the public and news media. This is about to change as the emails and phone calls that I receive will now be forwarded to you to explain to the public or to the persons that you and the group have impacted.”
26. 26R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, at 926, para. 37.
27. 27R. v. Handy, note 21, at 930, para. 50, quoting R. v. B. (C.R.), 1990 CanLII 142 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717, at 735, per McLachlin J.
28. 28R.C.M.S. v. G.M.K., 2005 SKQB 296, para. 55.
29. 29Leblanc v. R., 1975 CanLII 190 (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 339, at 359; Kaddoura v. Hanson, 2015 ABCA 154, para. 12.
30. 30R. v. Taylor B.T. (Private), 2018 CM 2029, para. 37.
31. 31R. v. Deu, 2019 ONCA 182, paras. 19-20.
32. 32Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362, at 398, para. 73.
33. 33Harding v. Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s (Town), 2025 NLSC 111; Re Di Biase, 2017 ONMIC 22.
34. 34Pattinson v. University of Northern British Columbia and another (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 110, para. 4.
35. 35Members of Council – Staff Relations Policy, section 4.3.1 a).
36. 36Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 8.
37. 37Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 11.
38. 38Portfolio Chairs By-law, ss. 9, 17.
39. 39Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 14.
40. 40Portfolio Chairs By-law, s. 10.
41. 41“Communications between Members of Council and Staff related to municipal business will respect the City’s accountability structure. … Generally speaking, Staff report to and take their direction from the CAO and Senior Leadership. … Only Council, as a whole, has the authority to direct Staff to carry out specific tasks or functions pursuant to a Council direction.”
42. 42“Subject to section 12, a Member must not direct a Commissioner or City staff in any way except pursuant to authority expressly delegated to the Member …”
43. 43The specific issue of what might have occurred at Council meetings and committee meetings was not before me, and this report makes no findings on it.
44. 44Procedure By-law, s. 5.5.
45. 45Procedure By-law, s. 7.3.
46. 46Procedure By-law, s. 7.6; Council Code of Conduct, ss. 12-13.
47. 47Procedure By-law, s. 7.5.