Other Tribunals - MICO

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a City Councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by acting aggressively toward an Uber driver and members of the public.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor's actions were intimidating and constituted discreditable conduct under Article XIV of the Code.

However, considering the incident was a single, brief exchange early in the Councillor's term, the Commissioner recommended that Council adopt a finding of a contravention but impose no formal sanction or remedial action.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that Councillor Rob Ford included an advertisement for a campaign fundraiser in his constituency newsletter, contrary to the Code of Conduct for Members of Council.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the newsletter, although produced by staff on personal time and paid for with personal funds, was inextricably linked to the Councillor's constituency work and subject to City policies.

The Commissioner concluded that the Councillor contravened Articles VI and VII of the Code by using the newsletter and City resources, including staff time, for campaign purposes.

The Commissioner also found a contravention of Article XV for failing to disclose the personal funds used to pay for the newsletter.

A suspension of remuneration for three days was recommended.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that Mayor John Tory contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by improperly using his influence to benefit former campaign staff who were acting as consultants for Uber.

The complaint centered on a motion moved by the Mayor to defer consideration of a staff report regarding taxicab regulations.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the deferral motion was motivated by policy considerations, including the desire to regulate the ground transportation industry comprehensively and await the outcome of pending litigation.

The Commissioner concluded there was no evidence the Mayor intended to benefit his former campaign staff or Uber, and dismissed the complaint, while providing guidance on interactions between elected officials and former campaign staff acting as lobbyists.

The complainant, a municipal manager, alleged that the respondent, Chair of the Economic Development Committee, made disrespectful comments about municipal staff on Facebook.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the respondent's comments violated the Code of Conduct by being disrespectful towards senior staff.

The Commissioner recommended that the municipal council reprimand the respondent and request an apology.

The complainant alleged that a municipal councillor breached the Town's Code of Conduct by operating an illegal business, failing to pay associated fines, and failing to repay personal loans.

The Integrity Commissioner found that while the councillor's operation of an illegal business and failure to pay fines breached the general conduct provisions of the Code, the complaints regarding these matters were submitted outside the six-week limitation period and were therefore dismissed.

The Commissioner further found that the councillor's conduct regarding unpaid personal loans was a private matter outside the scope of the Code.

The Commissioner recommended that no penalty be imposed.

A citizen filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner alleging that a City Councillor breached the Code of Conduct by referring to him as a 'criminal' in a newspaper interview.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the comment was false and constituted discreditable conduct under Article XIV of the Code of Conduct.

Because the Councillor subsequently issued an unqualified apology and retraction, the Commissioner recommended that no further sanction be imposed, but recommended reimbursing the complainant's legal costs up to $5,000.

The Integrity Commissioner submitted a supplementary report regarding a previous finding that the respondent Mayor breached the Code of Conduct by making robocalls to residents.

Following the Mayor's announcement of a leave of absence, the Commissioner recommended that City Council defer consideration of the report and the requested apology until his return.

The Integrity Commissioner for the City of Guelph reported on complaints filed by three municipal staff members against Councillor Maggie Laidlaw.

The complainants alleged that the councillor contravened the Code of Conduct by making statements and sending emails that amounted to abuse, bullying, and intimidation regarding a parking issue before the Committee of Adjustment.

The councillor admitted to an error in judgment and issued sincere apologies to the complainants.

The complainants accepted the apologies and withdrew their complaints, concluding the matter.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor breached Article XII of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by making public comments characterizing the City Manager's Casino Report as 'fictitious' and 'fictional'.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the comments were injurious to the professional reputation of staff and showed disrespect for their professional capacity, constituting a breach of Article XII.

However, because the councillor apologized to the City Manager, who accepted the apology, the Commissioner recommended that City Council take no further action.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor breached Article XII of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by making disparaging public comments about a report authored by the City Manager.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the councillor's repeated use of phrases such as 'nothing real' and 'fantasy' to describe the report showed disrespect for the professional capacity of staff, constituting a breach of the Code.

However, because the councillor apologized to the City Manager, who was satisfied with the outcome, the Commissioner recommended that City Council take no further action.

The Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. filed a complaint alleging that Mayor Rob Ford violated the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by directing his staff to exclude Toronto Star reporters from receiving official mayoral communications.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and dismissed the complaint, finding that the Mayor did not improperly use the influence of his office or engage in discreditable conduct.

The Commissioner noted that elected officials have discretion in their media communications and that the Mayor did not interfere with the newspaper's access to official City information.

The Commissioner also recommended that City Council clarify whether corporations may file complaints under the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner issued a supplementary report regarding Mayor Rob Ford's breach of Article XII of the Code of Conduct.

Following the initial report recommending a reprimand, Mayor Ford apologized to the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. McKeown, who accepted the apology.

Consequently, the Integrity Commissioner recommended that City Council adopt a finding of the breach but impose no further sanction.

A member of staff filed a complaint alleging that a City Councillor violated Article XII of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by making critical comments about the staff member on a public radio program.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the comments constituted a violation of the Code of Conduct, as they were an attack on the personal and professional reputation of the complainant.

The Councillor acknowledged that her comments were improper and apologized to the complainant.

The Integrity Commissioner recommended that City Council find a violation occurred but impose no sanction.

A private citizen filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor breached the Code of Ethical Conduct by failing to provide clear and understandable responses to emails requesting access to constituency records and information on municipal legal fees.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the councillor had responded appropriately by explaining that he did not maintain files on non-constituents and by referring the legal fees inquiry to the appropriate committee chair.

The Commissioner concluded that the councillor did not violate the Code, noting that individual councillors are not responsible for determining access to records under freedom of information legislation or for answering complex policy questions outside formal council processes.

A private citizen filed a complaint alleging that a Regional Councillor breached the Code of Ethical Conduct by allowing false evidence to be entered at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding ward boundaries.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found that the Councillor did not write or review the witness statement prepared by City legal staff prior to the hearing, and his testimony was honest.

The Commissioner concluded that the Councillor did not violate the Code of Ethical Conduct.

A private citizen filed a complaint with the City of Vaughan Integrity Commissioner alleging that Mayor Linda D. Jackson breached the Code of Ethical Conduct by refusing to answer questions regarding the release of the complainant's personal information.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor contravened Rule 1(b) of the Code, which requires members to perform their functions with transparency and recognize the public's right to reasonable access to information.

However, the Commissioner concluded the contravention was made through inadvertence and in good faith, and recommended no sanctions, instead advising the Mayor to seek answers from City staff to provide to the complainant.

The Mayor of Toronto filed a complaint against a former member of the Exhibition Place Board of Governors, alleging a conflict of interest and a violation of the Code of Conduct.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint on three grounds.

First, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Code of Conduct to investigate a former board member.

Second, allegations of conflict of interest fall under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which is outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

Third, even if jurisdiction existed, there were insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation, as the former member had declared his interest and recused himself from relevant board matters after being retained by a successful proponent.

The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent regarding comments made on a radio broadcast alleging the complainant was in a conflict of interest regarding a committee appointment.

The Interim Integrity Commissioner found that the respondent's comments were inaccurate and inappropriate, constituting a violation of Article XIV of the Code of Conduct.

However, because the respondent promptly retracted the statement and apologized on-air, the Commissioner recommended that City Council not impose any sanction.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a municipal councillor violated the Code of Conduct by improperly influencing staff regarding a property purchase.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence.

After the councillor disclosed the dismissal report to the media, the Integrity Commissioner determined that exceptional circumstances existed under the Complaint Protocol to submit the report to City Council.

This action was taken to ensure the full report became an official public document.

During the 2006 municipal election campaign, the respondent councillor left a voice mail message with a Member of Parliament alleging that the applicant councillor was under active police investigation.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner alleging a violation of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the conduct amounted to a violation of the Code's discreditable conduct provision and recommended that the respondent make a full apology or face a formal reprimand.