Other Tribunals - MICO

A complaint was filed against a municipal council member alleging a breach of the Code of Conduct by attempting to use the influence of office to benefit an outside business.

The alleged incident occurred in 2014 or 2015, before the Code of Conduct took effect in 2016.

The Integrity Commissioner concluded that the Code of Conduct cannot have retroactive effect and therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Complainant alleged that the Mayor and several Councillors breached the municipal Code of Conduct in connection with their consideration of an investigation report and the decision to indemnify a Councillor for expenses related to a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Integrity Commissioner dismissed the complaint, finding no contravention of the Code.

The Commissioner noted that the allegations regarding the indemnification by-law related to procedural steps not covered by the Code, and that the conflict of interest allegations were made well outside the statutory time limits.

The Commissioner recommended amending the Code to impose a three-month time limit on complaints.

The Complainant alleged that Councillor Ernie Peplinski breached the Township's Code of Conduct by making discriminatory and harassing comments during a committee meeting regarding the Complainant not being from the local area.

The Complainant also alleged reprisal and a breach of the Code for the Respondent accepting legal representation from the Township's lawyer.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the comments about the Complainant's lack of local roots did not constitute discrimination based on "place of origin" under the Human Rights Code, as place of origin refers to an inherent characteristic from birth, not current residence or length of time in a community.

The Commissioner also dismissed the harassment, reprisal, and conflict of interest allegations, finding no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The Complainant alleged that Councillor Shelley Maika breached the municipal Code of Conduct by making an inaccurate statement about asbestos in a heritage railway station during a committee meeting.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Code of Conduct process is not suited to policing the truth of political speech, and that any inaccuracies should be addressed through political debate.

The Commissioner dismissed the allegations of abuse of power, prejudicing the provision of services, and accepting services from a municipality-paid individual, concluding that the Councillor did not contravene the Code.

The complainant, Regional Councillor Gael Miles, filed a complaint against Councillor Pat Fortini alleging that his public and social media comments regarding the City's purchase of the Riverstone Golf and Country Club contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated whether the respondent's statements violated rules concerning accurate communication of Council decisions, discreditable conduct, and respect for staff.

The Commissioner found that the majority of the respondent's comments were expressions of political opinion rather than factual claims, and thus could not be deemed false or misleading.

The Commissioner concluded that the respondent was exercising his democratic right to dissent and explain his vote, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

A city councillor filed a complaint against two other councillors, alleging they breached the Council Code of Conduct regarding impartiality and conduct respecting staff.

The respondents had family members in the local fire fighters' association and participated in council decisions regarding fire services.

The Integrity Commissioner found no breach of the Code's provisions on granting special consideration or respecting staff.

While the respondents had personal interests that affected their impartiality under common law principles, the wording of the Code did not clearly require recusal in these circumstances.

The Commissioner recommended amending the Code to explicitly require recusal when a personal interest affects impartiality.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report regarding a Code of Conduct complaint against a Council Member.

The investigation had been suspended pending a related Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) proceeding.

Following a settlement in the HRTO matter, the municipality's counsel argued the settlement barred further Integrity Commissioner proceedings.

The Integrity Commissioner held that the municipality is not a party to Code of Conduct complaints and cannot settle them.

Emphasizing the statutory requirement for independence, the Commissioner determined the HRTO settlement did not bind the Code proceeding and ordered the investigation to resume.

The Integrity Commissioner for the City of Brampton issued an interim report regarding two complaints filed against two Council Members.

The Commissioner noted that the investigations were ongoing and complex, and that the parties in the two complaints were reversed.

The report outlined the fair and balanced process followed in investigating Code of Conduct complaints and indicated that the investigations would be completed as quickly as possible.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report regarding a complaint that a municipal councillor breached the Code of Conduct's decorum rules while handling a noise complaint.

The complainant alleged the councillor made disparaging remarks about them to local residents.

The investigation could not be completed because a key witness identified by the complainant could not be reached despite repeated attempts.

The Commissioner ordered the investigation file to remain open until the witness could be contacted.

The CEO of the TTC filed a complaint alleging that a City Councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by making public statements during a radio interview that questioned the integrity and objectivity of TTC staff regarding a briefing note on the Scarborough subway extension.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor's statements crossed the line from fair comment to injurious statements about professional staff, contravening Article XII of the Code of Conduct.

The Commissioner recommended that City Council reprimand the Councillor.

The Auditor General requested an inquiry into whether a municipal councillor contravened Article VIII (Improper Use of Influence) of the Code of Conduct based on an anonymous letter alleging he improperly referred matters to a development consultant.

Following an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner found no evidence to support a finding that the councillor had any business or referral relationship with the named consultant.

The inquiry concluded that there was no basis to support the allegations of a referral scheme.

The Complainant, the Town Clerk and Director of By-law Enforcement, alleged that the Mayor breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct in his dealings with By-law Enforcement staff.

The allegations primarily stemmed from the Mayor's social media posts and emails regarding the removal of a public piano, as well as an interaction concerning an accessible parking ticket.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Mayor's interpretation of Council's direction regarding the piano was reasonable and that his communications did not constitute directing staff, bullying, or improperly influencing the administration of justice.

The complaint was dismissed, with the Commissioner noting that while some of the Mayor's words could have been more carefully chosen, no Code contraventions occurred.

A complaint was filed against a municipal councillor alleging he posted a racial slur on his Facebook account.

The councillor claimed his account and computer were hacked.

During the investigation, the councillor destroyed his computer hard drive and deleted his Facebook account.

The Integrity Commissioner found the hacking claim improbable based on technical and behavioural evidence, and applied the doctrine of spoliation to draw an adverse inference against the councillor.

The Commissioner concluded the councillor made the post and intentionally destroyed evidence, recommending a 32-day suspension of remuneration.

Six Council Members filed a complaint alleging that a seventh Council Member contravened the Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential information from a closed meeting to a journalist.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated and found insufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent shared specific details from the closed meeting.

The complaint was dismissed with no recommendation for penalty.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint alleging that a Council Member contravened the Region's Council Code of Conduct.

After reviewing the complaint, response, and reply, the Commissioner concluded there were insufficient grounds to continue the investigation.

Because the existing Complaint Procedure did not explicitly permit discontinuing an investigation without reporting to Council, the Commissioner issued this report to conclude the matter.

The Commissioner also recommended amending the Complaint Procedure to grant the Integrity Commissioner explicit discretion to discontinue an investigation at any point if insufficient grounds are found.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint against a Council Member alleging violations of the principles section of the Council Code of Conduct and a subsequent allegation of reprisal.

The Commissioner found that the principles section of the Code provides interpretive guidance but cannot independently form the basis of a complaint.

Regarding the reprisal allegation, the Commissioner noted that while the Council Member sent an email declining to assist the constituent due to the ongoing Code proceeding, the Member actually forwarded the constituent's inquiry to staff.

Therefore, no denial of service occurred, and the complaint was dismissed.

An individual filed a complaint alleging that Warden Jennifer Murphy contravened the County's Council Code of Conduct based on comments in a local newspaper and her conduct at a township council meeting where she demanded an apology from another mayor.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report declining to proceed further with the investigation, finding that the dispute involved political judgments and oratorical styles that fall outside the purview of an ethics investigation.

The Commissioner recommended no further action unless directed by County Council.

An employee of the Town of Orangeville filed a Code of Conduct complaint against a Council Member.

The respondent Council Member challenged the Integrity Commissioner's authority to investigate, arguing his reappointment was invalid due to a recent tied vote at Council.

The Integrity Commissioner issued an interim report confirming that his appointment had been validly renewed by a prior confirming by-law, which remained in effect.

The Commissioner declined to suspend the investigation and directed that it proceed.

The Integrity Commissioner investigated a complaint that a municipal councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by stating in a radio interview that a City staff member had misled Council.

The Commissioner found that the statements were not fair comment and unfairly called into question the staff member's integrity, thereby contravening Article XII (Conduct Respecting Staff).

However, because the councillor had already publicly apologized for his comments, the Commissioner recommended that Council adopt the finding of a contravention but impose no penalty or remedial action.

A member of the public filed a complaint alleging that a City Councillor contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council following a series of interactions regarding a parking issue.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the Councillor did not contravene Article VI (Use of City Property, Services and Other Resources) as he did not obtain special relief from parking enforcement.

However, the Commissioner found that the Councillor contravened Article XIV (Discreditable Conduct) by acting in an intimidating and harassing manner toward the complainant and her family.

The Commissioner recommended that City Council reprimand the Councillor.