Ontario Civilian Police Commission v. Bennett, 2014 ONCPC 2504

ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING UNDER S. 25 OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.15, AS AMENDED, INTO THE CONDUCT OF MAYOR DARYL BENNETT, MEMBER OF THE PETERBOROUGH LAKEFIELD POLICE SERVICES BOARD

2014 ONCPC 2504

DECISION

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Associate Chair Zahra Dhanani, Member

Hearing Dates: March 5, 2013 June 26, 2013 September 18, 2013 October 28, 2013 (conference call) December 16, 2013 January 6-10, 2014 February 3, 6, 7, 10 and 21, 2014 March 19, 20 and 24, 2014 April 7, 8, 9 and 28, 2014 May 2, 15 and 16, 2014

Submissions: Final written submissions received August 20, 2014

Hearing Locations: Peterborough and Toronto, Ontario

Ontario Civilian Police Commission 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605 Toronto, ON M7A 2T3 Tel: 416-314-3004 Fax: 416-314-0198 Website: www.ocpc.ca

Appearances:

Richard Taylor, Counsel for Daryl Bennett

Prabhu Rajan and Melanie Goren, Counsel for the Ontario Civilian Police Commission

Background

1. Daryl Bennett is a member of the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Services Board (the “Board”). Mayor Bennett is also the mayor of Peterborough (“Mayor Bennett” or the “Mayor”).

2. The City of Peterborough is located in east central Ontario with a population of approximately 135, 000 people.

3. Policing in the community is provided by an amalgamated municipal police force, the Peterborough Lakefield Police Service (the “Service”), headed by Chief Murray Rodd (or the “Chief”).

4. The events that gave rise to this hearing took place primarily between March 2011 and September, 2012. The events included a protracted dispute over the Service’s proposed budget for 2012.

5. The composition of the Board for most of the relevant time period was:

Chair - Nancy Martin Vice Chair - R. Kenneth Armstrong Mayor Daryl Bennett Reeve Mary Smith Robert Lightbody

The Administrative Assistant to the Board was Niquel Pritchard Pataki.

6. On April 16, 2012, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the “Commission”) received a letter from a Peterborough businessman requesting an investigation into the conduct of Mayor Bennett in relation to his role as a member of the Board.

7. On June 1, 2012 the Commission asked for the Board’s position on whether an investigation was necessary. In a letter dated June 20, 2012 the Commission received a response from the Board that included a lengthy chronology of Mayor Bennett’s actions while on the Board.

8. As per section 25 (1) (a) of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended (the “Act”), on September 4, 2012, at an in camera meeting of its members, the Commission decided on its own motion to conduct an investigation. As a result of its investigation, the Commission decided to hold a hearing into the conduct of Mayor Bennett as a member of the Board.

9. Mayor Bennett was charged with engaging in conduct that discredits and compromises the integrity of the Board or the Service, contrary to Sections 2, 5, 6, 8, and/or 13 of the Members of Police Service Boards - Code of Conduct, O. Reg. 421/97 (the “Code of Conduct”), enacted under the Act.

10. An amended Notice of Hearing1 dated December 23, 2013 (the “Notice”) alleged that Mayor Bennett had “engaged in conduct that discredits and compromises the integrity of the Board or the Peterborough-Lakefield Police Service”.

The following 11 specific allegations of misconduct were listed in the Notice:

1The original Notice of Hearing dated January 31, 2013, was amended by way of a Ruling on Motion, dated December 19, 2013, to add 2 additional allegations to the 9 allegations that had been set out in the original Notice of Hearing.

1. On receiving a confidential complaint about the conduct of Chief Murray Rodd, he did not keep the matter confidential among members of the Board but shared the complaint with members of Peterborough City Council and a member of Peterborough City staff;

2. On receiving a confidential complaint about the conduct of Chief Murray Rodd, he did not immediately bring the complaint to the Board for action;

3. While negotiating the budget for the Peterborough Lakefield Police Service for 2012, he attempted to negotiate directly with Chief Murray Rodd rather than, as a member of Council, with the Board;

4. He publicly expressed disagreement with a decision by Chief Murray Rodd to hire a civilian to the position of Police Service Communications Coordinator which decision was supported by the Board;

5. He authored and sent a letter to the Minister of Community and Safety and Correctional Services (the “Minister”) advocating that Board Chair Nancy Martin’s term not be extended after the Board had voted down his motion not to support her term being extended;

6. He authored and sent a letter to the Minister alleging that Board Chair Nancy Martin had committed misconduct while not bringing the allegation to the Board for action;

7. He authored and sent a letter to the Minister alleging unsupported allegations of misconduct against Board Chair Nancy Martin;

8. He publicly condemned the Commission’s investigative process, describing it as a “farce”

Issues

and “anti-democratic”, and he compared the Commission’s investigative powers to those which existed in “pre-war Germany”;

9. He refused to be interviewed by the Commission during its investigation of this matter;

10. On receiving an email from the Board about a confidential meeting, he shared the email thread with the members of City Council; and

11. He made a number of disparaging and/or disrespectful remarks regarding the Chief, the police, the Board and the Commission.

11. The issues to be decided in this matter are as follows:

1. Have any of the allegations against Mayor Bennett as set out in the Notice been proven on a balance of probabilities?

2. If so, do any such allegations constitute a breach of any of s. 2, 5, 6, 8, or 13 of the Code of Conduct?

3. If so, do any such breaches lead to the conclusion that Mayor Bennett is guilty of misconduct or is not performing or is incapable of performing the duties of his position as a member of the Board in a satisfactory manner?

Introductory Comments

12. Section 27(1) of the Act requires that there be a police services board (a “PSB”) for every municipality that maintains a police force. Such PSB’s are commonly called “Section 31 Boards” in that their responsibilities are set out in s. 31 of the Act. When used in this decision, the term “PSB” refers to section 31 PSB’s. The Board is a section 31 Board in that it has responsibilities over the Service.

13. The Service serves the City of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn. The size of the population served sets the make-up of the Board which in this case is set out in s. 27(5) of the Act, altered by the amalgamation agreement signed in 1998. Pursuant to s. 27(5)(a) the head of Peterborough City Council, Mayor Bennett, and the Mayor of Selwyn Township, Reeve Smith, are automatically members of the Board. The Province appointed two Board members, namely Nancy Martin and R. Kenneth Armstrong, and Peterborough Council appointed Robert Lightbody as a community representative.

14. It is to be noted that neither Mayor Bennett, nor Reeve Smith, exercised their rights as the heads of their municipal councils, under s. 27(5)(a) to choose not to to sit on the Board. This was their right. Each of them could have chosen not to be on the Board, in which case another member of their council would have been appointed in their place.

Mayor Bennett’s Overarching Positions

15. Mayor Bennett’s actions and responses to this hearing were guided by the following positions:

1. A mayor who sits on a PSB is not always bound by the Act because his/her obligations and responsibilities as mayor supersede or trump the requirements of any other role he or she takes on.

2. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms2, protects his right to free speech and association and that the application of the Code of Conduct to his behaviour is an infringement of these rights.

2Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. (the “Charter”).

16. Because these two positions were taken generally throughout Mayor Bennett’s arguments we address them at the outset of our reasons.

MAYORS WHO SERVE AS MEMBERS OF A PSB

17. In his testimony Mayor Bennett repeatedly made comments that his role as mayor was more significant than his role as a Board member. He made comments that his role as mayor was “paramount”, that the mayor’s “hat sits on top” of all other hats and he consistently stated that “I am head of Council and Mayor. That trumps many aspects of what I do.”

18. While we understand Mayor Bennett’s commitment to his role as mayor, we find that this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Act and the obligations it places on all Board members.

19. Counsel for Mayor Bennett argued that his role as mayor supersedes and overrides the obligations placed on Mayor Bennett by the Act.

20. We do not accept this argument. The Code of Conduct and more generally the Act applies to all members of the Board, regardless of appointment status or other obligations the Board member may have.

21. All Board members are required to carefully reconcile their roles and responsibilities without compromising their obligations under the Act.

22. The legislature in providing for PSB’s ensured that no one level of government would control a PSB. This is reflected in the composition of PSBs. Members are appointed by both municipal councils and the Province. Municipal appointments consist of both council members and a community representative who is neither a member of council nor employed by council.

23. This tripartite mix of appointments is tailored to achieve balance and representation of the goals, needs and interests of the community, the municipality and the Province.

24. In reality, being a member of a PSB is not generally a full- time occupation. In setting up PSB’s comprised of part-time members, the legislature clearly understood that members would occupy other roles. Indeed, there is no requirement that a mayor sit on the PSB for his or her municipality. It is a choice that the mayor makes. Section 27(5)(a) of the Act states that the PSB shall consist of:

the head of the municipal council or, if the head chooses not to be a member of the board, another member of the council appointed by resolution of the council;

25. While a PSB is funded by the municipality it is not a “committee” of Council. It is a separate and distinct entity with responsibilities set out in s. 31 of the Act and in other provisions of Part III of the Act.

26. Municipal Councils are governed by The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. PSB’s are governed by the Act. Both are provincial statutes. The legislation is separate but equal in force and effect. One Act is not more important than the other. Neither Act “trumps” the other.

27. All PSB members are bound by the obligations and responsibilities of the Act as long as they are members of the PSB. There is no exception or distinction in the Act. Therefore, when a mayor is a member of a PSB he or she is bound to abide by the Act and relevant Regulations.

28. While Mayor Bennett is the head of the Peterborough municipal council, there is no requirement for the Board to report to him or to follow any of his individual directives.

29. In his affidavit (Exhibit 79) at paragraph 3 Mayor Bennett stated that:

Pursuant to the Police Service Act, I indicated my desire that I would be the only elected representative of the Corporation of the City of Peterborough, on the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board.

30. Mayor Bennett could have exercised his right under s. 27(5)(a) to choose not to be a member of the Board and thereby have allowed City Council to appoint someone else from City Council to sit on the Board. He did not exercise this right. He chose clearly and deliberately to sit on the Board.

31. In the hearing and in closing submissions Mayor Bennett described the positions of being mayor and a member of the Board as akin to wearing two separate hats and that the mayor’s hat was higher and always sat on top of his Board member hat. This analogy does not fully represent the situation that Mayor Bennett is in. Unlike wearing a hat, once appointed to the role of a PSB member, the role, is not freely adorned or discarded as a member wishes.

32. Mayor Bennett, in choosing to serve as a Board member while he was mayor, chose to fulfill two important roles.

33. While he could have decided not to act as a member, once he took on that role he could not shirk his responsibilities. Instead, it was incumbent upon him to find a way to fulfill his obligations as mayor and Board member simultaneously.

34. A major part of these obligations include the responsibility of abiding by the provisions of the Code of Conduct.

35. The Act gave Mayor Bennett the option of choosing not to be a member of the Board so that the City Council could appoint another member of City Council to the Board. Once he chooses to be a member of the Board, the Act does not give him the option of choosing his role as mayor over his role as a member of the Board.

36. We find therefore that Mayor Bennett’s argument that his role as mayor trumped his role as a Board member is unsupportable and incorrect. This is not a defense for his conduct.

THE CHARTER AND ITS APPLICATION TO BOARD MEMBERS

37. Mayor Bennett argued that these proceedings, in so far as they sought to assess whether the mayor’s comments violated the Code of Conduct, were unconstitutional as they constitute a restriction on the mayor’s freedom of expression as protected by s. 2 (b) of the Charter.

38. Mayor Bennett also argued that the Code of Conduct restricted his freedom of association as guaranteed by s. 2 (d) of the Charter. He suggests that his right to associate freely with his City Council colleagues has been impeded.

39. We summarily dismiss Mayor Bennett’s argument that his s.2 (d) rights have been infringed. The Code of Conduct does not limit Mayor Bennett’s ability to establish or maintain an association. There is no evidence of this before the Panel and no case law has been presented that supports this proposition.

40. The Code of Conduct prescribes that the standard of conduct that PSB members must meet is higher than that of the general public standard of conduct. Mayor Bennett is free to associate with his City Council colleagues, but there are limits on what information he can share about Board business. The limits prescribed in the Code of Conduct are limits of conduct not association.

41. We acknowledge that the Code imposes restrictions on free expression. These restrictions are however justified in a free and democratic society by the limits expressed under s. 1 of the Charter.

42. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

43. We conclude that a PSB member’s limits to free speech are justified by the importance of public confidence in policing as well as confidentiality and security concerns related to the position of a PSB member: see R v. Oakes 1 S.C.R.

45. The limits to speech of the PSB member are minimal and are directly related to the legislative intent and the obligations of a board member under the Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in Browne v. Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, 2001 CanLII 3051 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 4573 that the legislative purpose of the Act is to “increase public confidence in the provision of police services.”

46. Most importantly, the limits do not prohibit a PSB member from expressing his or her opinion. Indeed the Code of Conduct explicitly states at para. 6 that “a board member who expresses disagreement with a decision of the board shall make it clear that he or she is expressing a personal opinion.”

47. The limits on this right are balanced by the power and privilege one assumes by choosing to serve on a PSB. It is also balanced by the impact of boundless comments made by someone in this position of power.

48. There is a rational connection between the limit and the legislated intent behind the limit. The intent behind the Act and the Code of Conduct is to increase public confidence in policing. The limit on PSB member conduct acts to ensure that PSB members will conduct themselves in a manner that will not bring disrepute to policing or compromise the integrity of the PSB or the police service it oversees.

49. We find that the benefit derived from the Code of Conduct outweighs the minimal infringement of the s.2(b) right of PSB members.

50. Finally, we find that this infringement is an infringement that is consciously adopted by anyone who chooses to serve as a member of a PSB. People are not forced into sitting on the PSB. It is a choice that they take on with full knowledge that they will have to adhere to the obligations of the Act and Regulations enacted thereunder. Section 32 of the Act requires that Board appointees take an oath of office in which they promise to perform their duties “faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act”.

51. In the Inquiry into the Conduct and Performance of Duties of Norman Gardner of the Toronto Police Services Board (March 1, 2004, OCCPS, hereinafter “ Gardner ” ), the Commission laid out the importance of a PSB member’s role:

In a very real way they act as public stewards in ensuring that police forces are representative of and accountable to the communities they serve...(emphasis added)

51. Stewardship is defined as “the conducting, supervising or managing of something: especially the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2014 online edition)

52. PSB members are responsible for the careful and responsible management of a police service which deals with the public’s liberty and safety. Members must understand that to be a public steward, is to first and foremost serve the public, not one’s own self-interests. This requires limits at times to one’s behaviour, as is provided in the Code of Conduct.

53. We find these limits to be justified and reasonable for a PSB member given his or her responsibility.

54. Therefore, we find that Mayor Bennett’s arguments that his Charter rights provide him with the authority to say and do whatever he wanted is a flawed understanding of his entitlements under the Charter and a mischaracterization of the limits that he chose to be constrained by.

Standard of Proof and Legal Test

55. The standard of proof is the civil law standard, namely proof “on a balance of probabilities”. The Commission must be satisfied on the basis of clear, cogent and compelling evidence that the allegations have been proven. The Commission must consider all evidence properly before it. Hearsay evidence may be accepted and considered, but it must be carefully weighed: see Burrows and Ontario Provincial Police, (August 13, 2012 OCPC).

56. The balance of probabilities test is elucidated in the Supreme Court of Canada decision F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] S.C.J. No. 54, where the court held that “the trial judge must scrutinize the relevant evidence with care to determine whether it is more likely than not that an alleged event occurred.”

57. The balance of probabilities standard is less onerous than the criminal standard which requires that the case be proven beyond a “reasonable doubt”.

58. The burden to prove the case rests on the Commission as it is the party that has brought the application.

59. F.H., supra, provides us with further guidance on the standard we must meet with our findings. In their decision the Supreme Court held that when the correct standard was applied even if not expressly stated, the reviewing court would not intervene. The Supreme Court affirmed that an appellate court should only intervene with factual findings if the decision being reviewed contains “findings of fact that are clearly wrong, unreasonable or unsupportable by the evidence.”

60. The F.H., supra, decision upholds the very well established principles of evidence that an appellate court will be hard pressed to find a palpable and over-riding error where there is some evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the trier-of-fact: see also H.L. v. Canada, (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401, 2005 SCC 25, and Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33.

61. In the Matter of an Inquiry under s. 25 (1) of the Act Into the Conduct and Performace of Duties of Greg Oliver, A Member of the Stirling-Rawdon Police Services Board,(October 7, 2014, OCPC) (hereinafter “ Oliver” ), the Commission confirmed the origins of the legal test to determine if Board member misconduct took place:

The tests adopted and applied by the Commission in inquiries pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the Act have been derived from inquiries into the conduct of police officers.

62. This test in turn emerged from the Act which establishes a duty on police officers not to bring any discredit to a police force. In our view, this duty and expectation extends to all responsible for the effective operations of policing in Ontario, including PSB members.

63. The Commission in Gardner, supra, stated:

In many respects, the obligation on Board appointees not to act in a manner likely to compromise the integrity of the Board or the police force is similar to a corresponding duty imposed on police officers not to act in a manner [...] likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force.

64. There are many cases dealing with misconduct of police officers. They articulate some helpful principles but the most often relied upon and quoted legal test for misconduct was first fully articulated in Girard v. Delaney, (1995) 2 P.L.R. 337, at p. 349, where the Ontario Board of Inquiry held:

65. The test is primarily an objective one.

66. The Board must measure the conduct of the officer by the reasonable expectations of the community.

67. In determining the reasonable expectations of the community, the Board may use its own judgment, in the absence of evidence as to what the reasonable expectations are. The Board must place itself in the position of the reasonable person in the community, dispassionate and fully appraised of the circumstances of the case.

68. In applying this standard, the Board should consider not only the immediate facts surrounding the case but also any appropriate rules and regulations in force at that time.

69. Because of the objective nature of the test, the subjective element of good faith (referred to in the Shockness case) is an appropriate consideration where the officer is required by the circumstances to exercise his discretion.

70. In the case of Gillespie v. P.C. Shockness (October 4, 1994, Board of Inquiry), referred to in the test above, the Ontario Board of Inquiry held that a subjective finding of good faith on the part of the officer could defend against a technical breach of the law.

71. The Board of Inquiry in Girard v. Delaney, supra, was very direct in response to this, concluding that while good faith can be considered as part of the assessment the test is objective with a high level of importance placed on the requirements of the applicable “rules and regulations”. It was held that:

An officer’s neglect of duty, without any element of bad faith or recklessness, can [still] bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force.

67. Further, in Mancini v. Courage, (August 12, 2004), OCCPS, hereinafter “Mancini”) the Commission elaborated on the application of the test and how to measure the reasonable expectation of the community:

The measure used to determine whether or not conduct is discreditable is the extent of the potential damage to the reputation and image of the service should the action become public knowledge.

The Evidence

68. The documentary evidence in this case is generally not in dispute.

69. There were 80 exhibits entered into evidence.

70. There were 8 witnesses called by Commission Counsel:

-Warren Korol (Investigator for the Commission), -Niquel Pritchard-Pataki (Administrative Assistant to the Board), -Nancy Martin (former Chair of the Board), -Camile Parent (author of the written complaint to the Commission about the conduct of Mayor Bennett), -Brent Whetung (author of the email to Mayor Bennett about the Chief’s use of language in a news interview), -Paul Thompson (Police Services Advisor with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) and -Mayor Mary Smith (of the Township of Selwyn and member of the Board).

71. There were 6 witnesses brought by counsel for Mayor Bennett:

-Mayor Richard McGee (Mayor of the City of Kawartha Lakes), -Patricia Lester (City Solicitor for Peterborough), -Darren Locke (System Administrator with Peterborough Utilities), -Robert Hall (Peterborough City Councillor), -Robert Lightbody (Board member from January 2011 to 2012) and -Mayor Daryl Bennett.

72. We do not find it necessary in this decision to make general findings of credibility relating to each of the witnesses that have testified, or to summarize their testimony. We have opted where appropriate to state the credible evidence that we rely on, its weight and why it is relevant to the specific allegation.

73. In assessing credibility of witnesses testimony, we take guidance from the well-established principles set out in the traditionally applied British Columbia Court of Appeal decision Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A), in which it was held that:

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.

74. Testimony that is consistent, without ulterior motive, without embellishment and corroborated and/or confirmed, tends to be credible: see Shah v. George Brown College, 2009 HRTO 920. Credible testimony can be demonstrated by witnesses who: have a clear ability to understand and recollect events, have no reason to manipulate evidence, and who will not benefit from a certain accounting of the evidence: see Shah, supra.

75. In the Commission’s recent decision of Constable Michael O’Reill y and The Ottawa Police Service, (December 5, 2014, OCPC), the Panel confirmed that credibility determinations should not be made on assessments of demeanor alone. The decision affirmed the specific credibility questions asked in Pitts and Director of Family Benefits Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 51 O.R. (2nd) 302 (Div. Ct.), including:

-does the witness exhibit any partisanship or any leaning towards the side that called him? -did his evidence make sense? -was the evidence of the witness contradicted by the evidence of another witness whom the adjudicator considers more worthy? and -was a previous statement given that is inconsistent with his evidence given at the hearing?

76. In the case of Loomba v. Home Depot Canada, 2010 HRTO 1434 it was held that “a finding of lack of credibility with respect to one aspect of a witness’s testimony does not automatically render the entirety of the witness’s evidence as incredible.”

77. Finally, credibility assessments are not an exact science. In R. v. Gagnon 2006 SCC 17, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that:

It is very difficult...to articulate with precision the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events.

78. In the matter before us, a significant number of allegations can be assessed with reference to documents. Where possible the Panel relies primarily on undisputed documentary evidence.

79. While we have decided not to make general assessments of credibility on all of the witnesses, we do make comment here on the testimony of Mayor Bennett. His testimony is relevant to all of the allegations and therefore to avoid repetition of our assessment of his testimony we provide it initially.

MAYOR BENNETT’S TESTIMONY

80. Mayor Bennett’s testimony was not consistent. He was evasive, guarded and often would not answer simple direct questions. He often began with blanket denials that he later qualified or completely contradicted. For example, he stated that he had no direct contact with the Chief regarding the 2012 budget for the Service. Later in his testimony, he admitted that he made two phone calls directly to the Chief.

81. The Mayor had a hard time recalling some significant matters, including how it came to be that he gave Mr. Lightbody a copy of the confidential Commission investigation report into his conduct.

82. Frequently, he would not answer questions in cross- examination without some display of resistance or avoidance, whether that being some form of non- responsiveness or giving irrelevant answers.

83. On several occasions the Panel had to remind Mayor Bennett of his duty to answer the questions truthfully and to the best of his knowledge.

84. We find on a balance of probabilities that the Mayor’s testimony on a whole was not dependable or credible. We find however that some aspects of his testimony could be relied on when consistent and corroborated by other credible witnesses or documentary evidence.

The Allegations

85. There are two questions that we must answer for each of the allegations:

1. Whether the allegation against Mayor Bennett has been substantiated with clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and

2. Whether the conduct alleged has been proven on a balance of probabilities.

86. We find that all 11 allegations against Mayor Bennett have been substantiated and the conduct alleged proven on a balance of probabilities.

87. We now turn to our findings on each individual allegation.

Allegation #1: On receiving a confidential complaint about the conduct of Chief Murray Rodd, Mayor Bennett did not keep the matter confidential among members of the Board but shared the complaint with members of Peterborough City Council;

88. The first allegation (or “Allegation #1”) against Mayor Bennett relates to an email Mayor Bennett received from Brent Whetung, a member of the public, on December 7,

90. In the email, Mr. Whetung requested an apology from the Chief as a result of comments that were made by the Chief on Chex News, where the Chief stated “we have real bad guys firing real bullets at us, we don’t need politicians firing arrows at us.”

91. Mr. Whetung deemed these comments offensive and yet, he also testified that he had no interest in his complaint becoming a big issue in the media.

92. Mayor Bennett is alleged to have replied to Mr. Whetung’s email on December 8, 2011, copying members of Peterborough City Council. This email included a copy of Mr. Whetung’s complaint along with the Mayor’s suggestion that Mr. Whetung direct his concerns to the Chief. Mayor Bennett’s email can be found in Exhibit 6: Commission Counsel’s Book of Documents (“Commission Counsel’s book”) at Tab 31. The email reads, in part:

Thank you for your email. I saw the same reference and I appreciate your concern. The Chief of Police reports to the Police Services Board, and not to City Council; if you are seeking an apology, I would suggest that you direct it to the Chief of Police who can be contacted at mrodd@city.peterborough.on.ca.

92. The email demonstrates that the Mayor had copied the other members of City Council as their names and email addresses appeared in the “CC” line of said email. The Councillors that were copied include: Andrew Beamer, Bob Hall, Bill Juby, Dan McWilliams, Dean Pappas, Henry Clarke, Jack Doris, Keith Riel, Lesley Parnell and Len Vass.

93. Chief Rodd testified that he made the comment Mr. Whetung took offence to, when a local reporter phoned him and asked him if he wanted to respond to Mayor Bennett’s comments about the Chief’s salary. The Chief stated that his comment was taken directly from Shakespeare and he did not intend to offend First Nations people. He stated that he was trying to express that he felt “attacked” by the municipal politicians involved.

94. Mr. Whetung testified that he sent the email to Mayor Bennett because he was also a member of the Board. Mayors who sit on PSBs are often perceived as having the most influence on that PSB. It makes sense that Mr. Whetung would send his complaint to Mayor Bennett as a highly visible and influential representative of the Board. Mr. Whetung also testified that he wanted the email to be kept private and confidential.

95. Mayor Bennett admitted to sending the email to Mr. Whetung and to members of City Council.

96. When asked by the Panel how he decides if an email from the public is confidential, Mayor Bennett stated, “I don’t feel the need to make that decision. If someone indicates that they’re looking for my personal response, I would treat my response as being of a personal nature. The requirement for confidentiality is quite broad.” He advised the Panel that he copied council members because he wanted them to know how he responded to Mr. Whetung’s email.

97. Mayor Bennett stated in his email response to Mr. Whetung that “the Chief reports to the Police Service Board.” Indeed, one of the key functions of a PSB is to act as the employer of the chief of the police services in their municipality. Therefore the Board employs and supervises the Chief.

98. The duties and responsibilities of PSBs are clearly articulated in the Act. Subsection 31 (e) states that the Board shall “direct the chief of police and monitor his or her performance”

99. As an employer, the PSB is responsible for the supervision of the Chief. Personnel matters for a variety of reasons are kept confidential between an employer and an employee. Not only is this just common sense business practice this is also the legal obligation of government employers. As a Board member Mayor Bennett is a member of the employer of the Chief and as such he is bound by privacy restrictions related to the Chief’s employment.

100. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.31, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended, articulate the privacy rights of employees who work in government institutions. Both acts require that government employers take measures to ensure privacy for public employee’s personnel information. These acts dictate that personnel files should be limited to authorized staff who need access to personnel information to carry out their duties. Complaints about employees would constitute private personnel information.

101. Therefore, we find that Mr. Whetung’s email complaint to Mayor Bennett (as a Board member) was a confidential personnel complaint about an employee of the Board.

102. We can see no reason why City Councillors should have been privy to this complaint prior to the Chief’s employer or at all for that matter.

103. Counsel for Mayor Bennett argued in closing submissions that since the municipality funds the police, City Councillors should be informed of issues related to the Chief and policing. Giving Council general reports at Council meetings of general policing issues is not at issue here. It is very specifically the release of information to Council that would only be in the purview of the Board as the employer of the Chief. City Councillors are not the employers of the Chief. They do not “supervise” him or have any direct authority over his performance. That is solely the function of the Board.

104. Mayor Bennett gave several other reasons why he thought it was appropriate to share this matter with the rest of City Council. We find those reasons not to be supported.

105. We found that Mr. Whetung’s, the Chief’s and the Mayor’s testimony with respect to this allegation to be credible. We find that the documentary evidence supporting this allegation to be clear, cogent and convincing. This evidence is highly relevant as it speaks directly to whether or not the conduct alleged occurred.

106. Following an assessment of the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, the Panel has determined that the conduct alleged in Allegation #1 has been proven on a balance of probabilities.

Allegation #2: On receiving a confidential complaint about the conduct of Chief Murray Rodd, Mayor Bennett did not immediately bring the complaint to the Board for action;

107. The second allegation (or “Allegation #2”) speaks to the same email exchange detailed in Allegation #1. Commission Counsel alleges that Mayor Bennett, upon receiving Mr. Whetung's email, did not send the email immediately to the Board.

108. Commission Counsel alleges that instead of sending it first to the Board as would be his obligation as a member of the Board, the mayor first sent it to City Council, "waited almost 24 hours” and then “had his assistant pass it on to the Board."

109. According to Commission Counsel, on December 7, 2011, Mr. Whetung emailed Mayor Bennett. On December 8, 2011, Mayor Bennett emailed Mr. Whetung and copied City Councillors and a member of City staff. On December 9, 2011, Mayor Bennett emailed his assistant, Ms. Watson, and asked her to forward Mr. Whetung’s email to the Board. Ms. Watson emailed Ms. Pataki the same day and asked Ms. Pataki to forward the email to the Board. Copies of all of these emails are in Commission Counsel’s book at Tabs 31 and 34.

110. It is very clear from the three emails above that Mayor Bennett did not send the complaint about the Chief first to the Board.

111. The three emails included in Commission Counsel’s book, also provide the times and dates when Mayor Bennett responded to the email (copying members of the City Council) and the date and time he requested his assistant to send the email to the Board.

112. Mayor Bennett asserted that no temporal obligation to bring the complaint immediately to the Board exists in the Code of Conduct or in the Act.

113. According to Mayor Bennett, a three business day time limit applies to the Board's processing of complaints involving police chiefs. However, he states that this is a Board obligation and he was not acting on behalf of the Board.

114. We note here that the Mayor was acting on behalf of the Board. The email was sent to him as a Board member, he did not respond to the email saying his response was his “personal opinion” and even if he did that would not be a likely defense given that this was so evidently a Board matter and he was being contacted in that regard.

115. Mayor Bennett stated that even if the above rule applies to his handling of Mr. Whetung's email, he complied with this rule by directing his assistant to send the email to Ms. Pataki on the day immediately following his receipt of the email.

116. Commission Counsel argued that as a Board member the Mayor was obligated to send matters about the Chief first to the Board and not any other body as the Chief is employed by the Board.

117. The question to be asked here is what would constitute “immediate”? The Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2014 ed.) defines immediately as “done at once; instantly”.

118. We can see from the chronology of events that Mayor Bennett did not email the Board with the complaint about the Chief “immediately”, “at once” or “instantly”:

-Mr. Whetung emailed Mayor Bennett at 6:24 pm on December 7, 2011. -Mayor Bennett replied to Mr. Whetung (copying City Council members) on December 8, 2011 at 9:38 am. -Mayor Bennett emailed his assistant Ms. Watson requesting that she send Mr. Whetung’s email to the Board on December 9, 2011 at 9:19am.

119. We find that in most cases it would not have been a concern that Mayor Bennett forwarded the complaint to the Board within one business day. The problem arises because at the first instance when he addressed this complaint he did not include the Board.

120. In the email quoted above Mayor Bennett states that the “Chief reports directly to the Board and not City Council” and yet he proceeds not to report this issue first to the Board that supervises the Chief. In doing this he clearly demonstrates that he does not feel accountable to the Board in the way he feels accountable to City Council. This matter however was not for City Council to deal with. It was a confidential issue which should have been dealt with by the Board.

121. The problem arises under this allegation because Mayor Bennett sent this confidential complaint to others before he informed the Board.

122. We find that “immediate” in this case would be the first available instance in which Mayor Bennett dealt with the email that was sent to him by Mr. Whetung.

123. To make a determination on this allegation the Panel need only rely on the documentary evidence as it is directly relevant to the determination and Mayor Bennett did not provide any evidence that would disprove the email chronology above.

124. We find that based on the clear, cogent and convincing documentary evidence before us Allegation #2 has been proven on a balance of probabilities.

Allegation #3: While negotiating the budget for the Peterborough Lakefield Police Service for 2012, Mayor Bennett attempted to negotiate directly with Chief Murray Rodd rather than, as a member of Council, with the Board;

125. The Commission alleges that Mayor Bennett contacted the Chief on more than two occasions to discuss the budget.

126. According to the Commission, prior to the 2012 budget being approved by City Council, Mayor Bennett called the Chief twice to ask if the Chief could reduce the budget. The Chief advised Mayor Bennett that he should have this conversation with the Board.

127. The Chief testified that he told the Board Chair about the conversations initiated by the Mayor and told her that he had advised the Mayor that any conversations about the budget should be directed to the Board.

128. The Mayor initially denied having any one-on-one contact with Chief Rodd regarding the budget. He stated that it was during a budget meeting, that he asked the Chief to consider a $300,000 reduction.

129. However, Mayor Bennett later testified that he called the Chief twice to follow up on the request.

130. Chief Rodd testified that the Mayor also sent Mr. Armstrong to speak to him about the budget. It was clear to the Chief that Mr. Armstrong (while still a member of the Board) was speaking to him on behalf of the Mayor. The Chief stated that, during his discussion with Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong pulled out a spreadsheet with historical costs and told the Chief that he would have to reduce the budget to a 4% increase from the year before or the Mayor would “go after Lakefield to do an OPP costing”.

131. Chief Rodd testified that he perceived this as an attempt to intimidate him. Chief Rodd stated that he told Mr. Armstrong that the discussion would have to happen at the table between Council and the Board. The Chief’s testimony of this was corroborated by the Board Chair at the time, Ms. Nancy Martin.

132. Mr. Armstrong did not appear as a witness. We do not impute any negative inferences from this.

133. Mayor Bennett denied having sent Mr. Armstrong to the Chief to negotiate the budget. He recalled meeting with Mr. Armstrong, discussing the budget and discussing his opinion about how to resolve the budget dispute. He recalled showing Mr. Armstrong a document with variations of police budget increases and how that would affect the City Council budget.

134. Mayor Bennett testified that he told Mr. Armstrong that his preference would be for a police budget increase from the year before of 4% to bring it to a total of no more the 10% of the City budget. This would amount to a serious reduction in the increase that the Chief had proposed in his budget.

135. Mayor Bennett testified that this was his preference and not a formal proposal.

136. Mayor Bennett testified that he did not think it was inappropriate for Mr. Armstrong to share the information from their discussion with the Chief. He testified that if Mr. Armstrong thought it was appropriate to go to the Chief with this information, he did not have an issue with that.

137. There are elements of the testimony of both Mayor Bennett and Chief Rodd that are consistent and corroborative. Based on that evidence, it is clear that:

-Mayor Bennett phoned Chief Rodd directly on two occasions and spoke about the 2012 Service budget. -Mayor Bennett called the Chief these two times, subsequent to a meeting where the Service budget was discussed. He called specifically to follow up on the discrepancy between the proposed number by the Board and the expectations of City Council. -Mr. Armstrong (while a member of the Board) had a meeting with Mayor Bennett, where Mayor Bennett expressed that he would like the Service budget to be increased by 4% only. -Mr. Armstrong subsequently met with Chief Rodd and informed him of Mayor Bennett’s preference.

138. The Chief testified that he understood from these conversations that the Mayor was trying to negotiate with him directly about budget matters.

139. The Mayor denies this.

140. Given that the facts have been admitted in this allegation, the issue revolves around whether these forms of contact between the Chief and Mayor Bennett were intended by the Mayor to be attempts to resolve City Council’s concerns about the Service budget.

141. The Panel finds that proving this allegation comes down to an assessment of credibility.

142. We find the testimony of Chief Rodd to be more credible than that of Mayor Bennett.

143. As stated above Mayor Bennett directly contradicted his own evidence on this issue.

144. Chief Rodd’s testimony was logical and corroborated by the documentary evidence and by the testimony of several other witnesses. He withstood cross-examination and recalled everything he spoke of clearly, consistently and convincingly. We find his testimony to be reliable and dependable and on a balance of probabilities likely to be truthful.

145. Chief Rodd’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Martin, who as discussed below we found to be a highly credible witness.

146. Furthermore, when assessed against the facts, Mayor Bennett’s assertion that his conversations with the Chief and Mr. Armstrong, were merely informal conversations cannot be accepted. Mayor Bennett cannot divorce his role as both the Mayor and a Board member, from the contents of his conversations on the highly contentious budget issue or from the roles of the people he is having those conversations with.

147. On the face of it, it is clear that these were conversations where about different budget scenarios/compromises. That is a negotiation. He had two of those conversations directly with the Chief and one indirectly with the Chief through Mr. Armstrong.

148. Therefore, we find that on a balance of probabilities Mayor Bennett attempted to negotiate directly with the Chief about the Service budget for 2012. This is supported by the clear, cogent and convincing evidence of Chief Rodd.

Allegation #4: Mayor Bennett publicly expressed disagreement with a decision by Chief Murray Rodd to create and hire for the position of Police Service Communications Coordinator, which decision was supported by the Board;

149. The fourth allegation (“Allegation #4”) relates to comments that Mayor Bennett is said to have made in local media about his dissatisfaction with the hiring of a Police Services Communications Coordinator.

150. On April 12, 2011, during his annual performance review by the Board, Chief Murray Rodd stated that one of the organization's goals was to hire a professional with communications skills/experience to handle media relations.

151. Chief Rodd noted that this position would enhance public communications for the organization and stated that hiring a civilian would reduce costs.

152. The Commission asserts that Mayor Bennett, who was present at this Board meeting, did not oppose Chief Rodd's suggestion. This is confirmed in the minutes of the April 12, 2011 Board meeting minutes in Commission Counsel’s book at Tab 26.

153. Chief Rodd subsequently hired a skilled professional to fill this position. He testified that this has resulted in cost savings and that the contribution of the person hired in this position has been “tremendous”.

154. On December 7, 2011, Mayor Bennett was quoted in local media stating that he disagreed with the creation of a media relations role. At Tab 114.8 of Commission Counsel’s book there is an audio-visual recording of this interview with CHEX TV.

155. Mayor Bennett is quoted saying, “they put their money into spinning it and that offends me… We’ve been requested to bolster the force to assist with all these heinous crimes going on in the city and here we are hiring a communications officer or a communications person. If that doesn’t send a message to the city, I don`t know what will.”

156. This interview was played at the hearing and Mayor Bennett was questioned about it. He confirmed that he made this statement. He testified that he did not think these comments would hurt the Service and he gave an incomprehensible explanation of why he used the word “spin” in his statements to the press.

157. Mayor Bennett commented that he thought it was an unnecessary expenditure to hire someone for this role.

158. Ms. Martin who was the Chair of the Board at the time that these events took place testified that Mayor Bennett did not raise any objections at the Chief’s performance review or ever at a Board meeting.

159. Ms. Martin stated that this was an operational police services matter and that it was the Chief’s decision to make and not the Board’s. This is supported by the Act.

160. Section 31(3) and (4) of the Act delineate the reporting framework:

(3) The board may give orders and directions to the chief of police, but not to other members of the police force, and no individual member of the board shall give orders or directions to any member of the police force.

(4) The board shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force.

161. Ms. Martin testified that if any Board member had an issue with this they should have brought it up in the in-camera portion of a Board meeting because it is a confidential matter relating to a personnel issue. She testified that the Chief does not “spin” things; the Chief provides public information to the community.

162. We find Ms. Martin to be a credible witness. She is no longer a member of the Board and has nothing to gain from these proceedings. In the past, she supported Mayor Bennett’s campaign for mayor, and there is no evidence that she is biased against the Mayor. Ms. Martin provided testimony in a measured and thoughtful manner. When she was unsure of the answers to a question, she did not answer it, and she provided evidence that was consistent throughout her testimony.

163. We have reviewed the media interview with Mayor Bennett and find that he did express public disagreement with the Chief`s decision to hire a Communications Coordinator for the Service.

164. We find that Allegation #4 has been proven on a balance of probabilities.

Allegation #5: Mayor Bennett authored and sent a letter to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the “Minister”) advocating that Board Chair Nancy Martin’s term not be extended after the Board had voted down his motion not to support her term being extended;

165. The fifth allegation (“Allegation #5”) relates to a motion made by Mayor Bennett during the February 14, 2012, Board meeting, to not reappoint Chair Nancy Martin to the Board. Mayor Bennett is said to be the only person who voted in favour of the motion - consequently, the motion was defeated.

166. Niquel Pritchard Pataki verified in her testimony that Mayor Bennett was the only one who voted in favour of his motion.

167. Mr. Lightbody testified that he voted against the motion. Ms. Martin testified that she did not vote in favour of it and Mayor Mary Smith confirmed that she did not vote to pass that motion either.

168. It is alleged that, on February 15, 2012, Mayor Bennett then sent a letter to the Minister which stated that Nancy Martin should not be reappointed to the Board.

169. This letter was sent on city letterhead but stated that he was providing his opinion "as a member of the board".

170. The letter from Mayor Bennett to the Minister is located at Tab 37 of Commission Counsel’s book. The letter states:

While I fully respect the right of your Ministry to grant such an extension, I want to suggest to you, as a member of the Board, that a decision to grant an extension of [Ms. Martin’s] term would cause significant governance difficulties for the Board.

I would urge you to consider rejecting the request for a term extension for the Chair, and taking the necessary steps instead to appoint a new member of the Board. I have made this position known to the Board, and advised them that I would be communicating my concern to you.

171. Mayor Bennett testified that he told the Board that he would be sending a letter to the Minister requesting that she not re-appoint Nancy Martin to the Board.

172. No other members of the Board who testified recall being told by Mayor Bennett that he would be sending a letter about this issue to the Minister.

173. Mayor Bennett testified that he was sharing his view with the Minister as the mayor of Peterborough, not as a Board member.

174. After being asked a number of times, the Mayor admitted that he never shared this letter or his intention to send it, with the Board.

175. Allegation #5 is proven by the production of the letter. Mayor Bennett confirmed that that was the letter he sent to the Minister. Therefore, the conduct alleged in this allegation has been proven on a balance of probabilities supported by clear, cogent and compelling evidence.

Allegation #6: He authored and sent a letter to the Minister alleging that Board Chair Nancy Martin had committed misconduct while not bringing the allegation to the Board for action;

176. In the sixth allegation (“Allegation #6”), Mayor Bennett is said to have sent another letter to the Minister dated April 12, 2012, stating that he was writing again regarding "the same matter with an additional concern."

177. This letter is produced in full at Tab 44 of Commission Counsel’s book. The Mayor confirmed that he sent this letter and that he did not share it with any other members of the Board.

178. The letter asked the Minister to investigate Ms. Martin's use of authority of her office "to require that matters be dealt with in closed session, when they should not have been."

179. Mayor Bennett concludes the letter by writing, “I would request that you urgently investigate the propriety of these actions. I would also request that there be no decision on the extension of the appointment of the Chair until such time as these matters are resolved.”

180. The letter from Mayor Bennett to the Minister alleges that Ms. Martin used her position as Chair of the Board to make unilateral and unsupported decisions.

181. Whether the allegations made by Mayor Bennett against Ms. Martin are true or not, they are not relevant for the purposes of making a finding on this allegation. The only relevant evidence relates to whether Mayor Bennett sent a letter to the Minister alleging that Ms. Martin was guilty of misconduct. The other relevant evidence relates to whether he brought this issue to the attention of the Board for the purposes of having it dealt with.

182. Mayor Bennett testified that he wrote the letter and sent it to the Minister. He also testified that he did not bring the concerns expressed in the letter to the Board for resolution. He confirmed that he wrote this letter while he was on the Board and while he was mayor of Peterborough. The letter tendered as evidence was on city of Peterborough letterhead.

183. We find that Allegation #6 is proven on a balance of probabilities and is substantiated by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

Allegation #7: Mayor Bennett authored and sent a letter to the Minister alleging unsupported allegations of misconduct against Board Chair Nancy Martin;

184. The seventh allegation also relates to Mayor Bennett's April 12, 2012 letter to the Minister.

185. The letter is said to have contained unsupported allegations questioning the Chair's propriety, the use of her authority to keep meetings closed when they should have been open, and her making unilateral decisions.

186. In his letter, Mayor Bennett noted two occasions where Ms. Martin held closed meetings - one relating to the award of a contract after a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) and the other relating to the 2012 budget negotiation - which he believed should have been held in open sessions.

187. Ms. Martin, who we have found to be a credible witness, testified that the RFP was discussed in the in-camera portion of the Board meeting because the RFP proposals included confidential financial information about the companies who bid which could not be released to the public. To do so would have revealed sensitive corporate information.

188. Mayor Bennett also claimed that the decision to hold the second meeting in camera was a unilateral decision by the Chair and that four councilors refused to participate in this joint meeting between City Council and the Board because of the decision to hold it in a closed session.

189. At Tab 2 of Commission Counsel’s book there are May 10, 2011 Board meeting minutes that show there was a unanimous vote to hold the special information sharing budget meeting between City Council and the Board in private. The Mayor even voted in support of this. Therefore, this was not a unilateral decision by Ms. Martin but a decision supported wholly by the Board.

190. Mayor Bennett testified that he raised his concern about both closed meetings to Ms. Martin and he was advised that the meeting was closed for "expediency". The evidence above provides that there were other reasons why both of these meetings were held in closed session.

191. There was no evidence before this Panel that Mayor Bennett ever brought these allegations against Ms. Martin to the Board for discussion or for any kind of resolution.

192. Mayor Bennett testified that he sent this letter. There were no other Board members aware of this letter or the allegations contained therein and he was not authorized by the Board to send this letter. Therefore there was no support for the allegations made in the letter.

193. When asked why he didn’t tell the Board about this letter, he testified that he “didn’t feel the need to tell them about it.”

194. We find that Allegation #7 is substantiated and proven on a balance of probabilities.

Allegation #8: He publicly condemned the Commission’s investigative process, describing it as a “farce” and “anti- democratic”, and he compared the Commission’s investigative powers to those which existed in “pre-war Germany”;

195. The Mayor is alleged to have made offensive and incorrect remarks about the Commission and its investigative process in the local media.

196. On September 20, 2012, the Mayor released a media statement on the City of Peterborough letterhead outlining his belief that the Commission had not provided him with disclosure of "particulars of any alleged conduct which would invite the initiation of such an investigation".

197. He also stated that he had not been contacted by the Commission to provide a response to the allegations and he had not received "any communication as it would relate to a potential or possible Hearing".

198. He concluded this release by noting that he remained "dismayed by the heavy handed, arbitrary and secretive manner adopted by the Police Services Board in dealing with those who find honorable disagreement with it." This Statement in full can be found at Tab 77 of Commission Counsel’s book.

199. On October 11, 2012, Mayor Bennett appeared on TV Cogeco, on a show called “Local Matters”. On this television show, Mayor Bennett stated the following about the Commission's investigative process:

I have never been so perturbed about a situation in all my life. It makes me question the society in which we're living right now, quite frankly...No knowledge at all as to what the true allegations are against me and that is very, very offensive...There is, it is the worst piece of legislation to be, to work under in my estimation. There is absolutely nothing in it that is definitive that I can see or that Richard Taylor can find...This would be the Provincial Police Services Act, a part of it. It's very frustrating...It's just a farce, to be very, very clear. The process that is used is anti- democratic, it is anti-everything that I was brought up to believe in, quite frankly...It's just not in keeping with fair play...

200. In response to a question by the interviewer about what Mayor Bennett would do following the Commission's process, Mayor Bennett stated, "Get even. Don't get mad. Just get even". (emphasis added)

201. On October 26, 2012, Mayor Bennett appeared once again on TV Cogeco, Local Matters, and made statements about the Commission's process. Mayor Bennett stated, "I would hope that these people have more to do in life than to chase down some ghost-like creature that creates difficulties for them."

202. He also made the following comments:

It's very disheartening, quite frankly...we're not living in pre-war Germany. We're living in 2012 in the city of Peterborough...Ontario, Canada, and you'd like to think that we've grown considerably since the pre-war days but it certainly smacks of difficulties...I can tell you at the end of the day I'll be as guilty as sin because I spoke my mind. That's what I've done in my estimation. I've not done anything beyond the normalcy that flows from wearing the two hats, the mayor of the city of Peterborough and a member of the police services board and it's very, it's a tough balancing act but I err on the side of being representative of the constituents within this community who elected me, not the people who assume because I'm appointed that I'll fall on that side of the tracks. So I'll continue to represent the folks who elected me.

203. On December 17, 2012, Mayor Bennett was quoted in the Peterborough Examiner as labeling the amount of time the Commission was taking to bring the matter to a resolution an "abuse of authority".

204. On September 4, 2013, Mayor Bennett was quoted as commenting on the Commission’s ability to direct elected officials as saying, "I find it repulsive, actually." (emphasis added)

205. Following this Mayor Bennett stated on CHEX TV Newswatch:

They finally decided they should have a hearing, but they didn't bother to tell us what the date would be so of course Richard Taylor who I have representing me isn't available on the date that they chose. They didn't bother to check with him first, which is not very...doesn't show much courtesy on their behalf. We have some jurisdictional issues with how they've approached where they've gotten to at this point and we still have not got any back up information to what the nine points that they've raised that they seem to feel are in violation of something. Okay, I see what you're asking but tell me what the violation is. I hurt somebody's feelings perhaps?

206. On February 4, 2013, Mayor Bennett released another media statement on City of Peterborough letterhead. The media release reads, in part, as follows:

My belief that the procedures of the Commission flout the democratic process remains intact.

I believe that these causes fail to properly distinguish and recognize my responsibilities as Mayor. I do not accept that my status as a member of the Police Services Board should prohibit me from speaking on certain policing or budgetary matters as Mayor. I head a Council that is responsible for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on the police service, and I take that responsibility seriously.

I also believe that some of these causes overstep what should be the proper jurisdiction of the Commission. It is inappropriate in my view, to attempt to undermine or chill the right to the free expression of views by elected officials, and particularly those views having to do with the powers and procedures of an appointed Commission. It is surely inappropriate that an investigative body, having refused to provide information to the accused on the nature of an accusation, should then view criticism of its procedures as a form of punishable misconduct.

207. On February 7, 2013, Peterborough this Week published a letter written by Mayor Bennett in which he wrote:

In the matter of the proposed hearing by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission into my conduct, (Our Opinion, Feb 6, 2013), you are right to suggest that "until the inquiry delves into the investigation, the public won't know how much truth there is to the allegations". A lack of public knowledge has been a sorry feature of this matter for many months. The reasons for the hearing are stated by the Commission in terms so brief and curt that they do a disservice to the practice of public disclosure; and they were presented without the benefit of any substantiating documentation or even an investigator's report. The only reason they were made public is because I chose to release them.

208. All of the statements above are found in Commission Counsel’s book. There was no evidence provided by Mayor Bennett that he did not make these statements or that the reports are untrue.

209. We find that Allegation #8 is proven on a balance of probabilities and supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

Allegation #9: Mayor Bennett refused to be interviewed by the Commission during its investigation of this matter.

210. The Commission alleges that between the dates of September 20, 2012, and December 2012, Mayor Bennett was asked a number of times to participate in interviews related to the investigation.

211. According to the Commission, correspondence was sent from the Commission to Mayor Bennett on nine occasions.

212. Mayor Bennett and/or his counsel would not attend an interview unless it was on Mayor Bennett's terms.

213. Mayor Bennett asked for disclosure from the Commission prior to being interviewed.

214. There are dozens of pieces of correspondence between the Commission, Mayor Bennett and his counsel Richard Taylor. These requests and responses can be found in Commission Counsel’s book of documents from Tab 54 to Tab 102.

215. As a final attempt, Warren Korol (the Commission’s investigator) advised Mayor Bennett that if he did not participate in an interview by the end of the business day on December 7, 2012, the Commission could decide to move to an inquiry without his responses to the interview questions.

216. It was submitted that while the Commission was trying to get Mayor Bennett to attend an interview, Mayor Bennett discussed the investigation in the local media and emailed city councilors about the investigation. He was clearly aware of the Commission’s desire to interview him.

217. In response to one of Mayor Bennett’s requests “for full disclosure prior to attending any interview at the Commission”, Thomas Bell (legal counsel at the Commission) replied in writing providing clarification that disclosure would not be provided before an interview. This letter can be found at Tab 58 of Commission Counsel’s book. The letter states:

Mayor Bennett has received adequate information about this preliminary investigative stage. In accordance with its standard process under section 25 (1) of the Police Services Act, after collecting the relevant information through its investigation the Commission will consider the information and decide whether to proceed to a public inquiry. The Commission would prefer to have the Mayor’s information prior to deciding whether to proceed to a public inquiry into his conduct as is described generally in the Terms of Reference. If the Commission does decide to proceed to a public inquiry, at the appropriate time it will provide full disclosure.

In addition, as a Member of the Board who is subject to the provisions of the Police Services Act and the Members of Police Services Boards - Code of Conduct, O.Reg. 421/97, Mayor Bennett should make himself available to be interviewed by the Commission’s investigators.

218. According to Mr. Korol's testimony, Mayor Bennett did not attend an interview by the deadline of December 7, 2012. He had also not attended an interview by the time the hearing had commenced.

219. We find that Allegation #9 has been proven on a balance of probabilities and is supported by clear, cogent and compelling evidence.

Allegation #10: On receiving an email from the Board about a confidential meeting, Mayor Bennett shared the email thread with members of City Council.

220. The tenth allegation (“Allegation #10) relates to an email that was sent to Mayor Bennett by Niquel Pritchard Pataki on May 22, 2012, advising Mayor Bennett that he was not entitled to attend an upcoming Special In-Camera meeting of the Board. This email can be found at Tab 47 of Commission Counsel’s book of documents.

221. Since this was a confidential matter, Ms. Pataki's email included a confidentiality clause, which stated that the email was "...directed in confidence to the person named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed." The purpose of the Special In-Camera meeting was to discuss Mayor Bennett's conduct.

222. On the same day, Mayor Bennett sent an email to Ms. Pataki telling her that she had violated procedures and that 48 hours’ notice was required to call a special meeting. (Tab 48 of Commission Counsel’s book)

223. On May 23, 2013, Mayor Bennett emailed Ms. Pataki, copying Board members, asking for "...a copy of all the information for discussion at today's meeting". (Tab 49 of Commission Counsel’s book)

224. Mayor Bennett sent another email to Ms. Pataki on May 25, 2014, asking for a reply for the information he requested in his earlier email. In that email, he stated, "There is a time to graciously accept the will of council and this is it." (Tab 50 of Commission Counsel’s book)

225. On the same day, Ms. Pataki replied to Mayor Bennett's email and advised him that the Board was waiting for legal advice and would respond to him once they had received it. (Tab 50 of Commission Counsel’s book)

226. Mayor Bennett responded to Ms. Pataki on May 25, 2012, copying the Board and all City Council members. This made public to the City Council members confidential information about the special in-camera meeting and Mayor Bennett’s request for the agenda and reports for this meeting. (Tab 54 of Commission Counsel’s book)

227. The Commission alleges that the email exchange between Ms. Pataki and Mayor Bennett regarding the meeting was included in the email and the confidentiality clause had been removed.

228. Mayor Bennett made several statements about why he cut out the confidentiality clause from Ms. Pataki’s email, the last being that he did not think that the confidentiality clause was “pertinent” information. These statements demonstrate that he did indeed remove the confidentiality clause from Ms. Pataki’s correspondence.

229. It is clear from the documentary evidence that Mayor Bennett shared the confidential Board email with members of City Council. We find that Allegation #10 has been proven on a balance of probabilities.

Allegation #11: Mayor Bennett made a number of disparaging and/or disrespectful remarks regarding the Chief, the police and the Board.

230. The final allegation (“Allegation #11”) against Mayor Bennett is that he made several disparaging and/or disrespectful remarks regarding the Chief, the Police, the Board and the Commission.

231. At a public meeting where the media were present, Mayor Bennett made comments that the Chief submitted a report that was “unprofessional” and that the Chief acted “unprofessionally”. The Mayor acknowledged in his testimony that he made these comments. In his testimony Mayor Bennett did not retract those comments and he maintained his belief that his comments were appropriate. He testified that he did not think his comments would impact the community negatively.

232. Mayor Bennett accused the Board of keeping a “secret file” about him in public. This has been repeated in several news articles. This was written about in an article by the Peterborough Examiner entitled “Mayor Daryl Bennett not allowed to attend two police board meetings”, dated April 25, 2014. (Exhibit 69 of Commission Counsel’s book)

233. The article goes on to quote Mayor Bennett who stated that:

It’s become very personal from my stand-point … It is very troubling that the board has adopted a practice of maintaining secret files on those with whom it disagrees...I am hopeful that board members will do the right thing and, like all other public agencies focus their energies on serving people rather than attacking them.

234. The Mayor often publicly accused the Board of being “secretive”. On October 10, 2012 in a Peterborough Examiner article about the police budgeting process, Mayor Bennett was quoted as saying “Why are we having budget discussions in closed sessions...what’s so secretive?” This article can be found at Tab 102 of Commission Counsel’s book.

235. Mayor Bennett spoke to media outlets and City Council on several occasions about the Chief’s salary. At a public meeting of City Council where the police budget was being discussed, Mayor Bennett stated that it was “an embarrassment” that the Chief was on the sunshine list. (Tab 114.13 of Commission Counsel’s book)

236. Mayor Bennett publicly accused the Chief of putting the “worst possible light” on crime statistics, see the Peterborough Examiner article entitled “Police Slanting Crime Stats for Budget Request: Mayor”. (Tab 82 of Commission Counsel’s book)

237. Mayor Bennett focused his talk to the Peterborough Rotary Club, on January 9, 2012, on policing. Mayor Bennett took the opportunity to suggest that the Chief and the Board were trying to get an increased Service budget by “fear mongering”. (Transcript of speech at Tab 82 of Commission Counsel’s book)

238. This speech was quoted in several media outlets. (Tabs 84- 89 of Commission Counsel’s book)

239. Mayor Bennett testified that he believed that the Chief was “bartering in fear” to get an increase in the Service budget. He testified that he believed that the public had the right to this information.

240. On numerous occasions Mayor Bennett spoke publicly about his negative view of the Board’s decision to hold some meetings privately. In one radio interview he stated:

I am extremely disappointed that we couldn’t come to some arrangement to allow this to occur in public. As you know the city tries to conduct most of its business, unless it’s of a touchy nature in public and certainly the Police Services Board is compelled to act under the same rules and regulations. (Tab 114.16 of Commission Counsel’s book)

241. Mayor Bennett has stated in public that he believes that the Act is archaic. He was quoted in the Sun News stating “We’ll see if we can’t promote some positive changes to a piece of legislation that I think is archaic.” (Exhibit 40)

242. The Panel also relies on all the statements already stated in Allegation #8.

243. Based on the statements evidenced above, a review of all of the documentary evidence and testimony we find that Allegation #11 is proven on a balance of probabilities, substantiated by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

Does the Conduct of Mayor Bennett Result in Breaches of the Code of Conduct

244. All of the allegations against Mayor Bennett have been proven. The Panel will now determine whether that conduct results in a breach of s. 2, 5, 6, 8 and/or 13 of the Code of Conduct?

245. In this section we will review the five enumerated sections of the Code of Conduct and examine Mayor Bennett’s conduct against those provisions for PSB members behaviour.

246. There is little jurisprudence on the subject of the Code of Conduct. There is some limited case law however, that has helped the Panel to ascertain whether there has been a breach. We begin our analysis by providing some of the relevant principles from these decisions that provide guidance.

247. PSB’s in Ontario are creatures of statute. PSB’s lay the foundation for civilian oversight of policing and are a cornerstone of ensuring police are accountable to the public and to the communities they serve.

248. A Hearing Under Section 25 of the Police Services Act into the Conduct and Performance of Duties of the Members of the Wallaceburg Police Services Board (June 19, 1996, OCCPS), herein called “Wallaceburg”, was a very significant Commission decision on PSB member conduct. It underscored the fundamental importance of the discernment required of PSB members. At page 25 the Commission states:

We can sympathize with the great difficulty, frustration and even anguish that may arise in dealing with serious financial constraints. However, this can never be an excuse for lawless behaviour. Rather, it calls for careful thought, a proper understanding of the law, creativity, cooperative effort, a willingness to accept advice and the highest levels of honesty and integrity. As hard as this may be in some situations, the safety of the public calls for no less. [emphasis added]

249. Wallaceburg supra, provides important guidance to all PSB members across the Province. All of the board members in Wallaceburg, supra, were removed from the board by the Commission because they failed to follow the provisions of the Act and because they conducted board business in a “particularly aggressive and confrontational manner.”

250. The above principles are given further expression in the Code of Conduct for PSB members.

251. In a case involving a statement by a board member to the media, Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and Arnold Minors (December 19, 1994, OCCPS) hereinafter “Mi nors” , the Commission held that:

In the Commission’s opinion, it was hard pressed to imagine any situation where a member of a board could be asked to comment to the media on a policing related matter and divorce the comments made from his or her role as a member of a police services board. Members of police services boards, as is the case with all other persons in highly visible positions of power and authority, must be mindful of the possible unintended consequences and effects of their words and actions. Commenting on sensitive and serious issues requires great care, thought, sensitivity and tact and the use of appropriate words and images. (emphasis added)

252. Mayor Bennett often distanced himself from the Board. He positioned himself in his statements and conduct as if he were not a member of the Board, but rather an outsider observing a dysfunctional system that he would aggressively critique.

253. There are many things wrong with that position. The first and the most obvious being that he is not a marginalized person looking into a system. He holds one of the most powerful positions in that system.

254. Were he an everyday citizen without the power of the office he holds, he would not have the platform that he does that allows him to be heard by every citizen of Peterborough, and beyond.

255. Mayor Bennett cannot accept such a platform without accepting the legal responsibilities that come with it.

256. The same holds true with regard to the role of any PSB member. When people serve as a member of a PSB their opinions on policing hold more weight to the public and to the media: see Minors, supra. Members of PSB’s are specifically sought out on account of their role. Due to the nature of policing, there are restrictions imposed on a PSB member’s ability to speak.

257. Again we must be clear that one should not accept an appointment as a PSB member if one is concerned he or she will have to disregard the obligations of that office. The head of a municipal council who chooses to be a member of a PSB is not exempt from the Code of Conduct. Every member of the Board, regardless of other roles they play, must abide by the Code of Conduct.

258. If a head of council cannot reconcile his or her two roles, then such person may choose not to be a member of a PSB and allow Council to appoint another councilor to sit on the Board instead. That distinct possibility is provided for in Part III of the Act.

259. Mayor Bennett was not an outsider looking in at the actions of the Board. He was a member of the Board and had a vote on matters before it.

260. In Oliver, supra, the Commission articulated the balance that a Board member must strike when the Board member has potentially competing roles. The Commission stated:

A police services board is not an elected body. Its members are not directly accountable to the citizens who cast their votes for them. In this sense, the role has an institutional focus, not a political one. The focus is to ensure the adequacy and effectiveness of the community’s policing services. This is so even if police services boards are comprised, in part, of elected officials. Although elected to municipal Council, those members are appointed to the police services board, and when they engage in board business, they are bound by their oath to respect the provisions of the Act and the Code of Conduct. Their role is one of oversight of policing activities in the community but in doing so they must also ensure that the public’s respect for and confidence in the Police Service is maintained to the highest level possible. (emphasis added)

Section 2 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

261. Section 2 of the Code of Conduct states:

Board members shall not interfere with the police force’s operational decisions and responsibilities or with the day-to-day operation of the police force, including the recruitment and promotion of police officers.

262. The facts in Allegation #4 provided one example of how Mayor Bennett made public commentary about operational activities under the purview of the Chief. While this is not a direct interference, we find that the effect of making these comments publicly undermines the Chief’s ability to do his job with the confidence of the public. This in turn affects the day-to-day operation of the Service.

263. The Chief testified that one of the main reasons that a skilled Communications Coordinator was necessary at the Service was to engage and educate the public in matters of policing. Clearly if the mayor publicly attacks the Chief for this initiative, this will interfere with the desired outcome of such operational decisions.

264. What the Panel finds most notable in this situation is that Mayor Bennett was at a Board meeting where the hiring of a civilian with specific skills for the role of Communications Coordinator was discussed. He raised no objection to this hiring at the Board meeting where it would have been appropriate to raise questions to the Chief and voice any alternative viewpoints if necessary. Mayor Bennett did not do this.

265. This is of particular note because this was a chronic issue with the Mayor’s conduct on the Board. On several occasions that are evidenced in the record, Mayor Bennett would not voice any concerns at Board meetings. In some instances, he would vote in favor of actions that he would later publicly criticize the Chief or the Board for undertaking.

266. Mayor Bennett would attend these meetings with his colleagues where he did not make his opinions heard and later he would deliberately voice dissent about the Chief’s decision to various media outlets.

267. Not only did the Mayor voice his disdain for this decision but he went further and made declarations about the Chief’s and the Service’s intent to “spin” statistics on crime.

268. There is much other evidence that demonstrates that Mayor Bennett interfered directly or indirectly with the Chief’s operational duties, including:

-The Mayor made critical comments to the media and to City Council regarding the salary of the Chief of police. He did not raise his objections about this at Board meetings. Mayor Bennett’s statements in public were that he believed the Chief’s salary was too high. The Chief’s salary is an operational budget issue. -Mayor Bennett has made several public allegations that the Chief has acted unprofessionally and with negative intent. The Chief is an employee of the Board. It is inappropriate for an employer to publicly express negative opinions of an employee. -Mayor Bennett alleged that the Chief and the Service were manipulating crime statistics to get more money from City Council. In his Rotary Club address, Mayor Bennett stated “We don’t barter in fear. It’s not the Canadian way. And it’s not the Peterborough way. Why then is it acceptable for the Police to send the message that they must have everything they are asking for or people’s safety will be put into jeopardy?” Having the funding to ensure public safety is a key operational duty of the Chief, to question this in public is to undermine the Chief’s operational functionality.

269. This behaviour is unacceptable. This kind of conduct does not inspire the confidence of Board members, the Service or the public. Indeed these actions quite specifically go to undermine the public’s confidence in the Board, the Service and in this case most notably the Chief.

270. We find that Mayor Bennett does not agree with his responsibilities and obligations as a Board member. Mayor Bennett believes he should be able to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants and to whomever he wants.

271. He does not understand the expectations of Board members as specified by the Act. As was held in Wallaceburg, supra, Board members must have a proper understanding of the law. Section 31 (4) of the Act specifically states:

The board shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force

272. Accordingly, we find that Mayor Bennett has breached s. 2 of the Code of Conduct.

Section 5 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

273. Section 5 of the Code of Conduct States:

No board member shall purport to speak on behalf of the board unless he or she is authorized by the board to do so.

274. As evidenced in Allegations #5, 6 and 7, Mayor Bennett purported to speak on behalf of the Board.

275. Mayor Bennett wrote a letter to the Minister advocating that the term of Board Chair Nancy Martin not be extended. In this first letter, he states that he was providing this opinion “as a member of the Board.” He followed up this letter with two subsequent letters making allegations that Ms. Martin had made unilateral decisions and that she held meetings in closed sessions that should have been held in public.

276. He did not author these letters with the support or consent of the Board. The Board had actually voted down his motion suggesting Ms. Martin’s term not be extended. The rest of the Board was in favor of Ms. Martin’s term being extended.

277. The conduct evidenced in Allegations #5, 6 and 7 demonstrate that Mayor Bennett did not respect the decisions of the Board collective. He leveraged his role “as a member of the Board” to try and get a result that the rest of the Board disagreed with and had specifically voted against.

278. Mayor Bennett went behind the interests of his colleagues on the Board, he made false statements that the rest of the Board was apprised of his contact to the Minister and then he made allegations against the Chair of the Board that were completely unsubstantiated by factual evidence.

279. This conduct is not worthy of that of a Board member. The Board has an official “Ethical Framework” that is provided to all Board members as part of their training package. (Exhibit 68)

280. The framework has a section on how Board members are expected to interact with their “professional partners”. It states:

Responsibilities of the PLPSB members toward others in the policing profession, their fellow board members and others engaged in services relating to the policing profession include:

-Building value based relationships -Sharing knowledge -Upholding the public trust -Being accountable -Consulting effectively

281. Mayor Bennett clearly spoke on behalf of the Board in these letters, without their authorization to do so. As shown by the framework, this conduct is a serious breach of all expectations of a Board member not only of the Code of Conduct. Most notable is the Mayor’s false statements on this issue to the Minister and those made in testimony.

282. Accordingly we find that Mayor Bennett breached Section 5 of the Code of Conduct.

Section 6 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

283. Section 6 of the Code of Conduct States:

A board member who expresses disagreement with a decision of the board shall make it clear that he or she is expressing a personal opinion

284. The Section of the Code of Conduct specifically provides for the possibility that a member may wish to express disagreement with a Board decision and to that end clearly respects the freedom of expression guarantee entrenched in the Charter.

285. However, as the Code, of Conduct points out, when voicing disagreements with a board decision, a member must ensure that it is clear that the opinion expressed is only personally held.

286. In paragraph 41 of his affidavit at Exhibit 79, Mayor Bennett states:

I have made a specific objective that I provide an indication that where I am expressing disagreement with a decision of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, then the foregoing is undertaken as an expression of my personal opinion as Mayor of the City of Peterborough.

287. We find however that the Mayor did not clearly provide that he was expressing a “personal opinion” when discussing Board matters in public.

288. There is no evidence before us that Mayor Bennett prefaced any of his many statements about policing with “this is strictly my personal opinion” or words to that effect.

289. Minutes from the Board Meeting on June 20th, 2011 (Exhibit 20) demonstrate that Mayor Bennett not only voted in favor of the proposed 2012 Service budget, but that he Seconded the motion in favor of the Board approving that budget.

290. There is an indication in those minutes that Mayor Bennett “cautioned that there would be push back from council.” But the minutes do not indicate anything that would reflect Mayor Bennett’s own personal disagreement with the Budget. We find that when he seconded the motion to approve the Budget, it is an indication that he supports the approval of the budget.

291. Mayor Bennett contradicted his express approval of the budget at the Board by making public statements that he did not approve of the proposed Service budget.

292. There are many media reports contained in the exhibits that express Mayor Bennett’s disagreement with the proposed 2012 Service Budget. There is also the lengthy speech Mayor Bennett presented to the Rotary Club. We cannot find any account where the mayor states he is only expressing his personal opinion.

293. Given that Mayor Bennett did not expressly state that he was voicing his “personal opinion” about policing issues, we have no evidence before us that would counteract a finding of breach on this section of the Code of Conduct.

294. The Commission has held that when a board member publicly expresses an opinion about policing, it will be close to impossible to sever his/her identity from his role as a Board member, see Minors, supra.

295. Accordingly we find that Mayor Bennett has breached Section 6 of the Code of Conduct.

Section 8 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

296. Section 8 of the Code of Conduct states:

Board members shall uphold the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct set out in this Regulation and shall discharge their duties in a manner that will inspire public confidence in the abilities and integrity of the board.

297. We find that Allegations 1 to 11 in totality provide evidence that Mayor Bennett has not upheld the spirit of the Code of Conduct, or discharged his duties in a manner that would inspire public confidence in the ability and integrity of the Board.

298. As stated in the introduction of the Act, this decision and numerous decisions by the Commission, the purpose of the Act is “to increase public confidence in the provision of police services”: see Browne, supra.

299. To demonstrate that Mayor Bennett has undermined public confidence in the ability and integrity of the Board, we discuss the conduct evidenced in the allegations with respect to three specific categories which are:

1. public commentary
2. approach to the role of a PSB member; and
3. not participating in the Commission’s process.

PUBLIC COMMENTARY

300. Board members are entitled to have opinions. Indeed members who can contribute in the most meaningful ways are people who among other things understand policing, governance, democracy, budgeting principles and have the public interest at heart.

301. Moreover, it is important for Board members to share their knowledge and understanding with their colleagues in order to positively impact policing in Ontario. This is not at issue.

302. The issue in this case is how those opinions were expressed, to whom and in which capacity.

303. Section 8 of the Code of Conduct places a positive obligation on each and every PSB member to conduct themselves in manner that upholds both the letter and the spirit of the law.

304. Mayor Bennett’s comments in public directly undermined the Board. To consciously sabotage the efforts of the Board in public is contrary to any conduct expected of Board members particularly the conduct obligations explicitly articulated in the Code of Conduct.

305. From his comments in the media, his Rotary Club speech, his individual attempts at negotiations with the Chief, his decisions in Board meetings that he subsequently took no responsibility for by criticizing them in public and his aggressive comments to/about other Board members (all discussed above), demonstrate that the Mayor did not feel bound by the Code of Conduct in any way.

306. In Wallaceburg, supra, the Commission has stated unequivocally that Board members must “conduct themselves with the utmost circumspection and prudence.”

307. We do not find that Mayor Bennett’s conduct is evidence of either circumspection or prudence. Quite the opposite of “public confidence” resulted from the Mayor’s Conduct. Mr. Parent who made a formal complaint to the Commission testified that:

Mayor Bennett’s public discourse about the Service, the Chief, the Board and the Commission often lacked respect.

308. It is often the case that a mayor above all other members of a PSB would be noticed by the public and commented on more in the media than any other member. Therefore his or her conduct has an even greater ability to discredit and diminish public confidence in policing.

309. A mayor who also sits on a PSB cannot say whatever he or she wants to. He or she is bound by law to act with integrity.

310. Mayor Bennett stated in public that he thought the Commission process was akin to that of the regime in “pre- War Germany”. To make such an analogy is to demonstrate a complete ignorance of that era and furthermore it demonstrates a complete denial of the privileges he holds as a mayor and a Board member.

311. This demonstrates a lack of respect for the Act, a lack of understanding for how it functions and complete denial of the spirit behind the Code of Conduct, which is rooted in inspiring public confidence in policing.

312. To call the Commission a “farce” and “anti-democratic” also does not inspire public confidence in policing.

313. The Commission’s very existence is to provide civilian oversight over policing. One must know the legislative history behind the creation of the Commission, one must read the body of case law that the Commission is responsible for and one must know all of the responsibilities of the Commission before making such wholesale demeaning commentary.

314. We find that Mayor Bennett makes comments without having done enough research for these comments to be legitimately substantiated. These kinds of comments seem more likely to be made from a limited understanding and experience.

315. Mayor Bennett’s comments quoted above were stated in relation to being investigated by the Commission and that he was subjected to attend an interview about the complaint being investigated. As any oversight body often does, complaints made to the Commission are investigated before any action is taken.

APPROACH TO THE ROLE OF A PSB MEMBER

316. Mayor Bennett would express one position at the Board meetings and then a completely contrary position in public and with municipal councilors. As discussed above, he continually positioned himself as an outsider to the Board, even though he was not only an insider but an insider with a vote. This is the opposite of instilling public confidence in the ability and integrity of the Board.

317. Mayor Bennett’s conduct demonstrated a belief that the municipality’s position on policing and the police budget is paramount. This however is tantamount to suggesting that the PSB is of no force or effect. If the legislature had intended for the municipality to have sole governing power over policing and the police budget, it would have structured Part III of the Act in that way.

318. Mayor Bennett’s individual opinion and personality has been inappropriately influential in the unfolding of the 2012 Service budget negotiation.

319. A Board member has channels to make his or her constructive criticisms heard. He or she can bring constructive critique to the Board meetings and should a Board be completely unable to function or respond to these critiques a complaint can be made to the Commission to investigate. These are the proper channels but they were not used by the Mayor. Rather the Mayor repeatedly chose to discuss Board business in the media. This constant display of disapproval by Mayor Bennett flew in the face of his obligations as a PSB member.

NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE COMMISSION’S PROCESS

320. Counsel for Mayor Bennett responded to the Commission’s requests for an interview with Mayor Bennett, with the argument that Mayor Bennett would not attend an interview until full disclosure was provided, see for example Commission Counsel’s book at tab 62. We find this argument to be misguided.

321. In Forestall v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2007] O.J. No. 3059 (S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), the Court held that disclosure does not have to be provided at the investigative stage of proceedings.

322. In the 1994 decision Masters v. Ontario, 1994 CanLII 10571 (ON CTGD), 18 O.R. (3rd) 551 (Div. Ct.), the Divisional Court held that a Provincially appointed senior public servant who was the subject of an internal investigation into sexual assault allegations against him, was entitled to a minimal level of procedural fairness.

323. If at the stage of investigation, full disclosure is provided to the person being investigated, evidence can be tailored per that disclosure. That is why the Commission does not provide disclosure at the initial stages. This was not a personal decision against Mayor Bennett. It is a policy held across the board for investigations that the Commission undertakes. This is a seriously administered policy, it is not a farce.

324. Commission counsel provided Mayor Bennett with the legal reasons why disclosure at this stage was not required, see Commission Counsel’s book at tab 61. The Act specifically states at Section 22(3) that the procedural fairness requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”) do not apply to the investigations conducted by the Commission under Section 25 (1) (a).

325. Mayor Bennett still chose not to attend the interview despite the information above and despite repeated requests. He would have been informed of the complaint against him at the interview. He chose not to attend.

326. Mayor Bennett has repeatedly chosen not to cooperate with the Commission. This in and of itself demonstrates that he does not see himself as an integral part of the policing system, which is what a PSB member is.

327. PSB’s are ultimately accountable to the public by way of the Commission. To not cooperate with the Commission as a Board member, demonstrates that Mayor Bennett does not see himself as responsible to the governing systems under the Act, and inadvertently this demonstrates a lack of respect for civilian oversight over his conduct.

328. We find that this is not the kind of behaviour that would inspire the confidence of the community.

329. Accordingly we find that Mayor Bennett has breached Section 8 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner that would not inspire public confidence in the abilities and integrity of the board.

SECTION 13 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

330. Section 13 of the Code of Conduct states:

Board members shall refrain from engaging in conduct that would discredit or compromise the integrity of the board or the police force.

331. All of the allegations that have been proven in this Decision would discredit or compromise the integrity of the Board or the Service.

332. We do not do an analysis of how every allegation before us leads to a breach of section 13 of the Code of Conduct. Instead, we base our analysis here on three specific situations that arise from the allegations and that were evidenced by credible testimony at the hearing.

333. These instances include: 1) the leak of the confidential complaint by Mr. Whetung, 2) Mayor Bennett’s threatening language at a Board meeting, and 3) his conduct regarding a special in camera meeting about the 2012 Service budget to be held between the Board and Municipal Council.

THE LEAK OF A CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINT

334. We find that Mayor Bennett erred by not keeping the complaint of Mr. Whetung completely confidential. This was not only the responsibility of an employer to his employee (Board member to the Chief) but also the responsibility of confidentiality was owed to the public complainant, Mr. Whetung.

335. In testimony Mr. Whetung testified that he expected his complaint to Mayor Bennett would be kept confidential:

I felt that because this was a personnel matter I wanted this matter to be kept private and confidential, not in the public eye.

336. Mr. Whetung testified that he had felt the matter was resolved when the Chief called him to apologize:

After the Chief emailed me, he called me and left me his personal phone number. He apologized, it was learning for him, and I thought that he was sincere. He even offered to meet in person, but I didn’t think that this was necessary. After this I felt that everything was completed and resolved.

337. He was further supported by the letter he received from Ms. Martin:

I then received a letter from the Board Chair Nancy Martin, she too left the door open stating her and the Chief would be happy to meet with me. I didn’t need that. So as of the letter from her dated December 19th, 2011. I felt this issue was resolved.

338. In testimony Mr. Whetung spoke of the profound impact his leaked complaint had on him, his family and his community:

Someone leaked my letter to the Peterborough Examiner. It was disappointing. Burnt it’s way into my memory. I was exposed, dragged through the mud for something I thought was private and confidential.

The ridicule towards myself, my family, my first nations community, is very very damaging. I am still dealing with the repercussions.

This kind of article effects my employment, because I need to get governmental clearance. They can deny clearances because of this and ask me to account for everything said in the article.

The leaking of my complaint did not benefit me in any way, it has just done me harm.

Here we are a year later with this article, that made me into a political pawn for someone.

There were two pages of comments to the article, saying incredibly racist and offensive things about Aboriginal people.

339. Mr. Whetung testified that an apology is all that he wanted and he was satisfied with the outcome of the complaint until it was leaked to the press.

340. The leakage of this complaint at a time when tension between the Mayor and the Chief/Board was high, raises many questions, but we cannot say with certainty who leaked the complaint to the media 6 months after it had been resolved.

341. What we can say is that because Mayor Bennett disclosed the email of Mr. Whetung to people not on the Board, it could have been leaked by anyone. Keeping the matter among Board members, people who are accountable for keeping the matter confidential, would have greatly diminished the likelihood of a leak.

342. We find that the leak to the media could have occurred as a direct result of the Mayor`s decision to copy all the City Councilors in his response to Mr. Whetung.

343. The number of media reports on this issue demonstrate that sharing a confidential complaint of this sensitivity is not justifiable. It discredited the integrity of the Chief and compromised the safety of Mr. Whetung, his family and his community.

MAYOR BENNETT’S CONDUCT REGARDING A SPECIAL IN-CAMERA MEETING ABOUT THE 2012 SERVICE BUDGET TO BE HELD BETWEEN THE BOARD AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.

344. The Board submitted its’ proposed 2012 Service budget to City Council in November, 2011. City Council did not adopt the proposed budget and it was sent back the Board to be revised. It was not until May, 2012 that the 2012 Service budget was ratified by City Council.

345. We heard evidence that between November, 2011 and May, 2012, Mayor Bennett surprised other members of the Board by creating conflict with them and doing this primarily in public, not in private.

346. Ms. Martin testified that on November 29, 2011, she accompanied the Chief to a City Council meeting to present the 2012 budget. She testified that when she met the Chief at the Service’s offices she was advised that the media had been informed that someone on the City Council was going to make a motion requesting that the 2012 Service budget be drastically reduced.

347. At the City Council meeting Mayor Bennett put forward a motion that the proposed 2012 Service budget should be reduced to represent no more than 10% of the municipal budget. This meant reducing the then proposed Service budget by over 2 million dollars.

348. Ms. Martin testified that she was “stunned” and concerned that with that kind of reduction in the budget the Board would not be able to provide “adequate and effective policing.” Ms. Martin testified that she was also “stunned” because Mayor Bennett had supported the budget at the Board table and not given any indication that he opposed it. The Chief, Ms. Pritchard Pataki and Mayor Smith all testified that they were shocked and upset by the Mayor’s motion, mostly because in the Chief’s words they felt “blindsided.”

349. There were subsequent Board meetings to understand and respond to this situation. Finally in a meeting of the Board on March 13, 2012, Mayor Bennett proposed that a special information sharing session be held between the Board and City Council, in order to come to some form of resolution. The Board voted in favour of this and the meeting was set for April 10, 2012, see Commission Counsels book (Tab 8).

350. At this same meeting the Board discussed whether this meeting should be open or closed, due to security concerns the Board voted to hold the meeting in closed session. Again Mayor Bennett voted in favor of holding this meeting in closed session, the minutes indicate that he seconded the motion to hold this meeting in camera.

351. We heard testimony that on March 28, 2012, at a pre- meeting to this special in camera information sharing meeting, Mr. Clark (chair of the City Council budget committee) took issue with the decision that the meeting be held in closed session.

352. Ms. Martin testified that she spoke with Duane Sprague, the Police Service Advisor, who advised her that because the Board had called the meeting it was up to them to decide how to proceed with the meeting. Ms. Martin testified that the Board decided to stick with the decision they had made to hold the information sharing meeting in closed session because the issues that would need to be discussed at that meeting could disclose confidential security issues.

353. Mayor Bennett emailed Ms. Martin a few days prior to the information sharing meeting requesting confirmation that the meeting was going to be held in closed session. Ms. Martin replied confirming that the meeting would continue in closed session, see Commission Counsel’s book at tabs 38 to 40.

354. On the morning of the information sharing session, Mayor Bennett released a letter stating that the special information sharing meeting would be cancelled. The letter was quoted in the local media early in the morning, see Commission Counsel’s book at tab 42.

355. The media knew about the cancellation before the Board was informed of the cancellation. In fact, the Board held their usual Board meeting that morning. Mayor Bennett attended the meeting and never mentioned that he had cancelled the information sharing meeting to be held later that day. Ms. Martin received notification of the meeting being cancelled when the Board took a break and she was given a copy of the letter by Mayor Bennett.

356. Ms. Martin and other Board members testified that they were very upset. To learn of this only a few hours before the meeting was to be held and for the meeting to be cancelled when it was of such urgency, was disappointing enough. But the letter of Mayor Bennett suggested wrong doing on the part of the Board. The letter from Mayor Bennett, contained in full at tab 41 of Commission Counsel’s book states:

As an appointed representative, your refusal to accommodate the will of elected councillors is unacceptable.

357. There are many issues raised by this pattern of behavior on the part of Mayor Bennett.

358. First and foremost, there is no obligation on PSB members to “accommodate the will of elected councillors.” This sentiment is not only incorrect, it gives the impression “elected councillors” are more important than PSB members. This is not conduct becoming of a public official and it is a position that discredits the integrity of the Board.

359. Ms. Martin testified that she was upset because she felt the media often knew information about important Board business before she did because Mayor Bennett would share information with the media before sharing it with the Board. This is seriously problematic behavior on the part of a Board member. Board business must be discussed by Board members first and foremost within the official board meeting setting, “at the Board table.”

360. It is not a problem if Board members discuss Board matters amongst each other, in confidence, while not at Board meetings, but to discuss matters with the media rather than directly with your colleagues is clearly an affront to them and to a member’s role on the Board.

361. The role of a Board member is partly to de-escalate tensions related to policing. We find that Mayor Bennett’s conduct was to do the opposite, escalating tensions by making unsubstantiated and insulting remarks about the Board and the Chief directly to the media.

362. Ms. Martin testified that she felt upset by this letter from the Mayor Bennett, mostly because it was quoted in the media and made the suggestions that the Board was being “secretive, unwilling and uncooperative.”

363. Finally, we have heard evidence that the Mayor has repeatedly supported and approved of decisions in meetings with the Board, then not only disagreeing with these decisions in public but criticizing the Board (which he publicly distances himself from) for making these very decisions that he was party to approving.

364. This conduct demonstrates a lack of willingness to cooperate with your colleagues in a way that would further the public confidence in the integrity of the Board or Service.

365. This also demonstrates a blatant disregard for the effective and efficient governance of policing and complete lack of respect for your colleagues on the Board. The panel finds this conduct to be counter-productive to the goals of the Board, the Code of Conduct and the Act.

MAYOR BENNETT’S THREATENING LANGUAGE AT A BOARD MEETING

366. Mayor Bennett’s actions led the Board to seek legal advice on how to deal with the Mayor’s conduct. It was also around this time that the Board received the letter from the Commission requesting their position on Camille Parent’s complaint.

367. Ms. Martin testified that she was of the understanding that when the conduct of a Board member is being addressed, it must be discussed in a closed meeting as a personnel matter.

368. At a Board meeting held on May 23, 2012, Ms. Martin requested that Mayor Bennett leave the meeting because they needed to have a discussion about his conduct and his presence would present a conflict of interest.

369. Ms. Pritchard Pataki, Ms. Martin, Mayor Smith, Chief Rodd and Mayor Bennett himself testified that when Mayor Bennett was asked to leave the meeting he said something to the effect that: “You are now entering the world in which I live and you should be ready for the consequences.”

370. Ms. Martin testified that she felt anxious and threatened. Ms. Pritchard Pataki heard this as a threat and she testified that it made her feel “anxious and scared about what would happen” to her. Both Mayor Smith and the Chief heard it as a clear threat to the Board.

371. The Commission’s decision in Wallaceburg, supra, provides a caution to Police Services Board members that regardless of the stress that a PSB is facing there is no excuse for making threats. In that case Board members were removed from the Board for conducting Board business “in a particularly aggressive and confrontational manner.”

372. The Commission’s standard on Board conduct is clearly articulated in Wallaceburg, supra:

This is a significant and unqualified commitment imposing on board members a responsibility to conduct themselves with the utmost circumspection and prudence and the highest levels of honesty and integrity.

373. Using threatening language to anyone is not acceptable behaviour of a Board member.

374. Furthermore, using threatening language to people employed by the Board is way past any threshold of defensible behaviour of a PSB member. It is important for members to remember that the Chief and the Administrative Assistant to the Board are employees of the Board.

375. Finally, to use threatening language towards your colleagues on the Board is intolerable. Section 13 of the Code of Conduct instructs Board members to conduct themselves in a manner that is not compromising of the integrity of the board, which we would suggest includes the integrity of the members on the Board. The language used by Mayor Bennett and it’s impact on the people who it was directed at, flies in the face of the guidance provided by the Code.

376. Mayor Bennett’s testimony on all three of the above issues were not believable. He provided reasons for the in- congruency between his decisions in Board meetings and then his public disavowal of those decisions, but we find that the reasons were often inconsistent with his behaviour. We also found that Mayor Bennett had a hard time recollecting significant information about what he did and why he did it. There was no evidence before us to counter the evidence that the above incidents happened.

377. Accordingly we find that Mayor Bennett has breached Section 13 of the Code of Conduct.

378. Mayor Bennett undermined public confidence in policing by publicly criticizing the Board and the Commission the way he did. Further, Mayor Bennett’s approach to balancing his role as Mayor and as a member of the Board undermined public confidence as he frequently disregarded governance, accountability and confidentiality rules put in place to support public confidence in policing.

379. We therefore find that Mayor Bennett has breached each of sections 2, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Code of Conduct.

DO THE BREACHES OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MAYOR BENNETT IS GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES

380. Mancini, supra, stands for the principle that it is not necessary to establish actual misconduct (i.e. discreditable conduct in that case) but the measure to be used to determine whether or not conduct is misconduct is the extent of the potential damage to the reputation and image of the service should the action become public knowledge. (emphasis added)

381. There are dozens of media articles that talk about Mayor Bennett’s disagreements with the Chief, the Board, the Commission and the Act.

382. We find that many of these comments were expressed in a manner that would be aggressive, confrontational, attacking and offensive. As evidence by Mr. Parent’s complaint about Mayor Bennett’s behaviour and the impact of that behaviour we can envisage the kind of damage that was being done to the reputation and image of the Service.

383. Mancini, supra, supports the principle that it is not necessary, in order to sustain a finding of misconduct, to prove each and every allegation contained in the Notice of Hearing. It is only necessary to prove one or more of the allegations.

384. In the case before us, we have found that each and every allegation against Mayor Bennett has been proven on a balance of probabilities and has been substantiated on clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

385. We have found that Mayor Bennett’s conduct contravened five sections of the Code of Conduct as charged by the Commission.

386. As public stewards charged with the responsibility of ensuring that police forces are accountable to the communities they serve, PSB members are subject to the highest standard of conduct possible under the Act and the Code of Conduct.

387. Mayor Bennett did not meet this standard.

388. All board members have an obligation to respect, uphold and follow the law. While this is true for every citizen, it is even more so for men and women who serve on PSB’s who have the legislated responsibility for ensuring “law enforcement and crime prevention” in their community: see Wallaceburg, page 24.

389. We have found that Mayor Bennett has not held his position as a member of the Board with the respect that it requires. He has made wholesale indictments of the system of policing in the Province, starting with the Act, calling it “the worst piece of legislation ever.” Making this statement without having the benefit of reading the whole Act. In testimony he stated, “I have not read the PSA in full”.

390. Mayor Bennett testified that he has not studied the Act in detail, he has read some sections and he has “familiarized” himself with aspects of the Act. He testified that he had an “adequate” understanding of policing, he stated “I didn't think it was appropriate to read the entirety of the PSA. I didn't have the time to read the entire PSA.” He stated that he did not go to any conferences on policing, do any research on policing or consult other Board members on policing issues. He stated that he based most of his opinions on his “experience.”

391. We find that this is not enough understanding of the law or policing issues for a section 31 PSB member. All section 31 PSB members should not only have read the Act but should have more than a “familiar” understanding of it.

392. Mayor Bennett testified that he thought he had “enough” knowledge about policing and that his knowledge about the effects of crime “would not be less than that of the Chief”. He was very confident in his own understanding of policing in Ontario. We disagree. We find that the evidence of Mayor Bennett’s conduct and statements shows a serious misunderstanding of his role as a Board member entrusted with the oversight of policing in Peterborough.

393. Accepting an appointment to sit on a PSB should not be taken lightly or underestimated. It is a commitment that requires the time and attention to go through the Act, Regulations enacted thereunder especially the Code of Conduct, decisions of the Commission, training materials, monthly board meeting packages and more. This is not a casual commitment. It is a high-level official commitment worthy of significant focus and dedication.

394. Mayor Bennett argued that first and foremost he was the Mayor of Peterborough and this role was paramount to all his other roles particularly in the context of this matter, to his role as a member of the Board. We find that this is an erroneous understanding of the nature of a PSB and it’s relationship to City Council. A PSB is not subservient to a municipal council. The Board is independent from City Council.

395. These competing obligations have to be respectfully reconciled. This is a challenge but it is not impossible. Many people have served in competing roles and have been able to strike this balance with efficacy and integrity.

396. The expectation would be no less for Mayor Bennett. From the evidence in the hearing into the conduct of Mayor Bennett we find that he did not respond to these challenges appropriately.

397. We note here that the conduct proven in this hearing is demonstrative of three repeated patterns engaged in by Mayor Bennett throughout the period of the alleged misconduct: 1) engaging in public discourse about confidential police personnel matters, 2) acting as an outsider, as if he is not a member of the Board and 3) failing to mention his disagreements about certain decisions in Board meetings, voting in favor of those decisions at the Board table, but then later denouncing the Board’s decision in public.

398. This kind of conduct is indicative of the behavior of someone who wants to sabotage efforts, escalate conflict, undermine the efforts of the Service, the Chief and the Board and create upset in the community. This is not the behavior expected of a member of a PSB as provided in the Code of Conduct.

399. Even so, as this information was revealed at the hearing, Mayor Bennett testified that he would not retract his statements.

400. The potential damage to the reputation and image of the service should these actions become public knowledge is immense. The subjective element of misconduct is clearly met.

401. According to the objective test for misconduct as set out in Girard, supra, the Commission must measure the conduct of a police officer by the reasonable expectations of the community. In the absence of evidence as to what reasonable expectations are, the Commission must place itself in the position of a reasonable person.

402. As mentioned above, the issues with which this Decision is concerned came to the attention of the Commission when Mr. Camille Parent, a business owner in Peterborough and an active community participant, sent a letter to the Commission.

403. Mr. Parent testified that he lives in Omemee, Ontario, about 20 kilometers outside of Peterborough. He has run his business “Peterborough Vacuum”, located in Peterborough for over 20 years. He testified that his families’ life revolves around activities in Peterborough. He and his wife run several charity events for different causes including, Habitat for Humanity and Peterborough Cares.

404. He was a Catholic School Board trustee and both of his children attend school in Peterborough. He testified that he knows Mayor Bennett, he thinks the mayor is generally a good man and he even had signs in support of Mayor Bennett’s first campaign for mayor all over his business window.

405. We found Mr. Parent’s testimony to be credible and highly relevant as his letter of complaint brought this whole matter to the attention of the Commission. His testimony was forthright, consistent and he comprehensively recollected everything he testified to. His testimony was neither biased nor self-interested. He came across to the Panel as someone who was actively involved in the Peterborough community and had a deep sense of care for community issues and concerns.

406. The entirety of Mr. Parent’s letter dated April 12, 2012 is found at Commission Counsel’s book at Tab 45. In the letter Mr. Parent states:

Mayor Bennett has been publicly humiliating, disrespecting, bullying our Police, it’s Board and our Chief! At this point I would suggest that the OCPS immediately does what it can to intervene to stop this, as it has already gone out of control!!!! Furthermore I strongly suggest that our Police Board cannot do its job with the constant harassment, lies, bullying coming from the Board.

This is no longer an issue about a budget, it has become a political agenda in trying to deface and ruin the good reputation that our great Peterborough Police has worked so hard for many, many years. If you have the ability in conducting an inquiry or investigation in hopes of bringing all back to normal, I do strongly suggest you do so at your earliest time possible, as it has gone FAR beyond its purpose. I’m very concerned how a Mayor/Council member would be allowed to disgrace, deface it’s Police Chief, staff and Board.

We ask that you do all that you can do to help Peterborough deal with this extremely important issue and help restore peace with our very ANGRY MAYOR with a HUGE agenda...

407. He testified that he wrote the letter because of all of the negativity in the media attributed to Mayor Bennett, and which was directed to the Board and the Chief.

408. Mr. Parent testified that people would come into his business and discuss matters with him. He found that the media was impacting people negatively towards the Chief, the Service and the Board.

409. When he was directed during his testimony to Commission Counsel’s book at Tab 80, an article with the tag line “Mayor calls Chief Rodd’s response to proposed cuts “unprofessional”, Mr. Parent stated that “these things can and should be said behind closed doors. We have done irreparable damage to the reputation of the P olice.” (emphasis added)

410. We find that the breaches of the Code of Conduct committed by Mayor Bennett lead to the conclusion that Mayor Bennett is guilty of misconduct and is not performing his duties as a member of the Board in a satisfactory manner.

Submissions as to Penalty

411. Submissions on penalty were reserved pending the release of this Decision and the Panel’s findings with respect to Mayor Bennett’s conduct.

412. Submissions as to penalty under section 25 (5) are to be made in writing. These submissions are to be served and filed with the Panel no later than 5:00 pm on January 20,