Judith Greenwood-Speers v. Township of Frontenac Islands, 2026 ONSC 3719

CITATION: Greenwood-Speers v. Frontenac Islands, 2026 ONSC 3719

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00000268

DATE: 20260625

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Judith Greenwood-Speers

Applicant

– and –

Township of Frontenac Islands

Respondent

Representing herself

James McCarthy, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: January 8, 2026

JUSTICE A. KAUFMAN

1The applicant, Mayor Judith Greenwood Speers, applies under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the “Act”) to quash By-law 036-2024 of the Township of Frontenac Islands (the “By-law”).

2The By-law adopts a communications policy that designates the Clerk/Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO/Clerk”) as the Township’s primary spokesperson and establishes a process for responding to media and government communications. The applicant submits that the By-law is ultra vires, procedurally invalid, and enacted in bad faith. She argues that it improperly restricts her statutory role as Head of Council and Chief Executive Officer, and that it was enacted without proper procedure because its full text was not included in the agenda package for first and second reading.

3The respondent, the Corporation of the Township of Frontenac Islands (the “Township”), opposes the application. It submits that the By-law is authorized by Council’s powers under ss. 5 and 224 of the Act to establish policies governing municipal administration. The Township argues that the By-law does not diminish the Mayor’s statutory role but regulates the manner in which the Township communicates externally. It further submits that the By-law was validly enacted at third reading on October 15, 2024, following circulation of the complete text, and that any deficiency at earlier readings does not affect its validity. The Township denies that the By-law was adopted in bad faith.

4For the following reasons, the application is allowed and the By-law is quashed.

Background

5The Township is a municipality composed of two islands. Council consists of two councillors from Wolfe Island, two from Howe Island, and a Mayor elected at large. The applicant was elected Mayor in November 2022.

6The Township employs a person who holds the roles of both Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer (the “CAO/Clerk”).

7Residents of the Township rely on a ferry service operated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to travel to the mainland. For most residents, it is the only practical means of transportation other than private watercraft. The ferry transports vehicles, goods, emergency services personnel, and passengers across the St. Lawrence River. It provides access to essential services in Kingston, including hospitals, educational institutions, retail services, and government offices.

8The local economy depends significantly on the ferry service. Businesses rely on it for the delivery of supplies, and tourism depends on reliable access to the islands. As a result, issues relating to ferry scheduling, reliability, capacity, and service standards are of ongoing importance to residents.

9Concerns about the adequacy and reliability of the ferry service are a recurring issue. Service interruptions, including those arising from mechanical problems, have resulted in delays and missed trips. These disruptions have implications for access to health care, employment, education, and emergency services. They have also raised concerns about system capacity and the absence of redundancy.

10On December 4, 2024, the Wolfe Islander IV ferry was taken out of service following a hull rupture. It was temporarily replaced by the Wolfe Islander III while repairs were undertaken.

Dispute Over Advocacy Concerning the Ferry Service

11The ferry service is a central issue in municipal governance and has been a significant focus of the Mayor’s advocacy and Council’s deliberations. Disagreement has arisen within Council regarding the appropriate response to ongoing service concerns.

12The Mayor has engaged with residents and communicated with other levels of government regarding the ferry. Differences of opinion about how best to address ferry-related issues have contributed to tension among members of Council.

13On August 16, 2024, an incident occurred at Town Hall during which a councillor made disparaging remarks to the Mayor. The Mayor filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner. Following an investigation, the Integrity Commissioner concluded that the councillor’s conduct was inappropriate and contrary to the Township’s Statement of Principles, and recommended that the councillor issue an apology in open session of Council.

14On December 2, 2024, the Mayor wrote to the Premier of Ontario about the ferry service and made certain proposals for addressing the problem. She concluded the letter by stating that the Deputy Mayor and the CAO did not live on Wolfe Island.

15Other members of Council objected to the content and tone of the letter. One councillor complained that the letter had not been reviewed with Council and that the reference to the Deputy Mayor not living on Wolfe Island suggested that councillors did not understand the ferry-related issues. Another councillor expressed concern that the letter made it more difficult for Council to work as a team. A further councillor described the letter as another example of the Mayor ignoring guidelines and policies, refusing to work collaboratively with Council and ministries, and adopting what he viewed as a confrontational approach. He suggested that the Deputy Mayor was better placed to manage the Township’s relationship with the Ministry of Transportation.

16On December 3, 2024, the Mayor wrote to the councillors and stated that they were undermining her, which she said was not in the residents’ interests. A councillor replied that, in his view, the Mayor withheld important information so that she could “prop [her]self up” and say that she had accomplished something, while in reality setting Council back when she spoke on its behalf.

17On December 8, 2024, the Mayor called a special meeting of Council to address the damage to the ferry. One councillor attended as an observer and reported back to the other councillors. No other members of Council attended. The meeting proceeded as a town hall.

Complaint about the Mayor’s letter to the Premier

18On January 23, 2025, the Integrity Commissioner received a complaint concerning the Mayor’s December 2, 2024 email to the Premier about ferry issues. The complaint alleged that the email breached the Communications By-law because the by-law designated the CAO/Clerk as the spokesperson for administrative and operational matters and provided that, unless another spokesperson was specifically identified, the CAO/Clerk was responsible for day-to-day communications.

19The Integrity Commissioner upheld the complaint. He concluded that that the Mayor’s email did not comply with the Communications Policy and therefore breached s. 12.1 of the Code of Conduct, which requires members of Council to comply with Township policies. The Integrity Commissioner nevertheless recommended that Council consider amending s. 4 of the policy to add a provision applicable to the Mayor, stating that the Mayor may communicate with external stakeholders where the content of the communication has been approved by Council resolution.

Passing of By-Law 36-2026

20Council had previously approved a departmental workplan on June 3, 2024. The workplan included the development of a communications policy to be implemented later that year.

21The first and second readings occurred together at the Council meeting of September 9, 2024. At that meeting, the Communications By‑Law was listed among several by‑laws scheduled for consideration, and the by‑laws were addressed sequentially toward the end of the agenda. However, the full text of the Communications By‑Law was not included in the agenda materials. Despite this, the Mayor, acting as Head of Council and presiding officer, permitted the matter to proceed to a vote. The by‑law was then given first and second readings and carried at that stage. The evidence indicates that Council understood that another reading would follow at a later meeting, and that fuller consideration could occur at that time.

22The third reading and final passage took place at the next Council meeting on October 15, 2024. In advance of that meeting, the agenda was circulated in accordance with the Township’s procedural requirements, and this time it included the complete text of the proposed by‑law. Council then met and the Communications By‑Law was the subject of debate. The materials indicate that members of Council, including the Mayor, had the opportunity to review the by‑law in full and to speak to it prior to the vote. Following that debate, the by‑law received third reading and was adopted by a majority vote of Council, with all four members voting in favour and the Mayor voting against.

23The By-law states that communications and media relations are important to enhancing public awareness and understanding of Council decisions and municipal services. It assigns responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Township’s corporate communications to the CAO/Clerk. Its stated purpose is to promote professionalism and consistency in the Township’s communications.

24The policy treats the Mayor differently from other members of Council. Media inquiries and public notices involving the Mayor must be directed to the CAO/Clerk so that the CAO/Clerk may provide “accurate and up-to-date” information, draft key messages, and, where appropriate and possible, sit in on interviews. By contrast, Council members may respond to media inquiries on their own behalf as elected officials. The CAO/Clerk may provide suggested messages and background information to councillors where appropriate and at their request.

25Section 3.1 of the communications policy reads as follows:

3.1 Media Inquiries

3.1.1 Media inquiries and/or public notices from the Mayor must be directed to the CAO/CLERK for accurate and up-to-date background information. Also, for media inquiries, the CAO/CLERK will contact the reporter on behalf of the Mayor, determine their needs and deadline, and (if the interview is accepted by the Mayor or designated spokesperson), draft key messages from the CAO/CLERK in support of the interview. Where appropriate and possible, the CAO/CLERK will also sit in on media interviews conducted by the Mayor or designated spokesperson to provide support, debrief, and follow-up on any outstanding questions.

3.1.2 Council Members who receive media inquiries can address them on behalf of themselves as elected officials; however, comments from the Councillors represent the views of the Councillor and not necessarily the formal position of the Township. Members of the Council are to contact the CAO/CLERK for accurate and up-to-date background information on the interview topic. Where appropriate and at the request of the Council Member, the CAO/CLERK will provide suggested key messages and background information to aid in a response. No Member shall speak to the media about any ongoing investigations, legal actions (pending or current charges or hearings), or any confidential personnel matters.

3.1.3 Media inquiries received by Township staff shall be immediately directed to the CAO/CLERK for follow-up as soon as received. The CAO/CLERK will follow up with the reporter to confirm the interview time and the appropriate spokesperson based on the request and assessment of the subject matter and reach out to the spokesperson to discuss the interview. If deemed appropriate and necessary, the CAO/CLERK may also assist staff with the preparation of briefing notes and key messages.

3.1.4 If a reporter calls or arrives in person at a work site without making prior arrangements and requests an interview or a statement, staff should assist the media in contacting the CAO/CLERK to determine who is available to speak with them.

Issues

26This application raises the following issues:

a. Is the By-law ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001?

b. Should the By-law be quashed for procedural irregularities?

Issue 1. The by-law is ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001.

27Section 273(1) of the Act authorizes the court to quash a municipal by-law for illegality. “Illegality” is a broad concept. It includes non-compliance with statutory requirements and may also include bad faith. Courts generally accord deference to municipal councils and are reluctant to interfere with municipal decisions made within their jurisdiction: Blair Engaged - Residents’ Association Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Cambridge, 2023 ONSC 1964, (Div. Ct.), at para. 97.

28The power to quash a by-law is discretionary. That discretion must be exercised judicially and in accordance with established legal principles. The court’s role is not to substitute its own view of sound municipal policy for that of Council. Rather, the question is whether the by-law was enacted within the municipality’s legal authority and in accordance with the governing statutory framework: Municipal Parking Corp. v. Toronto (City), 2009 CanLII 65385 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 33.

29The Township submits that the by-law does not interfere with the Mayor’s statutory role. It argues that Council, as the governing body of the municipality, is entitled to establish policies governing municipal administration and external communications. On the Township’s submission, the By-law does no more than create a process for managing municipal messaging. It further submits that the Act does not give the Mayor authority to bind the Township unilaterally or to determine the Township’s message.

30Section 225 of the Act provides that the role of the Head of Council includes acting as the chief executive officer of the municipality. Section 226.1 further provides that, as chief executive officer, the Head of Council is to act as the representative of the municipality both within and outside the municipality and to promote the municipality locally, nationally, and internationally.

31The Act does not expressly define what it means for the Head of Council to act as the municipality’s representative. However, in my view, that role necessarily includes communicating on behalf of the municipality, including acting as a spokesperson. That interpretation follows from the statutory language. The Act refers not only to representation within and outside the municipality, but also to the promotion of the municipality locally, nationally, and internationally. Those words contemplate an outward-facing role that includes communication, advocacy, and engagement with other levels of government and the public.

32The problem is not that Council adopted a communications policy. Council may establish reasonable policies to promote accuracy, consistency, and professionalism in municipal communications. Nor is there any dispute that the Mayor may not bind the Township unilaterally or determine Council’s official position without Council authority. The difficulty is that the By-law goes beyond those permissible objectives. It singles out the Mayor and subjects her communications with the media and the public to a process controlled by the CAO/Clerk.

33Section 3.1.1 provides that media inquiries and public notices “from the Mayor” must be directed to the CAO/Clerk. The CAO/Clerk is then to contact the reporter on behalf of the Mayor, determine the reporter’s needs and deadline, draft key messages in support of the interview, and, where appropriate and possible, sit in on media interviews conducted by the Mayor. These requirements do more than provide optional administrative assistance. They place the CAO/Clerk between the Mayor and the external audience with whom the Mayor seeks to communicate.

34This structure restricts the Mayor’s ability to act as the municipality’s representative in several respects. First, it prevents her from responding directly to media inquiries or issuing public notices without first involving the CAO/Clerk. Second, it gives the CAO/Clerk a role in shaping the Mayor’s message by drafting key messages for the interview. Third, it permits the CAO/Clerk to participate in interviews conducted by the Mayor. Fourth, when read together with the Integrity Commissioner’s interpretation of the policy, it treats the Mayor as having no independent role in speaking for the Township unless Council has approved the communication.

35The policy is also asymmetrical. Councillors who receive media inquiries may respond on their own behalf as elected officials. They are to contact the CAO/Clerk for accurate and up-to-date background information, but the CAO/Clerk provides suggested key messages only where appropriate and at the councillor’s request. The Mayor, by contrast, is required to direct media inquiries and public notices to the CAO/Clerk, and the CAO/Clerk is assigned a more active role in managing the communication. The by-law therefore imposes more restrictive conditions on the Head of Council than it imposes on individual councillors.

36The Mayor’s statutory role as Head of Council and Chief Executive Officer includes acting as the municipality’s representative within and outside the municipality and promoting the municipality. Those functions necessarily include communicating with external stakeholders, including other levels of government and the media. A by-law that requires the Mayor to route such communications through the CAO/Clerk, permits the CAO/Clerk to formulate key messages, and treats the Mayor as unable to speak for the Township unless Council has approved the communication substantially impairs that statutory function.

37The evidence filed by the Mayor demonstrates that members of Council disagree with her about the appropriate approach to advocacy on behalf of the Township, particularly in relation to the ferry service. I find that the By-law was enacted, at least in part, to constrain the Mayor’s ability to communicate externally in the exercise of her representative role. That was not a proper purpose.

38Council may adopt policies to ensure that members accurately communicate Council decisions and do not misstate the Township’s official position. Section 4.1(g) of the Township’s Code of Conduct already addresses that concern. It requires members of Council to accurately communicate Council decisions and to respect Council’s decision-making process, even where they disagree with Council’s ultimate determinations and rulings. If the Mayor breaches that obligation, the appropriate remedy is a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner. Council cannot, under the guise of a communications policy, remove or substantially impair the statutory role assigned to the Mayor by ss. 225 and 226.1 of the Act.

Issue 2 – Is the by-law invalid for procedural irregularity?

39The Mayor also submits that the by-law was not enacted in accordance with the reading requirements in s. 11 of By-law No. 2019-02. She argues that the by-law was not properly before Council at first and second reading because the full text was not included in the agenda package. In her submission, this deprived Council, the public, and anyone reviewing the agenda of proper notice of what Council was being asked to consider.

40Given my conclusion that the by-law substantially impairs the statutory role assigned to the Mayor by ss. 225 and 226.1 of the Act, it is unnecessary to decide whether the alleged procedural irregularity also warrants quashing the by-law.

Disposition

41By-Law 036-2024 is hereby quashed.

Costs

42The Mayor seeks costs of $3,000. As the successful party, she is presumptively entitled to costs. Although she represented herself, I am satisfied that the application required a significant amount of preparation time. The amount claimed is reasonable and proportionate compensation for the time she devoted to preparing her materials. Costs are therefore fixed in the amount of $3,000, payable by the Township to the Mayor.

Justice A. Kaufman

Released: June 25, 2026

CITATION: Greenwood-Speers v. Frontenac Islands, 2026 ONSC 3719