Editorial
In a news release dated Mar.5, the Province announced that it is launching consultations with the municipal sector to strengthen accountability for council members. It noted that the Province wants to ensure that councillors and heads of council maintain a safe and respectful workplace, and carry out their duties as elected officials in an “ethical and responsible manner.” The primary objective of the consultation is to “strengthen municipal codes of conduct.”
As we reported at the time, one of the first things that the present MV Council did was to bring in a watered-down version of its former Code of Conduct. At the same time, they also made it more difficult for residents to make a complaint to the Township’s Integrity Commissioner. We also reported that these changes put MV residents in a less favourable position than most, if not all, other municipalities in Ontario.
The new Code of Conduct and Integrity Commissioner Protocol were prepared by the Township’s solicitors, Wishart Law of Sault Ste. Marie. The Current decided to try to learn the reasons behind the changes and were referred to solicitor Paul Cassan of Wishart Law. We asked him why MV’s existing Code of Conduct needed changing resulting in reduced protection for residents, and also when compared to other municipalities. The resulting correspondence did not throw any light on the matter and The Current questioned Cassan about what appeared to be his evasive answers.
With this background, was it just a coincidence that two months later Cassan wrote the letter, which included the suggestion that the Publisher had misled the public about his legal career, that triggered the character assassination of The Current’s owners at the Aug.27 2019 Council meeting? Cassan recommended that his letter be made public, which members of Council and the CAO rushed to do the same day they received it and without giving their target an opportunity to respond. When Council and the Township refused to retract, or even justify, the accusations they made following being provided proof of the Publisher’s qualifications, we were advised by our solicitor to seek vindication from the court so as to deter a repetition of such behaviour. The action is being defended on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements “related to the public interest.” Cassan, together with several members of his law firm, represents the defendants. Three invitations to participate in mediation have been rejected.
The Current welcomes the Province’s initiative as it believes too many members of councils in too many municipalities abuse the power they have acquired by misusing their bully pulpits.
Image AAT
How many complaints does it take before the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will step in and do something about Integrity Commissioners (IC) who believe that they are above the law? For one thing, not all ICs are lawyers, and their actions, however they are perceived, casts a dim light on those lawyers who have their ethical principles intact. I am referring to the IC – Peggy Young-Lovelace who is a Partner for E4m.solution – Expertise for Municipalities. E4m is an affiliate with Wishart Law Firm LLP – the law firm who prepared the Code of Conduct Policy, (the Policy) which also contains the Integrity Commissioner Inquiry Protocol. In 2019, I filed a request for an inquiry with the IC to challenge the ethical behavior of our council in adopting the Policy. Reason being: there are a couple of sections in Schedule A & B that allegedly contravene the Municipal Act (the Act). This has yet to be determined in court. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, the IC conducted only an initial/preliminary review and stated the she does not have the authority or jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry. Instead of submitting a request to a judge for a judicial review, she chose to forward a “Public Report” to our acting CAO to be published in the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. I was named 10 times in a three-page report. Since there was no investigation, this is a contravention of s. 223.6 (1) of the Act. However, she seems to get away with it, because Council accepted the Public Report. Wishart, talk about character assassination! You are responsible for the actions of your affiliates. It has been over 180 days since the filing of a request for an inquiry with respect to a different matter. The IC refuses to submit a final report to council. Since I am prohibited from stating details of the investigation, it may be safe to say the reason for this request for inquiry deals with the receipt of a closed session resolution made by our council, which was accompanied by a letter from our mayor. This information will need to be exposed as limitations of time will soon expiry. Possibly, these issues will need to be addressed to other branches of law. It is time for our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to intervene and take the bull by the horns and shake up Wishart and the IC about their professional conduct, and the alleged actions of our council for breach of ethical behaviour and breach of trust.
In reply to Michael McCloskey
Michael, I’m reminded of the Investment Dealer’s Association when I consider the role of the IC. Investment Dealers pay for a membership within the IDA, and the IDA audits them! As members, they are obliged to abide by the audits or face consequences. The IC should work in the same way, but seems instead to work to cover up wrong doings instead. Perhaps the idea of an IC is a good one, but the execution needs a little work.
In reply to Suzanne Prefasi
Suzanne, you could have written my post verbatim! Banned from township, with way over due IC report still not forthcoming. Makes me wonder about obstruction of justice, or something along those lines.
I have heard similar concerns regarding integrity commissioners in much of the rural north.
My personal experience, and many of the media posts concerns the tag team of Cassan/E4M( aka Peggy Young Lovelace aka Sean Sparling aka Shawn Mahoney)
A harassment complaint filed against me by the Treasurer/Administrator has resulted in my being banned from all Municipal buildings and no contact with municipal staff. Repeated requests regarding the investigation and outcome , has come to no fruition. No one can produce a report.
Municipal Affairs Minister, Steve Clark is currently conducting a review of the process. I agree with the afore statement the integrity commissioners may be required, but not in their present role.
While I cannot speak to the situation in MV, Brudenell Lyndoch and Raglan has also struggled with numerous issues surrounding the provision of its Integrity Commissioner services also coincidentally supplied by the combination of Expertise for Municipalities and the Wishart Law firm. Issues surrounding transparency, public access to the process, quality of investigations, timeliness of reporting and responsiveness to both the public and the municipality have all been issues. I have always thought of integrity commissioners like line judges in tennis- the municipality sets where the line is with a Code of Conduct and the integrity commissioner is there to point out when it has been crossed. The issue we are having is that it seems like the line judge is trying to keep the game going on indefinitely while we just cut cheque after cheque to them. The idea of Integrity Commissioners is something I fully support- it is how we are putting it into practice that I strongly object to. We need a re-evaluation of what is best for the function of Councils and cost protection for ratepayers.