As previously reported by The Current, last November Brudenell Lyndoch Raglan Township (BLR) commenced a Superior Court application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) against Councillor Andrea Budarick (at right above). The claim which was commenced by BLR’s Integrity Commissioner, Peggy Young-Lovelace of E4m (above left), asks the Court to order that Budarick be removed from office and be barred from sitting on Council during the 2022-2026 Council term. The hearing took place remotely on May 11 before Justice Martin James. The Integrity Commissioner was represented by Paul Cassan of the Sault Ste. Marie law firm Wishart Law. Budarick was represented by Angela Chaisson of the Toronto firm Millard & Co.
Claim arises from Fire Service invoice
The allegation of conflict of interest relates to a Council meeting which took place Sept.4 2019 and concerns a BLR Fire Service invoice sent to Budarick’s son. Cassan did not dispute that Budarick had declared conflicts of interest in advance because she knew that there would be discussion about that invoice. However, he argued that although she had declared conflicts, she nonetheless actively participated in the meetings where the issue was considered thereby influencing Council before and during the meeting.
In response, Chaisson argued that Budarick did not attempt to influence Council with respect to her son’s invoice because she avoided discussing it after having declared a conflict. Rather, she was only responding to her obligations as a councillor in relation to ratepayers’ concerns about due and fair process of bylaws and governing rules for the Fire Service. She said that Budarick was “duty bound” to raise their concerns to Council. She added that Budarick found herself in a novel situation not contemplated by the statute, her training or the advice she received. This left her with the difficult question of being conflicted with a part, but not all, of an issue before Council and she argued that the evidence disclosed that Budarick did so appropriately.
Bias alleged against Integrity Commissioner
Cassan advised the court that after Young-Lovelace had released her report, Budarick had written to her stating that it had been inappropriate for Young-Lovelace to have carried out the investigation of her because it gave rise to Budarick having a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Integrity Commissioner. This is because Budarick had previously made public her concerns about Young-Lovelace’s fees, and her refusal to justify them, for an earlier investigation.
Cassan argued that Budarick’s letter to the Integrity Commissioner was improper as it constituted an attempt to influence her. In response, Chaisson disagreed, pointing to legal authority that Integrity Commissioners are not above such allegations and complaints about bias on their part should be raised directly with them.
Justice James said he would release his decision at a later time.
Click on the links below to read earlier reports in The Current:
