MICHAEL
L. MAYNARD
Integrity Commissioner
E-mail: mmaynard@adr.ca
BENJAMIN DRORY
Senior Investigator
E-mail: bdrory@adr.ca
July 4, 2024
SENT BY EMAIL TO:
Councillor Reg Freake
And to:
Councillor Veronica Charrois
And to:
Grimsby Town Council
c/o Victoria Steele, Town Clerk
Re: Investigation Report – IC-28126-1123/IC-28337-1223
This is a report respecting two applications brought by Councillor Reg Freake (“Councillor Freake”) against Councillor Veronica Charrois (“Councillor Charrois”) under the Code of Conduct for Members for the Council of the Town of Grimsby and Local Boards of the Municipality (the “Code of Conduct”), pursuant to Affidavits dated November 26 and December 6, 2023, respectively.
Mr. Michael L. Maynard, Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Grimsby (the “Town”), consolidated the matters as they related to similar issues, and on February 9, 2024 delegated certain of his powers and duties to myself, Mr. Benjamin Drory, to investigate and prepare a report respecting the complaints, subject to his review and approval. This is that report. I reviewed the parties’ written submissions, interviewed both parties, and researched relevant information respecting the Code of Conduct and what apparently took place.
Jurisdictional Challenges Respecting Conduct During Council Meetings
Councillor Freake’s November 26, 2023 complaint included allegations respecting Councillor Charrois’ conduct during the November 6, 2023 Council meeting. Historically, our Office consistently took the position that it is inappropriate for the Integrity Commissioner to investigate decorum during a Town Council meeting, in the absence of a formal direction from Council asking the Integrity Commissioner to do so.
As recent evidence of such, Mr. Maynard issued a Decision on a Preliminary Issue on February 16, 2024 respecting complaint IC-28571-1223 (“Jordan-Charrois”) –which was reported publicly at the March 4, 2024 Council meeting:1
I previously rendered a decision to the Town’s Council in 2021 (Kadwell re: Vardy),2 where I opined that an Integrity Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over inmeeting decorum/speech-related matters, except where the Complaint is referred to me by Council. That matter also involved allegations of disparaging remarks being used in a meeting. I relied, as I often have elsewhere throughout the Province, on a body of opinions rendered by other municipal Integrity Commissioners. In particular, I cited Moore v Maika, 2018 ONMIC 7 (CanLII),3 in which the Township of Madawaska Valley’s Integrity Commissioner, Mr. Guy Giorno, addressed the same question, writing:
“65. In the City of Toronto, integrity commissioners have consistently taken the position that they do not have jurisdiction over the behaviour of Council Members during Council and committee meetings. Professor David Mullan, the first municipal integrity commissioner ever appointed in Canada, noted that the Municipal Act requires that each municipality pass a procedure by-law and that the procedure by-law provides a clear mechanism for enforcing decorum and orderly conduct during meetings. Integrity Commissioner Mullan concluded:
“In general, the Integrity Commissioner does not have authority under the Code of Conduct to
1 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=29790
2 Kadwell re: Vardy (IC-12378-0121), at p.14
3 Moore v Maika, 2018 ONMIC 7 (CanLII ) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onmic/doc/2018/2018canlii140173/2018canlii140173.pdf
review complaints about the behaviour of Councillors at Council and Committee meetings. The behaviour of Councillors at Council, while regulated by the Code of Conduct, is the responsibility of Council (acting primarily through the Mayor or his deputy). Absent a resolution of Council requesting the Integrity Commissioner to become involved, this selfpolicing is part of the statutory rights and privileges of Council.”
Following my decision on jurisdiction, Council referred the Kadwell re: Vardy case back to me, and I completed an inquiry and reported my decision to Council.
I find that deference must be given to Council in applying its Procedural By-law, which provides Council (including the Chair) with tools to deal with comments its Members find objectionable. …
In my view, I require Council’s express direction to pursue this inquiry. Lacking such direction at present, I must decline jurisdiction and refrain from opening an inquiry.
… I believe the uniqueness of the circumstances are worthy of reporting to Council, to improve Council’s understanding of how these rules apply to such issues. This complaint is not the only instance of in-meeting decorum that has been raised to my attention in recent months with requests to investigate such issues, and I believe the effective functioning of Council is a matter of interest for the entirety of Council and the citizens of the Town. …
Based on these principles, we initially approached this matter the same way – i.e., that the parties’ submissions respecting Councillor Charrois’ conduct at the November 6, 2023 Town Council meeting would not be considered herein, other than to the extent necessary to clarify other issues – which we communicated to both parties. Councillor Freake disagreed with our position, but he was advised that he could initiate a motion at Council to seek an investigation respecting his allegations about the November 6, 2023 Council meeting consider that conduct, in the same way that Mayor Jordan had then done regarding his complaint (as described below.) As will be clear in this Report, even if the November 6, 2023 Council meeting hadn’t been considered herein, a significant volume of other issues in Councillor Freake’s affidavits still always remained appropriately within our Office’s jurisdiction to investigate. By April 15, 2024, a 48-page draft Report respecting those issues had been fully developed.
At the March 4, 2024 Town Council meeting, Council passed a motion asking Mr. Maynard to formally investigate Jordan-Charrois4 – which he did, and Town Council then considered his report at its April 15, 2024 meeting.5 During that discussion, Councillor Freake initiated a motion asking that our Office be delegated a blanket authority to investigate matters of decorum for all future cases. The motion carried by a 7-2 vote, and was recorded as follows:6
C-24-125
Moved by: Councillor Freake
Seconded by: Councillor Vardy
Resolved that the Integrity Commissioner be delegated the authority to investigate matters of decorum at Council meetings in the future.
We originally interpreted this direction from Council as including a request to investigate the outstanding matters of decorum during Council meetings within this present matter – but Councillor Charrois objected to that interpretation. As a matter of fairness, we agreed to put the question to Council more specifically. Mr. Maynard wrote to Council on May 6, 2024, requesting clarification respecting whether this matter (which had already been ongoing well before April 15, 2024) should be considered to fall within Council’s direction.7 Mr. Maynard also made clear that investigating such matters would entail a significant extension to the timing of the reporting, as the new matters would need to be investigated de novo. At its May 21, 2024 Town Council meeting, Council replied affirmatively, passing the following motion by a 6-3 vote:8
Moved by: Councillor J. Baradziej
Seconded by: Councillor D. Davoli
Resolved that the Integrity Commissioner be directed to consider matters of decorum in the following investigations: IC-28126-1123 & IC-28337-1223.
Accordingly, the entirety of Councillor Freake’s two Fall 2023 Complaints became within our jurisdiction to investigate. Owing to the history described, much of the
4 C-24-055 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=30472
5 Investigation Report Pursuant to Council Motion (IC-28571-1223), April 11, 2024 https://pubgrimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=30587
6 C-24-125 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=31159
7 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=31381
8 C-24-167 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=31832
investigative evidence herein is presented in the order it was collected – i.e., a “first” investigation for the non-Council-meeting matters, and a “second” investigation that commenced after May 21, 2024 regarding Councillor Charrois’ alleged conduct at the November 6, 2023 Council meeting.
FIRST AFFIDAVIT (NOVEMBER 26, 2023)
Councillor Freake’s submissions that initiated this matter summed to 137 numbered paragraphs over 32 pages over two Affidavits, plus five Exhibits, which contributed profoundly to the size of this Report. In his November 26, 2023 Affidavit, he asserted the following:
…
6. Pursuant to s. 5(3) and s. 9 of the Municipal Act, the Town of Grimsby created the Grimsby Economic Development Advisory Committee (“GEDAC”), for the purpose of advising Town Council, via the Finance Committee, on economic development matters and the promotion of economic development and tourism in the Town of Grimsby.
7. For the 2022-2026 term of Council in Grimsby, GEDAC is comprised of five (5) voting members, that being three community members and two Members of Council. Councillor Don Howe … and I are the Council representatives. I also serve as the current Chair of GEDAC.
GEDAC TOURISM WORKING GROUP
8. At the August 3rd, 2023, GEDAC meeting, a resolution was passed to establish a Tourism Working Group consisting of Councillor Howe, one GEDAC resident member, a member of the Grimsby Chamber of Commerce and several members of the local business community.
9. At the September 18th, 2023, Council meeting, the respondent moved a motion to lift this item for separate discussion from the August 3rd, 2023, GEDAC minutes as contained in the Finance Committee minutes of September 14th, 2023. …
…
12. … [T]he overall will of Council was to move ahead with this initiative with a vote of seven Members in the affirmative. …
13. Council’s approval of the initiative apparently did not sit well with the respondent. On September 20th, 2023, two days after Council had decided and ratified the matter, they took to post the following in the private Facebook group entitled “Grimsby Community Talk”, which they openly co-administer:
Veronica Charrois
September 25
Request For Feedback (Poll)
Should Grimsby Council financially invest $$$ in a Grimsby Tourism Strategy? Yes
14. With this initial post from their personal account, the respondent did not accurately communicate the decision of Council nor respect Council’s decisionmaking process, advancing their poll upon the public with the impression that the matter had not yet been decided and ratified by Council.
15. The respondent later wrote a comment in their own post indicating the results of the recorded Council vote. … [T]his post and their comment with no contextual background posed no other purpose than to enflame readers and residents against the tourism initiative, against GEDAC members and against those Members of Council that supported it.
… GREENBELT MOTIONS
17. As a result of the Provincial government’s “reversal” of its 2022 Greenbelt changes, two motions came before, were considered, and voted upon by Council at it’s meeting of October 16th, 2023.
…
20. The vote … was recorded … [t]he resulting vote was 8-1 in favour.
21. After a resident had posted on this decision in the Facebook group “Grimsby Community Talk”, the respondent posted the following as a comment on that post:
Veronica Charrois – Councillor Ward 3 – Grimsby I’m just going to remind everyone that I was the solo vote NO to removing the two Grimsby properties from the Greenbelt. Please do not lump me into other council members actions.
22. This comment is knowingly false on several accounts. In the first, the parcel at Winston Road was not removed from the Greenbelt in 2022, it simply had its designation changed by the Province from Greenbelt (Specialty Crop) to Greenbelt (Towns & Villages) to permit urban expansion. The second group of parcels around Cline Road, were removed from the Greenbelt by the Province in 2022. Effectively, the Cline Road lands are no longer in the Greenbelt, unless the Province’s Bill 136 is passed as written and reverses these changes.
23. These facts make the respondent’s Facebook comment false, contrary to s. 4.1(f) of the Code.
24. Similarly, the respondent’s comment does not match the direction in Councillor Baradziej’s motion that was passed by Council. It did not have the wording or effect of “removing the two properties from the Greenbelt”. The direction was for Staff to investigate the possibility of moving forward with applications on these lands. The direction provided in the resolution was as follows:
“Therefore be it resolved that Council direct our CAO Sarah Kim and staff to consult with legal consultants, MMAH and the PLDF to investigate the possibility of moving forward with these applications during this 30-day appeal period.”
25. The resolution and the statement are clearly not in continuity with each other, and given the current climate surrounding the Greenbelt, would serve no other purpose than to enflame the public who read this false statement. This comment contravenes s. 4.1(f) of the Code a second time.
26. Despite the respondent’s apparent opinion to the contrary, they are a part of Council, whether they agree with Council’s collective decision-making or not. Approved actions are taken by Council as a whole and not from individual Council members. The respondent is part of a legislative body but appears to distance themselves from that role should a decision not be in their favour.
27. This public comment is misleading about the structure of Council, it does not state this is the respondent’s personal opinion in disagreeing with Council’s decision. It is also disparaging other Members of Council in a wholesale manner by
dismissing their actions, taken as a collective. This is contrary to s. 4.1(f), (h), (e) and (i) of the Code, respectively.
RESPONDENT’S EMAILS REGARDING GEDAC
28. The respondent sent an email inquiry to the Town Clerk on October 26th, 2023, with CCs to all Members of Council, requesting to view copies of the GEDAC meetings. As part of the email exchange … the respondent facetiously and rhetorically asks:
“Do we have any other advisory committees that are not recorded I’m not familiar with any. 10:00 am meeting times is not an option for anyone with a day job.”
…
31. By CCing the emails to every Member of Council, it represents a clear attempt to discredit and impugn the reputation of GEDAC, myself, Councillor Howe and the residents who volunteer their time for the committee. It served no purpose beyond a continued pattern of harassment and attempt to enflame other Members of Council.
32. The Clerk clarified as to why GEDAC meetings are not audio or visually recorded, the timing of said meetings and that other advisory committee meetings are not A/V recorded. This prompted what appears on its face, an unacceptable and confrontational reply from the respondent, listing various advisory committees they believed were “All recorded.”
33. The accusatory tone of this email reply from the respondent to the Clerk, and shared with all of Council, appears to be contrary to s. 8.3(a) of the Code regarding the professional competence of Staff and s. 8.4(a) of the Code regarding the professional or ethical reputation of Staff.
35. The nature of the emails, questioning the conduct of GEDAC … constitutes further harassment against me and other Members of the Committee, contrary to s. 12.1 and s. 12.2 of the Code.
THE GEDAC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE EVENT
36. As part of GEDACs’s 2023 Action Plan, the Committee worked closely with Town Staff to arrange a “roundtable event” tentatively called “Moving Forward Together: Development Community Roundtable.” The event was designed to bring together various aspects of the development and business community including, but not limited to, developers, engineers, builders, contractors, realtors, plaza owners, architects, planners, the Town’s Corporate Leadership Team and Economic Development Officers from the Town and the Region of Niagara.
37. … [T]he Town had Staff from Planning, Building and the Public Works departments on hand, who were present to discuss improvements to Town processes that would serve both our clients and our residents in a more efficient manner.
38. The event was also an opportunity to promote to and get input from this sector of the business community on our Official Plan review process, which is currently underway. …
39. The outline of this event, including its purpose, location, general categories of invitees, agenda and various other details was presented in the published agenda of the August 3rd, 2023, GEDAC meeting.9 …
42. The roundtable event occurred … on October 12th, 2023. The event was wellattended , well-received by attendees and created a cooperative environment. …
43. The event was so successful that the GEDAC is planning to host another one of these roundtables in April of 2024.
NOVEMBER 6TH, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING – ROUNDTABLE INVITATION LIST
45. For clarity, any timestamps referring to the November 6th, 2023 Council meeting are relative to the Town’s recording of said meeting, archived at the Town of Grimsby’s YouTube page and directly viewable at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoxoHdyeEU4
46. At the meeting of November 6th, 2023, the respondent moved a motion to lift the GEDAC minutes of October 19th, 2023, from the Finance Committee minutes of
9 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=26753
October 26th, 2023, for separate consideration. …
47. The respondent spoke to two items … [t]he second and more obvious concern of the respondent, if it may be called that, was the GEDAC roundtable event of October 12th, 2023.
48. The list of invitees for the GEDAC event was not publicly posted or published, it was not distributed to attendees nor Town Staff not affiliated with the event, and it was not shared to other Members of Council who are not on GEDAC.
49. At [00:52:19] of the November 6th, 2023, meeting video, the respondent states that they:
“[…] thought it [the GEDAC event] was actually a planning meeting because it was mostly developers and a few Council members […]”
50. Further at [01:06:32}, the respondent offers a comment to Mr. Harold Madi, the Town’s Director of Planning:
“[…] this was supposed to be an economic development committee [event], so perhaps it would have been better if we called it a planning workshop of some sort or development, because I think 80% of the people that were not Staff or Council were actually developers […]”
51. I have not attached the invitation list to this complaint, due to possible privacy implications if it is shared with the respondent. …
52. The invitation list does not contain “mostly” developers. Mostly is defined by Merriam-Webster as “for the greatest part” and in terms of the invitation list would constitute more than 50% of the invitees.
53. A review of the invitation list shows there was 90 guests in total invited to the roundtable, 17 of whom represented 10 developers or 18.9% of everyone invited. In considering attendance numbers, we had 62 guests come to the event, 17 of whom represented those same 10 developers or 27.4% of attendees.
54. Both the number of those invited who represented developers (18.9%) and the number of guests who attended representing developers (27.4%) is far below the threshold of 51% that would be required to validate the respondent’s public claim that there were “mostly” developers at the roundtable event. It is also below the “80%” that respondent has publicly claimed attended the meeting.
55. By stating publicly that the event had “mostly” developers and/or that it was “80%” developers attending, which is not supported by fact, the respondent has made very public accusations and statements that are knowingly false and/or intended to mislead the public, twice contravening s. 4.1(f) of the Code.
56. At [00:55:29] of the meeting video, the respondent states:
“[…] were the Greenbelt developers there because I have seen the invite list and Ontario Progressive Conservative officials or staff of the Ontario Progressive Conservative staff because I did see that on the invite list as well. […]”
57. Further, at [00:57:14] of that video, the respondent states:
“Was anybody there representing the Greenbelt developments was my question because I saw the invite list, were they there?”
58. The respondent states on multiple occasions at the November 6th, 2023, Council meeting that they has seen the invitation list for the GEDAC event. Unless the respondent has obtained the list and can provide proof of access through proper protocol, namely a properly filed and executed request pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”), this gives rise to several scenarios, each invoking their own possible contravention of the Code.
59. If the respondent obtained access to the list by any means other than a duly filed and processed MFIPPA request, then this raises the issue of contraventions of s. 7.1(a) and s. 7.2(a) regarding access to confidential information and s. 7.2(b) and (c) as information from the list was publicly disclosed by them.
60. In the alternative, if the respondent has not actually obtained access to the list by any means, their public statements of having seen the invitation list are knowingly false and/or represent an attempt to mislead the public, another contravention of s. 4.1(f) of the Code.
NOVEMBER 6TH, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING – RONDTABLE AND THE GREENBELT
61. At [00:52:25] of the meeting, the respondent as part of their inquiry about the GEDAC roundtable event asks:
“[…] I just like to know which Council members attended, which developers were there, [and] if any of them were the Greenbelt developers, because we voted on something four days later to do with the Greenbelt properties? Were there any Ontario Progressive Conservative officials there as well, or [their] staff and why was this not a public issue? Why was it not on the calendar? Why was it not advertised? How is that a community roundtable?”
62. … Regardless of whether they have seen the invitation list or not, this question goes beyond legitimate inquiry and into the area of malicious political theatre.
63. The “question” was not a genuine request for answers, it was a thinly veiled attack on the roundtable event, the credibility of GEDAC members, including myself, and Town Staff. It was an attempt to link us to the Provincial Greenbelt situation and leverage public sentiment in that regard in the respondent’s favour and against the Town and Council.
…
65. Despite my shock at the complete lack of decorum on the part of the respondent, I provided answer to the best of my ability to their line of question.10 …
67. Subsequent to my statements, the Mayor at [00:54:31} added his opinions on the event, stating, in part, that he “was there as well and [he] gave greetings on behalf of Council”, “it was a really well run event”, and that it “added a lot to the way we [the Town] can just make things move smoother by having this lines of communications open.”
68. After I felt the respondent’s questions had been sufficiently answered, the respondent in a very unflattering way and without acknowledgement of the Mayor that they now had the floor at [00:55:26], interjected and stated:
“I appreciate that; however, you didn’t answer my question. Were the Greenbelt developers there, because I have seen the invite list and the Ontario Progressive Conservative officials, or staff of the Ontario Progressive Conservative staff, because I did see that on the invite list as well. […]”
10 At [00:52:59]
69. After hearing this “question”, it only reaffirmed to me that the intent of lifting this item was to introduce malicious comments and impugn anybody who was involved with or attended this economic development event. There was no “political stripe” to the event, no one was checking membership cards or asking for attendee’s political affiliations. In fact, one of the goals of this event was to keep politics to a minimum, improve business relationships for the betterment of Grimsby and use the opportunity to promote our Official Plan review.
70. Based on this and personal knowledge of the respondent’s past trust issues regarding elected officials and organizations such as the Grimsby Chamber of Commerce, I responded by saying at [00:56:17]:
“I would caution you not to turn this into some kind of conspiracy theory that we had Greenbelt people there … that might have been caught up in the Greenbelt fiasco.
[pause]
Yeah, well let’s be very careful. That’s all I can say there were developers there from every single developer that has built or intends to build something in this town. So, there was nobody left out.
[pause]
I am not going to that.
[pause]
Sorry?
[pause]
It wasn’t a Council meeting; it was an event held by GEDAC. Come on guys. It was a community meeting, that was held by GEDAC. There was nothing, you can turn this into some kind of conspiracy thing, I don’t believe it. Come on.”
71. The pauses in the above transcript were a result of the respondent interrupting me, largely inaudible on the recording, and asking if certain developers were there and insisting this event was really a Council meeting.
72. This was not a meeting as prescribed by the Municipal Act. There was no quorum, no motions and no Town business was moved forward during this event. It was an informal luncheon event, approved by Council, that fostered a communications conduit between the Town of Grimsby and sectors of the business community. Events of this nature are common in other municipalities and Council has approved similar roundtables for the DIA and Green Committee.
73. What then followed was a disruptive salvo of further questions from the respondent as to who was exactly there including more concentration on “Greenbelt developers”, which I felt were inappropriate to answer given possible privacy issues. I did acknowledge however there were representatives from some of the Greenbelt developers at the event, but they should not be discriminated against and prevented from attending simply on that basis.
74. I did not provide further details on attendees, as I felt the respondent’s line of questioning and the way they were asked, were completely out of order. But more importantly, as both the Chair and a GEDAC Member, I am bound by a duty of confidentiality, as specified in our Terms of Reference.
…
76. At [00:57:59], the respondent stated that:
“My point is just the accountability factor was … sucked basically, because I’ve you know, I’ve had this conversation with other Council members from other municipalities outside of Niagara and the optics are absolutely atrocious […]”
77. To opine that the wording used by respondent was unparliamentary would be an understatement. It was unprofessional, it was demeaning, insulting, and criticized without valid cause not only myself, but also GEDAC Members, Staff, and anybody who had a role in the roundtable event. Further it was an underhanded attempt to erode the public trust held by our residents in this Council, it was a direct and unilateral attack by the respondent on their colleagues.
78. The respondent then went on to say that the meeting should have been “out in the open”, open to other Council members, been recorded and in the minutes.
79. To that I would reiterate what was already said and would be said by the Mayor and Councillor Howe, that it was not a meeting per the Municipal Act. If the event was “out in the open” many of those invitees would not have attended, simply for
the fact that those involved in development and the public are often at odds with each other. This was a chance to foster business in the community and keep political views to a minimum.
80. Further, at [00:59:46], the Mayor speaks about a similar event that was upcoming at the time, a roundtable set up by the Green Committee that also is not open to the public and by invitation only.
81. Unable to shake the thoughts of a “Greenbelt Conspiracy”, the respondent, again without acknowledgement by the Mayor as Chair at [01:00:15] asks aggressively about the Green roundtable; “Will there be developers there from the Greenbelt?”
82. The Mayor stated he “took offense to the constant…”, at which time I was also visibly upset and spoke over the Mayor, for which I later apologized to him for. He continued and said there “was nothing wrong with this event” and that he “really commend[ed] the event being put together.”
83. At [01:03:18], the Director of Planning spoke about the event at great lengths.
…
84. In reply to Director Madi, the respondent at [01:06:32] states:
“Thank you. So I appreciate that you responded, I don’t know why you got kind of sucked into it because you are the Director of Planning and this was supposed to be an economic development committee [event], so perhaps it would have been better if we called it a planning workshop of some sort or development […]”
85. The respondent then continues with the previously referenced false comment that 80% of the attendees were developers. …
86. Director Madi appeared to display a degree of humiliation while the respondent made that comment. His professional competence, professional and ethical reputation were impugned by the commentary of the respondent.
…
88. The entirely of this discussion is captured in the meeting video from [00:52:00] to [01:07:52].
THE REPSONDENT’S CHOICE OF VENUE & HARASSMENT
93. Despite the concerns of the respondent over the roundtable event, at no point in time did they reach out to me personally, as a colleague, to clarify the nature and purpose of the event. … I would have welcomed the opportunity to address any questions they may have had.
94. Instead, the respondent chose to use an open forum, a Council meeting, to espouse their opinions in an accusatory tone and use language suggesting corrupt practices, which to me is a clear and baseless attack on GEDAC and the credibility of its members, myself included. This behaviour has harmed me and other GEDAC members within the community, damaging our reputations personally and by way of our offices.
95. The respondent misled the public and other Members of Council as part of what appears to be an aggressive and ongoing campaign of harassment. The direct result of the respondent’s most recent actions has upset Members of GEDAC and Town staff. …
96. Unfortunately, the actions of the respondent have also drawn negative media attention to the Town and the roundtable event. Many of the event attendees are upset as this productive gathering is now being seen in the eyes of the public as an illegal meeting, footed by the taxpayers of Grimsby
97. A November 8th, 2023, story in Niagara this Week … has not only caused immeasurable harm to GEDAC and its members, but to the image of the municipality. …
98. Furthermore, to ensure that respondent’s harassment obtains maximum yield, they have been reposting this story on social media, both on their own Facebook Councillor page, but also within the “Grimsby Community Talk” group which indicates that it has approximately 3,100 members.
Grimsby Community Talk
Veronica Charrois – Councillor Ward 3 – Grimsby November 17 at 3:51 PM
Since our local print newspaper did not accurately portray my concerns
surrounding this invite-only event, I have copied and pasted the article from Niagara this Week’s Abby Green.11 This is a much better summary of events.
99. The respondent by perpetuating their belief that there is some sort of “Greenbelt Conspiracy” afoot and their continued promotion of this both in traditional and social media, has subjected me to online harassment
CONCLUSION
105. Instead of helping us move the Town ahead as we have been elected to do, the respondent’s behaviours towards others are causing distress on Council and with Staff, as we try to counter the “gotcha” mentality the respondent has now become a practitioner of. In all honestly, I am genuinely concerned for respondent’s overall wellbeing.
106. … [T]he actions of the respondent … represent serious and multiple contraventions of the Town’s Code of Conduct, performed deliberately and maliciously to impugn my reputation, the GEDAC committee, the Twon of Grimsby and others.
Councillor Freake attached the November 7, 2023 Niagara This Week article:12
Some Grimsby councillors are worried about the optics of a “community roundtable” that was recently held between some members of council, some town staff members, and local developers.
11 “’The optics are absolutely atrocious’: Community roundtable in Grimsby with developers questioned at council meeting”, Niagara This Week (November 7, 2023, updated November 9, 2023) https://www.niagarathisweek.com/news/council/the-optics-are-absolutely-atrocious-communityroundtable-in-grimsby-with-developers-questioned-at-council-meeting/article_c4da04e5-eff7-5126b349-5a9102d7d6df.html
12 Ibid
Charrois brought up the Oct. 12 meeting, which took place at the Casablanca Hotel, and wanted to know why the event wasn’t advertised, open to the public, or even on the town’s calendar.
She said the accountability factor for the event “sucked” and “the optics are absolutely atrocious.”
…
Coun. Reg Freake … said its purpose was to hear from developers how they think the town is doing in terms of process.
…
“I would caution you not to turn this into some kind of a conspiracy theory”, he said. “There were developers there from every single developer that has built or intends to build something in this town. So there was nobody left out … it wasn’t a council meeting. It was an event held by GEDAC.”
Jordan chimed in and said it was a really well-run event, meant to further communications in a luncheon setting.
Coun. Nick DiFlavio agreed with Charrois that the optics of the meeting are bad.
In the past, DiFlavio said he’s been to many events held by GEDAC, but it’s always ticketed, and anyone can buy a ticket, so he called this roundtable an “unusual experience.”
Coun. Jacob Baradziej ended the conversation by adding that council may be making a “mountain out of a molehill”.
“I think this initiative is a positive one”, he said, suggesting the town do some social media advertising next time …
Councillor Freake also attached some exhibits to his Affidavit, including the following email correspondence of October 26, 2023:
From: Veronica Charrois
To: Reg Freake
Cc: Council Members; Sarah Kim; Bonnie Nistico-Dunk
Sent: October 26, 2023, 1:52 pm
Subject: Gedac
Hello Reg,
I have an interest in watching the GEDAC meetings and a see that there are no videos of any meetings this term, as they have been taking place in the PKC boardroom. If there are videos floating around please direct me to them.
How does a council member access the full meeting discussions when there is no video available for viewing? I’m not loving the lack of transparency here. More questions to follow …
The Town’s Acting Director of Legislative Services/Town Clerk, Bonnie NisticoDunk, replied:
Just for the record, no Advisory Committee meetings are recorded. There is not enough staff, equipment or space to do so. We do meet the transparency requirements as staff are in the Advisory Committee meetings and they are taking notes which become public minutes (the record of the meeting). All the Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public, anyone can come into the room, just as they can in the Council Chambers. In the case of GEDAC, they do sometimes meet in local businesses, those locations, dates and times are posted for the public who wish to attend.
I hope this helps to clarify your concern.
The correspondence continued:
From: Veronica Charrois
Sent: October 26, 2023, 2:33 pm
Do we have any other advisory committees that are not recorded? I’m not familiar with any. 10:00 am meeting times is not an option for anyone with a day job.
From: Bonnie Nistico-Dunk
Sent: October 26, 2023, 2:44 pm
As I noted in my earlier response, No Advisory Committee meetings are recorded. In terms of the times of these meetings, the individuals on the committee voted for these times. I gather the business folk on GEDAC prefer a 10:00 a.m. time which is their choice.
From: Veronica Charrois
Sent: October 26, 2023, 3:12 pm
Library Green
Age Friendly Heritage Culture
All advisory committees. All recorded.
From: Bonnie Nistico-Dunk
Sent: October 26, 2023, 3:49 pm
Councillor Charrois:
The Grimsby Pubic Library is not an Advisory Committee it is a Board. This is different. To the best of knowledge, we have not recorded Age Friendly, Grimsby Green, GEDAC or Culture in this term of Council. Previously, however, Grimsby Green and GEDAC were recorded, in the last term of Council.
My mistake, we do record Heritage Advisory Committee, for Planning purposes as the Advisory Committee deals with a legislated piece, which is established under the Heritage Act.
I hope this provides some clarity.
SECOND AFFIDAVIT (DECEMBER 6, 2023)
Councillor Freake submitted a second complaint against Councillor Charrois on December 6, 2023 – which, as noted, our Office consolidated with the first affidavit:
…
DECEMBER 1ST, 2023, X POST OF MPP OOSTERHOFF
7. Mr. Sam Oosterhoff is the duly elected Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP)
for Niagara West …
8. On December 1st, 2023, MPP Oosterhoff posted to his social media accounts on X … and Facebook, posts regarding a meeting he had at his constituency office with the Provincial Minister of Transportation, Prabmeet Sarkaria.13
10. In the post, MPP Oosterhoff outlines three transportation items from the discussion he had with the Minister, which are issues affecting Grimsby and surrounding municipalities which the MPP also represents.
Sam Oosterhoff
Good to host Minister of Transportation @PrabSarkaria to advance Niagara West transportation priorities:
- Grimsby GO Station
- Widening the QEW
- North-South Escarpment crossing
EMAILS OF DECEMBER 2ND, 2023
11. On December 2nd, 2023, I received an email from the Respondent directed to all Members of Council and Ms. Sarah Kim, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for the Town of Grimsby, with the generic and ambiguous subject title of “Transportation”. In that email, the Respondent facetiously states:
From: Veronica Charrois
To: Sarah Kim; Members Council
Sent: December 2, 2023, 10:34 am
Subject: Transportation
Loved learning more major decisions were made for Grimsby via Oosterhoff’s social media pages.
I’m so very disappointed in the communication of this “team”. Always the last to know. This doesn’t happen in Lincoln.
13. Councillor Don Howe was the first to respond to this email …
13 https://twitter.com/samoosterhoff/status/1730764293602197814
What are you talking about?
14. Feeling as confused as Councillor Howe I replied to his email …
What were the decisions that were made??
15. Rather than receiving a simple or courteous explanation from the Respondent, they replied with an inflammatory …
Reg I think you know damn well what I’m talking about.
16. I was taken aback by the reply, however given the Respondent’s campaign of harassment against myself, other Members of Council, and Staff, the tone of the email and unwelcome inference was not surprising. Still uncertain of the Respondent’s concerns, I addressed the comment:
In fact, I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to infer and I do take offence to your tone.
17. Shortly thereafter Councillor Howe reiterated his request for clarification …
Veronica,
Can you clarify what you are talking about? Is it the picture of Sam and the Minister of Transportation?
18. The Respondent confirmed that their concerns related to the MPP’s post with the Minister and then ventures into the treacherous waters of unfounded allegations involving Staff and “some members of Council” with their belief of events “occurring behind closed doors”: …
Don,
Yes. Were there any discussions about transportation very recently with staff that “some members of council” may have known about? The gap in information sharing really ticks me off.
*My anger is not directed at you Don, but with what has been consistently occurring behind closed doors. What is the point of even having a council?
19. Councillor Howe then replied to the Respondent, providing comments on the three items in the MPP’s social media post and some sound advice to the
Respondent: …
Veronica,
None of this is new stuff. We have talked about an escarpment crossing for at least 30 years. Back then we kicked it down the road, and have been kicking it ever since. My NOM hopefully is supported by our council and by our two neighbours so that our voice gets louder. This area of the Province, Niagara Region, and West Lincoln needs a better way.
The QEW being widened has been floated out there for as long as I have been in the area. Every MPP has heard about the need to widen and therefore create more capacity.
Even in the short time on council there were not many meetings that the GO station was not mentioned in one way or another.
Our MPP has heard it all before. If he did not have the Minister’s ear and not bring these ongoing issues items would not be part of the discussion. As to members of staff I never miss an opportunity to talk to members of staff about OUR town, but mostly listen. We only learn if we listen more than we talk. Same with members of council and as anyone else who I feel I can learn something from.
As to Lincoln I live and work in Grimsby – my choice. And Judy and I could not have made a better decision.
20. The last reply in this thread … is from our CAO …
Hello Councillor,
I had to look this up as I have no information on this matter. I can assure you that we are not aware of all meetings that MPP Oosterhoff partakes that involves a Grimsby business item. As mentioned, these items have been discussed for years. You are part of Council that makes the decisions, and therefore aware that there have been no new major decisions. All matters would come formally through a Council meeting to advance business. Furthermore, as stated by Councillor Howe, this is the MPP doing his job. Again I reiterate that there were no formal communication provided by the MPP’s Office to Council.
RESPONDENT’S CODE CONTRAVENTIONS
21. The Respondent’s emails were written with malice and whether through literal interpretation, inference, or innuendo, are intended to mean and were understood to
mean inter alia:
a. That Council, Staff and/or individual Members of Council have been clandestinely working with MPP Sam Oosterhoff on issues of transportation;
b. That I have knowledge of, or I am involved with such nefarious activity;
c. That information on these issues is being purposely withheld from the Respondent;
d. That decisions on these issues have been made without the Respondent’s knowledge or input;
e. That the Council decision-making process has been bypassed;
f. That the Town of Grimsby, it’s Council, Staff and/or individual Members of Council have worked “behind closed doors” on these and other matters, contrary to established ethical standards and law;
g. That the Town of Grimsby, it’s Council and Staff, operate at a lower standard of integrity than the Town of Lincoln.
22. The Respondent began their emails with general inferences of wrongdoing resulting from the Ministry of Transportation meeting with our MPP to discuss local transportation concerns. They then escalate to bald and unfounded allegations against me, and other Members of Council working “behind closed doors”. …
23. The Respondent’s emails as set out above, represent a continued campaign of harassment against me, other Members of Council and Town Staff. This most recent incident supports a pattern of behaviour detailed in my previous complaint and continues to contravene s. 12.1 and s. 12.2 of the Code.
24. Simply as a result of our MPP posting about a meeting with the Minister on his social media accounts, the Respondent has engaged in another wild conspiracy theory. This has without merit or regard for the truth, impugned the reputations of Town of Grimsby Staff and all Members of Council, excluding the Respondent.
26. Accordingly, I allege that the Respondent has yet again contravened multiple sections of the Code of Conduct, specifically s. 4.1(a), (f), (i) and s. 8.4(a). And as mentioned previously, this incident should also be viewed as part of a pattern of unwelcome behaviour in the context of s. 12.1 and s. 12.2 as set out in the previous complaint.
Response
Councillor Charrois submitted the following Response on January 25, 2024: (emphases hers)
Within the first 100 days of our Council term, and with the assistance of independent facilitators, Council worked together to craft our Strategic Priorities, which were to provide direction for our term. Transparency were highlighted numerous times throughout the document. …
…
In May of 2023, Mayor Jordan and acting CAO Sarah Kim appointed Council Member to various committees. Once committees began to meet, it became apparent that certain committees were more open and transparent than others. By all accounts, the committees I am on have been very open and transparent. As Chair of the Community Services Committee, for example, the meetings are recorded and posted to YouTube for anyone to view. … Open communication helps Council members make better decisions when items come to Council, because they have all of the information. Additionally, it builds public trust.
When I started to find gaps in information sharing and became frustrated by the lack of information provided if one was not on certain committees, I tried to be proactive with reasonable solutions. The first is a notice of motion I brought to our Council Meeting on July 4, 2023, entitled Standing Committee Closed Sessions. … It makes me very uncomfortable making decisions (especially in closed sessions) when we do not have the same information as the council members who were in those closed sessions.
Coincidentally, the day I put this notice of motion in … Corporate Services Committee, chaired by Councillor Freake, met at 12 pm on July 4th, 2023. The meeting was an hour in length which included twenty-six minutes in closed session. …
…
On Aug. 8, 2023 we discussed and voted on my motion, Standing Committee Closed Session which after much discussion was ultimately defeated 7-2;
*During the discussion of my motion Councillor Freake insinuated I was a conspiracy theorist, shouted at me out of order and noted: “conflict of interest was real or perceived.”
At the same … Meeting, Council went into closed session at the very end of our meeting to discuss what we were told was going to be an update … regarding where were in the hiring of our Director of Planning, Director of Finance and our CAO Search. … Days later and upset by what I felt like a bait and switch agenda item, I asked our clerk… to allow me to hear the audio recording from the closed Council Meeting … (I was assured I’d be able to hear …) Ms. Nistico-Dunk’s response was that there was no audio recording. …
…
Unfortunately, but not surprised, the minutes dealing with that closed item are vague, offer very little information … Everything that had transpired to this point did not feel honest or transparent.
GEDAC TOURISM WORKING GROUP
…
A few notes on the GEDAC Committee:
In the previous term of Council the Grimsby Economic Advisory Committee meetings were video recorded and shared on the Town of Grimsby YouTube channel. … The video recordings were welcomed by all because it was open and transparent, and anyone with an interest in staying updated on the committee was able to do so. …
Since this new GEDAC Committee was formed in 2023, the Committee, now chaired by Councillor Freake, has operated in a secretive manner. Meetings are typically offsite, being held at various locations. … I mention this because taking these meetings offsite means that there is no longer any recording for an interested party such as myself to follow along. Why not continue to use Town Hall and record the meetings for the sake of transparency? I understand the need to make an exception here and there, but if we want to earn public trust, there must be a level of openness to the Community and Council.
The minutes for this committee have, in some instances, left out details about events that have occurred. Leaving out an update on the Community Roundtable is a prime example.
The inclusion of the Tourism Working Group was never identified as a Strategic Priority by the Council that took office in 2022. … At the Association of Municipalities of Ontario held in August of 2023, I was baffled to find that Councillor Freake had led delegations with Ontario MPPs related to a Tourism Working Group. … Councillor Freake should have been respectful of the priorities we identified as a Council and worked to move those items forward, not one without Council support. … It would have been more appropriate to seek council approval …
GEDAC Committee also spent money on a consultant without Council approval.
It was at the September 18th, 2023 Council meeting, that I moved a motion to lift the Tourism item for separate discussion. … I felt we needed to get clarity on whether we should continue to direct funds that were not budgeted for in such a way. … I had mentioned that if things had changed and we felt this should be included, that’s fine but we should have a discussion about it.
…
On September 20th, 2023, two days after Council had decided to prioritize Tourism and allocate money towards it, I posed the question to our Grimsby residents in a Facebook group I co-administer. In a neutral tone, I posted a poll … Within a few days, the poll indicated 51 votes (19%) YES while 207 votes (80%) were NO. This just reiterated that the Community was not sold on funding this Tourism initiative. … I felt the Community should have had a say in how their money was being used, which is why I asked for their feedback.
GEDAC COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE EVENT
On Thursday, October 12th, I received messages flagging the Gedac Community Roundtable Event. It was at this time that I learned it was invitation only, not on the Town of Grimsby Calendar, and was closed to Council Members outside of Councillor Freake, Councillor Howe, and Mayor Jordan. It was also at this time that many of the invited guests were
not disclosed. Invited guests outside of staff were mainly developers or in the development industry. … For an outsider, the Community Roundtable appeared to be a closed-door proceeding providing the opportunity for (condo) developers to discuss developments with only a select few Council members, privately. Grimsby has been pushed hard by the province to approve high-density condominiums in the past. This has been a very contentious issue among residents who are angry with the approvals and feel unheard and left in the dark when more condominiums are also approved. … Meeting with developers in a closed-door fashion does little to improve public confidence. … It has always been my hope that we as a council would operate in an open manner, yet some members have not been receptive to suggestions to improve transparency.
In response to my uneasiness about the lack of transparency from the Community Roundtable I introduced a Notice of Motion at our October 16th Council Meeting entitled Creation of a Lobbyist Registry. This too was defeated.
…
At the November 6, 2023, Council Meeting, having patiently waited three weeks for some verbal or written recap about the Roundtable event … I lifted the minutes for discussion about the Community Roundtable. My reservations came from the lack of transparency surrounding the event …
Although I had been asked for interviews from CBC I had declined them, yet various newspapers had covered the story and also expressed concerns similar to mine. In a CBC News article entitled Staff recommends Niagara town ask province to keep its Greenbelt sites removed, it stated that;14
“Local developers, officials met at private event. A month before Grimsby staff released their recommendations about the Greenbelt, the Town’s economic development advisory committee, senior staff and mayor held a private, invite-only luncheon.
The event was called a ‘community development roundtable’ and 14 “Staff recommends Niagara town ask province to keep its Greenbelt sites removed”, CBC News (November 18, 2023) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/grimsby-greenbelt1.7032140#:~:text=Hamilton,Staff%20recommends%20Niagara%20town%20ask%20province%20to%20keep%20its%20Greenbelt ,other%20protected%20farmland%20for%20development.
held at a hotel with dozens of local developers, investors and other builder stakeholders.
The town confirmed the event occurred oct. 12 but declined to provide a list of those who attended citing privacy concerns. The event was not advertised to the public or live streamed and no minutes taken.”
Clearly, the private event that involved developers, while not being open about who attended appeared questionable to others as well.
In the same article, “Hamilton based researcher Chris Erl, a politics and public administration post doctoral fellow at Toronto Metropolitan University called the situation ‘strange; and said the entire idea of a closeddoor meeting between those who stand to profit off municipal decisions and municipal officials is rather contrary to good governance practices.”
Mike Marcongo, campaign director for the Greenbelt Promise noted that “the roundtable appears to be a backroom meeting that’s both astounding and mindboggling … He called on town council and staff to demonstrate otherwise by being more transparent.”
Furthermore, when I asked about who attended the event Councillor Freake was not honest in his response when he said there was one other Council member, Councillor Howe, who attended. He knew Mayor Jordan was also there but chose not to mention he was in attendance. Mayor Jordan mentioned on his own that he also attended.
When I asked if Grimsby Greenbelt developers were there, Councillor Freake was not forthcoming with that information. … We know now that the Greenbelt developers were at the event despite Councillor Freake’s attempt to sidestep the question. If it was truly appropriate to engage with the Greenbelt developers in such a manner at such a time, then why the dishonest answers and secrecy?
…
The potential release of greenbelt land was/is a highly contentious issue with RCMP investigation. To operate in such a secretive fashion erodes public
Reply
confidence. …
The manner in which the Roundtable occurred, given how contentious the issue was, raised many eyebrows and made all of Grimsby Council look bad. Plain and simple, Councillor Freake is deflecting his own poor judgment on me when he should have made better decisions and acted in a more transparent fashion.
Following the Roundtable Discussion, my motion, Creation of the Lobbyist Registry, was discussed and defeated. … I understand that it was Council’s will not to move forward with it, but it shows that I have made several attempts to improve Council transparency to no avail. …
COUNCILLOR REG FREAKE
Councillor Freake has been a bully from the get-go. … [W]hen I do not agree with his position he raises his voice and makes demeaning comments … The considerate thing to do would have been an informal complaint to address [his] concerns or have a calm (mediated) discussion. … I have never had a complaint from staff and Councillor Freake’s ongoing narrative seems as though he’s trying to make me paranoid to speak with staff and/or keep me from having any communication with them at all. If I don’t have an open line of communication with our Mayor or Staff, who am I to get information from to make informed decisions?
Councillor Freake also writes in his complaint “In all honesty, I am genuinely concerned for respondent’s overall wellbeing.” One with genuine concern might ask how I am doing or offer to deal with these issues privately. … His statement was purely to discredit and embarrass me publicly. This is not the action of a “concerned” council member. …
… My hope is that we can have civil discussions in Council Chambers while maintaining transparency to our Grimsby residents. …
Councillor Freake submitted a Reply on February 9, 2024:
… [T]he respondent has taken very broad liberties and for the most part has avoided answering the specific issues addressed in my initial complaints. Additionally, through the course of her reply the respondent has, in principle, basically filed their own unrelated and rambling counter-complaint against me.
However, I have taken much time and trouble and, to the best of my ability, addressed her many new allegations …
INTRODUCTION
2. The respondent largely and wrongly attempts to justify their breaches of the Code of Conduct under the colour of pursuing Council’s priorities of openness and transparency. … [A] breach of the Code of Conduct is still a contravention.
3. It is abundantly clear the respondent in their reply has no defence to the allegations …
4. In these instances, it would appear the respondent’s real issue is with Council’s decisions, which she is obligated to support. … It is my opinion that the respondent’s approach of “attack not defend” is a veiled attempt to mislead or obstruct the investigation.
RESPONDENT’S OPENING REMARKS
6. … It is quite clear that they harbour a great deal of animosity towards myself and other Members of Council. All members of Council, including the Respondent, are part of a collective body. Neither I or any single Member of Council makes Council decisions, we do so as a democratic and unified body; this important cornerstone of municipal government seems to be lost on the respondent.
…
8. … [T]he respondent has essentially slandered every other committee, their Chairs, Staff and Members. Those statements, when plainly read, are highly suggestive that every other committee other than the one the respondent is on, is lacking openness and transparency.
9. The respondent then goes on to use the Community Services Committee … as being more transparent for the fact its meetings are livestreamed. … [A]ll Standing Committees are livestreamed, so that claim is unremarkable. …
MOTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
…
38. The respondent’s other motion regarding the creation of a “Lobbyist Registry” was defeated by Council 8 to 1. There is no legislated requirement for such a registry, and the number of municipalities on Ontario who do have such registries, is a small number, approximately 9 out of 444 municipalities. With the exception of Collingwood, which only instituted such a registry after an $8 million judicial inquiry into serious wrongdoings, most of the municipalities that do have these are large, such as Burlington and Toronto.
GEDAC MEETINGS – LIVESTREAMING
41. … Only a handful of the previous-term GEDAC meetings were livestreamed, and these meetings were only done so as a COVID pandemic measure. …
42. This term of Council voted not to livestream Advisory Committee meetings based on the rationale that these meetings should be less formal and rather only livestream Standing Committees. This was passed by Council on May 1st, 2023, upon recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, in report TC-230815 …
43. GEDAC is an Advisory Committee and as such, is not livestreamed. This once again clearly demonstrates the respondent’s inability to accept Council’s decisions or not researching matters before making harassing allegations against GEDAC Members, Staff and myself.
…
15 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=25278
GEDAC MEETINGS – MINUTES
…
46. The respondent displays a clear lack of regard and understanding of our Procedure By-law and the basic principles of parliamentary procedure. …
GEDAC MEETINGS – LOCATIONS
…
49. … Quite simply, GEDAC represents businesses and pursues the goal of promoting existing businesses and innovating new economic development within the Town.
50. A large part of that mandate means getting out into the community and meeting with stakeholders, we cannot expect them to come to us. One cannot drive economic development by simply sitting in Council Chambers, it involves being in the community and communicating to stakeholders that the Town is “open for business.” Therefore, we can and do go offsite as it is in line with our mandate and deemed appropriate by Staff.
51. Regardless of location, our meetings are open to the public as required by the Municipal Act, 2001. There is nothing preventing the respondent from attending any of our meetings, as long as it does not induce a possible quorum of Council. …
52. As a counterexample, I could rhetorically ask the respondent why the Grimsby Public Library Board, of which prior to resigning, they were a Member of, hosts meetings outside of Twon Hall and does not livestream those proceedings. This is also true of the Culture Committee. …
GEDAC TOURISM WORKING GROUP
…
57. As Chair of GEDAC, I commenced the discussion at AMO to support economic growth within our town. …
58. A delegation to AMO can be submitted by any group from the Town, Council approval is not required as they are an open-ended process coordinated by Staff. For
instance, the Grimsby Green Committee submitted two delegation requests … …
61. The delegation was well-supported by other Members of Council and Staff and I received an abundance of positive-feedback afterwards. I do not know why the respondent is determined to frustrate positive initiatives and decisions of GEDAC, as well as the very Council that the respondent is a part of and the Town which she was elected to represent.
…
66. The respondent further details how they solicited, on their own private Facebook group, a public “opinion” on the Tourism strategy. …
67. Why is the respondent soliciting this opinion from the public, after Council has made a decision, instead of respecting and supporting Council’s decision as required by the Code of Conduct. The respondent’s wording on Facebook does not accurately communicate the decision of Council, as required by the Code and infers a decision is yet to be made. Further, the use of multiple dollar signs ($$$) infers that there is a significant cost that would be incurred. This is deliberately misleading the public, or at least members of that social media group. … THE GEDAC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE EVENT …
74. Despite my detailed breakdown of the invitation list and the fields of those who attended in my initial complaint, the respondent still insists that those who were invited or attended “were mainly developers or in the development industry.” The respondent has not provided any evidence to support their repeated claim. …
76. There are no minutes of the event nor was it livestreamed, as it was not a meeting as defined by the Municipal Act, 2001 nor do I think it would be rational or possible to try record details of exactly who was doing what at a business luncheon. There was no business advanced, it was simply a feedback mechanism …
PERSONAL COMMENTS – “COUNCILLOR REG FREAKE”
89. There is a great sense of irony that the respondent has labeled me as a “bully from the get-go.” It is ironic that this comment comes from the respondent who has been engaged in a repeated and unwelcome pattern of harassment against me, GEDAC Members and Staff.
…
92. … I do not file complaints for pleasure, but when the respondent’s behaviours have become so out of hand, it is an unfortunate step that I have had to take, twice.
93. Based on the respondent’s continuous negative behaviour towards myself and others, I knew we were well past the point of an informal process. There are so many actions and behaviours I have witnessed … that are not rational. …
INTERVIEWS WITH PARTIES (“FIRST” INVESTIGATION)
Councillor Freake
I spoke with Councillor Freake. He said GEDAC’s purpose is to attract, retain, and expand new business in Grimsby, and it’s comprised of two councillors, Town staff, local senior business executives, and some non-voting liaison members. He said its members include people from sectors like manufacturing, tourism, environment, and employment agencies; he wants the committee to try to be informative and cover cross-sections of the business landscape. Councillor Freake said his background is as a corporate executive, and he wants to ensure the Town does the right things for people living and investing there. He confirmed that GEDAC considered tourism part of economic development, and a lot of events and places in town would interest tourists – so GEDAC wants to develop a tourism strategy because they see it as an economic development driver, and Council approved the working group.
Councillor Freake said Standing Committees report directly into Town Council, and are made up of four voting councillors and usually 3-4 members of the public. He noted that Advisory Committees report to Standing Committees, so Advisory Committee minutes would go to the relevant Standing Committee and then to
Council – and GEDAC reports to the Finance Standing Committee, which Councillor Charrois is part of. Councillor Freake said everyone on Council and GEDAC is very familiar with the closed meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 they must abide by, and Councillor Charrois knows the rules as well as anybody. He asserted that Councillor Charrois is focused on him for some reason, and suspects conspiracies that he’s doing things that he shouldn’t be.
Councillor Freake said meetings of Council, Standing Committees, and Committees of the Whole are recorded, but Advisory Committees aren’t. But he said every Advisory Committee has a clerk who take minutes of the meetings, everything gets voted on, and anyone, including the general public, can attend. He said Town Council sets the rules for meetings, and one of the first things Council did during this term was set those approved policies and procedures. Councillor Freake didn’t recall why the Town stopped recording Advisory Committee meetings, but everything was recorded for two years during the previous term because everything was on Zoom then.
I asked Councillor Freake why Council voted against Councillor Charrois’ motion to initiate a lobbyist registry. He said Grimsby is a small town, and part of Niagara Region, which has a system in place for that. He said Grimsby is a bedroom community and has never received anything close to a lobbyist complaint, and it doesn’t have the budget or money to be retaining things like that – so there is no point in duplicating effort when they can go to the Region. He thought Councillor Charrois had an ulterior motive, because her request was so unusual.
Councillor Freake described that Councillor Charrois’ December 2, 2023 emails were another attempt to discredit him across all of Council. He said Councillor Charrois’ has continually questioned Town staff and disrespected their opinions behind the scenes, when Town staff are the subject matter experts and Councillors are not.
Councillor Freake opined that Councillor Charrois’ actions towards him were “harassment” because they were premeditated and she was trying to discredit him and GEDAC, which operates legitimately within the Town’s rules. He said her actions created doubts about him and the committee, which is made up of reputable business people who also aren’t happy about her actions. He said no one will contribute if a councillor will go on picking on them in the public domain. He thought Councillor Charrois should be held to task with meaningful consequences – she should be supporting what GEDAC is trying to do in the Town’s best interests. He suggested that she is a conspiracy theorist and he is worried that she’ll cause some serious damage to people and herself. He said he
doesn’t need his job if he is going to have a councillor continually demean and pick at him publicly.
Councillor Charrois
I communicated with Councillor Charrois in writing, per her preference. I asked her to describe what she believed had been taking place “behind closed doors” at the Town, to which she replied that Councillor Freake has conducted meetings behind closed doors this term – she wasn’t suggesting those meetings were nefarious, but rather that they were secretive and unknown to many of his fellow Council members. She said Councillor Freake has conducted meetings at Town Hall that as far as she was aware weren’t with Town staff or constituents, and at least once he had catered food for his guests. She added that Councillor Freake delegated to a provincial Minister at the 2023 AMO convention regarding incentivizing a major corporation to launch in Grimsby, but Councillor Freake, Mayor Jordan, and Frank Miele (the Town’s Economic Development Officer) wouldn’t disclose to anybody there who the mystery corporation was, only that it was huge and must remain secret. She felt those three men obviously held at least one meeting with the anonymous corporation.
Councillor Charrois said she has mentioned several times that GEDAC holds meetings off-site without recording them, close to Town Hall where the Council Chambers is equipped to record those meetings, whereas GEDAC meetings were recorded in the previous term. She said GEDAC’s minutes don’t adequately describe all of the events it has held, including not updating Council on GEDACsponsored events, and events like the Grimsby Community Roundtable weren’t advertised on the Town’s website or open to the public or councillors who weren’t part of GEDAC. Councillor Charrois said every Town Committee and Board she has been on has recorded their meetings, and she believed some Advisory Committees do too at their Chair’s discretion. She said Mayor Jordan and the former Town Clerk created those rules.
With respect to her December 2, 2023 emails following Sam Oosterhoff’s X post, Councillor Charrois said she has never emailed Councillor Freake on his own – she emailed Council privately, and didn’t post it to social media. She said Councillor Baradziej told her shortly before that a meeting was being held at Town Hall for which staff required a confidentiality agreement, and Councillor Freake was upset he wasn’t allowed to attend. Councillor Baradziej inferred it might have been GO train-related, and it struck Councillor Charrois as another unanswered question some Council members knew about but that others didn’t. She said she was frustrated because the Town has had large gaps in information-sharing, and many
times councillors have learned about major Town decisions that enraged the community from the local newspaper. She said this abuses power, harms the Town’s reputation, and leaves councillors unable to represent or assist constituents as they were elected to do.
I asked Councillor Charrois to describe what she believed constituted a “meeting” or a “closed meeting” for the Town, but she felt the question was inapplicable and opted not to answer it.
With respect to her December 2, 2023 emails, Councillor Charrois said she only expanded when asked to reply. She said Councillor Freake, Councillor Vardy, and Mayor Jordan regularly respond to group emails in an arrogant and dismissive fashion. In particular, she voiced her opinion that Councillor Freake “is as arrogant as uncourteous as it gets,” and felt that for him to criticize her email etiquette was hypocritical. In her view, Councillor Freake has been bullying her since Council began only because she is a woman who sometimes challenges him. She said Councillor Freake is a bully who continues to harass and regularly belittle her, and he has implied she is a conspiracy theorist during public Council meetings. She said she has seen Councillor Freake react similarly to Councillors Davoli and Korstanje when they disagree, so she concluded that he can’t stand strong female opposition. In hindsight, she thought she should have asked the CAO about Mr. Oosterhoff’s post instead of attempting to have a conversation with the Town’s “dysfunctional” Council.
With respect to her September 20, 2023 Facebook poll, Councillor Charrois said her intent was to ask residents whether they wanted tax money invested in tourism, which wasn’t a strategic priority then, and the Economic Development Officer was directing significant time towards it without Council direction. She said her poll was very neutral in tone, and resulted in a 207-51 vote against investing in tourism. She added that she stated at Council it was her opinion – i.e., “these are my opinions at this point, but open to change if someone can provide it’s a wise financial investment; so far that’s been lacking.”
With respect to her October 2023 Facebook comment about not wanting to be “lumped in” with other Council members, Councillor Charrois said Council has been criticized mercilessly regarding Greenbelt decisions, and she has been subjected to ongoing daily slander and harassment because people think it was unanimous when in fact she voted against it. She felt it was unfair to suggest she couldn’t let people know how she voted because Council’s decisions went against everything she stood for and harmed her personal and professional reputation. She said Mayor Horwath and other Hamilton councillors have been vocal about
the majority on their Council who didn’t approve housing development on Stoney Creek parking land, so she had the same right to advocate for herself and let others know that she didn’t support something other councillors supported. She disagreed with Councillor Freake’s characterization of Council’s vote on that matter, but didn’t elaborate further.
Councillor Charrois said Councillor Freake was using his complaint to publicly discredit, gaslight, embarrass, intimidate, and harass her, rather than admit his wrongdoings. She said she has never had any complaints from Town staff, and has positive working relationships with everyone at Town Hall and the majority of Council, outside of Councillor Freake, Mayor Jordan, and Councillor Vardy. She concluded that guests at the Community Roundtable appeared to be mostly developers, and the presentation items she saw from Town staff were purely development-related. She said Councillor Baradziej called her on the day of the meeting (i.e., I infer the GEDAC Roundtable) to alert her about it, expressing dismay that Councillor Freake told him he wasn’t allowed to attend when he asked if he could. (Councillor Baradziej is a member of the GEDAC, at least as of July 2024.)
16 She said Councillor Baradziej sent her a partial list of the invited guests (which she described as ‘partial’ because Councillor Freake’s numbers were higher, so Councillor Baradziej might have withheld some guests from her); but within the list she recognized many of the developers, political staff members, and the consultant for the Greenbelt properties.
She said she is a new councillor still learning Council procedures, but rather than helping her learn and excel in her new role, Councillor Freake and Mayor Jordan ridicule her and have made her time on Council unbearable – she felt she should have been the one who filed complaints against them, because they were in the wrong.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH PARTIES (“SECOND” INVESTIGATION)
Councillor Freake
At my request, Councillor Freake sent me various files and information on May 30, 2024 pertaining to the invitees and attendees for GEDAC’s October 12, 2023 Roundtable. He said he obtained his working lists directly from Ms. Nicole Divok
16 https://www.grimsby.ca/town-hall/boards-andcommittees/#:~:text=Grimsby%20Economic%20Advisory%20Committees%20(GEDAC)&text=The% 20Committee%20recommends%20to%20Council,critical%20areas%20such%20as%20tourism.
– the Town employee who sent the invitations. Councillor Freake said he had gone through each of the names and entities who were invited or attended, and vetted line-by-line what sector they were in, including consulting their websites. He said this detailed look resulted in some differences from the numbers in his original complaint, but the revised numbers still sustained his original allegations. His data can be summarized as follows:
Councillor Freake said the data made clear that the attendees weren’t “mostly developers”, nor that “80% of the people that were not Staff our Council were developers”, as Councillor Charrois had claimed on November 6, 2023.
The Roundtable invitation email read as follows:
From: Economic Development
To: Economic Development
Subject: Grimsby Community Development Roundtable: Moving Forward Together
Sent: August 29, 2023, 1:15 pm
Dear Guest,
We are delighted to extend an exclusive invitation to you for our upcoming community development roundtable event, focused on shaping the future of Grimsby’s development landscape. This invite-only gathering will bring together important stakeholders with other key members of Grimsby’s development community, the Grimsby Chamber of Commerce, and the Town’s leadership team for an insightful and candid discussion.
The purpose of the invitation is to foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and identifying gaps the Town can improve on. We want to strengthen our relationship and find solutions to issues that hinder growth. We welcome your participation because we believe in transparency and direct dialogue, which is why this luncheon presents a unique opportunity to engage with our development community, exchange insights, and stay updated on the latest issues in our Town. Whether you’re a seasoned professional or just starting your journey in Grimsby’s development, this event promises to offer valuable connections and enriching discussions.
Event Highlights:
Meaningful Interaction: Engage in open discussions.
Process Efficiency: Explore opportunities to streamline the development processes.
Community Growth: Brainstorm innovative strategies to enhance Grimsby’s overall growth
Collaborative Solutions: Work together towards a shared vision for a prosperous future.
Networking: Connect with like-minded professionals
Agenda
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023
Time: 11:30 AM – 2:00 PM
Location: Casablanca Hotel
Welcome and Introductions
Update: Grimsby developments and governance/administrative challenges
Buffet Luncheon
Open Discussion & Feedback: sharing experiences, concerns, and solutions
Identifying Actionable Steps: how can Grimsby improve and explore innovative ways to collaborate
Conclusions and networking
We anticipate a follow-up session in April, to present solutions to the identified actionable items and how we can further improve our service, and changes in the development process.
Kindly RSVP by September 22nd to secure your spot at this exclusive gathering. Space is limited, so be sure to confirm your attendance early. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or special dietary requirements (economicdevelopment@grimsby.ca).
We look forward to your presence at this first-ever Community Development Roundtable luncheon, where your insights and expertise will contribute significantly in shaping Grimsby’s future.
Please join us on Thursday, October 12 – let’s create the action plan for Moving Forward Together!
Contact Information:
Frank Miele
Economic Development Officer
Town of Grimsby …
Nicole Divok
Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer
Town of Grimsby …
Councillor Freake said the invitation lists qualified as “records” under the Town’s custody, pursuant to s. 4(1) of the MFIPPA, and therefore access to those records was contingent on following the legislated process. He said the MFIPPA accords Members of Council no special access to any municipal records, and in fact the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”) has often repeated the following position, published in “Working with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: A Councillor’s Guide” (“Councillor’s Guide”):17
“An elected official does not have any special right of access to information under the Act. The rules of the Act concerning access requests apply to councillors in the same manner as they do to the general public.”
Councillor Freake asserted that one of the MFIPPA’s key principles is the protection of personal information, which he felt the invitation and attendance lists included – although he acknowledged only the Town’s Clerks department or the IPC had expertise to determine disclosure, redactions, privacy impacts, and whether non-disclosure exceptions applied. But he said one of the MFIPPA’s purposes was to ensure documents were scrutinized by those trained in the Act.
17 https://www.ipc.on.ca/sites/default/files/legacy/Resources/counc-e.pdf
Councillor Freake said the Town’s Access to Information procedures18 prescribe how Members of Council and the public may request information from the Town, which Councillor Charrois needed to follow. He added that section 7.1(a) of the Code of Conduct mandates that a Member shall:
a) Only be entitled to have access to information in the possession of the Town that is relevant to matters before Council or a Committee or that is relevant to his or her role as a Member of Council. Otherwise, he or she shall have the same access rights to information as any member of the public
Councillor Freake said he was entitled to the information in the lists because it directly related to discharging his duties as Chair of the GEDAC, but Councillor Charrois had no role in GEDAC, and the event wasn’t before Council, so she had no legitimate access to the invitation and attendance lists, other than through a properly-filed MFIPPA request. He submitted that mere curiosity, or a political ‘fishing expedition’ under the guise of “transparency”, didn’t override MFIPPA, which ensures that information goes through a proper procedure to determine if it is suitable for disclosure to the requestor. He added that section 7.2(a) of the Code of Conduct mandates Members not to attempt to access confidential information under the Town’s custody “except in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act” – so if Councillor Charrois obtained or saw the lists without going through MFIPPA, then she circumvented the provincially and municipally prescribed legal processes.
Councillor Charrois
Following Town Council’s May 21, 2024 direction, which left no doubt that it specifically wanted our Office to consider decorum matters during a Council meeting within this investigation, I emailed Councillor Charrois on May 28, 2024 and asked her specific questions respecting issues that had previously been excluded or I had no information about – (1) whether she believed she was allowed to see the invitation list pursuant to the MFIPPA; and (2) how she would address Councillor Freake’s assertion that the invitation list wasn’t factually “mostly developers”, as she had stated on November 6, 2023.
Councillor Charrois never responded to my message, despite being given generous time to do so. I ultimately determined three weeks later that it was appropriate to proceed without further input from Councillor Charrois.
18 https://www.grimsby.ca/town-hall/access-to-information-foi/
Relevant Code of Conduct Provisions
The relevant provisions of the Town’s Code of Conduct that Councillor Freake identified were the following:
3. Definitions
3.1 In this Code:
k) “harassment” or “harass” involves engaging in a course of behaviour, limited to any behaviour, conduct or comment by a Member that is directed at or comment or conduct, whether it occurs inside or outside the work environment, that is or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. It includes but is not is offensive to another person:
i. on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status, as well as any other grounds under the provisions of the Human Rights Code; or
ii. which is reasonably perceived by the recipient as an intention to bully, embarrass, intimidate, or ridicule the recipient;
n) “meeting” means any legally-constituted meeting of Council or a Local Board;
4. Conduct of Members
4.1 In all respects, Members shall:
a) Make every effort to act with good faith and care; of the Council or any committee and in accordance with the Town’s Procedural; 19
b) Conduct themselves with integrity, courtesy, and respectability at all meetings By-law or other applicable procedural rules and policies; …
f) Refrain from making statements the Member knows, or ought reasonably
19 Sections 4.1 (a) and (b) of the Code are clearly transposed with each other. Until they are formally corrected, Mr. Maynard has commented on the interpretation of these provisions in the past.
to know, to be false or with the intent to mislead Council or the public;
g) Accurately communicate the decisions of Council and respect Council’s decision-making process even if they disagree with Council’s ultimate determinations and rulings;
h) Make it clear that he or she is expressing a personal opinion when expressing disagreement with a decision of Council; and
i) Refrain from making disparaging comments about another Member or unfounded accusations about the motives of another Member.
8. Staff Relations
8.3 A member shall:
a) Respect the professional competence of staff and acknowledge that staff is required to provide objective advice while remaining neutral, carry out directions of council as a whole, and administer the policies of the Town without undue influence from any Member.
8.4 No Member shall:
a) Maliciously or falsely impugn, or without sufficient cause criticize, the professional or ethical reputation of any staff.
12. Harassment
12.1 No Member shall harass any other Member, any staff, or any member of the public.
12.2 A Member shall observe and comply with any workplace harassment and workplace violence policies of the Town.
Procedural By-Law
The Town’s Procedural By-Law20 sets out the rules of conduct, order, and decorum applicable to its Members of Council during Town Council and Committee meetings. Notable provisions for this include the following:
5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5.3 Chair
(1) The Chair, will act as presiding officer for the meeting
(2) …
(3) It is the role of a Chair of a meeting to:
f) Restrain the members, within the rules of order, when engaged in debate
g) Enforce on all occasions of the rules and the observance of order and decorum amongst the Members, and the conduct of Members
i) Call by name any member persisting in breach of the procedure of Council, thereby ordering the Member to vacate the Council Chambers
j) Decide all questions of order at the meeting, subject to an appeal by any Member on any question of order in respect to business before Council
5.4 Members of Council
(1) It is the role of the Members of Council to:
20 Town of Grimsby Procedural By-law 20-65 Consolidated https://www.grimsby.ca/media/4m1hfi3u/procedure-by-law-20-65-2023-amendment.pdf
e) Respect the rules of procedures at all meetings
8. RULES OF CONDUCT AND DEBATE/DECORUM (RULES OF DEBATE)
8.1 Rules of Debate
(1) The Chair shall preside over the conduct of the meeting including the preservation of order and decorum, ruling on points of order and deciding all questions relating to the orderly procedure of the meeting, subject to an appeal to the Council.
(2) Any Member who wishes to speak must raise their hand and be recognized by the Chair.
(3) When two or more Members wish to speak, the Cahir shall recognize the Member who, in the opinion of the Chair, first signified their intention to speak.
8.4 Speaking Limitations
(1) No Member shall speak to a question or motion until the Member has been recognized by the Chair. After being recognized by the Chair, all remarks shall be respectfully made through the Chair.
8.8 Decorum at Council and Committee Meetings
(1) Meetings will maintain a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere at all times regardless of any individual’s perspective. All participants shall be treated with respect and courtesy. The following rules of decorum shall apply to meetings:
a) Conducted in a manner that encourages open dialogue and a free exchange of ideas.
b) All participants are responsible for maintaining an orderly meeting, free from indecent or insulting language, name calling, assigning blame, personal attacks or condemning the motives of others.
c) No participant shall engage in disruptive or distracting behaviour in such manner as to interrupt the meeting in any manner. …
f) No participant shall interrupt or distract a person who has the floor. Any Member may interrupt only to raise a point of order.
g) Any participant persisting in a breach of decorum will receive a warning from the Chair. Continued breach may result in the microphones being turned off and/or the participant being asked to leave the meeting.
…
November 6, 2023 Council Meeting
I reviewed the relevant portion of the November 6, 2023 Council meeting21 – which spanned from [00:52:00] to [01:07:52]. Councillor Charrois began by asking if any Members of Council, developers, and/or provincial Progressive Conservative or Greenbelt developers were present at the GEDAC Roundtable.22 Councillor Freake described who was present (including Councillor Howe and senior Town staff) and the meeting’s purpose, and said no elected officials from the Ontario PC Party were present.23 Mayor Jordan said he was also there and gave greetings on behalf of Council, and commended the event.24 Councillor Charrois asked if Greenbelt developers and/or Ontario PC Party officials or staff were there, because she had seen them on the invite list,25 and she felt it should have been recorded in the meeting minutes. Mayor Jordan interjected and said it was an ‘event’, not a
21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoxoHdyeEU4
22 Ibid, at (52:27)
23 Ibid, at (53:55)
24 Ibid, at (54:32)
25 Ibid, at (55:30)
‘meeting’.26 Councillor Freake cautioned Councillor Charrois against turning this into a conspiracy theory,27 and said developers were present from all developers that developed (or intended to) anything in the Town, with none left out. He appeared to be replying to another councillor speaking over him as he was speaking – I infer Councillor Charrois, based on his written submission and the general dynamic of the meeting. Councillor Charrois again asked if anybody from the ‘Greenbelt developments’ was there, because she saw the invite list.28 Councillor Freake said he didn’t want to mention names29 but there might have been developers from the Greenbelt developments there, but also asked rhetorically if they should have been left out because they were developers. Councillor Charrois said her point was the accountability factor “sucked basically,”30 and from speaking with other municipal councillors she thought the optics were “absolutely atrocious.”31 She felt the Roundtable wasn’t open, and said she’d greatly appreciate more openness in future.32 Councillor Howe spoke, following which Mayor Jordan spoke to an upcoming Green Committee event that was also an invitation-based Roundtable not open to the public, and it wasn’t a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001. 33 Councillor Charrois asked if Greenbelt developers would be there – to which other councillors audibly responded in disbelief.34 Mayor Jordan asked Councillor Freake for order, and replied that he really took offence – there was nothing wrong with the event, and he commended the GEDAC for the event they put together.35 Mr. Harold Madi (Director of Planning) was given an opportunity to speak to the event.36 Councillor Charrois appreciated Mr. Madi’s response, and thought it would have perhaps been better to call the Roundtable some kind of planning or development workshop,37 because she heard from a non-developer they got nothing out of the event and it was primarily development-driven.
ANALYSIS
This Office’s role is to analyze whether Councillor Charrois’ actions, as described
26 Ibid, at (56:08)
27 Ibid, at (56:20)
28 Ibid, at (57:17)
29 Ibid, at (57:36)
30 Ibid, at (58:02)
31 Ibid, at (58:13)
32 Ibid, at (58:33)
33 Ibid, at (59:50)
34 Ibid, at (1:00:15)
35 Ibid, at (1:00:22)
36 Ibid, from (1:03:20) to (1:06:25)
37 Ibid, at (1:06:35)
in Councillor Freake’s complaints, contravened the Code of Conduct. Nothing in the Code of Conduct’s Complaint Protocol allows a counter-complaint to be made in responding to a complaint – Councillor Charrois made some allegations against Councillor Freake, but this investigation is not about Councillor Freake’s conduct. I allowed the inclusion of many of Councillor Charrois’ statements in her defence, but if she wished to formally complaint about Councillor Freake’s alleged conduct towards her, then she had to formally submit her own complaint, as Councillor Freake did against her. I note that the Complaint Protocol includes a six-month limitation period, in section 1(e).
There is obviously an interpersonal dispute between the two councillors that seems to be worsening over time. Both evidently believe that the other bullies or harasses them and others, and Councillor Charrois dislikes Councillor Freake calling her a “conspiracy theorist”. While both councillors effectively invited me to opine on this, I believe there is little value in formally taking a side in what seems to predominantly be an interpersonal dispute, and I don’t believe it would assist in reaching any resolution. My focus herein is on whether evidence shows Councillor Charrois breached the Code of Conduct. Although some allegations weren’t corroborated, I am satisfied she did in several ways, for the following reasons.
Councillor Charrois’ September 2023 Facebook poll
Shortly after Town Council affirmed GEDAC ‘s initiative to establish a Tourism Working Group on September 18, 2023, Councillor Charrois posted the following poll to Facebook:
Request For Feedback (Poll)
Should Grimsby Council financially invest $$$ in a Grimsby Tourism Strategy?
Yes 19%
No 81%
At the time of that poll, Council had already voted to establish the Tourism Working Group – so there was nothing left for Council to actually decide. That is clear from the September 18, 2023 Council minutes:38
8. Adoption of Previous Minutes
38 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=27807
8.4 Finance committee – September 14, 2023
C-23-250
Resolved that a tourism working group be established consisting of Frank Commisso, Councillor Howe, Rebecca Shelley, Belinda Anderson and Simon Duong for a term of 18 months
CARRIED (7 to 2)
Councillor Charrois asked the Facebook group whether the Town should “financially invest $$$ in a Grimsby Tourism Strategy”. Given its timing, that can only reasonably be interpreted as criticism of Council’s then-recent decision, and a misrepresentation by suggesting that a decision remained to be made. The post breached sections 4.1(f) and (g) of the Code of Conduct, which mandate that all Members:
f) Refrain from making statements the Member knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be false or with the intent to mislead Council or the public; g) Accurately communicate the decisions of Council and respect Council’s decision-making process even if they disagree with Council’s ultimate determinations and rulings;
Even if Councillor Charrois didn’t know that her post was false or misleading, I find that she reasonably ought to have known, given the circumstances that were clear.
Councillor Charrois’ October 2023 Facebook post
At its October 16, 2023 meeting, Town Council discussed a number of matters related to proposed provincial changes to Greenbelt lands. Evidence of these
discussions are clear in the meeting’s minutes:39
15. Notice of Motions
15.1 Councillor DiFlavio - Costing of Greenbelt Changes
C-23-268
Whereas, the Town of Grimsby has incurred significant legal, consulting, and staff time costs of approximately $82,000 as a direct result of the pressure placed upon the Town by the provincial government to reach agreements with developers and make decisions related to changes in the Greenbelt Act; and
Whereas, this pressure included deadlines set by the Minister of Housing, which, if not met, would have resulted in decisions being made without the municipality's involvement; and
Whereas, the municipality had to allocate resources, including the Town's solicitor and consultants, as well as a substantial amount of staff time to address these matters, impacting our regular municipal operations and projects; and
Whereas, the Town of Grimsby had initially anticipated that all costs incurred would be offset by fees associated with the developments affected by the changes to the Greenbelt; and
Whereas, the recent changes in the Greenbelt Act, which reinstated all lands in the Town of Grimsby into the Greenbelt, have effectively eliminated the opportunity for the Town to recoup these expenses through the anticipated development fees, thus exacerbating the financial impact on the municipality; and
Whereas, the financial burden borne by the Town of Grimsby is a direct consequence of actions taken beyond the municipality's control; and
Whereas, the Town of Grimsby seeks financial reimbursement to alleviate the incurred costs and to ensure fiscal responsibility and fairness.
Therefore, be it resolved that the Town of Grimsby formally requests financial
39 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=27995
reimbursement from the provincial government for the legal, consulting, and staff time costs, approximately $82,000, incurred due to the pressure exerted by the provincial government and developers regarding changes in the Greenbelt Act; and
Further, be it resolved that the Town of Grimsby communicates this request to the provincial government and to our member of provincial parliament, emphasizing the need for accountability and fairness in addressing the financial consequences imposed on the municipality; and
Further, be it resolved that the CAO and the designated team be authorized to engage in negotiations with the relevant parties to pursue the reimbursement of these and any future costs related to the changes to the Greenbelt Act and report back to Council; and
Finally, be it resolved that the Town of Grimsby will actively pursue all available avenues to recover these costs upon the report of staff, taking into account the best interests of our community and its financial wellbeing.
15.4 Councillor Baradziej – 30-Day Appeal Period
C-23-272
Whereas the province opened a 30-day appeal period for municipalities to voice their concerns regarding the re-zoning of lands, which started today; and
Whereas the Town of Grimsby allocated resources to work through these planning applications, and now have no way to re-coup costs incurred; and
Whereas the Town of Grimsby has many capital projects outlined in our strategic priorities, and the PKC expansion has a significant shortfall in funding; and
Whereas the two properties that were re-zoned in Grimsby, are not controversial properties and were slated to bring the town millions of dollars in community benefits on top of development charges.
Therefore be it resolved that Council direct our CAO Sarah Kim and staff to consult with legal consultants, MMAH, and the PLDF to investigate the possibility of
moving forward with these applications during this 30-day appeal period.
Yes (8): Mayor Jordan, Councillor Davoli, Councillor Freake, Councillor Howe, Councillor Vardy, Councillor Korstanje, Councillor Baradziej, and Councillor DiFlavio
No (1): Councillor Charrois
CARRIED (8 to 1)
Following this vote, a Town resident posted about it in the Facebook group “Grimsby Community Talk” – to which Councillor Charrois posted the following comment:
Veronica Charrois – Councillor Ward 3 – Grimsby I’m just going to remind everyone that I was the solo vote NO to removing the two Grimsby properties from the Greenbelt. Please do not lump me into other council members actions.
I accept Councillor Freake’s assertions that this post was patently misleading. The Town never voted upon removing two properties from the Greenbelt, and in fact could never have done so because only the Province can make such a decision respecting any property. Councillor Freake asserted that the Province apparently changed the designation of a Winston Road parcel from “Greenbelt (Specialty Crop)” to “Greenbelt (Towns & Villages)”, and previously removed a Cline Road parcel from the Greenbelt in 2022, for which passing Bill 136 would be necessary to reverse that change.
Councillor Charrois’ October 2023 Facebook comment violated the above-noted sections 4.1(f) and (g) of the Code of Conduct for a second time. She ought to have known her post was false or misleading, and it clearly didn’t respect Council’s decision-making process. Members of Council can substantively disagree with Council’s determinations, but under the Code of Conduct they cannot publicly disrespect Council’s decision-making process itself – all Members of Council comprise part of a group.
Councillor Charrois’ decorum at November 6, 2023 Council meeting
Town Council’s April 15, 2024 and May 15, 2024 motions granted us authority to investigate Councillor Freake’s allegations that Councillor Charrois breached decorum during the November 6, 2023 Council meeting.
Section 8 of the Town’s Procedure By-Law is operative, and includes the following:
8. RULES OF CONDUCT AND DEBATE/DECORUM (RULES OF DEBATE)
8.1 Rules of Debate
(4) Any Member who wishes to speak must raise their hand and be recognized by the Chair.
8.4 Speaking Limitations
(2) No Member shall speak to a question or motion until the Member has been recognized by the Chair. After being recognized by the Chair, all remarks shall be respectfully made through the Chair.
8.8 Decorum at Council and Committee Meetings
(2) … The following rules of decorum shall apply to meetings:
d) No participant shall engage in disruptive or distracting behaviour in such manner as to interrupt the meeting in any manner.
f) No participant shall interrupt or distract a person who has the floor. Any Member may interrupt only to raise a point of order.
…
In reviewing the video of the November 6, 2023 Council meeting, I did not consider it an extraordinarily unusual exchange – at least relative to dynamics at some other municipal meetings our office has been asked to review across the province. Nevertheless, Councillor Charrois contravened section 8 of the
Procedure By-Law in some respects. She did not always raise her hand to be recognized by the Chair when wishing to speak. She did not always wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking, and did not always make her remarks respectfully through the Chair. She also sometimes interrupted or distracted Councillor Freake while he had the floor, and not for the purpose of raising a point of order. We also observed – notably – that Councillor Freake did the same thing, leading to the Mayor calling him to order. While it can be argued that Councillor Charrois did not perfectly follow the requirements of section 8 of the Town’s Procedure By-Law, the Chair never lost control of the meeting, and Councillor Charrois’ interruptions were never particularly egregious (or even, arguably, unusual for any meeting of Council where a contentious issue is being discussed, or a point of political disagreement being expressed.) I simply do not view these minor decorum infractions as being sufficiently severe to warrant a finding under the Code of Conduct. That is not to say that similar actions could never constitute a Code infraction – merely that on this occasion I find the disruptions were minimal, even if Councillor Freake clearly found them irritating.
Councillor Freake’s harassment allegations
Councillor Freake asserted that Councillor Charrois harassed him, Town staff, and other members of GEDAC through a pattern of repeated unwanted comments, including those at the November 6, 2023 Council meeting. Section 3.1(k) of the Code of Conduct states:
k) “harassment” or “harass” involves engaging in a course of behaviour, limited to any behaviour, conduct or comment by a Member that is directed at or comment or conduct, whether it occurs inside or outside the work environment, that is or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. It includes but is not is offensive to another person:40
i. on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status, as well as any other grounds under the provisions of the Human Rights Code; or
ii. which is reasonably perceived by the recipient as an intention to bully,
40 In a manner similar to what Mr. Maynard has noted previously respecting sections 4.1(a) and (b) of the Code of Conduct, section 3.1(k) also has an aspect that doesn’t make sense on its face –specifically “It includes but is not is offensive to another person.” It is recommended that this provision be amended in a future Code of Conduct review.
embarrass, intimidate, or ridicule the recipient;
I understand how Councillor Charrois’ public comments would have been unwelcome or unpleasant to GEDAC’s members. But a “political” comment must be distinguished in this context from comments that are non-political in nature. This Office has repeatedly stated it will not intervene in political commentary that Members of Council make. We have routinely endorsed the following comment from Linton v. Kitras, 41 from the Township of Centre Wellington’s Integrity Commissioner:
68. … I wish to comment briefly on the role of municipal councillors.
69. Centre Wellington is a democracy. Council Members are elected to office. The democratic nature of the office means that Council Members have political and representational roles in addition to their legislative (law-making) role. … The Municipal Act confirms that a role of the Council is “to represent the public”.
70. … As part of the political process, a Council Member is entitled to form views, to hold views, to express views and, once in office, to give effect to those views.42 … Provided that a Council Member proceeds lawfully and in a manner consistent with the Municipal Act, the Code and other legislation and by-laws, nothing prevents a Council Member from taking, defending and seeking to implement a position would alter the status quo. Indeed, the Courts have clearly stated that as an elected representative of the public a municipal councillor is entitled to take “an open leadership role” on an issue.43
71. … I adopt the following observation from Farr v. Murphy, 2017 ONMIC 19 (at para. 39):
… As long as the conduct is lawful and inside the ethical boundaries of the Code of Conduct, individual political judgements are beyond the purview of an Integrity Commissioner. Subject to the law and rules of ethics, accountability for the exercise of political judgment resides in the political process, not in an Integrity Commissioner investigation.
…
41 Linton v. Kitras, 2020 ONMIC 1 (Township of Centre Wellington) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onmic/doc/2020/2020onmic1/2020onmic1.html
42 Re Cadillac Development Corp. Ltd. And City of Toronto (1973), 1 O.R. (2d) 20 at 43, cited with approval by Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170 at 1193-4
43 Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. v. Winnipeg (City) (1989), 58 Man. R. (2d) 255 9C.A.) at 264, affirmed [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170.
76. … Trying to motivate people to support one’s viewpoint (or trying to motivate people to oppose a contrary viewpoint) is part of the political process.
78. Other Integrity Commissioners have held that they have no jurisdiction over political speech as long as it complies with the Code. As former Brampton Integrity Commissioner Donald Cameron noted in 2012: 44
I cannot and will not be a referee of free speech in a political arena provided it stays within the bounds … of the Code.
79. Subsequently, Mr. Randy Pepper, the delegate of Integrity Commissioner Cameron, expanded on the same principle in Investigation Report No. BIC-331112:45
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada so the Code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this fundamental right. … …
… I find that the Integrity Commissioner has a very limited role in relation to the “freewheeling debate on matters of public interest …
80. I agree with Integrity Commissioner Cameron’s and Delegate Pepper’s statements concerning the role of the Integrity Commissioner in relation to political speech and adopt them for purposes of this complaint.
81. … I am reluctant to find that certain arguments (used to energize and mobilize the voters) are out of bounds.
…
87. In my view, utilizing the tools of political debate to respond to unfairness and inaccuracy in political debate is far more appropriate than having Integrity Commissioners police the truth and fairness of political speech: Re Maika, 2018 ONMIC 11, at para. 139.
44 City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-030-192 (December 4, 2012)
45 City of Brampton, Report No. BIC32-1112 (December 18, 2012)
Councillor Charrois clearly believes that decision-making processes at the Town are insufficiently open or transparent – which is a belief she is entitled to hold, regardless of how formed. Notwithstanding section 4.1(f) of the Code of Conduct – which mandates Members to refrain from making statements they know or ought to know to be untrue or misleading – nothing requires that “political speech” (in particular, expressions of political opinion) by Members must be “true”. There could be no limit to the number of complaints our Office would otherwise become forced to investigate.
I believe it is too much of a stretch to interpret the Code of Conduct so as to accept that political speech, even if disagreeable, could constitute “harassment”, notwithstanding that it is evident why speech like Councilor Charrois’ would be received as unwelcome. To a certain extent, living with political speech is simply part of the job of being a politician. Our office accepts that there are reasonable limits to acceptable political speech – among them, making baseless accusations about a Member’s integrity, or engaging in clearly disrespectful conduct towards Town staff, which cannot be permitted. However, I do not believe that was substantiated here.
Councillor Charrois’ comments regarding the GEDAC Roundtable invitation list
Councillor Charrois asked several questions during the November 6, 2023 Council meeting about who attended the October 12, 2023 GEDAC Roundtable. During her questioning, she stated twice that she had seen the invitation list (55:30 and 57:17), and additionally said she thought it was a planning meeting because “it was mostly developers and a few Council members.” (52:19)
Councillor Freake submitted evidence during this investigation that established to my satisfaction that the attendees were not “mostly developers” by any mathematical interpretation. When asked to support her assertion, Councillor Charrois didn’t reply.
Councillor Freake said Councillor Charrois had no role in the Roundtable, and therefore had no legitimate access to the invitation and attendance lists, unless through a properly-filed MFIPPA request – so if Councillor Charrois saw the lists in some other way then she circumvented prescribed municipal and provincial legal processes. Councillor Charrois told me that Councillor Baradziej showed her a ‘partial’ invitation list. Councillor Baradziej is a member of the GEDAC at the time of this Report’s publication.
There is a challenge in reconciling our Office’s appropriate approach to “political speech”, as described above, with section 4.1(f) of the Code of Conduct, by which Members must not make statements they know or ought to know to be false or misleading. While Councillor Freake objected to Councillor Charrois’ statements by framing them as a decorum issue, I find that isn’t truly the proper characterization. The evidence in this case clearly disproved Councillor Charrois’ statement that there were “mostly developers” at the GEDAC Roundtable. It was not a true statement, which the media then compounded by publicizing it. While it would be inappropriate for our Office to import a “truth” requirement into political speech, Councillor Charrois’ suggestion that the invitation lists factually included “mostly developers” arguably wasn’t political speech in the first place – it was simply a bald assertion that misstated a matter of fact and should not be supported. Accordingly, I find that this comment contravened section 4.1(f) of the Code of Conduct.
I am prepared to accept Councillor Freake’s assertion at face value that since Councillor Charrois wasn’t part of GEDAC, she had no automatic legal right to access the Roundtable invitation list without going through the Town’s MFIPPA process. But ultimately, I believe the question of whether Councillor Charrois properly accessed the GEDAC Roundtable invitation list by seeing it through Councillor Baradziej would be a question better directed to the IPC than to our Office – and given the length of this investigation already, I have significant doubts that it would be defensible from an economic cost/benefit perspective to attempt pursuing the issue further. The evidence as stands does not clearly establish that Councillor Charrois contravened the Town’s rules governing access to confidential information.
Conduct Towards Staff
Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the Code of Conduct state:
8.3 A member shall:
a) Respect the professional competence of staff and acknowledge that staff is required to provide objective advice while remaining neutral, carry out directions of council as a whole, and administer the policies of the Town without undue influence from any Member. …
8.4 No Member shall:
b) Maliciously or falsely impugn, or without sufficient cause criticize, the
professional or ethical reputation of any staff.
Councillor Freake asserted that Councillor Charrois conducted herself improperly towards Town Staff, most notably through her October 26, 2023 emails to the Town Clerk and her December 2, 2023 emails that included the CAO, which Councillor Freake felt alleged those staff were either incompetent or unethical in their work.
I do not accept that Councillor Charrois’ conduct towards staff rose to the level of contravening the Code of Conduct, although some of Councillor Charrois’ comments contravened the Code of Conduct in a different way. Our office has sometimes quoted the work of Michael Fenn and David Siegel46 respecting the relationship between municipal staff and elected Members of Council. The City of Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner referenced their writings in a 2018 Report;47 in which she highlighted that municipal councils are accountable to an electorate, but while the public service must also be aware of local concerns, they bring a different perspective – “senior staff members derive their legitimacy from specialized professional expertise”. Fenn and Siegel opined that the occasional tension between political accountability and professional expertise that sometimes results between Council and staff is a “healthy dynamic”, which can lead to good public policy. Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner commented that the health of the relationship between Council and staff is a matter of public interest, and Members of Council and staff each have separate and important roles to play, so Members of Council shouldn’t treat public servants as political adversaries or allies in debating public policy matters. She noted that Fenn and Siegel stated:48
Municipal government operates in a political arena, with all that implies. As a result, a councillor may quite properly – or even simply for political reasons –accuse staff of being incorrect, lacking in research or creativity, being insensitive to community concerns, or being too slow to deal with an issue. Staff may not like it, but they have broad shoulders and it is the right of the democratically elected representative to say such things if they are warranted.
But there are limits that should not be exceeded. Best practice says it is the duty of
46 Michael Fenn and David Siegel, “The Evolving Role of City Managers and Chief Administrative Officers”, IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance (2017: No. 31) (“Fenn and Siegel”) https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/uploads/420/imfgpaper_no31_cao_fennsiegel_may_5_2017.pd f
47 Report Regarding the Conduct of Councillor Josh Matlow (June 18, 2018) (“Matlow Report”), at p. 11 https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-117207.pdf
48 Fenn and Siegel, s. 6.5
the head of council and the CAO to act decisively when these limits are exceeded. A councillor should never accuse a staff member publicly of stupidity, unethical behaviour, or incompetence. If an elected representative feels that way about a member of staff, he or she should take it up with the CAO (or with the head of council, in the case of the CAO), in private. Likewise, if a staff member feels his or her integrity or honesty is being questioned, or if workplace interactions with a councillor are inappropriate or demeaning, he or she should take the matter up with the CAO and take advantage of the protections afforded to all employees, including in serious cases, access to the municipal integrity commissioner.
Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner asserted that: 49
1. When questioning staff reports or actions, members of Council should ensure that their comments are in the nature of “fair comment”…
2. However, members of Council should not publicly state or imply that a particular public servant, or a group of public servants, acted for political or private motivations or in a way that is negligent or that failed to meet professional standards. … [T]hese types of statements will not normally be tolerated by the Speaker or a Chair in a Council proceeding, and could result in a Councillor being found to have contravened the Code of Conduct. …
3. Extra scrutiny should be applied to public statements about the public service that are broadcast in mass media. This is because staff do not have the same platform as members of Council to engage in the public arena. …
I accept Councillor Freake’s assertion that Town Council decided early in this term that meetings of Advisory Committees would no longer be livestreamed as they were during the pandemic. Council adopted the April 17, 2023 minutes of the Committee of the Whole on May 1, 2023:50
7. Adoption of Previous Minutes
7.1 Committee of the Whole – April 17, 2023
…
Resolved that the Committee of the Whole minutes of April 17, 2023, Council
49 Matlow Report, p. 11
50 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=25868
minutes of April 17, 2023, Special Council minutes of April 19, 2023, and Special Council minutes of April 25, 2023 be approved.
CARRIED
Those April 17, 2023 Committee of the Whole minutes included:51
8. Administration and Finance
8.1 Reports
a. TC-23-08
CW-23- 089
Resolved that report TC-23-08, Standing Committee Terms of Reference and Procedural By-law Amendments – Amendments to Report TC-23-05 be received; and
1. That Council approve the amendments to the Standing Committee Terms of Reference and Procedural By-law 20-65; and
2. That Council approve livestreaming of the Standing Committee, Committee the Whole and Council meetings; and
3. That the Town Clerk make the necessary notifications to the public as it relates to the new governance structure beginning in May 2023.
CARRIED
In support of this decision, the Town Clerk emailed Councillor Charrois twice on October 26, 2023:
… [N]o Advisory Committee meetings are recorded. There is not enough staff, equipment or space to do so. We do meet the transparency requirements as staff are in the Advisory Committee meetings and they are taking notes which become public minutes (the record of the meeting). All the Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public, anyone can come into the room, just as they can in the Council Chambers. In the case of GEDAC, they do sometimes meet in local businesses, those locations, dates and times are posted for the public who wish to attend. …
…
… [T]he individuals on the committee voted for these times. I gather the business
51 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=25508
folk on GEDAC prefer a 10:00 a.m. time which is their choice.
There is simply no factual evidence establishing that GEDAC meetings or its Community Roundtable were carried on in ways that contravened municipal meeting rules or policies. I couldn’t verify any legal foundation for Councillor Charrois’ accusations that Councillor Freake acted improperly respecting GEDAC’s work, and her comments were clearly disparaging. In so doing, Councillor Charrois contravened section 4(i) of the Code of Conduct.
However, Councillor Charrois’ communications towards Ms. Nistico-Dunk and Ms. Kim in this case were done privately, out of the public view. I believe her comments were in the nature of “fair comment” (whether factually true or not), and agree with Fenn and Siegel that the senior municipal staff in question had sufficiently broad shoulders to handle the Respondent Councillor’s comments. Accordingly, I do not find that Councillor Charrois contravened sections 8.3 or 8.4 through those circumstances.
Councillor Charrois’ December 2, 2023 emails to fellow Members of Council
Section 4.1(i) of the Code of Conduct mandates that Members:
i) Refrain from making disparaging comments about another Member or unfounded accusations about the motives of another Member.
Unlike the Code of Conduct’s harassment clauses, section 4.1(i) does not require a pattern of behaviour, and a violation can be established through one action.
On December 1, 2023, Sam Oosterhoff, the local Member of Provincial Parliament (“MPP”), posted that he met with the Minister of Transportation (another MPP, and fellow member of his party) respecting the Grimsby GO station, widening the QEW, and the North-South Escarpment crossing – all of which are matters of provincial jurisdiction. The following email correspondence took place among the Town’s councillors and its CAO the next day:
From: Veronica Charrois
Loved learning more major decisions were made for Grimsby via Oosterhoff’s social media pages.
I’m so very disappointed in the communication of this “team”. Always the last to know. This doesn’t happen in Lincoln.
From: Don Howe
What are you talking about?
From: Reginald Freake
What were the decisions that were made??
From: Veronica Charrois
Reg I think you know damn well what I’m talking about.
From: Reginald Freake
In fact, I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to infer and I do take offence to your tone.
From: Don Howe
Veronica,
Can you clarify what you are talking about? Is it the picture of Sam and the Minister of Transportation?
From: Veronica Charrois
Don,
Yes. Were there any discussions about transportation very recently with staff that “some members of council” may have known about? The gap in information sharing really ticks me off.
*My anger is not directed at you Don, but with what has been consistently occurring behind closed doors. What is the point of even having a council?
From: Don Howe
Veronica,
None of this is new stuff. We have talked about an escarpment crossing for at least 30 years. Back then we kicked it down the road, and have been kicking it ever since. …
The QEW being widened has been floated out there for as long as I have been in the area. Every MPP has heard about the need to widen and therefore create more capacity.
Our MPP has heard it all before. If he did not have the Minister’s ear and not bring these ongoing issues items would not be part of the discussion. …
From: Sarah Kim
Hello Councillor, I had to look this up as I have no information on this matter. I can assure you that we are not aware of all meetings that MPP Oosterhoff partakes that
involves a Grimsby business item. As mentioned, these items have been discussed for years. You are part of Council that makes the decisions, and therefore aware that there have been no new major decisions. …
I do not believe that anything in Councillor Charrois’ December 2nd emails involved staking out any kind of substantive political position. These exchanges took place outside of public view, on a private email chain among Members, and reflected Councillor Charrois’ persistent belief that Town business was ordinarily taking place “behind closed doors”. They were written in inflammatory and disrespectful tones and were disparaging towards Members.
I accept that Members of Town Council would not necessarily have any information about business being conducted by the local MPP or the provincial Minister of Transportation – both of whom work within the provincial legislature, a completely independent legislative body from the Town. I frankly have difficulty understanding the notion espoused by Councillor Charrois that Mr. Oosterhoff’s post reflected a communications failure by Town staff or fellow Members in some way.
I do not accept that Town business described in this case was conducted “behind closed doors” – at least not in any legal sense of the term. Section 239(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the “Act”) mandates that all meetings (or portions thereof) shall be open to the public, except where subject matter relates to topics defined in ss. 239(2), (3), (3.1), and (6) of the Act. Under s. 237(1) of the Act, a majority of the members of a municipal Council is also necessary to form quorum for a “meeting” in the first place. That means that when less than five Members of the Town’s 9person Council are present, an event cannot constitute a “meeting” of Council, much less a closed one.
Decision and Publication
To summarize, I have determined that Councillor Charrois contravened the Code as follows:
1. Section 4.1(f) of the Code of Conduct three times (her September and October 2023 Facebook activity, and her November 6, 2023 comment that the GEDAC Roundtable was attended by “mostly developers”);
2. Section 4.1(g) of the Code of Conduct twice (her September and October 2023 Facebook activity); and
3. Section 4.1(i) of the Code of Conduct once (her December 2, 2023 email
communications to fellow Members of Council).
However, I did not find that Councillor Charrois contravened any of sections 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 7.1, 7.2, 8.3, 8.4, 12.1, or 12.2 of the Code of Conduct.
Section 223.4(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows Council to impose the following penalties on a Member of Council when the Integrity Commissioner reports their opinion that the Member has contravened the Code of Conduct:
a) A reprimand;
b) Suspension of the remuneration paid to the Member for a period of up to 90 days.
This is not the first time that Councillor Charrois has been found to have contravened the Code of Conduct. Mr. Maynard issued the Jordan-Charrois Report52 on April 11, 2024, in which he found that Councillor Charrois contravened sections 4.1(a), (b), and (i) of the Code of Conduct for the activity described therein. Mr. Maynard noted that the following factors are relevant in determining appropriate sanctions:
a. Sanctions are normally progressive in their severity;
b. The councillor’s experience;
c. The flagrancy of the behaviour;
d. Whether the councillor made any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, remorse, or regret.
Mr. Maynard observed in Jordan-Charrois that Councillor Charrois’ conduct was reckless but not flagrant, that it was her first instance of breaching the Code of Conduct, and that she was relatively inexperienced on Council. He recommended that Council suspend Councillor Charrois’ pay for 15 days.
In my view, Councillor Charrois’ conduct herein was both more flagrant and more persistent than the activity in Jordan-Charrois, while still maintaining its reckless nature. Although I did not find “harassment”, it is nonetheless clear that Councillor Charrois routinely commented about GEDAC in ways that implicitly questioned the integrity of all of its members (which includes citizen volunteers), with no factually-defensible basis for having done so. Councillor Charrois’ September and October 2023 Facebook posts factually misled members of the public about the nature and substance of Council decisions, and improperly tried
52 https://pub-grimsby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=30507
to distance herself from the Council of which she is indisputably a Member.
Councillor Charrois’ December 2, 2023 emails to Members of Council were personal in nature, and arguably disparaged all Members of Council – but particularly Councillor Freake, considering the history of Councillor Charrois’ accusatory communications towards him as reflected herein.
Councillor Charrois expressed no remorse or regret in this investigation for her conduct, and in fact clearly perceives herself as the victim in these circumstances rather than the perpetrator. Finally, although Councillor Charrois remains relatively inexperienced as a councillor, some of her misunderstandings in this matter – such as the nature of closed meetings under the Municipal Act, and Council’s decision (during her own term) not to livestream Advisory Committee meetings – are pieces of information that she simply should have been reasonably deemed to know. I would probably consider it reasonable for a member of the public to be unaware of these procedural aspects of Town administration, but I am less willing to impute such a lack of familiarity to a Member of Council that has been sitting since fall 2022.
Councillor Charrois’ actions herein were plainly recurring and repetitive. Considering the number of Code of Conduct contraventions identified herein (six, over four separate incidents), and the progressive nature of sanctions, I recommend that Council suspend Councillor Charrois’ pay for a period of 45 days.
However, Council is a self-governing body, and is legislatively empowered to make its own determination respecting the appropriate penalty, up to the maximum sanction permissible under the Municipal Act, 2001.
POST-DRAFT COMMENTS BY COUNCILLOR CHARROIS
Section 4(g) of the Formal Complaint Procedure to the Code of Conduct mandates a review period within the complaints process, when findings are made that the Code of Conduct has been contravened:
(g) The IC shall not issue a report finding a violation of the Council Code of Conduct on the part of any Member unless the Member has had reasonable notice of the basis for the proposed finding and any recommended sanction and an opportunity either in person or in writing to comment on the proposed finding any recommended sanction.
Councillor Charrois was provided with a draft of this Report on June 24, 2024, and provided a 10-day window to comment. Councillor Charrois’ comments were
diverse, and I will not comment upon all of them; however, I believe several are worth noting. In one case she did correct the record respecting some evidence in this case, which is reflected elsewhere within the Report. Among other things, Councillor Charrois argued that:
The suggested punishment appeared “much more severe than all other Integrity Commissioner Recommendations in past IC investigations for similar instances or those of more extreme violations.”
The motion to investigate decorum after the actions happened was contrary to proper procedure.
The “charter of human rights article 19”53 stated it was within her right to express an opinion – “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media & regardless of frontiers.”
This Report was submitted beyond 90 days after the complaints were submitted, even though section 5(a) of the Complaint Protocol says the IC shall report “generally no later than 90 days after the making of the complaint.”
I do not believe Councillor Charrois’ above concerns impact my recommendations or factual findings, for the following reasons. First, I do not accept that the present recommendations are more severe than other previous recommendations, or that previous recommendations were for more extreme violations. In Jordan-Charrois, Mr. Maynard recommended that Council suspend Councillor Charrois’ pay for 15 days, for one contravention – i.e., statements that disparaged Mayor Jordan. The present recommendation of a 45-day suspension of pay is for six contraventions of the Code of Conduct, over four separate incidents. I believe the contraventions reflected in this Report were also more brazen and extreme than that seen in Jordan-Charrois – in this case, rather than speaking detrimentally about one person, Councillor Charrois spoke detrimentally about the work of an entire advisory committee (which includes public volunteers); belittled several fellow Members of Council by email; and publicly misrepresented Council decisions that she was duty-bound to present accurately following their passage. By any application of mathematics or logic, the present recommendation (45 days) could have more easily been higher than lower.
53 From an internet search, I determined that Councillor Charrois was likely referencing the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-andpolitical-rights
Council’s motion asking our Office to investigate the decorum issues described herein was duly constituted – and followed Mr. Maynard specifically asking Council to confirm if it wished for that matter to be investigated herein or not.
No investigative timeframe is specifically required under the Municipal Act, 2001, but the 90-day guideline suggested in the Code of Conduct is usually for the benefit of complainants. Indeed, it was Councillor Freake who expressed concern to us several times during this investigation about how long it would take. It should frankly be apparent to any reader that the present complaints were longer and more complicated than most matters we are called to address. Even then, a Draft Report was virtually completed by the time of the April 15 2024 Council meeting. Mr. Maynard specifically advised Council in May 2024 that if the decorum motion was to be added to this matter, then that would necessarily add to the timeframe, because those issues would need to be investigated de novo. I note that Councillor Charrois also took several actions that extended the length of this investigation –she was granted two extensions to provide her initial Response, took extensive time to submit a written response in lieu of participating in a verbal interview, and then refused to respond to our Office during the ‘second’ phase of the investigation concerning the decorum issues. It is somewhat remarkable that Councillor Charrois is now challenging the length of time this investigation took when she directly played a role in extending it herself.
Finally, Councillor Charrois argues that this Report interferes with her “freedom of expression”, pursuant to publications of the United Nations. This is simply not so, and completely misunderstands the purpose and function of the Code of Conduct. Nobody has prevented Councillor Charrois from saying anything described in this Report, and her comments were heard by others. Her personal liberty was not infringed, and no government is threatening to imprison her (or worse) for any of her beliefs – which might be very different elsewhere in the world, which is largely the purpose of the United Nations convention. By contrast, the Code of Conduct is only applicable to the Town’s nine Members of Council – a role Councillor Charrois voluntarily sought out, knowing that adherence to the Code of Conduct was part of the role. The Code of Conduct acknowledges in its Preamble that Members of Council are privileged to have attained elected office – which carries significant responsibilities and obligations respecting the public trust. The Code of Conduct was established to govern and regulate Members’ ethical conduct and authorizes the imposition of limited sanctions when Members breach the Code of Conduct. In short, the recommended sanctions in this case are a matter of applying a municipal bylaw applicable to all Members of Council, and do not improperly infringe Councillor Charrois’ freedom of expression. I simply reject her clear
opinion that she believes she should be free from any consequences for her expression – very few people in the world are. Ultimately, a Code of Conduct creates reasonable limits on freedom of expression as mandated by law – and in this case, Councillor Charrois exceeded the limits established by the Town’s Code.
I thank the parties for their participation in this complaints process, and consider this matter concluded.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2024.
Respectfully submitted by,
Benjamin Drory, Investigator
Endorsement and Issuance of Report
I, Michael L. Maynard, Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Grimsby, have reviewed the evidence, process, and results of Mr. Drory’s Investigation and Report.
I agree with and endorse this Report in respect of Complaints IC-28126-1123 and IC-28337-1223, and hereby issue it to the parties and Council in conclusion of this matter.
Michael L. Maynard Integrity Commissioner, Town of Grimsby