Integrity in the Democratic Process:

Code of Conduct Report to Council for the Town of Innisfil

August 27, 2018

Janet Leiper, LL. B., LL.M., C.S.

Integrity Commissioner
 PART ONE: INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
I. Executive Summary

1) This is a report to Council for the Town of Innisfil on a delegated Integrity

Commissioner investigation into allegations that there had been improper sharing
of information from closed meetings of Council, contrary to the Town of Innisfil’s
Code of Conduct for Members of Council (Policy No.CP.01-13-02; Revised
September 17, 2014). The investigation was requested by unanimous vote of
Council and resolution dated April 18, 2018.

2) The Code of Conduct requires the highest standards of conduct for members of
Council, in order to maintain the trust of the community. It is explicit in its
Purpose: “Encouraging and preserving the highest standards of conduct by
members of Council promotes an environment of integrity appropriate for their
fiduciary role.”

3) The Code of Conduct also requires that decisions be made through the
appropriate channels and not for personal gain or advantage. Where an
investigation is taken into whether there has been a breach of this Code of
Conduct, members of Council are expected to cooperate in every way possible.
(Section 26, Code of Conduct)

4) This report concludes that three members of Council fell below the standards set
out in the Code of Conduct in their communications with a developer about
closed meeting matters. The findings include systemic recommendations about
gaps in Town policy concerning lobbying activity and gifts to members of Town
staff and elected members. Finally I identify a need for training for elected
officials about their responsibilities and the role of staff.

5) Between January and April of 2018, Council delegated to Town staff the role of
negotiating an agreement with a developer in the context of a significant
application to the Town. Council’s role was to provide oversight and direction to
staff for that purpose. Due to the sensitivity and scope of the matter, Council met
a number of times in closed session to provide direction to staff and receive
updates. The developer pursued its application through the proper channels with
the community and Town staff; however it also cultivated “back channels” of
communication with some elected officials in what I concluded was a sustained
effort to discover confidential information to assist in its negotiating strategy with
the Town.

6) This report makes no findings as to the merits of the development application

that was involved. Many felt it was a positive development for the community
and this may have been a factor in the willingness of some to help the process
along via private communication channels. The issue here is the conduct of the

2
 elected officials during the negotiations and whether they followed the Code of
Conduct which exists to protect the integrity of the process and Council’s
deliberations.

7) During the negotiations with Town staff, the developer communicated directly
with elected members of Council by calling, texting or messaging some members
of Council at home, while travelling, on vacation, on weekends and outside of
regular business hours. Some members of Council properly refused to have
these conversations or to reveal what was being discussed in closed session.

8) Three members of Council who favoured the position of the developer failed to
abide by the process and their obligations under the Code of Conduct. These
members participated in telephone conversations with agents for the developer
at key stages during the negotiations and shortly after closed meetings of
Council. These members of Council and other witnesses were unwilling to
provide details, denied certain conversations or provided inaccurate information
during the investigation about the calls.

9) I found that Mayor Gord Wauchope, Councillor Doug Lougheed and Councillor
William Loughead breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Council by
discussing confidential information arising from closed sessions of Council with
agents for the developer, contrary to section 14 of the Code of Conduct.

10) In addition, I found that Mayor Gord Wauchope breached section 26 of the Code
of Conduct by failing to cooperate with this investigation concerning telephone
calls made to him by the developer during the relevant times.

11) The Mayor initially denied having telephone conversations with the developer
during relevant times while the Mayor was out of Canada on vacation. After he
was provided with the records revealing numerous calls between his home, cell
number and U.S. vacation location and the developer; he admitted that the calls
had taken place.

12) I found that Councillor William Loughead breached section 13 of the Code of
Conduct concerning the attempted improper use of influence by involving himself
in communicating the positions of the developer to Town staff. Councillor
Loughead acted as a go-between with the agent for the developer and Town staff
during active negotiations in March and April of 2018. He did this contrary to
Council direction that the negotiations were to be carried out exclusively by Town
staff and after Town staff requested that he not involve himself in the negotiation
process. In May of 2017, Councillor Loughead had applied to work for the
developer by sending a resume in through the agent for the developer. He had
also applied to work there in 2016.

13) I concluded that Councillor Loughead was motivated to assist the developer in
conveying its position to the Town and to demonstrate his value to the developer.

3
 He attempted to influence the negotiations for a private advantage: that is, to
have the developer look favourably on him as a future candidate for employment.

14) More generally, the investigation revealed gaps in understanding among

members of Council as to their responsibilities not to accept gifts and benefits
unless permitted by the exceptions in section 17 of the Code of Conduct. During
an application that was pending before Council, the developer sent gifts to the
homes of members of Council and either offered and/or provided complimentary
meals to members of Council and their families. These gifts and hospitality were
not permitted by the exceptions to the Gifts provisions in the Code of Conduct.

15) Members of Council would benefit from education on their responsibility to

decline gifts from developers and others who are interested in upcoming
decisions who lobby members of Council using “relationship marketing”
techniques. There should be an explicit prohibition written into the Code of
Conduct about accepting gifts of any value from lobbyists.

16) The unrestrained efforts by the developer to influence the decision in its favour
using direct communications to elected members invited those members who did
so to breach their responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. Such
communications undermine trust in government and undermine the role of Staff
to represent the Town’s interests in such matters.

17) I recommend that Council consider regulating lobbying conduct, add provisions
to the Code of Conduct about lobbying and provide ongoing Council member
education on handling lobbying communications and on the role of Staff as
distinct from the role of Council. In particular, when matters come before Council
that could attract lobbying activity of this nature, a reminder of Council’s
obligations under the Code and the “rules of engagement” would be helpful.

18) To summarize, this investigation recommends that Council adopt the following
findings, sanctions and remedial measures:

i. That Mayor Gord Wauchope breached sections 14 and 26 of the

Code of Conduct;

ii. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Mayor Wauchope in
the range of 30-60 days;

iii. That Councillor William Loughead breached sections 13 and 14 of

the Code of Conduct;

iv. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Councillor William
Loughead in the range of 30-60 days;

4
 v. That Councillor Doug Lougheed breached section 14 of the Code of
Conduct;

vi. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Councillor Lougheed
in the range of 10-30 days;

vii. Request that Town Staff in consultation with the Integrity

Commissioner to the Town of Innisfil report back on policy
amendments to address the regulation of lobbying activity, gifts and
benefits from lobbyists and a plan for training of staff and members
of Council on their proposed and present obligations under Town of
Innisfil polices and Code of Conduct.
II. The Resolution from Council and the Delegation of Authority
19) Council requested an investigation by adopting the following resolution on April
18, 2018:
Whereas Council and Staff have reason to believe that confidential
Closed Session information including individual votes, directions to
Staff and in-camera discussions are being shared outside of Closed
Session; and

Whereas the sharing of confidential information with anyone

breaches the Town of Innisfil’s Code of Conduct and negatively
affects the integrity of the democratic process as well as the ability
to negotiate fairly the will of Council; and
Whereas the leaking of this type of information may jeopardize or
put at risk members of Council, staff and their families; and

Whereas this type of activity could have the potential to affect any
Council member’s decision on relevant matters;

Now therefore be it hereby resolved that a fulsome investigation be

launched by the Town’s Integrity Commissioner to determine the
source or sources of these betrayals of trust and the leaked Closed
Session information, and that those findings as well as
recommendations for penalties of the offenders be shared with
Council as well as the South Simcoe Police.

20) The Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Innisfil advised the Town that he
would be delegating the investigation to another person as permitted by section
223.3(3) of the Municipal Act. This was due to a conflict as a result of the
Integrity Commissioner having given legal advice to the Town of Innisfil about the
subject matter of the resolution.

5
21) I was retained to act as the delegated Integrity Commissioner to conduct the
investigation requested by Council on April 26, 2018. In that capacity, I requested
documents, communications, minutes, meeting agendas, reports and other
relevant information from the Town, met with Town staff, interviewed members of
Council and some staff for the developer. I retrieved telephone records pursuant
to the Public Inquiries Act and conducted follow-up interviews as a result of the
new information. The investigation took place between April 28, 2018 and July
31, 2018. This report was delivered to the Town after the negotiations with the
developer had been concluded and the application had been considered by
Council.
III. Witness Cooperation with the Investigation and Nature of the Findings
22) All members of Town staff and members of Council were willing to meet and
speak with me as part of the investigation. Town staff provided documentation
that was helpful in understanding the chronology of events and the reports of the
leaks of confidential information. This was a positive development and allowed
the investigation to begin expeditiously.

23) However, as detailed in this report, the investigation encountered a number of

barriers along the way. Certain witnesses were reluctant to meet and
communicated with other witnesses about their intention to refuse to cooperate.
Some witnesses accused others of lying to protect themselves. One witness was
told by another to “keep his mouth shut” in advance of one of the interviews for
this investigation. Some witnesses changed their stories after being shown
evidence that telephone calls had happened. There were denials that were not
credible.

24) One witness was asked to provide certain telephone records. The document
supplied was largely blacked out, leaving no usable information: two conflicting
explanations were provided for the redactions.

25) Another witness attempted to misdirect the investigation at the outset by passing
along information to an elected official that the leaks took place by a “recording
device” used by unnamed members of Town staff during closed meetings. The
source of this story characterized this later as a “joke,” not meant to be taken
seriously. At the time it was conveyed, others acted on the information and did
not perceive it was being stated as a joke.

26) As a result, much of the information given at the beginning of the investigation
was not reliable unless it could be corroborated with objective documentary
evidence or the accounts of others. The investigation was prolonged by the need
to summons telephone communications to present certain witnesses with the
timing and length of their communications. The self-interest of some witnesses
was clearly engaged. This hindered getting to the heart of the matter, and
suggested that there was an interest, for some, in hiding the truth from public
view.

6
27) As noted by Justice Lynn Smith in her paper, “The Ring of Truth, the Clang of
Lies: Assessing Credibility in the Courtroom (2012) 63 U.N.B.L.J. 10-27 at para
4:

Human beings are not only deceptive but frequently unreliable. Most often
this is unintended; we make mistakes for any number of reasons. Our powers
of observation and recollection are what they are: imperfect. As well we may
firmly, but wrongly believe that something happened in a certain way because
we are thinking wishfully or because we are scared, confused and misled.

28) These human attributes were very much on display in this investigation. This
report aims to assist Council in understanding what can happen when those in
positions of influence are “scared, confused and misled” by those with different
interests and to consider strengthening practices and policies. The goal is to
protect the public interest and protect those in positions of influence from being
the target of pressure, relationship marketing and other tactics that can be
detrimental to a fair and accountable process in municipal decision making.

29) Although some witnesses suggested that others might have leaked confidential
information, no individual I interviewed admitted that they had either improperly
received or shared confidential information. In the end, the records of the
communications, and the interviews about them led to findings that are based on
logical or common sense inferences drawn from the known and confirmed facts
(sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence”). In drawing these
inferences, I applied a standard of proof known as the balance of probabilities,
taking into account the information obtained and deciding whether it was more
likely than not that certain events took place. This is not the standard of proof
used in criminal investigations, (“proof beyond a reasonable doubt”) because this
is an administrative proceeding and liberty is not at stake. The maximum penalty
available under the Municipal Act is a suspension of remuneration for 90 days.
IV. Reporting on Witnesses and Members Found in Breach of the Code
30) This report has anonymized the names and positions of witnesses and corporate
entities. The Municipal Act permits an Integrity Commissioner to include
information in a report to council that is necessary for the purposes of the report.
I have determined that it is necessary to use generic titles to protect the privacy
of those who are not subject to any findings or to the Code of Conduct.

31) The terms, “agent for the developer” and “developer” are used interchangeably in
this report. These terms refer to those persons who acted on behalf of the
corporate entity that was a party to the negotiations with Town of Innisfil staff.
This is done to avoid any one individual being identified.

32) Similarly, when information was provided by members of Town of Innisfil staff,
these persons are referred to as “Staff” to avoid any one individual being

7
 identified. The closed session meetings are not described in detail and only as
necessary to understand the findings in this report. No positions are attributed to
any individual member of Council as a result of closed meeting comments.

33) This report identifies the members of Council who have been found to have
breached the Code of Conduct. This is consistent with the Municipal Act, the
public interest and the practice in Code of Conduct investigations in other
municipalities. Those members received notice that they might be subject to
findings of misconduct; and a draft confidential version of the report dealing with
those members’ conduct was provided to them in advance to permit them to
make submissions on the findings as to breach and the recommendations for
sanction. I have included their responses and in some places I have amended
portions of the report as a result of those submissions.

34) As directed by the resolution of Council on April 18, 2018, a copy of this report
has been provided to the South Simcoe Police Service.

PART TWO: FACTS AND FINDINGS

V. A Development Application and Negotiations: 2017-2018
35) A developer was considering making an application for an approval relating to a
development within the Town of Innisfil. In the fall of 2017 the Mayor and
Councillor Lougheed had lunch with an agent for the developer. The subject of
the application was discussed over lunch. The Mayor was favourably inclined
toward the application as it was something he believed would be good for the
Town of Innisfil. He told the agent for the developer he could not decide the
matter on his own, but that it would have to be approved by Council.

36) On December 22, 2017, the developer filed its application. Town staff prepared
a report to bring to a closed session of Council on January 17, 2018 to discuss
the background to the application, the rationale for an approach to negotiations,
timelines, and a direction that staff members “exclusively manage the negotiation
process.” After some debate in closed session, Council approved the
recommendations of Staff.

37) A follow-up discussion was planned for the Council meeting on January 24,
2018. This was postponed at the last minute in consultation with the Mayor and
staff.

38) According to witnesses from Town staff and on council, the developer did not like
the direction in which the negotiations began because of Council’s direction to
Town staff on January 17, 2018.

39) Early in the negotiations, a call was made to a member of Council from an agent
for the developer while the member was out of the country. The developer asked
about a closed agenda item concerning the developer’s application. That

8
 member of Council declined to discuss the item for reasons of confidentiality and
directed the agent to speak with Staff. This member of Council acted in
accordance with the decision of council to negotiate via Staff and in accordance
with the Code of Conduct.

40) During this investigation, some of the agents for the developer resisted being
interviewed. In one interview, the developer denied having any interest in
discovering what was being discussed in closed session with members of
Council. The developer also denied contacting any member of Council to
discover information about the closed sessions. As discussed below, this
statement was found to be not believable, due to the volume of calls to multiple
elected officials, the reports about such calls by members of Council, the timing
of the calls, the evidence of lobbying of members during the negotiations and the
absence of any other reason for sheer volume of calls to elected officials at key
stages of what was seen by all as a significant negotiation.

41) The developer was provided with an opportunity to correct its recollection of
communications with elected members. The developer maintained that it did not
seek out confidential information, even as its own agents were reporting that
there were leaks, and memos to that effect were created by Town staff. I
reviewed that information, and concluded that based on all of the witness
interviews and telephone records that the developer was interested in any and all
information it could obtain during the negotiations. There were multiple channels
of communication pursued and those channels included elected officials.
VI. The March 7 Closed Session of Council: New Directions to Staff
42) On March 7, 2018, the closed session Council agenda included consideration of
the ongoing negotiations with the developer. The meeting began at 4:30 p.m.
and ended at 6:03 p.m. according to the notes kept by Town staff.

43) At the closed meeting, Town staff was given negotiating instructions which were
different from those given in January of 2018. Not all members of Council agreed
with this change in direction, however those members were in the minority. The
change in direction favoured the interests of the developer. The context for this
change in negotiating instructions included a number of calls back and forth
between the Mayor and an agent for the developer. These are described below.
VII. The Calls between the Mayor and an Agent for the Developer before and
after the March 7, 2018 Meeting of Council
44) The Mayor said in an interview on June 20, 2018, that he had not been
approached directly by any agent for the developer about the negotiations. He
also stated that he departed on March 8 to travel to the United States and that he
had no conversations with an agent for the developer while he was there.

45) This section identifies many telephone calls between the Mayor and an agent for
the developer which took place just prior to the closed session of Council on
9
 March 7 and in the days after that meeting. It discusses the Mayor’s initial
position on whether he made or received such calls. It also provides his
accounts of the calls once he was presented with evidence that the calls had
taken place.

46) On Sunday March 4, three days before the March 7 meeting, telephone records
obtained under summons revealed two calls to the Mayor from an agent for the
developer. The first call was one minute long and made to the Mayor’s town-
issued cell phone. The second call was four minutes long and made to the
Mayor’s home telephone number.

47) At our subsequent interview on June 27, 2018, I placed records of phone calls
from an agent for the developer before the Mayor. He then acknowledged the
calls from the developer to him on March 4, 2018. He was unable or unwilling to
say what was discussed. He admitted that it “could have been” about the
application by the developer. He said that he made no notes of this call.

48) On the day before the closed session, March 6, an agent for the developer
contacted the Mayor by telephone at the Mayor’s home number at 8:42 a.m. and
3:02 p.m. The Mayor did not recall if these were messages left for him or brief
conversations. He could not say whether he had any other contact with the agent
for the developer on the day before the closed meeting.
49) On the morning of the closed meeting, March 7, the Mayor’s cell phone records
show that he made a three-minute call to Councillor Doug Lougheed. The Mayor
was not able to say what was discussed during that call, nor could Councillor
Lougheed.

50) On March 8, 2018 the morning after the meeting, an agent for the developer
contacted Town staff. Town staff remembered nothing “untoward” during that call
and said that if so, there would have been a note made to file. Immediately after
that call, the agent for the developer called the Mayor’s home number. The call
was a minute in length. It was followed by a text to the Mayor and then a call
from the Mayor to the agent for the developer at 8:28 a.m. that lasted for four
minutes.

51) The Mayor said that he was at the airport on the morning of March 8, 2018 at the
time of his 8:28 a.m. call to the agent to the developer. He said that he did not
recall what was discussed on that call, but ‘if” he had made the call he “would
have said he could not discuss” matters from the closed session.

52) It was pointed out to the Mayor that the telephone records showed he called
Town staff within 20 minutes of the call from the agent for the developer. The
Mayor then said he “might have” conveyed a position from the agent for the
developer to a member of Town Staff. The Mayor also said that the agent for the
developer “must have said something” about what had happened the night
before in Council. The Mayor was unable to provide details about the call.

10
53) Telephone records for the agent for the developer showed no calls to any Town
of Innisfil number associated with any member of Council or staff between the
end of the meeting on March 7, 2018 at 6:03 p.m. and prior to the two calls the
following morning made by the agent for the developer to the Town staff and to
the Mayor.

54) The call from the Mayor to the agent for the developer at 8:28 a.m. March 8 was
the first incoming call to the developer that day.

55) Ongoing telephone communications continued between the Mayor and the agent
for the developer during the week after the meeting of March 7, 2018. On March
9, the developer called the Mayor at his United States location and they spoke for
10 minutes. On March 10 they spoke for 3 minutes. By March 13, the Mayor
had returned to in Canada: on that date the Mayor and the developer spoke by
telephone at the Mayor’s home number for 9 minutes.

56) The Mayor was asked about the calls during this period: he did not know what
was discussed, did not really remember the content of the calls and did not make
notes. At first, he said he had “no clue” and “none” (with reference to his
recollection of the content of these calls). At a later meeting and having been
shown the telephone records establishing that the calls took place, he said the
calls “could have been” about the negotiations. He described the emotional tone
of the calls and said that the agent for the developer was “venting.” Without
providing details about what was said, the Mayor said that he calmed the
developer down, and said “it” would be dealt with. The Mayor said that the agent
for the developer thought the Mayor could “arm twist” [those who did not favour
the application]. Again, details were not provided.
VIII. The Calls between Councillor Doug Lougheed and an Agent for the
Developer after the March 7, 2018 Meeting of Council
57) The Mayor was not the only member of Council who spoke with an agent for the
developer the day following the March 7, 2018 closed session.

58) At 4:32 p.m. on March 8, 2018, a call was placed to Councillor Doug Lougheed
by the agent for the developer who had spoken with the Mayor earlier in the day.

59) During the first interview with Councillor Lougheed, he said that he received a
call in March from the agent for the developer. He said the call was less than two
minutes, and recalled he was on his way into a store, with another person when
he received the call. He said that the agent for the developer said that the Town
needed “to get its act together,” in the context of the location of the fire hall.

60) Councillor Lougheed said he did not know why the agent for the developer called
him.

11
61) At Councillor Lougheed’s second interview, he was shown the telephone records
confirming that the call with the developer had lasted 18 minutes. He did not
refute the records. There was no record of any call from the developer that
lasted less than 2 minutes.

62) Councillor Lougheed was asked if the closed meeting of council on March 7 was
discussed during the 18-minute telephone conversation. Councillor Lougheed
said he recalled one aspect of the negotiation (the fire hall), and “that was
basically it.” He then went on to talk about the fire hall issue that arose a year
before. When asked for more specifics about the telephone call of March 8, he
agreed that the agent for the developer expressed worry that things might not go
the way the developer wanted. Otherwise, Councillor Lougheed was unable to
provide additional detail about this 18-minute call and in particular, what his
responses to the developer were. He described himself as a supporter of the
application.
IX. The Lunch Invitation from the Developer to Two Members of Council
63) On March 16, the Mayor had a 12-minute telephone call with an agent for the
developer. Later that day, a member of Council who was not perceived to view
the application favourably, received an invitation to a walk-through meeting at the
developer’s premises on March 19, 2018, to receive more information about the
development. The Councillor agreed to attend, however he requested another
Councillor attend with him as a witness. The Councillor made notes of the
meeting and retained copies of promotional material provided by staff of the
developer at the lunch. The notes and materials were consistent with the
description provided by the Councillor during the investigation.

64) Although nothing had been released publicly, the conversation at the walk-
through suggested to the invited Councillor that the developer knew what had
been discussed at some of the closed sessions. The Councillors who attended
listened but did not confirm details of the council’s discussions. The agents for
the developer provided lunch at the meeting and a bottle of wine to the members
of Council.
X. Councillor William Loughead Reports a Series of Leaks
65) Councillor William Loughead reported during his first interview for this
investigation that he was troubled by a series of calls to his home first thing in the
morning the day following three of the closed sessions of Council in which the
negotiations with the developer were discussed. He said the calls were from an
agent for the developer who described to him in detail what had happened during
the meetings. Councillor Loughead also said that he was seen as a “friend” of the
developer.

66) Councillor Loughead said there was a meeting in February, and two in March
that were in closed session, followed by calls to him from the agent for the
developer. He said he received information that the developer was “pissed off” at
12
 how some people were voting (in the closed meetings). He said he did not know
why he was getting the calls. He said that it “wasn’t right” and that he wanted the
calls to stop. He said that he did not provide information about the closed
meetings to the agent for the developer. He said that he was concerned that
because of the leaks, that the matter went “all the [developer’s] way.”

67) Councillor Loughead’s recollection of the calls did not fit with the telephone
records: he neither made nor received any call from the agent for the developer
the morning after the closed session of March 7, 2018: as seen above, the
communications on that date were between the Mayor and an agent for the
developer and between Councillor Doug Lougheed and an agent for the
developer. Councillor Loughead was provided with this information at a follow-up
interview. He then said that he likely didn’t get any call on the 8th of March,
because Council had decided in favour of the developer. This was a different
account than he gave at his first interview.

68) On March 20, the day before a closed session of Council scheduled for March
21, Councillor Loughead called an agent for the developer and spoke with him for
three minutes. He was unable to say what was discussed on the call, but said it
was nothing about the closed meeting. After the March 22, 2018 closed session
of Council to discuss the negotiations there was a call from an agent for the
developer to Councillor Loughead. This call was at 8:26 a.m. and lasted two
minutes. The telephone records revealed that Councillor Loughead then returned
the call to the agent for the developer and spoke with the agent for 9 minutes.
This was a different account of how these telephone calls took place than he
originally provided.

69) Sometime in March, Councillor Loughead began to report concerns about the
leaking of information to other members of Council and to Town Staff. He also
discussed the leaks with the Integrity Commissioner. Although the developer,
denied any such contacts with Councillor Loughead, the memo and telephone
records confirm there was contact as described by the Councillor, although not
exactly as he had initially described the calls. Councillor Loughead’s reports to
Town staff revealed he was passing along negotiating information to the Town
from the developer about the positions being taken by the developer.

70) Councillor Loughead told a staff member that he could “pretend” to be favouring
the developer’s position to help obtain information. The staff member reminded
him that this was not the process approved by Council. Councillor Loughead
was told by staff (although he denied that anyone told him this) that he should not
be having such conversations. Another member of Council, who Councillor
Loughead consulted, advised him that people might pretend to know what was
happening to try and draw him out and confirm what was discussed in closed
session.

13
71) Councillor Loughead claimed that Town staff asked him to keep taking these
calls, and let them know what he could find out. This was not confirmed by Town
staff. This was contrary to the directions sought and given by Council that Town
staff members were to exclusively manage the negotiations with the developer.

72) The investigation revealed that prior to the negotiations and the approvals of
Council, Councillor Loughead had applied twice to work for the developer. In May
of 2017, he delivered his resume by email to an agent for the developer. This
was the same agent with whom he had conversations about the negotiations that
were relayed to Town staff. Also, in 2016, he dropped off a resume to the
developer’s offices. Councillor Loughead said it had been “hinted” at by the agent
for the developer, that there might be work for him there. Councillor Loughead
said that he was waiting until after his term in office was over. He said that it
would be a conflict for him to vote on any matters dealing with the developer if he
was working for the developer.

73) Councillor Loughead did not identify a conflict between his interest in working for
the developer after his term of office ended and his public responsibilities in
considering that developer’s application and in taking calls from the agent
through whom he had sent in his resume. Councillor Loughead did not withdraw
his application to work for the developer during the period of the negotiations. He
said that because he had not heard anything, he believed there was no offer of
work forthcoming. This was not consistent with his plan to delay starting work
after his term of Council ended in October of 2018.

74) Councillor Loughead told several fellow Councillors, Town staff and the Integrity
Commissioner that there were leaks by someone, as disclosed to him by the
agent for the developer. Councillor Loughead reported twice in detail to Town
staff about what the developer wanted and weaknesses in the Town’s position in
the negotiations. Town staff made contemporaneous notes of the information
passed along by Councillor. The contents of these memos were reviewed with
Councillor Loughead and he confirmed that they described what he had been
told by the agent for the developer. The agent for the developer denied saying
what was described in the memos.

75) Councillor Loughead did not disclose his interest in working for the developer
after leaving office, or his two prior applications to work for the developer during
any meetings about the developer’s application. He did not recuse himself from
any votes dealing with the matter. He voted in favour of the developer’s
application when the matter came to Council for approval.

76) Later, during a second interview Councillor Loughead alleged that he was told he
was “being used” by others during this process. He complained that others were
trying to make it seem that he was the source of the leaks. He also complained in
his written submissions that the investigation was biased and the goal of the
investigation was to damage his reputation. He was upset and troubled by the

14
 idea that others were involved in revealing information to the developer, believing
that he was being found to have acted improperly but that others involved were
being protected. In order to protect the integrity of the investigation, potential
findings against others were not shared in advance with other members. This
report does not single out Councillor Loughead, but consider all of the evidence
addressing his actions, as well as evidence concerning other members and the
context.
XI. A Second Closed Session of Council, March 21, 2018: Staff Seek
Clarification and Council Defers the Question
77) On March 21, 2018 the application returned to Council in closed session. The
Deputy Mayor chaired the meeting because the Mayor was away in the United
States. Staff members were seeking clarification of the two conflicting sets of
negotiating instructions from Council, and were recommending a course of action
to Council. This was a course of action that was not favoured by the developer.
There was a detailed report along with a legal opinion provided to Council to
assist with the deliberations. The item was deferred to April 4, 2018.
XII. More Calls between the Mayor and Agents for the Developer: March 17-
April 3, 2018
78) The Mayor returned to his vacation property in the United States on March 17,
2018. The Deputy Mayor chaired the Council meeting of March 21, 2018. As
noted above, the Mayor initially said he did not speak with an agent for the
developer during the period while he was out of the country, which was not
accurate.

79) Telephone records obtained pursuant to summons revealed a number of brief

calls (likely messages left) initiated by the agent for the developer and calls from
the Mayor to the agent for the developer on 17 separate occasions between
March 17 and April 3, 2018. On the day of the Council meeting, March 21, the
Mayor received seven calls throughout the day from the agent for the developer,
including a four-minute call and another three-minute call. The day after the
meeting there were two brief calls of one minute or less. On March 23, two days
following the meeting of March 21st, the Mayor contacted the agent for the
developer and they spoke for 6 minutes.

80) The Mayor was unable or unwilling to provide details about these calls. He
described the agent for the developer as ‘yelling and screaming’ and that he
would “calm [the agent] down. There were no other pertinent details provided or
explanations for this volume of calls. The Mayor did not explain why he initially
said he did not speak with the developer at all while he was away on holiday.
The Mayor also said that he did not know what was being discussed at the
meeting of Council that he missed, nor was he briefed by anyone. Another
member of Council interviewed for this investigation believed that he may have
spoken with the Mayor and briefed him about the meeting. The volume of calls

15
 from the developer suggests the Mayor was taking an active role throughout the
period that he was away from Canada.

81) In his written response to the findings in this report, the Mayor initially asserted
that as head of Council, he will listen to “whoever” calls him and act as a
sounding board. He wrote, “I will talk to whoever I need to and listen to whoever
to come to a good ending for anyone.” He said that he did not reveal anything to
the agent for the developer during these calls. He did not explain why he had not
admitted taking these calls and provided no other details about what was
discussed or why they took place close in time to the key meetings of Council
that would affect the negotiations with the developer.

82) Another agent for the developer made five calls to the Mayor during the month of
March, on his cell number, his home number and at his number in the United
States. The Mayor was requested to provide information about the subject matter
of these calls on the following dates:

1. Tuesday March 6, 2018 3:27 p.m. call to Mayor cell phone (5 minutes)
2. Tuesday March 13, 2018 4:14 p.m. call to Mayor at home number (6
minutes)
3. Friday March 16, 2018 12:17 p.m. call to Mayor on home number (19
minutes)
4. Tuesday March 20, 2018 1:02 p.m. call to Mayor on U.S. number (5
minutes)
5. March 20, 2018 1:26 p.m. call to Mayor on U.S. number (2 minutes)

83) The Mayor provided no explanation or detail about these calls from this agent for
the developer to him, although given an opportunity to do so.
XIII. April 4, 2018: A Memo from Staff is leaked and Notice of a Motion to
Investigate Leaks is given to Council
84) On the morning of April 4, 2018, Town staff circulated a confidential memo to
members of Council with details of the negotiations. Later that day and prior to
the closed meeting to discuss the matter, Councillor Loughead advised a Town
staff member that he had spoken with an agent for the developer who said that
the developer had obtained a copy of the confidential memo.

85) The Town staff-member called the agent for the developer who talked about the
developer’s offer to Town staff. The agent for the developer told the Town staff
member that the Town had a “serious leaking problem.” The Town staff member
attempted to speak with the agent for the developer who had obtained the
information, and requested the telephone number for that person, but it was not
provided.

86) During the investigation, agents for the developer denied having confidential
information and denied being interested in obtaining this information. Given the

16
 prior volume of calls between the agents for the developer and elected members,
this assertion seemed implausible.

87) The calls made on April 4, 2018 show that Town staff members were made
aware that the Town negotiation strategy was not being kept confidential. The
developer assumed no responsibility for its role in obtaining or using confidential
information at the time of the leaks, and later, during this investigation.

88) The telephone records confirmed that there were telephone calls between the
agent for the developer and Councillor William Loughead on April 4.

89) The Mayor was asked about the two Notices of Motion placed on the April 4,
2018 agenda to investigate leaks of closed session information (10.1) and to
suspend all further close session meetings until the sources of the leaks could be
identified (10.2). The Mayor said that he heard about the Notices of Motion while
he was out of Canada. He said he was “shocked” to hear of the motions, did not
know what the subject matter was about and he tried to talk the mover out of
bringing the motion. The Mayor said at his interview on June 20, that he still did
not know what the allegation of leaking was about, although later, he
acknowledged that a senior member of Town staff raised concerns with him
about confidential information being passed along during the negotiations with
the developer.

90) On the morning of April 4, 2018, an agent for the developer contacted the Mayor
at his home at 9:08 a.m. and they spoke for 10 minutes. A second call between
the two at 10:39 a.m. lasted for 2 minutes.

91) After the Notice of Motion was given on April 4, 2018, telephone calls between
the agent for the developer and Councillor Loughead ended.

92) On April 5, 2018, the morning after the Notice of Motion was given; there were
three calls between the Mayor and the agent for the developer at the Mayor’s
home number as follows:

 8:30 a.m.: 17-minute call;

 8:46 a.m.: 4-minute call;
 10:18 a.m.: 1-minute call/message

93) Throughout the rest of April, the agent for the developer called the Mayor on
eleven separate occasions, always using his home number. There were no calls
made during the month of April to the Mayor’s cell phone number issued by the
Town of Innisfil.

94) The telephone records obtained under summons revealed calls to the Mayor’s
home from the agent to the developer on the following dates and times:

17
  Friday April 6, 12:43 p.m.: 9-minute call;
 Friday April 6, 6:28 p.m.: 5-minute call
 Saturday April 7, 9:01 a.m.: 1-minute call/message;
 Wednesday April 11, 12:06 p.m.: 1-minute call/message;
 Thursday April 12, 9:01 a.m.: 10-minute call;
 Monday April 16, 5:02 p.m.: 3-minute call;
 Tuesday April 17, 8:05 a.m.: 3-minute call;
 Wednesday April 18, 3:09 p.m.: 4-minute call;
 Monday April 23, 5:42 p.m. 9-minute call
 Saturday April 28, 5:19 p.m.: 1-minute call/message;
 Saturday April 28, 5:20 p.m.: 2-minute call;
 Sunday April 29, 10:15 a.m.: 12-minute call

95) Negotiations were ongoing throughout April between the Town and the
developer.
XIV. April 18, 2018: Council Unanimously Requests an Investigation into the
Leaks
96) The records of the Council meeting of April 18, 2018 show that the motion to
investigate leaks of confidential information passed unanimously. A motion to
suspend further closed meetings pending the result of the investigation was
defeated.
XV. April 27, 2018: Councillor Bill Loughead Relays an Allegation of Closed
Meeting Recording
97) In late April, after the motion for the investigation had been made, Councillor
Loughead passed along an allegation (which was later denied by the source) that
members of Staff had been responsible for the leaks. He said that he had been
told that unnamed staff had put a recording device under the table in the
boardroom used by Counsel for closed meetings. The device was removed
immediately after the meetings. Councillor Loughead presented this allegation
as the answer to the issue of the leaks and advised Town staff that they had
better look into the matter. Later, the source of that information was interviewed
and reported that it was all a “joke.”

98) Councillor Loughead was asked about the claim that the allegation accusing staff
of recording closed sessions was all a “joke.” He said he believed that the source
was not joking around. Councillor Loughead confirmed he had received no
information about any particular staff member recording closed meeting
proceedings. He did not consider whether passing along an allegation without
any other foundation might impact the reputation of staff. He said he “did what he
was asked to do,” which was to repeat the allegation to Town staff.

18
XVI. May 2018: Calls between a Key Witness and the Mayor about the
Investigation
99) On May 3, 2018, one of the agents for the developer was contacted to arrange a
meeting for this investigation. The agent did not respond to the request, but
within an hour of the request, the agent contacted the Mayor by telephone. The
Mayor was asked about this call, and acknowledged that the agent “could have
called him.” When shown the records confirming the call was placed to his Town
cell number and a four-minute conversation had been documented, he then said
that it was “most likely” that the agent said “what the hell is going on?” The
Mayor thought that the agent told him he would refuse to attend a meeting to
assist with the investigation.

100) The Mayor could not explain why the agent for the developer would contact him
about the investigation or inform him of an intention to refuse to cooperate. He
said the Integrity Commissioner can interview anybody (with information) and
that a complaint had been put onto the council agenda. He said to the developer
that it would “work its way out.”

101) During the month of May, the investigation continued. The negotiations for the
application by the developer were also continuing and leading up to a final
decision by Council. The agent for the developer called or messaged the Mayor
on sixteen separate occasions in May of 2018. Eventually, the negotiations were
completed by a team that included the Mayor, senior Staff and another member
of Council. Council approved the development application in May of 2018.

102) The Mayor was asked about his relationship to the agent for the developer. He
said that the connection was not a personal one, but professional/political arising
from the Mayor’s 18-year history in Town politics. Neither described each other
as “friends;” although the relationship appears to have been friendly. Later, in
the Mayor’s written response to the findings, he said that he did consider the
agent for the developer to be a friend.

PART THREE: APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

XVII. The Purpose of the Code of Conduct
103) The Council for the Town of Innisfil has a Code of Conduct which every member
receives and acknowledges they will follow while serving on Council. The specific
sections of the Code are informed by these high standards, which expand the
responsibilities of members of Council beyond the requirements of other anti-
corruption legislation, including the Criminal Code or the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.

104) The “Purpose of Code of Conduct” is found in Section 3 of the Code and is
included here because it sets the overall expectations by Council for the conduct
of its members. It speaks to the paramountcy of honesty and integrity. A Code

19
 that encourages the ‘highest standards of conduct’ does so in order to maintain
the trust and confidence of the community in its work. Members of Council
adopted this Code to govern themselves. They are taken to have read it,
understand the penalties for any breach and be willing to enforce it, all in the
public interest.

105) The Purpose informs how the Code has been applied to the facts found during
this investigation. It reads:

3. PURPOSE OF CODE OF CONDUCT

Encouraging and preserving the highest standards of conduct by

members of Council promotes an environment of integrity
appropriate for their fiduciary role. Honesty and integrity are
paramount in the fulfillment of the role of elected officials, and as
such, this Code of Conduct sets expectations for members and
requires them to conduct themselves in a way that generates
community trust and confidence, and also enhances the image of
the Town of Innisfil.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Council identifies the Town’s

expectations of Council members and provides direction with
respect to the underlying principles of the Code by reinforcing that:

a) decisions are made in an open, accessible, and

equitable forum;

b) decisions are made through appropriate channels;

c) elected office is not used for personal gain;

d) interactions between members is respectful and fair,

and exemplifies a spirit of goodwill and cooperation;

e) there is a high regard for the integrity of the office.

(Emphasis added)
XIX. The Applicable Sections of the Code of Conduct
106) There are three sections of the Code of Conduct that applied to the three
members of Council named in this report. The relevant portions are described
and excerpted below. The Code of Conduct is attached to this report as
Appendix 1.

20
 Improper Use of Influence

107) Section 13-“No Improper Use of Influence,” ensures that members of Council do
not try and influence decisions at Council for their private advantage or anyone
else in their circle: for example, friends, relatives, business associates. Members
are expected to make decisions in the public interest, based on information and
expertise they received from municipal staff and applying good judgment.
Attempts to influence decisions for self-interested purposes are corrosive to
public confidence in government. Council must make its decisions based on
what is in the public interest, the law and policies that it sets for itself, rather than
for the self-interest of members.

108) Section 13 of the Code of Conduct for the Town of Innisfil (CP .01-13-02) reads;

13. NO IMPROPER USE OF INFLUENCE

No member of Council shall use the influence of his or her office for
any purpose other than for the lawful exercise of his or her official
duties and for municipal purposes.

No member of Council shall use his or her office or position to

influence or attempt to influence the decision of any other person,
for the member’s private advantage or that of the member’s parent,
child, spouse, staff member, friend or associate, business or
otherwise. No member shall attempt to secure preferential
treatment beyond activities in which members normally engage on
behalf of their constituents as part of their official duties. No
member shall hold out the prospect or promise of future advantage
through the member’s supposed influence within Council, in return
for any action or inaction.

For the purposes of this provision, “private advantage” does not

include a matter:
a. That is of general application;
b. That affects a member of Council, his or her
parents, children or spouse, staff members,
friends or associates, business or otherwise,
as one of a broad class of persons; or
c. That concerns the remuneration or benefits of
a member of Council.

This provision does not prevent a member of Council from

requesting that council grant a lawful exemption from a policy.

21
Confidential Information
109) The resolution of Council on April 18, 2018 requesting an investigation focused
on concerns about leaks of closed meeting investigation. Some members of
Council who were interviewed described the care they took not to reveal closed
meeting information. Others noted the concern about the chilling effect that leaks
of candid confidential discussions can have on thoughtful debate. The
confidential matters that municipal council must consider, such as litigation,
negotiations and personnel matters are critical to the proper functioning of
municipalities. If members cannot be assured that their fellow members will not
respect the boundaries of confidentiality it erodes the trust around the Council
table. The proper functioning of local government depends on respect for
confidentiality.

110) The relevant portion of Section 14-Confidential Information provides:

14. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

…
No member shall disclose, release or publish by any means to any person
or to the public any confidential information acquired by virtue of his or her
office, in any form, except when required or authorized by Council or
otherwise by law to do so.

Any matter and information pertaining to that matter which has been
discussed or debated at a meeting which has been closed to the public,
shall remain confidential unless, and until such time as Council, a judicial
order, or other legislation authorizes its release.
A member may disclose the content of any matter which has been
discussed or debated at an in-camera meeting only after Council has
discussed or otherwise released the information to the public.

No member shall use confidential information for personal or private gain

or benefit, or for the personal or private gain or benefit of any other person
or body.

The entire text of Section 14 is found in the Code of Conduct, attached to this
report as Appendix 1.

Respect for the Code: Duty to Cooperate and Not Obstruct the Enforcement
of the Code

111) The Code of Conduct requires that members of Council cooperate “in every way
possible” and not obstruct an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner. This is
consistent with the high degree of integrity that is expected by this Code of
Conduct. I have interpreted this provision to require that members of Council tell

22
 the truth, without waiting to see if a matter can be “proved” before admitting facts.
It also means not having private conversations about the matter with other
witnesses and failing to disclose those until presented with evidence of those
discussions.

Section 26 provides:

26. NO REPRISAL OR OBSTRUCTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF

THIS CODE

Every member of Council must respect the integrity of the Code of

conduct and inquiries and investigations conducted under it, and shall co-
operate in every way possible in securing compliance with its application
and enforcement. Any reprisal or threat of reprisal against a complainant
or any other person for providing relevant information to the Integrity
Commissioner or any other person is prohibited. It is also a violation of the
Code of Conduct to obstruct the Integrity Commissioner, or any other
municipal official involved in applying or furthering the objectives or
requirements of this Code, in the carrying out of such responsibilities, or
pursuing any such objective.
XX. The Application of the Code of Conduct to Three Members of Council
Mayor Wauchope

112) I have concluded that there is credible, consistent evidence which supports a
common-sense inference that the Mayor had conversations with the developer
which provided the developer with information about confidential discussions
among members of Council in closed session on March 7, 2018. There were
numerous telephone calls after the meeting that were either not disclosed, or as
denied. On receiving proof of the calls, the Mayor did not or would not provide
details of the discussions on those calls. I infer that the Mayor did not wish to
provide details of what was said because he was aware he should not have been
having these conversations.

113) The inference that the Mayor provided confidential information about the March
7, 2018 is further supported by these facts:

 The Mayor spoke to the agent for the developer on the morning of March
8, the day following the closed session of Council in which the
development was discussed;
 The Mayor returned the developer’s telephone call from the airport as he
was waiting to fly to the U.S., which is consistent with the importance he
placed on speaking with the developer;
 The Mayor agreed he may have conveyed a position from the developer
to Town staff after his conversation with the developer;

23
  The Mayor did not advise the developer to negotiate directly with Town
staff: he took many calls from the developer throughout the process
suggesting a close relationship during this negotiation that was conducted
separately from Staff;
 There was no other reason for the developer to be interested in speaking
with the Mayor unless the Mayor was a source of assistance and
information;
 The Mayor initially said that the he had not been approached directly by
the developer about the negotiations--when provided with evidence of
multiple calls from the developer during the month of March 2018, the
Mayor then recalled that the agent for the developer had called to vent,
and “yell and scream” and that he would calm him down;
 the Mayor initially said that he received no calls from the developer while
the Mayor was away in the United States in March of 2018—there was, in
fact, a pattern of calls between the Mayor and the agent for the developer
on the following dates and times:

i. Friday March 9: 11:34 a.m. call from developer to Mayor (10

minutes long)
ii. Saturday March 10: 9:49 a.m. call from developer to Mayor (3
minutes)
iii. Wednesday March 21: 10:38 a.m. call from developer to Mayor (4
minutes)
iv. Wednesday March 28: 9:08 a.m. call from developer to Mayor (6
minutes)
v. Friday March 30: 12:26 p.m. call from developer to Mayor (10
minutes)

114) The Mayor was provided with an opportunity to describe the subject matter of
these calls and also to respond to these draft findings, which were supplied to
him in writing. He responded in writing as follows:

 The calls with the developer were “business-related” without further detail
as to what aspect of the developer’s business;
 The Mayor acted as a sounding board for the developer;
 He had to answer the calls both as Mayor and as a friend to the
developer;
 He listened to the developer “venting” but did not say what the venting
was about;
 The developer needed to be reassured that his concerns would be
addressed by Council;
 The Mayor said that he knew that the calls “looked suspicious” that they
happened on “certain dates”;
 The Mayor said he did not want to talk to the developer while away on
vacation yet he did so because of the importance of the matter to the
Town;

24
  The Mayor did not explain why he had not provided any of this information
at the start of the investigation;
 The Mayor did not describe the content of the conversations.

115) The Mayor also received telephone calls from a different agent for the developer
during the month of March, some in Canada and others while he was on holiday
in the United States. These calls were not disclosed during the investigation.
These calls took place on the following dates:

 Tuesday March 6, 2018 3:27 p.m. call to Mayor on cell number (5

minutes)
 Tuesday March 13, 2018 4:14 p.m. call to Mayor at home number (6
minutes)
 Friday March 16, 2018 12:17 p.m. call to Mayor on home number (19
minutes)
 Tuesday March 20, 2018 1:02 p.m. call to Mayor on U.S. number (5
minutes)
 March 20, 2018 1:26 p.m. call to Mayor on U.S. number (2 minutes)

The Mayor was provided with an opportunity to describe the subject matter of
these additional calls: he did not do so.
116) The Mayor agreed at his second interview for this investigation that the agent for
the developer knew something about what was happening. This is consistent
with his description of the developer “venting.” Yet, he did not raise concerns
with staff about any breaches of confidentiality that this knowledge suggested.
The Mayor’s assertion that he did not know what the motion seeking an
investigation into the breaches of closed meeting information was about, seems
unlikely, given the volume of calls he took with the developer during the
negotiations.

117) I concluded that the Mayor tried to hide his ongoing and extensive conversations
with the developer. I find he did so because he was aware that he should not be
having discussions included talking about or confirming matters that ought to
have been held in confidence. He was influenced by his respect for the
developer, which he expressed as well as his support for the application which
he believed was a good thing for the community. His intentions may have been
good in that respect, however he failed to respect the process approved by
Council, which was to leave the negotiations to Town staff. He did not set a
boundary with the developer, as other members had, to prevent these
discussions from taking place.

118) The agent for the developer called the Mayor on May 3, the day that the agent
was contacted and requested to provide information for this investigation. The
Mayor was told the agent would not cooperate with the investigation. If the
Mayor was not a friend and ally, why would a witness in a sensitive investigation

25
 ordered by Council say this to the head of Council? This call is another piece of
evidence of a close alliance between the Mayor and the developer. It suggests
that the Mayor’s withholding of information during the investigation was aligned
with the efforts by one of the witnesses for the developer to avoid providing
information and denying any attempts to seek out confidential information. I
asked the Mayor why he would put himself in such a vulnerable position, and he
said that he has been told that he is “too nice a guy.”

119) I found that on a balance of probabilities, Mayor Wauchope breached section 14

of the Code of Conduct (Confidential Information).

120) I further find that the Mayor’s statements that he did not receive calls from the
developer while in the United States, and that the developer did not contact him
about the negotiations, amounted to a failure to “cooperate in every way
possible” in securing compliance with the Code’s application and enforcement.
The Mayor simply could not have forgotten all the calls he made and received at
the key junctures of this significant application that was the product of months of
negotiation and his personal involvement and interest. His longstanding
relationship and respect for the developer, the significance of the negotiations
and the timing of the many calls back and forth, his ability to recall and describe
other information are all inconsistent with having merely forgotten these calls.

121) I find that it is more likely than not, that the Mayor out of self-interest, wishful
thinking, a desire not to offend the developer or a combination of the three,
denied the many calls to him from the developer and omitted significant details
during the investigation. His acknowledgement that it looked “suspicious”
supports an inference that he was motivated to hide this conduct. When
presented with evidence to the contrary, he provided only vague descriptions of
critical conversations. I find on a balance of probabilities that this breached his
duty to cooperate with the investigation, as required by section 26 of the Code of
Conduct and informed by the Purpose of the Code of Conduct, which holds
honesty and integrity as paramount values.
Councillor Doug Lougheed
122) Councillor Doug Lougheed received a call from the developer on the afternoon of
March 8, the day after a closed meeting session of Council.

123) Councillor Lougheed initially said the call lasted less than 2 minutes. He
described with precision who he was with and where he was at the time of the
call (which would have supported the fact that the call was brief). The length of
the call he described was later contradicted by the telephone records obtained
under summons, which revealed that he had had an 18 minute conversation with
the developer on March 8, 2018.

124) When he was asked about what was discussed, Councillor Lougheed provided
the same description about the subject matter of the call: the fire hall issue and

26
 the fact that the developer was unhappy. Councillor Lougheed described this
issue and said, “That was basically it.”

125) Councillor Lougheed‘s initial account of the length of the call was misleading. He
described the same subject matter in both of his responses to questions about
the call. The timing of the call, the interest of the agent as seen in other calls to
members of Council, and Councillor Lougheed’s original statement that the call
was less than 2 minutes in length support a finding that it was more likely than
not that information relating to the negotiations and closed meeting of council the
day before was discussed on the call.

126) Councillor Lougheed was provided with these findings and given a chance to
respond. He submitted that he was fully aware of his obligation to preserve
confidential information. He disagreed with the preliminary finding that his
account of the call was not reliable, and noted that he did not refute the records
which showed that the call lasted 18 minutes. He identified the subject matter of
the calls and I have amended this report to reflect the specific subject. This does
not alter the findings made based on the records and the interviews with him.

127) The timing of the call, his initial description of the length of the call, the actual
length of the call, the interest of the developer and his lack of detail as to what he
told the developer during the call support a conclusion on a balance of
probabilities that this call concerned the confidential discussions of Council on
the day prior to the call. I concluded on a balance of probabilities that Councillor
Lougheed breached section 14 of the Code of Conduct (Confidential
Information).

Councillor William Loughead

128) Councillor William Loughead initially provided an account of a series of telephone

calls at the same time each day, made to him by an agent for the developer after
three closed sessions of Council to discuss the developer’s application and the
negotiations. He said that he did not know why he was being called and said that
he was upset by these calls to him. However, he reported the conversations to
Town staff and to fellow members of Council. He said he was not happy with
hearing of leaks of confidential information, yet at the same time, he passed
along negotiating positions to Town staff, voted in favour of the application and
positioned himself as a “friend of the developer.” It appeared that Councillor
Loughead was trying to have it both ways and put himself into an impossible
position.

129) Councillor Loughead was also interested in working for the developer and made
his interest known to the developer during his term on Council. He applied to
work there on two occasions, once by dropping off a resume at the offices of the
developer, and again in May of 2017 when he sent his resume to the agent for

27
 the developer. This was the same agent with whom he later had the “troubling”
conversations about confidential matters.

130) Councillor Loughead said that it had been “hinted” to him by the agent for the
developer that he might be able to find work with the developer. In his written
submissions, Councillor Loughead described the position as a minimum wage
job that he did not expect to get, because he had heard nothing about it from the
developer. He insisted that he had no personal motives in discussing matters
about the negotiations with the agent for the developer.

131) Councillor Loughead claimed that when he brought information from the
developer to Town staff, he was asked by staff to continue to receive calls and to
supply information to them. This was not confirmed by Town staff: to the
contrary, the records and interviews with Town staff showed that staff requested
that elected officials stay out of the negotiations, because this was a role
delegated to Town staff. Councillor Loughead was reminded by Town staff that
he was not following the process as agreed upon.

132) Councillor Loughead continued to have conversations, convey information and

tell a number of other Councillors that he was concerned and upset about the
apparent transmission of confidential information to the developer. As found
above, there were other members of Council who had the opportunity and
motivation to share information with the developer and findings have been made
in that regard. However, the actions of Councillor Loughead, on further scrutiny,
are also cause for concern.

133) The telephone records do not support the Councillor’s description of receiving a
series of unwanted calls the morning after the closed sessions that discussed the
application. The meeting in March 7 revealed no calls to the Councillor from the
person who was contacting him. When this was pointed out, Councillor
Loughead changed his account and said that because that meeting went the way
the developer wished, there was no need for a call. This contrasted with his
certainty about receiving three calls after three meetings.

134) The Council meeting on March 21, 2018, led to a call from an agent for the
developer to Councillor Loughead; however it was 2 minutes in length, followed
by a longer call that was initiated by Councillor Loughead. This was a different
fact than the description initially provided by the Councillor and is suggestive of a
greater interest and willingness to be involved. He claimed to be troubled by the
calls, yet, he did not put a stop to them, and he called the developer back on
March 22.

135) Councillor Loughead stated in his written response that he listened and reported
information: he denied providing any confidential information. On two occasions
he stated he had a witness who could prove he was not the source of the leaks.
He did not produce the witness although invited to do so at the meeting in June.

28
136) Councillor Loughead asserted that the report was biased and an attempt to hurt
his reputation. He said that if he had leaked information, he would have “sat back
and kept [his] mouth shut.”

137) The memos made by Staff described what Councillor Loughead told Staff. These
memos reported the leak on March 22 and a leaked memo on April 4, as well as
new bargaining positions from the developer and criticisms of the Town position.
I found that Councillor Loughead was willing to assist the developer with the
outcome it was seeking in the negotiations. The Councillor did not push back
against the agent for the developer to say that he would not assist with any
negotiation that relied on confidential information being improperly conveyed.
Instead, I found that he played along and did so because he was interested in
being seen as helpful to the developer, with whom he was hoping to secure work
after completing his term on Council. As a result, it is more likely than not, that
he discussed and/or confirmed confidential positions and information discussed
during the closed session of council on March 21, 2018.

138) Finally, Councillor Loughead was also involved in the uncritical passing along of
a “Staff listening device” allegation. There was no support or objective evidence
for this allegation, yet because “he was asked to,” the Councillor reported this to
Town staff. This is further evidence that Councillor Loughead was interested in
pleasing the developer. He was willing to pass along an unfounded allegation
against unnamed members of Town Staff. There was no information provided
from anyone during this investigation that such a device existed or that any
member of Town staff used such a device to leak confidential information. Later,
the source described it as being a “joke.”

139) I put these findings to Councillor Loughead at an in-person meeting, and later in
writing. Councillor Loughead described himself as being “in the middle.” He
chose to place himself there. He repeated that he talked to others and the
Integrity Commissioner about his concerns with the leaks. I find that such
conversations did not mean he was not involved with discussions that concerned
confidential information. As described above, Councillor Loughead was not the
only member of Council having conversations which have been found to breach
the Code of Conduct.

140) I find on a balance of probabilities that Councillor Loughead breached section 14

of the Code of Conduct (Confidential Information).

141) I find that Councillor Loughead’s demonstrated interest in working for the
developer meant that he was motivated to be helpful to improve his prospects
with the developer. He applied no critical eye to how he was potentially being
“used” as a source of information and a source of positions from the developer
during the negotiations. I find that his personal advantage encouraged him to
have these conversations in the hope of future financial benefits to him in the

29
 form of employment with the developer. This was an attempted use of his
influence as a Councillor and amounts to a breach of section 13 of the Code of
Conduct.
XXIV. General Findings: Gifts and Hospitality Practices
142) During the period of negotiations over its application, the developer provided gifts
to members of Council and to Town staff. Gifts and hospitality included meals,
flowers, bottles of wine, cupcakes and on one occasion, the developer arranged
to have chicken soup sent to a member of Council who was ill. Gifts were sent to
the Town municipal offices and to the homes of members. There were no
disclosures to the Integrity Commissioner by members of any of these gifts, nor
was advice sought during the relevant time about the propriety of these gifts.

143) During my June interview with the Mayor, I asked about event tickets received
from the developer. The Mayor said he had received tickets to a political
fundraiser in the fall of 2016, and tickets in 2018 to a dinner honouring a
delegation from another country. Those were the only tickets disclosed by the
Mayor.

144) In response to a follow-up request for information, the developer disclosed

(among other tickets provided to unnamed Town officials) that during the period
in which the application was pending before Council, the Mayor had been given
tickets to a Justin Timberlake concert valued at $1,000 and tickets to an Elton
John concert valued at $2400.00.

145) The Mayor said he did not receive the Justin Timberlake tickets. He admitted to
receiving the Elton John tickets, and said they were a thank-you gift from the
employer for a service he had done for an employee of the developer.

146) The Code of Conduct for the Town of Innisfil does not permit gifts from those
engaged in lobbying activity. Section 17 (attached in Appendix 1, Code of
Conduct) sets out the rule: no gifts or hospitality that are connected directly or
indirectly with the performance of members’ duties of offices unless falling into
the specific exceptions. For certain categories of exception, these are subject to
monetary limits. None of the exceptions permit gifts from developers, lobbyists or
others with active applications under consideration by Council.

147) The source of the gift, not the amount, is the first question to be asked. As
Integrity Commissioner for the Province of Ontario, the Honourable J. David
Wake noted in the Commissioner’s Message to the 2017-2018 Annual Report to
the legislature, there have been similar misperceptions about the gift rule at the
provincial level:

…a number of members continued to think that any gift under $200 was
acceptable. While members are required to report any gift exceeding that

30
 threshold, the monetary value of the gift is not the determining factor as to
whether a gift is appropriate.1

The same holds true for the Town of Innisfil. It is not the monetary value that is
the determining factor: it is the source of the gift first that determines whether any
gift is appropriate. Gifts to members of family are deemed to be gifts to the
member of Council.

148) Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake has noted that some would describe
a lobbyist purchase of a meal for an MPP or public office holder as “relationship
building.” The consistent advice that has been provided at the provincial level is
that this is a gift and if it does not fall within the statutory exceptions it is not
permissible.2

149) As Justice Bellamy wrote about gifts and lobbying in the Toronto Computer
Leasing Inquiry Report (the Bellamy Inquiry Report):

Influence peddling includes giving gifts, buying meals, entertaining,

bestowing favours, trading secrets, or taking any other steps with a
government official to attempt to create a relationship of personal
obligation. This is the heart of misconduct for a lobbyist.3

150) Such activities can sway decision-making, engender feelings of obligation and
blur the necessary boundaries between those who want approvals or contracts
from local government and those who are responsible for making decisions in the
public interest.

151) Justice Bellamy recommended strongly curtailing the practice of gift giving in
local government. Those recommendations found their way into the Code of
Conduct at the City of Toronto. The provisions in the Town of Innisfil’s Code of
Conduct are similarly restrictive.

152) Members of Council in the Town of Innisfil seem to have become accustomed to
being sent gifts from this developer. One said, “That is what they (the developer)
do.” Perhaps that is why, during one Council session, some members worried
about “offending” the developer. Such considerations should not determine the
outcome of a vote. With one exception, members of Council did not appear to
question the propriety of gifts sent to them from the developer (or others) nor did
any member seek advice from the Integrity Commissioner for the Town about
whether any of these gifts met the exceptions within Section 17 of the Code of
Conduct. On one occasion, on the advice of Town staff, members of Council re-

1
http://www.oico.on.ca/ar/2017-2018/en/commissioners-message.html#gift-project, accessed July 7, 2018
2
http://www.oico.on.ca/ar/2017-2018/en/commissioners-message.html#gift-project, accessed July 7, 2018.
3
Bellamy Inquiry Report
https://www.toronto.ca/ext/digital_comm/inquiry/inquiry_site/report/pdf/TCLI_TECI_Report_Good_Government.
pdf accessed July 7, 2018 at page 82

31
 directed a planned gift to each of them from the developer of large turkeys for
Thanksgiving 2017: the turkeys were instead donated to a local food bank. This
indicated some awareness by members of Council that gifts from developers
could be problematic.

153) In 2012, Staff recommended an amendment to the Code of Conduct which would
have made the prohibition on gifts from lobbyists more explicit. In the staff report
considered by Council on November 21, 2012, the following prohibition on
acceptance of gifts and hospitality from lobbyists or those engaging in lobbying
activity was proposed as part of the Code of Conduct:

Except for exception c) (political contributions allowable by law), these

exceptions do not apply where a gift or benefit is provided by a lobbyist or
lobbyist’s client or employer.

In this provision, a lobbyist is an individual, organization or business who

or that:

a) Lobbies, or causes the lobbying of, any public office

holder of the municipality, the municipal Council or
corporation or a local board;
b) The member knows is attempting or intending to lobby
the member of any of the public persons or bodies listed
in paragraph a); or
c) Is maintaining an active lobbyist registration with the
municipality, whether or not with respect to any specific or
current subject-matter.

This portion of the Gifts section was not included in the Code of Conduct that is
currently in place at the Town of Innisfil. Nevertheless, as noted above, the
current wording of the Code of Conduct does not permit gifts from lobbyists or
persons lobbying.

154) The gifts extended by the developer in this case, coupled with the
communications and attempted communications with members of Council at their
homes and lobbying activity outside of the negotiation process all contributed to
an atmosphere of implied obligation, blurred boundaries and attempted leverage
by the developer. It suggests a close relationship that is inappropriate to the
magnitude and impact of the decisions required from Council. These practices
should be reviewed and the Code of Conduct made more explicit that there be no
gifts of any kind received from lobbyists and those with open applications for
approval by the Town. A public gift registry should be established to make the
receipt of acceptable gifts transparent to the public.

32
155) This leads to the second general observation around the unregulated lobbying
activity that accompanied this negotiation and its impact on public officials.
XXV. General Observations on Lobbying Activity
156) Lobbying activity happens when there is an “an organized effort to influence the
development or fate of anything the government does: pass a law, develop a
policy or program, award a contract, or give away money.”4 Lobbying happens
through meetings between a public servant (including elected officials and
municipal staff) and interested parties or their representatives. In this case, the
agents for the developer were engaged in lobbying activity in their
communications with members of Council.

157) A lobbyist may refer to themselves by other titles such as consultant or

government relations adviser. They may work in-house for an interested party.

158) As noted in the Bellamy Inquiry Report, lobbying is not in and of itself a negative
or positive thing. It is a fact of government. It can serve to drive public interest
debate, can contribute to economic growth and provide ways to serve the public.
However, if it is not regulated carefully it can also compromise decision-making
and negatively influence public perception in the operations of government.

159) There were significant recommendations around lobbying activity in the City of
Toronto from the Bellamy report. These included:

-establishing a Code of Conduct for lobbyists;

-passing a lobbying By-law and creating a lobbyist registry;
-restricting lobbying activity for public officials to office hours and locations;
-requiring lobbyists to state clearly who they are working for and to resolve any
conflicts of interest arising from representing different interests;
-prohibiting influence peddling by lobbyists in the form of gifts, hospitality and
entertainment of any value;
-holding lobbyists to the highest ethical standards;
-requiring all lobbying activity to be subject to registration;
-making information on lobbying activity available to the public.5

160) The Town of Innisfil is a municipality with residential, recreational, agricultural

and commercial land uses. It anticipates future growth. Future development can
be expected to attract ongoing lobbying activity. Planning for this activity will
serve the community and protect holders of public office.

4
Bellamy Inquiry Report above, at p. 79.
5
For more detailed discussion of the lobbying recommendations by Justice Bellamy see Vol 2, Good Government,
Bellamy Inquiry Report at
https://www.toronto.ca/ext/digital_comm/inquiry/inquiry_site/report/pdf/TCLI_TECI_Report_Good_Government.
pdf

33
161) On September 24, 2015, the Town Audit Committee considered a
recommendation for the creation of a lobbyist registry and received a
presentation on the Bellamy Report. It decided not to recommend funding a
lobbyist registry at that time.6 I recommend that Council reconsider instituting a
lobbyist registry. Investing in proper processes that require transparent conduct
around lobbying and avoiding conflicts of interest is a worthwhile investment.

XXVI. Recommendation as to Sanction

162) The available sanctions under the Municipal Act for a breach of the Code of
Conduct are a reprimand or suspension of pay for up to 90 days. Members of
Council often express difficulty with applying sanctions to fellow members of
Council. In order to be consistent and ensure that Codes of Conduct are
enforced, members are advised to take into account a set of objective criteria
when approaching this necessary task.

163) I recommend to Council that it consider the following in relation to each member
of Council who has been found to have breached the Code of Conduct:

-the nature of the breaches and the impact on the public interest;
-the severity of the breaches: did they happen over a lengthy period?
Were there multiple breaches of the Code?
-the remorse from and/or responsibility accepted by the members of
Council for the conduct in question;
-any failure to cooperate or actions taken to obstruct the investigation
-the length of service of the members and whether they were aware of
their obligations;
-any mitigating features, including apologies to Council and the
community; other consequences to the conduct; extenuating
circumstances for engaging in the conduct
-sending a message to other members of Council that the Code of
Conduct will be taken seriously;
-demonstrating to the community that Codes of Conduct will be enforced
and that Council takes its obligations under the Code of Conduct
seriously;
-any other relevant factor touching on the circumstances of the matter.

164) The significance of the development application, the importance of keeping

matters confidential, the fact that these are first breaches for each member of
Council and the other factors in this case lead me to recommend that Council
consider sanctions that are stronger than a reprimand and include a suspension
of remuneration, although not at the maximum available period (3 months).

165) It will be for Council to decide the appropriate sanction, however to assist with a
reasonable range of penalty, I suggest that the sanctions fall within a range of
6
INNISFIL AUDIT COMMITTEE September 24, 2015, REPORT NO. 03-15

34
 30-60 days suspension of remuneration for Mayor Wauchope and Councillor
Loughead, and in the range of 10-30 days suspension of remuneration for
Councillor Lougheed. These ranges reflect the different number of contacts with
the Members, additional findings of breaches of other sections by two of the
Members and the nature of those contacts.

Conclusion

166) As stated at the outset of this report, I recommend the following actions to
Council for its consideration:

i. That Mayor Gord Wauchope breached sections 14 and 26 of the

Code of Conduct;

ii. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Mayor Wauchope in
the range of 30-60 days;

iii. That Councillor William Loughead breached sections 13 and 14 of

the Code of Conduct;

iv. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Councillor William
Loughead in the range of 30-60 days;

v. That Councillor Doug Lougheed breached section 14 of the Code of

Conduct;

vi. That Council impose a sanction under section 223.4(5) of the

Municipal Act suspending the remuneration of Councillor Doug
Lougheed in the range of 10-30 days;

vii. Request that Town Staff in consultation with the Integrity

Commissioner to the Town of Innisfil report back on policy
amendments to address the regulation of lobbying activity, gifts and
benefits from lobbyists and a plan for training of staff and members
of Council on their proposed and present obligations under Town of
Innisfil polices and Code of Conduct.

35
DATED this 27th day of August, 2018

________________________
Janet Leiper, LL. B., LL. M., C.S.

Appendix 1: Code of Conduct for Members of Council, Policy No. CP.01-13-02,

Town of Innisfil Corporate Policy

36
 Appendix 1
Code of Conduct for Members of Council,
Policy No. CP.01-13-02, Town of Innisfil Corporate Policy

37
 TOWN OF INNISFIL
CORPORATE POLICY
POLICY: COUNCIL APPROVAL
Code of Conduct for Members of DATE: February 20, 2013
Council RES. NO.: CR-029-11.13
POLICY NO.: REVISED DATE: September 17, 2014
CP.01-13-02 RES. NO.: CR-155-17.14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. POLICY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 2

2. SCOPE ..................................................................................................................... 2
3. PURPOSE OF CODE OF CONDUCT ...................................................................... 2
4. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3
5. COMPLIANCE WITH DECLARATION OF OFFICE ................................................. 3
6. ADHERENCE TO COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ................................ 4
7. APPOINTMENT OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER ................................................ 4
8. GENERAL CONDUCT OF COUNCIL ....................................................................... 4
9. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS ...................................................................................... 4
10. CONDUCT AT PUBLIC EVENTS .......................................................................... 4
11. CONDUCT WHEN INTERACTING WITH STAFF ................................................. 4
12. CONDUCT DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN ...................................................... 5
13. NO IMPROPER USE OF INFLUENCE ................................................................. 5
14. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION .......................................................................... 6
15. USE OF TOWN PROPERTY, SERVICES AND RESOURCES ............................ 7
16. INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITY................................................................................... 7
17. GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY ................................................................................... 8
20. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT..................................................................... 10
21. ATTIRE AND APPEARANCE .............................................................................. 10
22. STATUTES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF COUNCILLORS ...................... 10
23. CODE OF CONDUCT BREACHES..................................................................... 11
24. COMPLAINT PROTOCOL .................................................................................. 11
25. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 11
26. NO REPRISAL OR OBSTRUCTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE 11
27. NO APPEAL OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER’S DECISION ........................... 12
28. IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................. 12
29. COMMITMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................... 13
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 2 of 13

1. POLICY STATEMENT
Members of Council of the Town of Innisfil are committed to the discharge of their duties
as elected officials in a respectful and ethical manner. The Code of Conduct for
Members of Council is the instrument through which Council will establish and maintain
standards for appropriate conduct. Members of Council understand their responsibility
to protect and maintain public trust through adherence to established standards.

The quality of municipal administration and governance is best achieved through the
establishment of high standards of conduct. The parameters established in this Code of
Conduct will ensure that the integrity of the Town of Innisfil is upheld.

Key principles which underline the intent of this Code of Conduct are:

a) Members of Council must serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a

conscientious and diligent manner;

b) Members of Council must be committed to performing their duties with integrity,

without improper use of the influence of their office and conflicts of interest, both
perceived and real;

c) Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and manage
their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear
close public scrutiny;

d) Members of Council must recognize and act upon the principle that democracy is
best achieved when the operation of government is made as transparent and
accountable to members of the public as possible; and

e) Members of Council shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the
letter and spirit of the laws of Parliament and the Ontario Legislature, as well as
the laws and policies adopted by Council.

2. SCOPE
The Code of Conduct for Members of Council applies to each member of Council, in
fulfilling their obligation in service to the citizens of the Town of Innisfil.

3. PURPOSE OF CODE OF CONDUCT

Encouraging and preserving the highest standards of conduct by members of Council
promotes an environment of integrity appropriate for their fiduciary role. Honesty and
integrity are paramount in the fulfillment of the role of elected officials, and as such, this
Code of Conduct sets expectations for members and requires them to conduct
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 3 of 13

themselves in a way that generates community trust and confidence, and also
enhances the image of the Town of Innisfil.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Council identifies the Town’s expectations of
Council members and provides direction with respect to the underlying principles of the
Code by reinforcing that:

a) decisions are made in an open, accessible, and equitable forum;

b) decisions are made through appropriate channels;
c) elected office is not used for personal gain;
d) interactions between members is respectful and fair, and exemplifies a spirit of
goodwill and cooperation;
e) there is a high regard for the integrity of the office.

4. DEFINITIONS
In this Code of Conduct:

“child” means a child born within or outside marriage and includes an adopted child and
a person whom a member has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his
or her family;

“Council” means the Council of the Town of Innisfil, inclusive of Mayor and Deputy
Mayor;

“fiduciary” means a person who is required to act for the benefit of another person on all
matters within the scope of their relationship; one who owes to another the duties of
good faith, trust, confidence and candor;1

“information” includes a record or document;

“member” means a member of the Council, unless the context otherwise requires;

“parent” means a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a
part of his or her family whether or not that person is the natural parent of the child;

“person” includes a corporation, partnership, association and any other entity, as the
context allows; and

“spouse” means a person to whom a person is married or with whom the person is
living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage.

5. COMPLIANCE WITH DECLARATION OF OFFICE

Every member of Council shall act in accordance with his or her declaration of office
(see Appendix “A”).

1
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 4 of 13

6. ADHERENCE TO COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Every member of Council shall observe and comply with every provision of this Code of
Conduct, as well as all other policies and procedures adopted or established by Council
and affecting the Councillor while acting in his or her capacity as a member of Council.

7. APPOINTMENT OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Council shall appoint an Integrity Commissioner to investigate alleged breaches of
this Code pursuant to Subsection 223.3 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

8. GENERAL CONDUCT OF COUNCIL

Every member of Council has the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public,
staff, and each other in an appropriately respectful manner, without abuse, bullying or
intimidation. Every member shall take measures to ensure that the municipal work
environment is free from discrimination and harassment.

A member of Council shall not use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions
toward any other member, any member of staff, or any member of the public.
A member of Council shall not speak in a manner that is discriminatory to any individual,
based on that person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, creed, gender, sexual orientation,
age, colour, marital status, or disability.

9. CONDUCT AT MEETINGS

Every member of Council shall conduct himself or herself in an appropriate and civil
manner at Council, committee and other meetings, pursuant to Subsection 168 of
Procedural By-law No. 077-11, this Code of Conduct, and other applicable law.

10. CONDUCT AT PUBLIC EVENTS

Member of Council are occasionally requested to make public presentations outside of
Council meetings or attend public events as representatives of the Town of Innisfil. As
such, every member shall conduct himself or herself with dignity and decorum, in a
manner befitting public expectation.

11. CONDUCT WHEN INTERACTING WITH STAFF

Every member of Council shall be respectful of the working relationships and reporting
responsibilities between staff members. Municipal staff work under the direction of the
Municipal head, and are required to carry out the decisions of Council in service of the
municipal corporation as a whole. Municipal staff are also required to advise Council on
legislative and administrative policy with political neutrality and objectivity and without
undue influence from any individual member or any faction of the Council.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 5 of 13

Accordingly, no member shall maliciously or falsely injure or impugn the professional or

ethical reputation of any member of staff. Every member shall show respect for staff,
and for their professional capacities and responsibilities.

No member of Council shall use indecent, abusive or insulting words or expressions

toward any other member, any member of staff or any member of the public, either
directly or by innuendo.

No member shall compel any member of staff to engage in partisan political activities, or
subject any member of staff to threat or discrimination for refusing to engage in any
such activity.

No member shall use or attempt to further his or her authority or influence by

intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing improperly any staff
member or interfering with the person’s duties, including the duty to disclose improper
activity.

12. CONDUCT DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN

Every member shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Elections
Act, 1996. No member shall use confidential information, facilities, equipment, supplies,
services or other resources of the municipality, including any Councillor newsletter or
website linked through the municipality’s website, for any election campaign or
campaign-related activity (see also Section 15). No member shall undertake campaign-
related activities on Town property unless authorized by the municipality. No member
of Council shall use the services of any person for election-related purposes during
hours in which that person receives any compensation from the municipality.

13. NO IMPROPER USE OF INFLUENCE

No member of Council shall use the influence of his or her office for any purpose other
than for the lawful exercise of his or her official duties and for municipal purposes.

No member of Council shall use his or her office or position to influence or attempt to
influence the decision of any other person, for the member’s private advantage or that
of the member’s parent, child, spouse, staff member, friend or associate, business or
otherwise. No member shall attempt to secure preferential treatment beyond activities
in which members normally engage on behalf of their constituents as part of their official
duties. No member shall hold out the prospect or promise of future advantage through
the member’s supposed influence within Council, in return for any action or inaction.

For the purposes of this provision, “private advantage” does not include a matter:

a) That is of general application;

b) That affects a member of Council, his or her parents, children or spouse, staff
members, friends or associates, business or otherwise, as one of a broad class
of persons; or
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 6 of 13

c) That concerns the remuneration or benefits of a member of Council.

This provision does not prevent a member of Council from requesting that council grant
a lawful exemption from a policy.

14. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

In this Code, “confidential information” includes any information in the possession of, or
received in confidence by, the municipality that the municipality is prohibited from
disclosing, or has decided to refuse to disclose, under the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or any other law. “Confidential information’
also includes information of a corporate, commercial, scientific or technical nature
received in confidence from third parties; personal information; information that is
subject to solicitor-client privilege; information that concerns any confidential matters
pertaining to personnel, labor relations, litigation, property acquisition or disposition, the
security of the property of the municipality or local board; and any other information
lawfully determined by the Council to be confidential, or required to remain or be kept
confidential by legislation or order.

No member shall disclose, release or publish by any means to any person or to the
public any confidential information acquired by virtue of his or her office, in any form,
except when required or authorized by Council or otherwise by law to do so.

Any matter and information pertaining to that matter which has been discussed or
debated at a meeting which has been closed to the public, shall remain confidential
unless, and until such time as Council, a judicial order, or other legislation authorizes its
release.

A member may disclose the content of any matter which has been discussed or
debated at an in-camera meeting only after Council has discussed or otherwise
released the information to the public.

No member shall use confidential information for personal or private gain or benefit ,or
for the personal or private gain or benefit of any other person or body. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, no member shall, without lawful authority, disclose, or
make personal use of, any of the following types of confidential information:

a) Information concerning litigation, negotiation or personnel matters;

b) Information which infringes on the rights of any person, such as publication of the
identity of a complainant when such information was given in confidence;
c) Information such as price schedules on a contract, tender or other proposal while
the document remains confidential;
d) Information deemed to be “personal information” under the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and
e) Any other information or statistical data required by law to remain confidential.

No member of Council shall obtain access, or attempt to gain access, to confidential

information in the custody of the municipality except to the extent that such access is
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 7 of 13

necessary for the performance of his or her duties and such access is not prohibited by
Council or otherwise by law.

15. USE OF TOWN PROPERTY, SERVICES AND RESOURCES

No member of Council shall use, or permit the use of, municipal land, facilities,
equipment, supplies, services, staff or other resource(s), including any municipally-
owned information, website, Council transportation delivery service or funds allocated
for member of Council expenses, for any purpose or activity other than the lawful
business of the municipal corporation.

No member shall seek or acquire any personal financial gain from the use or sale of
confidential information, or of any municipally-owned intellectual property including any
invention, creative writing or drawing, computer program, technical innovation, or any
other information or item capable of being patented or copyrighted, or which property
remains exclusively that of the municipality.

16. INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITY

A member of Council may not engage in any outside work or business activity which is
incompatible or inconsistent with the ethical discharge of official duties in the public
interest. Members of Council shall not engage in outside activity which uses their
knowledge of confidential information about the holdings of the corporation.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Members of Council shall not:

a) Use any influence of office for any purpose other than official duties;
b) Act as an agent on behalf of another party, before Council or any committee,
board or commission of Council;
c) Solicit, demand or accept the services of any corporation, employee, or individual
providing services to the municipality at a time in which said person or
corporation is being paid by the municipality;
d) Use any information gained in the execution of office that is not available to the
general public for any purpose other than for official duties;
e) Place themselves in a position of obligation to any person or organization which
might benefit from special consideration or may seek preferential treatment;
f) Give preferential treatment to any person or organization in which a member or
members of Council have a financial interest;
g) Influence any administrative or Council decision or decision-making process
involving or affecting any person or organization in which a Member or Members
of Council have a financial interest; and
h) Use corporate materials, equipment, facilities or employees for personal gain or
for any private purpose.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 8 of 13

17. GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY

For the purposes of this Code, a gift or extension of hospitality with the member’s
knowledge, to a member’s spouse, child or parent, or to his or her staff, that is
connected directly or indirectly to the performance of the member’s duties is deemed to
be a gift or extension of hospitality to that member.

No member shall accept a fee, advance, gift or offer of hospitality that is connected
directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties of office, unless permitted
under one or more of the exceptions listed below.

Each of the following is recognized as an exception:

a) Compensation authorized by law;

b) A gift or hospitality of the kind that normally accompanies the responsibilities of
office and is received as an incident of protocol or social obligation;
c) A political contribution otherwise authorized and reported as required by law, in
the case of a member running for office;
d) Services provided without compensation by a person volunteering his or her
time;
e) A suitable memento of a function honouring the member;
f) Food, lodging, transportation or entertainment lawfully provided by any
Provincial, Regional or local government or board or political subdivisions of any
of them, by the Federal government, a foreign government, or by those
organizing a conference, seminar or event where the member is speaking or
attending in an official capacity;
g) Food and beverages consumed at a banquet, reception or similar event, if:
i. Attendance by the member is or a legitimate municipal purpose;
ii. The person extending the invitation, or a representative of the
organization holding the event, is in attendance; and
iii. The value is reasonable;
h) Communications to the office of a member, including subscriptions to
newspapers and periodicals; and

In the case of any of the recognized exceptions b), e), f), and h), if the value of the gift
or hospitality exceeds $300.00, or the total value of gifts or hospitality from one source
exceeds $300.00 per calendar year, the member shall file, by March 31 for the previous
year, a disclosure statement with the municipality, as prescribed by the Integrity
Commissioner.

Every disclosure statement filed under this Code shall be made a public record.

Upon receiving a disclosure statement, the Integrity Commissioner shall examine it to

ascertain whether the receipt of the gift or hospitality might, in his or her opinion,
constitute a contravention of this Code or create a conflict between a private interest
and the public duty or responsibilities of the member.
In the event that the Integrity Commissioner makes such a determination, he or she
shall call upon the member to justify receipt of the gift or hospitality.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 9 of 13

Should the Integrity Commissioner determine that receipt of any gift or hospitality was
inappropriate, he or she may direct the member to return the gift, reimburse the donor
for the value of any gift or hospitality already consumed, forfeit the gift or remit the value
of any gift or hospitality already consumed, to the municipality.

Except in the case of exceptions a), c), and f), no member shall accept a gift or
hospitality worth in excess of $600.00, or gifts or hospitality from one source during a
calendar year which together are worth in excess of $600.00.

18. SPONSORSHIPS OR DONATIONS FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS

Selling tickets for a community event is not considered solicitation for the purposes of
this Policy.

Members shall, by March 31 for the previous year, including a municipal election year,
provide a financial disclosure form to the Integrity Commissioner, listing the
sponsorships and donations for each community event for which the member solicited
such sponsorships or donations in excess of $1000 for a member solicited sponsorship
or donation from in excess of $500 per individual or corporation. That form shall be a
public record.

Sponsorships or donations on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Innisfil shall be

undertaken in accordance with Corporate Donation Policy (CP.08-05), as amended.

19. COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA RELATIONS

Official information relating to decisions and resolutions of Council shall normally be
communicated to the media and the community through the Communications Officer.

In some instances, members of Council are requested to comment on policy, procedure

and decisions of Council. In those instances, Council members shall convey the
information openly and accurately, unless confidentiality regulations apply.

When making statements to the media or the public, members shall remain focused on
issues, avoiding statements which provoke or challenge another Councillor, or which
might damage the reputation of another Council member.

Council members shall not make accusatory statements or lay blame. In the event that
a Council decision has not unfolded the way Council intended, the information shall be
communicated to the public in a forthright manner which identifies the problem and the
corrective action.
Members of Council shall accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and
decisions of the Town of Innisfil Council, even if they don’t agree with a decision
reached on a particular matter showing respect for the democratic process, and
showing sense of teamwork within the membership.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 10 of 13

Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a member of Council from outlining their
rationale for voting in a particular manner, which may have been contrary to the final
Council decision.

20. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Members of Council have an obligation to promote, support, pursue and participate in
opportunities for professional development. Council members are required to remain
informed on issues and trends in order to serve the public efficiently and effectively in
the fulfillment of their duties.

Expenses and approvals for “Business Expenses” are governed by the Business
Expense Policy for Elected Official and Committee Members, as amended.

21. ATTIRE AND APPEARANCE

As representatives of the Town of Innisfil, it is expected that every member of Council
will take appropriate care in dress and appearance, which at meetings is business
dress.

During the summer months, commencing on the first Council meeting following Victoria
Day and ending on the last Council meeting before Thanksgiving Day, the dress code is
relaxed. As such, it is appropriate during that time for members of Council to attend
Council meetings in business casual dress, which is more relaxed than business dress.

Dress for committee meetings is generally more relaxed, and will follow a business
casual dress standard.

Special events and special occasions will require that members of Council gage what
attire is appropriate for the event.

22. STATUTES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF COUNCILLORS

In addition to this Code of Conduct, the following Ontario legislation also governs the
conduct of member of Council:

The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended;

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act;
The Municipal Elections Act, 1996; and
The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Criminal Code of Canada also governs the conduct of members of Council.

A member may become disqualified and lose his or her seat by operation of law,
including being convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or being
found to have failed to comply with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, whether or not
the conduct in question involves contravention of this Code of Conduct.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 11 of 13

In the case of any inconsistency between this Code and a Federal or Provincial statute
or regulation, the statute or regulation shall prevail.

23. CODE OF CONDUCT BREACHES

Where Council receives a report by its Integrity Commissioner that, in his or her opinion,
there has been a violation of the Code of Conduct, Council may impose upon the
offending member of Council either of the following:

1. A reprimand;
2. Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her
services as a member of Council for a period of up to 90 days.

24. COMPLAINT PROTOCOL

Any individual, organization, employee, Member of Council, Council as a whole or
member of the public who has reasonable grounds to believe that a member has
breached this Code, may proceed with a complaint and request an inquiry. Complaints
must be submitted within 6 months after the alleged violation occurred or submission of
the relevant disclosure documentation. No action will be taken on a complaint received
beyond this deadline.

25. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

A request for an investigation into an alleged breach may be made in writing to the
Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Innisfil, setting out the name of the Council
Member who breached the Code of Conduct, the date of the alleged breach, and a
description of how the Code was violated.

The appointed Integrity Commissioner for the Town of Innisfil will commence an
independent investigation and provide a written report to Council. The Integrity
Commissioner and every person acting under the Commissioner’s jurisdiction shall
preserve confidentiality with respect to all matters that become known in the course of
the investigation.

The summary report provided to Council by the Integrity Commissioner will contain
recommendations and advice without disclosing confidential information. The report will
also contain a decision about the alleged contravention, and provide remedial action to
be taken.

26. NO REPRISAL OR OBSTRUCTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF

THIS CODE
Every member of Council must respect the integrity of the Code of conduct and inquiries
and investigations conducted under it, and shall co-operate in every way possible in
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 12 of 13

securing compliance with its application and enforcement. Any reprisal or threat of
reprisal against a complainant or any other person for providing relevant information to
the Integrity Commissioner or any other person is prohibited. It is also a violation of the
Code of Conduct to obstruct the Integrity Commissioner, or any other municipal official
involved in applying or furthering the objectives or requirements of this Code, in the
carrying out of such responsibilities, or pursuing any such objective.

27. NO APPEAL OF INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

There is no appeal from the decision of the Integrity Commissioner.

28. IMPLEMENTATION
At the outset of each term of Council, members shall receive and acknowledge two
copies of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council. One copy shall be retained by
the member, and one copy shall be provided to the Clerk.

Code of Conduct training shall comprise a portion of the new Council orientation
program.

Council members are expected to formally and informally review their adherence to the
provisions of the Code on a regular basis or when requested by Council.

Clerk Services will provide candidates running for a position on Council with a copy of
this Policy when they submit their nomination package.
Corporate Policy CP.01-13-02 Page 13 of 13

29. COMMITMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Two Copies of the Code of Conduct are to be acknowledged; one copy to be retained
by the Clerk, and one copy to be provided to the member of Council.

I____________________________________, agree to abide by the requirement of this

Code of Conduct in the discharge of my duties as an elected official.

I acknowledge that I have read and accept the expectations and responsibilities outlined
in this Code of Conduct. I will act with honesty and integrity and conduct myself in a
manner which generates public trust and confidence and enhances the image of the
Town of Innisfil.

_________________________________ _______________________________
Signature of Member of Council Date of Signature
 APPENDIX “A”
TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
CP.01-13-02 September 17, 2014

DECLARATION OF OFFICE
(Section 232 of the Municipal Act, 2001)

I, xxx(name), having been elected as xxxx(position) in the municipality of The

Corporation of the Town of Innisfil, do solemnly promise and declare that:

1. I will truly, faithfully and impartially exercise this office to the best of my
knowledge and ability.

2. I have not received and will not receive any payment or reward, or promise
thereof, for the exercise of this office in a biased, corrupt or in any other improper
manner.

3. I will disclose any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in accordance with the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

4. I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the
Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being).

And I make this solemn promise and declaration conscientiously believing it to be true
and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath.

Declared before me at the

Town of Innisfil, County of Simcoe,
this ___ day of ______, ______.

__________________________
(name), (postion)

_________________________________
Jason Reynar, Town Clerk
Commissioner for taking Affidavits
 APPENDIX “B”
TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
CP.01-13-02 September 17, 2014

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FOR GIFTS OR HOSPITALITY

(To be used pursuant to Section 17. of CP.01-13-02)

Recipient’s Name:_______________________________________________________

Item Received or Nature of Hospitality:_______________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Received From:_________________________________________________________

Date of Receipt:____________________ Value or Estimate of Item:________________

Please describe the circumstances under which the Item or Hospitality was received:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Please describe your intentions with respect to the Item or Hospitality:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Do you anticipate transferring the gift or hospitality described above to the municipality?

Yes, immediately_____________ Yes, eventually _____________ No _____________

_______________________________________ _____________________
Recipient’s Signature Date
 APPENDIX “C”
TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
CP.01-13-02 September 17, 2014
TOWN OF INNISFIL
FORMAL COMPAINT FORM – COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
This form will be used to request an Integrity Submit completed request to:
Commissioner to review a complaint of an Clerk
alleged contravention of the Code of Conduct. Town of Innisfil
2101 Innisfil Beach Road
Innisfil, ON L9S 1A1

APPLICANT INFORMATION
Last Name: First Name:

Street Address: Town/City:

Postal Code: Phone #:

E-mail Address: Complaint filed against:

DETAILS OF ALLEGED COTRAVENTION

Date(s) of alleged contravention:

Provision(s) of the Code of Conduct allegedly contravened:

Facts constituting the alleged contravention (please use separate page if required):

Name(s) and contact information of any witnesses:

Signature: Date Prepared:

Year: Month: Day:

FOR TOWN OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received by Town Request # Comments:
Year: Month: Day:

Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act and will be used for the purpose of responding to a complaint review request.
17788713.2