|
Complaints - Municipal Code of Conduct (Ethics). Sherwin v. Blunt
In Sherwin v. Blunt (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court allowed a complainant's JR, this brought when "the Integrity Commissioner informed Mr. Sherwin that she was declining his request for an investigation of the complaints on the basis that she lacked jurisdiction".
Here the court notes that the "Integrity Commissioner’s decision is bereft of any explanation for how she arrived at the conclusion that she lacked jurisdiction", and considers both 'adequacy of reasons' and adequate alternative remedy (AAR) arguments in this context:[32] .... The issues raised by this judicial review focus on the decision that the Respondent lacked jurisdiction and the adequacy of those reasons.
....
[38] On its face and on a plain reading, the Integrity Commissioner’s decision is bereft of any explanation for how she arrived at the conclusion that she lacked jurisdiction. It might be argued that perhaps she meant that she lacked jurisdiction because there were alternate procedures available; however, that is not clear from her decision and does not assist for reasons that follow.
[39] The Integrity Commissioner directed the Applicant to communicate with Township legal counsel on four of the five complaints. That is not an alternate procedure under other legislation or Municipal policy. There is no legislation that directs a complainant in respect of an integrity complaint to deal directly with legal counsel for the alleged violator, nor is there any reference in her decision to any municipal policy that so directs. Certainly, the Respondent made no mention of such legislation or Municipal policy in her decision, and counsel could not identify same.
[40] The Respondent’s direction to the Applicant to raise the issues in his complaint with the Township’s legal counsel is not an ‘alternate procedure’ contemplated by the Code of Conduct policy. Respondent’s counsel on this judicial review was unable to explain how “go see the lawyer” is an alternate procedure under legislation or the Township’s policy.
[41] With respect to the direction that the zoning complaint (complaint #4) can and should be addressed through the OLT appeal, that direction misapprehends the scope of the OLT proceeding which cannot and does not address the ethical issues raised by the Applicant concerning the conduct of the mayor and councillors. The OLT hearing looks at the proposed rezoning request on its merits. It is a hearing de novo. Evidence that councillors acted in bad faith or discriminated against the Applicant based on his place of origin is irrelevant. That is “water under the bridge”. The OLT does not adjudicate on propriety of the conduct of municipal councillors; rather, it looks at the merit of the requested rezoning afresh with no regard for whether councillors adhered to their Code of Conduct.
[42] Thus, the OLT appeal will address whether the rezoning should be granted but does not address whether the complaints made by the Applicant that the mayor and councillors breached the Code of Conduct are meritorious. The OLT is not, in this sense, an alternate process to address the issues raised by the complaint. Put another way, the OLT appeal will deal with the result of the impugned conduct, – denial of the rezoning application, but will not address the allegations of misconduct by the mayor and councillors that preceded and informed that result.
[43] In these circumstances, the Integrity Commissioner’s directions to pursue discussions with the Township’s lawyer and that the OLT proceeding will address the complaint made are unreasonable and do not justify her decision to decline jurisdiction.
[44] Further, the failure to provide any reasons that explain how she arrived at the conclusion that she lacked jurisdiction is unreasonable.
|
