|
Education - Integrity Commissioner. Ramsay v. Waterloo Region District School Board
In Ramsay v. Waterloo Region District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a JR by a school board trustee against "the Waterloo Region District School Board (the “WRDSB”) ... which found that he had breached its Code of Conduct for Trustees (“Code of Conduct”) and imposed sanctions upon him as a result".
In these quotes, the court illustrated local school board integrity commissioner procedures:[15] In order to handle and deal with the complaint, the WRDSB retained Barry Bresner of ADR Chambers as Integrity Commissioner to investigate the allegations made against Ramsay contained in it and to provide a report, as provided by the Code of Conduct.
[16] The Integrity Commissioner summarized the breaches of the Code of Conduct alleged in the complaint as follows:(a) The refusal of Ramsay to accept and respect the decisions of the Chair and the WRDSB;
(b) Accusations by Ramsay of unlawful conduct by fellow trustees; and
(c) Disclosure of confidential information by Ramsay. [17] The Integrity Commissioner invited any trustees who wished to speak to him to provide their comments. Among the information provided to the Integrity Commissioner were comments in writing from the Chair. This was considered to be a “written statement of witness” under section 48 of the Code of Conduct. A copy of this written statement was provided to Ramsay but was not shared with any of the other trustees.
[18] Ramsay was invited to provide, and did provide, his detailed response to the complaint to the Integrity Commissioner in the following way:(a) The Integrity Commissioner received a call from Ramsay on March 29, 2022 for a preliminary discussion;
(b) On April 22, 2022 Ramsay submitted his written response to the complaint;
(c) A private meeting between the Integrity Commissioner and Ramsay took place via telephone on April 27, 2022; and
(d) On April 28, 2022 Ramsay delivered a “Response to Request for Clarification and Summary of Telephone Visit of April 27, 2022” by email to the Integrity Commissioner. [19] On May 31, 2022 the Integrity Commissioner submitted a report. Pursuant to the WRDSB’s Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner’s report did not make any specific recommendation as to consequence, but simply presented his findings of fact to the WRDSB. It was up to the WRDSB to decide whether Ramsay had breached its Code of Conduct and, if so, to determine whether any of the sanctions applicable to trustees should be imposed upon him.
[20] The Integrity Commissioner confirmed that Ramsay’s conduct that had formed the basis for the making of the complaint had arisen because of the delegation issue. The complaint against Ramsay was based on his strong negative reaction to the WRDSB decision to stop the delegate’s presentation, and his alleged ongoing failure to respect that decision despite his disagreement with it.
[21] Among several other findings contained in his report, the Integrity Commissioner found that Ramsay had “retweeted” an online posting by a journalist following the meeting on January 17, 2022 that was misleading in that it did not “accurately portray what occurred at the meeting, unfairly insinuated that the Chair is misogynist and racist, and failed to note that the majority of the other trustees, all of whom are female, supported that decision.” The Integrity Commissioner also noted that at the time Ramsay’s Twitter “handle” was @Trustee_Ramsay, which he considered could give the impression to members of the public that he was communicating in his official capacity as a trustee.
[22] The Integrity Commissioner noted that Ramsay acknowledged that the basic facts forming the foundation of the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred and are reflected in the recordings of the meetings and in his tweets and emails. There seems to be little dispute that Ramsay said and did what was alleged in the complaint against him, with the exception of the allegation of disclosure of confidential information, which had not been substantiated by the investigation.
|
