HALDIMAND—Councillors Dan Lawrence and Rob Shirton were found guilty of a code of conduct breach for allowing a developer-linked planner to pay for a meal.
Council received Integrity Commissioner David Boghosian’s report on April 7, 2026, which recommended that the two councillors be reprimanded but suggested no penalty for the breach. During discussion, however, Councillor Debera McKeen put forward an amendment to fine both councillors one month’s pay. The amendment was approved.
Based on the 2026 Council remuneration of $61,907 plus a $5,000 stipend, the one-month penalty would amount to about $5,576 for each councillor.
The complaint stemmed from a January 18, 2026 dinner at Hy’s Steakhouse and Cocktail Bar in Toronto during the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference. It was alleged that Lawrence and Shirton had dinner with Steven Armstrong, principal of Armstrong Planning, while a zoning bylaw amendment connected to the Nelles Estates development remained active before Council.
That application, Report PDD-05-2026, was discussed at a January 13 Council meeting and was deferred to a January 21 meeting. Armstrong was acting as planner for the applicant. Boghosian wrote, “With respect to the topics of conversation during the dinner, I find that the participants did not discuss the Nelles Estates Zoning Bylaw Amendment, or the report related to it.”
Boghosian found both councillors attended the dinner and that Armstrong paid for their meals. He concluded that both Lawrence and Shirton breached the code of conduct’s gifts and benefits section by allowing their meals to be paid for. He found the dinner did not fall within the code’s exception to accept food and beverages at events connected to a legitimate business purpose, as the dinner itself had no formal connection to the conference, beyond all participants of the dinner also being attendees of the conference.
“Based on their respective responses, I find that the councillors attended and permitted Mr. Armstrong to pay for them under the false impression that they were acting in compliance with the code. I further find that they had no improper motive in allowing Mr. Armstrong to pay for their meals,” Boghosian wrote.
During the Council meeting, McKeen questioned why no monetary penalty had been recommended. Boghosian said his investigation found there had been a misunderstanding of the code’s gifts and benefits section, including confusion over whether a minimum dollar threshold was required for a violation.
He clarified that even something as small as a cup of coffee could count as a gift or benefit if received in a councillor’s official capacity, depending on the circumstances.
Boghosian also said the wording of Section 8 was not readily apparent to a lay person and acknowledged there was some confusion in how it was written. He said the seriousness of a breach would affect what penalty was appropriate.
Lawrence told Council he had believed the dinner was within the rules as, having spoken with the clerk at the time, he believed the meal fell within the $300 threshold referenced elsewhere in the policy. Lawrence stated he reimbursed the cost of his meal after the complaint process began, and asserted that he had no interest in any property represented by Armstrong.
Lawrence added that the issue showed a need for clearer wording in the code of conduct or additional training.
McKeen asked whether Boghosian had questioned Armstrong or other development representatives as part of the investigation. Boghosian said there was no need to do so because both Lawrence and Shirton had admitted Armstrong paid for their meals, so he did not consider further interviews necessary.
Shirton, meanwhile, argued that sitting down with major developers could be worthwhile for councillors and said he did not understand why the matter had become such a significant issue.
Boghosian’s report rejected the idea that either councillor had breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or the code’s section on pecuniary interest. He found the councillors had not acted with improper motive.
“There is no evidence that they had a pecuniary interest in the matters considered at the January 21, 2026 meeting of Council, including the zoning bylaw amendment,” Boghosian wrote.
He similarly found neither councillor breached section 5 of the code, which prohibits members from using their office for personal gain or to exclusively advance the interests of associates. He noted both councillors expressed support for the Nelles Estates resolution before the dinner took place.
In written responses included in the report, both councillors acknowledged Armstrong paid for their meals.
Shirton wrote, “The purpose of dinner was not to discuss the Nelles Estate application. In fact, Nelles Estate application was never mentioned at our dinner.”
Lawrence similarly stated, “Nelles Estates was not discussed at all.”
Both said they believed the dinner was permitted under the code because they felt it served a legitimate business purpose and the value of the meals was below the $300 disclosure threshold. Lawrence itemized his meal at $150.90 before taxes and gratuity.
The commissioner did not accept that interpretation, concluding the exemption cited by the councillors did not apply to a private dinner.
In his concluding remarks, Boghosian said he had otherwise dismissed the remaining complaints, but cautioned Council members to be aware of appearances when dealing with pending matters.
He wrote, “Though I found that neither councillor was acting in a conflict of interest or improperly using the influence of their office, I caution members to be cognizant of appearances – namely, permitting a planner acting on behalf of an applicant with a pending zoning bylaw amendment to pay for dinner at a downtown Toronto steakhouse while that application is set to be considered by Council only days later.”
