HALDIMAND—Last week, Haldimand Council reviewed the results of two separate Integrity Commissioner (IC) investigations related to complaints against Mayor Shelley Ann Bentley and Ward 1 Councillor Stewart Patterson.
“Under our code of conduct for Council, any member of the public has the ability … to file a complaint under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act,” said County CAO Cathy Case. “You can file a formal lawsuit through a statement of claim, or you can file a formal complaint through the Integrity Commissioner. The latter is what’s happened in this case.”
The first complaint, which featured separate code of conduct and conflict of interest complaints, tasked the IC with looking into Mayor Bentley’s actions related to the Nanticoke MZO, including a pair of public meetings she spearheaded last year ahead of Council’s ultimate split vote to proceed with the MZO request.
“The complainant stated that they felt the mayor should not have taken part in those meetings,” said Case.
According to a letter submitted to the County by IC Ellen Fry, “The Complainant believes that the Member (Bentley) has a pecuniary interest in whether the proposed Ministerial Zoning Order (“MZO”) is issued. Given this belief, the Complainant believes that the Member did not comply with the above provisions of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) in Council meetings concerning the proposed MZO.”
The basis of the complaint is that since Bentley’s husband, Rick Beaudet, is a Stelco pensioner, she could indirectly benefit should the MZO not proceed.
“The Complainant believes that if the Minister decides not to issue an MZO to Empire, the outcome will be that Stelco rather than Empire becomes the owner of the Lands. The Complainant believes that if that occurs, Stelco will pay more for the Lands than Empire agreed to pay. If Stelco pays more for the Lands, The Member’s spouse’s share of the proceeds of sale, as a Stelco pensioner, would be likely to increase,” read Fry’s letter.
Fry noted that in Bentley’s response, the mayor claimed to not have a pecuniary interest and to be acting in the community’s best interests regarding the MZO.
Fry concluded, “I believe that a court would likely decide that the Member does not have a pecuniary interest concerning the proposed MZO. If a court did decide that the Member has a pecuniary interest, I believe a court would likely decide that the pecuniary interest is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the Member.”
Mayor Bentley incurred legal costs from the complaint and subsequent investigation, and the total $16,240.77 in expenses will be paid back to her from the County’s insurance reserves.
Case noted the County has an insurance policy specifically for conflict of interest claims, with the policy covering any legal fees when “the member of council is found not guilty, or guilty by way of inadvertence.”
Councillor Rob Shirton asked if the complainant would draw any costs, considering the County must pay the IC for their services, in addition to reimbursing Bentley.
“This was brought on, we have to defend it, we’re paying for the costs even though it didn’t go to trial, to defend her ability to be found innocent?” asked Shirton.
Case replied, “Every situation would be different, depending on how far the investigation goes and if the complainant decides they want to hire legal representation of their own, they would have that opportunity, but we don’t know in this case.”
The second set of complaints, unrelated to the above, was filed against Bentley and Patterson by former Ward 4 councillor candidate Jesse Little, based on interactions at Council meetings last fall.
The complaint against Bentley noted her temporary adjournment of a September 19 meeting and the adjournment of a September 25 meeting in which Little was expelled from Council chambers for improper conduct.
According to a County report, the complainant alleges Bentley acted inappropriately and breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Municipal Act when expelling him for wearing a shirt with a political statement on it, which he had worn to previous meetings, and for “calling the police for a disturbance that never happened.”
The complaint against Patterson alludes to the September 19 meeting, when Patterson was chairing the meeting and asked Little to remove a sign that Patterson deemed inappropriate. Little levied similar complaints against Patterson as he did Bentley.
In both cases, the IC dismissed the claims, stating, “There were not any apparent contraventions of the Code, the Bylaw, or the Act; that the actions of the individual member of the public constituted improper conduct; and that the Member of Council had the authority to expel the individual from the meeting.”
