WHAT DO THE EXPERTS SAY?
Canadian ethics watchdog Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch and University of Ottawa political studies professor, and municipal law expert John Mascarin, who currently serves as integrity commissioner for five Ontario communities, have examined the controversy in Carleton Place, and offered opinions on several provincial and municipal statutes that may or may not have been breached, according to allegations reported by the Citizen.
Antonakos has declined media requests for interviews.
Conacher said the alleged breaches of provincial acts that govern municipal conflict of interest rules, election etiquette, privacy protection, and Council’s own code of conduct constitute a serious municipal matter. Allegation: Then-councillor Antonakos declared a pecuniary interest on a 2013 development proposal involving Manitoulin Chocolate Works, and abstained from the vote when Council denied the deal. Two years later, Mayor Antonakos voted against the chocolatier’s proposal to develop another property and publicly denied a conflict. Conacher: “The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act states you cannot to have a direct or indirect pecuniary (financial) interest. You have to disclose pecuniary interest before any matter is considered, and ‘not take part in the discussion or the vote upon any question in respect of the matter.’ So in this case, the fact (Manitoulin Chocolate Works) didn’t rent from (Antonakos) and then tried for the second location that council had to approve — if that was shut down, then it’s enough of a possibility that it would have pushed them back to renting from him. That qualifies as an indirect financial interest.” Mascarin: “I wouldn’t have seen that as being a pecuniary interest. (Antonakos) probably made the determination that he did have a financial interest (in 2013) because he was going to sell the property, so he clearly had the opportunity to profit from that, but the second time he didn’t have a contractual relationship with them, so I don’t see any contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. There is potential financial interest, but I still don’t see it. It’s speculative at best.”
Allegation: In a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner and Ontario Ombudsman filed on Feb. 23, local developer Volundur Thorbjornsson alleges then-councillor Antonakos secretly recorded in-camera council sessions and disclosed confidential information to allies. The integrity commissioner has not publicly addressed the complaint, and Antonakos has dismissed it as a “publicity stunt” by a “disgruntled developer.”
Conacher: “You can be found guilty of both disclosing confidential information from a closed meeting (under the Municipal Act), and also as a violation of MFIPPA if any personal information is disclosed.”
Mascarin: “I’m not sure it violates Municipal Act, (but) recording that and disseminating or distributing that recording would have been a clear violation of the procedural bylaw and also a code of conduct violation. It’s plainly evident that it could possibly be a violation.”
Allegation: According to Thorbjornsson’s complaint, Antonakos allegedly used confidential council information as leverage for election support from influential developers.
Conacher: “The Municipal Elections Act states you cannot ‘offer, give, lend, or promise or agree to give or lend any valuable consideration in connection with the exercise or non-exercise of an electors’ vote.’ And ‘consideration’ is not defined. It’s phrased that broadly so it’s not limited to giving money, or property or services. It can be anything they would consider to be of value. And they don’t even have to deliver on that promise — even just an offer or promise, you cross the line a violate that section, and for obvious reasons.” Mascarin: “That sounds egregiously bad. Leave aside that you’re supposed to act truthfully, honestly and with integrity under the code of conduct — to me that almost seems to enter into the realm of … municipal corruption.”
Both experts said the allegations, if true, would be in violation of council’s own code of conduct, which dictates etiquette and conduct rules, but also contains its own confidentiality provisions, as well as sanctions and enforcement policy.
Conacher said some alleged breaches could also be contrary to the decision in R. v. Hinchey, a landmark 1996 Supreme Court of Canada anti-corruption ruling.
In that ruling, Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé stated governments achieve “actual integrity ... when its employees remain free of any type of corruption. On the other hand, it is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed.”
According to Conacher, “The Supreme Court said in order maintain our democracy, the appearance of integrity has to be maintained. And so they interpret these provisions quite broadly and strongly because of the importance of maintaining that standard of the appearance of integrity.”