|
Complaints - Disclosure of Complaint. Racco v. Corporation of the City of Vaughan
In Racco v. Corporation of the City of Vaughan (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed two municipal councillor-brought JR applications, these against "findings of the Integrity Commissioner and the sanctions imposed by Council".
Here the court considered a procedural fairness issue where the applicant argued that the Integrity Commissioner "erred by refusing to disclose the complaint forms/affidavits to Council for the councilors’ consideration prior to their meeting":No breach by not disclosing complaints form/affidavits to Council
[18] There is also no merit to the submission that the IC was required to disclose the complaints form/affidavits to Council, as asserted by Mr. Racco. The IC is subject to a duty under the Act to preserve secrecy. Subsection 223.5(1) of the Act provides that the IC and every person acting under her instructions “shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that come to …her knowledge in the course of …her duties under this Part.”
[19] Mr. Racco submits the IC could have disclosed the complaints form/affidavits to Council under s. 223.6(2), which is a limited exception permitting disclosure, and fettered her discretion by refusing to do so. I disagree. There is a limited exception in s. 223.6(2) that permits the IC to disclose such matters as in her opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. Subsection 223.6(2) provides:223.6(2) If the Commissioner reports to the municipality or to a local board his or her opinion about whether a member of council or of the local board has contravened the applicable code of conduct, the Commissioner may disclose in the report such matters as in the Commissioner’s opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. [20] The exception grants the IC wide discretion to determine whether disclosure, in her opinion, is necessary “for the purposes of the report.” Former ACJ Marrocco emphasized her autonomy over disclosure decisions, stating: “The statutory scheme provides the Integrity Commissioner with significant autonomy regarding the disclosure of her investigation”: Di Biase v. City of Vaughan, 2016 ONSC 5620, at para. 120.
[21] Mr. Racco has pointed to an email from the IC dated October 29, 2024 in which she explained she would not be releasing the complaint forms/affidavits. She explained that she relied on the Act’s confidentiality requirements. She noted that in other cases she had provided a redacted form to the respondent. In this case, she stated that the “substance” of the complaint forms were in her report.
[22] The IC’s summary of the complaints in her report gave the readers of the report the required context, while preserving the confidentiality of the underlying documents. Simply raising concerns of procedural fairness does not mean the IC is mandated to disclose information that is otherwise confidential and that the IC does not consider necessary for the purposes of her report. The IC’s email shows that she turned her mind to the requirements of the Act and to the exception under s. 223.6(2).
[23] Mr. Racco has not demonstrated that the IC fettered her discretion or was otherwise required to disclose the complaints forms/affidavits to Council.
|
