Summary#

Bill 5 amends Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 and City of Toronto Act, 2006; it does not create a new agency. The stated aim is to make workplace violence and harassment policies part of local leaders’ codes of conduct and allow a court to vacate a member’s seat for breaking those rules. The supplied bill text gives the short title as the Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, 2022, while the supplied title line says 2023.

• Municipalities and local boards must include compliance with their workplace violence or harassment policies in members’ codes of conduct.
• If an Integrity Commissioner reports that a member broke the code by not complying with those policies, the municipality or board may direct the Commissioner to apply to court.
• If directed, the Commissioner must apply to a Superior Court judge. The judge may declare the member’s seat vacant.
• A member whose seat is vacated would be barred from standing for election or being appointed to that council or board until the day of the second subsequent regular election.
• The application cannot be made from nomination day through voting day in a regular election. The bill would come into force on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Municipal councillors and local-board members: Their codes of conduct would have to require them to comply with the municipality’s or board’s workplace violence or harassment policies. A court could remove a member from office, and the bill sets a later bar on standing or appointment.
• Municipalities, local boards and Integrity Commissioners: A municipality or board may direct the Commissioner to apply to court after the Commissioner reports an apparent code breach. If directed, the Commissioner must apply.
• Residents: The bill itself does not set out a new public complaint process or say that a member automatically loses their seat. A judge decides whether there was a breach and may, but does not have to, vacate the seat.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The bill requires an Integrity Commissioner to apply to court if directed, but gives no cost estimate or funding details.
• The text does not set out a new appropriation, fee, fine or payment.

What is unclear#

• The parent Acts are not supplied, so it is not possible to verify which parts of the code-of-conduct and Commissioner processes already exist under current law.
• The bill does not define “workplace violence” or “harassment,” or set out what the policies must contain.
• It does not specify how the Commissioner’s inquiry works, what evidence the court must consider, or whether there is an appeal.
• It does not explain how much the court process or required work would cost, or how it would be funded.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to make local leaders subject to workplace violence and harassment policies through their codes of conduct.
• A possible argument for the court step is that a judge, rather than the municipality or board alone, would decide whether a member breached the code before a seat could be vacated.
• The election-period limit avoids making an application during the specified period from nomination day through voting day.

Case against#

• Vacating a seat and barring a member from later election or appointment are serious consequences. The bill does not set out the court’s evidentiary standard or appeal process.
• Because the bill refers to policies set by each municipality or local board, the rules members must follow may differ across places.
• The bill adds a required court application when directed but gives no information about the workload or cost.