Province Sets One Ethics Code for Councils

Summary#

Bill 9 changes how codes of conduct for municipal elected officials work in Ontario, including Toronto. It lets the Province set one code of conduct that all municipal councils and local boards must follow. It also creates a two-step process that can lead to a council member’s seat being declared vacant for very serious misconduct that harms someone. The broad goal appears to be stronger and more consistent accountability.

Key changes:

• The Province (by regulation) can prescribe the code of conduct for all municipal councils, local boards, and Toronto City Council. Existing local codes are no longer in effect once the new rules start.
• Members of councils and local boards must take training on the code. Integrity Commissioners must provide that training and may be required to hold meetings with members.
• After an inquiry, a local Integrity Commissioner may ask the provincial Integrity Commissioner of Ontario to review a case and, if criteria are met, recommend that a member’s seat be declared vacant.
• The Integrity Commissioner of Ontario must conduct an inquiry, may use inquiry powers to compel evidence, and can recommend vacancy to council. Council must vote within 30 days; approval requires all eligible members voting yes. If approved, the seat is vacated and the member is disqualified for four years.
• If council does not approve a vacancy, it cannot impose the usual lesser penalties for that same matter.
• Local Integrity Commissioners can refuse frivolous, vexatious, or bad‑faith complaints. The Minister may set detailed standards for inquiries, recommendations, and reports.
• Strict confidentiality applies to the provincial Integrity Commissioner’s work and overrides freedom‑of‑information rules, with limited exceptions.
• Timing: Most of these changes start on a day named by the Province.

What it means for you#

• Municipal and Toronto councillors and local board members

  • Must follow a provincial code of conduct (not a locally set one).
  • Must complete mandatory training on the code and may need to attend required meetings.
  • Face a new path to removal from office if a serious code breach harms someone’s health, safety, or well‑being and lesser penalties are not enough. If council approves removal, you lose your seat and are disqualified from council and local boards for four years.
  • If you hold multiple seats (for example, lower‑tier and upper‑tier council, or council and a local board), a vacancy in one can trigger vacancies in the others.
  • If you are the subject of a vacancy recommendation, you may speak to and try to influence council on the matter, but you cannot vote on it.

• Municipalities (including Toronto)

  • Your current code of conduct will be replaced by the provincially prescribed code once in force.
  • You must ensure members complete required training and participate in any required meetings.
  • If the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario recommends declaring a seat vacant, your clerk must call a meeting and council must vote within 30 days. Approval requires a unanimous yes vote of all eligible members present.
  • If council approves, you must manage the vacancy under existing law. If council does not approve, neither the municipality nor its local boards can impose lesser penalties in that case.
  • You may be required to publish reports or information as set by regulation.

• Local Integrity Commissioners

  • Will receive education and training from the provincial Integrity Commissioner of Ontario and may have to meet training and reporting requirements.
  • Can refuse to start or continue an inquiry if a complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or not in good faith.
  • After an inquiry, may recommend that the provincial Integrity Commissioner of Ontario consider declaring a seat vacant if strict criteria are met.
  • If the provincial Integrity Commissioner refers a matter back, you must report to council on whether to impose the usual penalties.

• Integrity Commissioner of Ontario

  • New duties include advising on the independence of local Integrity Commissioner candidates, training local Commissioners, tracking training status, and conducting second‑stage inquiries with possible use of inquiry powers to compel evidence.
  • Must keep matters confidential, with limited exceptions.

• Residents

  • You may see more consistent conduct rules across municipalities and a clearer route to address serious misconduct.
  • Some investigation information may remain confidential and not available through freedom‑of‑information requests.

Expenses#

The bill may increase administrative and enforcement costs for the Province and municipalities, but no estimate is available.

• Province:
  • Costs for the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario to design and deliver training, run inquiries (including possible hearings, evidence gathering, and reporting), and manage new reporting duties.
• Municipalities (including Toronto):
  • Costs to arrange member training and meetings; possible costs to fill council vacancies if a seat is declared vacant.
  • Potential new reporting and public‑information duties.
• Integrity Commissioners:
  • Time and resource costs to conduct inquiries under new standards, provide training, meet with members, and prepare additional reports.
• No publicly available information on exact dollar amounts or staffing needs.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to make conduct rules consistent across Ontario, so all municipal officials follow the same standards.
• A clear removal option for very serious, harmful misconduct could strengthen accountability and public confidence.
• Mandatory education for members and training for Integrity Commissioners could prevent problems and improve how complaints are handled.
• A second‑stage review by the provincial Integrity Commissioner, with powers to compel evidence, could provide a more independent and thorough check on serious cases.
• Allowing dismissal of frivolous or bad‑faith complaints could reduce misuse of the complaint system and save time.

Opponents' View#

• Centralizing the code of conduct at the provincial level may reduce local control and the ability to tailor rules to local needs.
• Requiring a unanimous yes vote (of all eligible councillors) to declare a seat vacant may make removals rare; yet if council does not approve removal, it also cannot impose lesser penalties for that case. This could leave serious misconduct without any council‑imposed consequence.
• Strong confidentiality that overrides freedom‑of‑information rules may limit transparency about investigations and outcomes.
• The bill gives broad regulation‑making powers to set key details later (code content, inquiry standards, reporting), creating uncertainty for municipalities and members until those rules are issued.
• Election‑period limits (pausing recommendations and terminating ongoing provincial inquiries at nomination day) could delay resolution of serious matters or allow them to lapse if not restarted.
• New duties for the provincial and local Integrity Commissioners and for municipalities may require added funding and staff, but no cost information is provided.