Former Vaughan councillor Di Biase used influence to help developer: report

YorkRegion.com
June 14, 2017
Adam Martin-Robbins

Vaughan’s ethics watchdog has released another damning report stemming from yet another investigation into allegations of misconduct against embattled former regional councillor and deputy mayor Michael Di Biase.

In an interim report, posted on the city’s website June 13, Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig lays out her preliminary findings that suggest Di Biase tried to improperly influence decision making at city council and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to help a developer get the necessary approvals to build homes on an environmentally sensitive parcel of land in Maple.

The developer, Cam Milani, isn't named in the report and there’s nothing in the report to suggest he did anything wrong.

Reached for comment, Di Biase said the allegations "are totally unfounded and untrue" and that he will fully explain his side once the integrity commissioner releases her final report including his response to the preliminary findings.

The integrity commissioner’s latest report regarding Di Biase’s conduct comes while the city is in the midst of a process to appoint a member of the public to fill his vacant local and regional council seat.

Di Biase, who served on council for nearly 30 years, including a stint as mayor from 2002 to 2006, stepped down May 19 following the release of an explosive report by Craig that found he sexually harassed a city employee for several months last year.

He has vehemently denied the allegations and said, in announcing his resignation, that he's innocent but stepped down because he did not want "to be a distraction from the important work" that council will be undertaking.

Craig launched her latest investigation after a formal complaint, lodged in November 2016, alleged Di Biase contravened the city’s code of ethical conduct’s rules regarding “improper use of influence.” 

None of the allegations detailed in the integrity commissioner’s report have been tested in court.

The unidentified complainant alleges Di Biase, who was vice-chair of the TRCA at the time, “improperly used his influence” to convince his fellow councillors during a June 2015 closed-session meeting that the TRCA had no outstanding concerns about the proposed development of 230 Grand Trunk Ave. and inaccurately suggested to them the TRCA was likely going to withdraw from a pending Ontario Municipal Board.

Following the closed-door city council meeting, the complainant alleges Di Biase then tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to convince the TRCA board to withdraw its objection to the proposed development at the OMB on the basis that the City of Vaughan ‘had dealt with it,” the report says.

Craig notes in her report that Di Biase held significant positions of authority at the time including being vice-chair of the TRCA, deputy mayor and a regional councillor representing Vaughan on York regional council in relation to planning matters.

"The respondent was in the unique position of being able to vote on a decision to enter into a settlement agreement with the landowner of the proposed development, and being on the agency (the TRCA) that had responsibility for advising municipalities on what lands should be protected," she wrote.

Ultimately, the TRCA reached a settlement with the developer that was approved by the OMB in the spring of 2016.

The settlement divides the land into three parts: an eastern portion that contains significant wetland and endangered species that will not be developed, a middle portion that requires further study, and a western portion, where a woodlot removed by a previous landowner once stood, which has been approved for low-rise development.

Following that, the complainant alleges Di Biase continued to make misleading statements at a number of public meetings about what had happened.

The report points to a comment Di Biase made at a community meeting in May 2016 to update concerned residents about the development and the settlement agreement.

At the meeting, Di Biase told residents the “city’s hands were tied.”

In her report, Craig notes Di Biase says he was referring to the fact that the OMB settlement decision dictates the land uses on the property.

But after reviewing a recording of the meeting and interviewing witnesses who were there, Craig concluded Di Biase's representation was "inaccurate and misleading," which "further fueled the perception that his comments were designed to further the interests of the (land) owner,” the report states.

In his response to the preliminary findings, Di Biase expressed concerns to the integrity commissioner that the complaint was "an improper attempt to apply Rule 7 [of the code], which specifically deals with interactions between members of council and the city administration. In his view, the code did not apply to interactions with members of the TRCA board or TRCA staff," the report says.

"The respondent (Di Biase) went on to express his complete disagreement with the allegations contained in the complaint and his belief that: [The complainant] is unhappy with the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing," the report notes.

Since Di Biase has already stepped down as a councillor, Craig has not recommended council impose sanctions on him. 

A more detailed final report is slated to be discussed by city councillors at committee of the whole meeting June 20.

This isn’t the first time Craig has probed allegations that Di Biase breached the city’s code of conduct in an effort to help a local firm.

Two years ago, she found Di Biase used intimidation and abusive language to pressure city staff, who opposed his interference in the city’s tendering process and his efforts to secure municipal projects for local contracting company, Maystar General Contractors, the firm that built Vaughan city hall.

Craig didn’t investigate Maystar and there’s no evidence the firm did anything wrong.

Following Craig’s report on this matter, council voted to dock Di Biase’s pay for 90 days, amounting to about $21,000.

He launched an unsuccessful court challenge to squash that report and have the penalty overturned.

A divisional court rendered its decision, upholding Craig’s findings and the penalty imposed by city council in September 2016.