'Utterly absurd': Vaughan councillors OK bylaw covering legal fees, drop controversial proposals

Longtime regional councillor Mario Ferri reversed his position after pushing for changes

Yorkregion.com
May 26, 2020
Adam Martin-Robbins and Noor Javed

Vaughan councillors are moving ahead with a new bylaw that boosts their coverage for legal fees when they face an ethics complaint. But, amid public outcry, they backed away from other controversial proposals that would have made the city’s reimbursement policy far more generous than those at other Greater Toronto Area cities and towns.  

The new indemnification bylaw, endorsed by councillors at a committee of the whole meeting last Wednesday night (May 20), provides coverage for legal fees incurred by council members in defending themselves against lawsuits and complaints filed under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) and the municipal code of conduct.

The bylaw also covers city staff and members of local boards -- such as the library board -- named in lawsuits or MCIA complaints.

The provincial MCIA sets out ethical rules for council and local board members if they have certain financial interests in a matter that comes before them at council or at the board level, while the city’s code of conduct sets out standards for councillors’ conduct to help prevent ethical conflicts.

Under the new bylaw, which has to be ratified at the May 27 council meeting, a councillor found to have breached the code of conduct “inadvertently” or because of a “bona fide error in judgment” would still be entitled to legal coverage.

They are also entitled to advance payment for legal costs of up to $25,000.

A councillor can request additional payments beyond the cap, but council must approve it.

If found to have not acted in “good faith,” the councillor is required to pay the city back any fees that were advanced.

A councillor wishing to hire his or her own lawyer, instead of using the city’s lawyer or one chosen by the city, must seek approval.

The city’s current bylaw, which the new one replaces, indemnified councillors, board members and city staff for lawsuits and MCIA complaints.

Prior to June 2019, when a new policy for code complaints was adopted, the city provided $5,000 in coverage for ethics complaints, if it was determined a councillor didn’t breach the code of ethical conduct.

Councillors support for the new bylaw at last Wednesday's meeting came following months of discussion and debate, during which longtime regional councillor Mario Ferri twice introduced amendments to the bylaw that would have made it more generous than any other policy in the Greater Toronto Area.

His recommendations angered residents, surprised his colleagues and were challenged by the city solicitor.

Among the changes he was pushing for: increasing the cap on advance payment for legal fees from $25,000 to $50,000, allowing councillors to choose their own lawyer, and asking the city to cover legal fees if a councillor seeks a judicial review of the integrity commissioner’s decision.

Ferri’s efforts to amend the bylaw came at a time when he is facing a municipal conflict of interest complaint -- a copy of which has been obtained by the Star and the Vaughan Citizen -- alleging he voted on a development matter involving a company affiliated with his son’s employer.

In an email response to the Star, when asked if he could benefit from asking for certain amendments, given the complaint against him, Ferri said he was not permitted to “confirm or deny the existence of an ongoing investigation.”

“Members of Council as a whole requested guidance from the Integrity Commissioner with respect to the indemnification bylaw review; I can confirm that I have at all times acted in accordance with the advice provided,” Ferri said in the email. “I take my responsibilities as a Councillor very seriously, I have never been persuaded by personal interest on any discussion or vote that I have participated in.”

Ahead of last Wednesday's meeting, a few councillors voiced support for Ferri’s amendments. But, ultimately, the bylaw recommended by city staff, which doesn't include his proposals, was supported by council.

“I’m happy with the draft (bylaw) that’s before us,” Ferri said. “I think it’s fair; I think it’s sustainable and, certainly, appropriate at this time.”

He likened the bylaw to an insurance policy for councillors, members of local boards and city staff.

“We all understand that we need collision insurance or we need flood insurance, and you only use it if, and when, it’s required,” he said. “It’s not an opportunity to get rich, on this, but it is a way of defending persons that are on council or on committees or on staff who proceed and may be tagged with some legal action. So, the whole purpose is to ensure a proper legal defence, if necessary and when required, and within certain parameters."

Regional Coun. Gino Rosati, who said he previously supported exploring Ferri's proposals, backed the bylaw proposed by staff, calling it “fair and equitable.”

Ward 5 Coun. Alan Shefman, meanwhile, questioned the reasoning behind Ferri's sudden reversal on these "misguided" proposals, after months of debate and discussion.

“I’m pretty outraged by what I’m hearing,” he said. “These are people on this council, who vehemently opposed what is before us today, who all of a sudden are jumping up and down and saying, ‘Oh we support. We support.’”

Council support for the new bylaw came amid public outcry in the wake of the Toronto Star and Vaughan Citizen publishing an article about the proposals being considered.

"Utterly absurd! This proposal goes beyond outrageous,” Elvira Caria, wrote in an email to council on behalf of the Vellore Woods Ratepayers Association. “It is a pure example of selfish and narcissistic thinking, that will only benefit the Councillor, at the expense of taxpayers.”

Caria was just one of many residents to contact councillors expressing outrage at the changes Ferri had proposed.

Across the GTA, policies around indemnification vary.

Some cities, such as Mississauga, indemnify councillors retroactively, if they are found not to have contravened the MCIA. Markham, on the other hand, does not indemnify councillors who have contravened the code of conduct.

None, however, match what Vaughan’s new bylaw provides, according to Suzanne Craig, the city’s integrity commissioner, who has worked in municipalities across the province.

“In the GTA, there is no other indemnification bylaw that goes as far as the one being proposed by the city of Vaughan,” she said ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.