Vaughan integrity commissioner: ‘No evidence’ Coun. Jackson used ‘influence’ on development

A senior staff member in Vaughan filed a complaint last year saying that Jackson favoured one development over another

Yorkregion.com
June 11, 2020
Dina Al-Shibeeb

A complaint by a Vaughan senior staff member dating back to Oct. 16, alleging that Regional Coun. Linda Jackson had used her influence to undermine a staff recommendation for a development project, shows “no evidence” that was the case, says the integrity commissioner.

Two reports by Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar Suzanne Craig were made public on the city’s website on June 9, detailing four codes of complaints against Jackson.

The first complaint by the senior staff member -- not named -- claimed that Jackson had “undermined” city staff's “recommendation” to assume the second phase of the 36.8-hectare single-family development Humberplex project in Vaughan.

In another document, dated June 8, Craig said that the senior staffer, whom the commissioner didn’t meet, described how Jackson wanted to “use influence of her office for the purpose of insisting that council reject staff recommendations” to “approve” another development, called Cooper Creek.

However, in her report for the committee of the whole -- scheduled to meet on Tuesday, June 16 -- Craig recommended that “no penalty be imposed on the member (Jackson) insofar as there was no evidence to support that the member attempted to influence the actions of staff.”

A second complaint against Jackson stated that “council decided to move into closed session to receive legal advice and that this action was in contravention of open meetings rules.”

The third complaint claimed that Jackson’s “actions contravened Rule 16,” which pertains to use of the city’s vehicles, equipment and materials with due care.

And fourth: “That there was conduct on the part of a senior staff member directly linked to the alleged actions of the respondent.”

“I find that the allegations raised in issue No. 1 and No. 3 were not borne out,” Craig said.

However, with respect to the complaint the city decided to move into closed session to receive legal advice, Craig said: “I find that the Office of the Integrity Commissioner and Lobbyist Registrar has no authority to investigate allegations of open meeting rules.

“The receipt and investigation of complaints regarding closed meetings fall within the ambit of the city’s closed meeting investigator. As a result, I did not investigate the issue and make no findings in that regard,” she continued.

As for the last complaint, Craig said, her office “does not have authority to receive or investigate complaints against allegations of actions, omissions or decisions of municipal staff.

“To the extent that this issue alleges that the respondent (Jackson) directed the conduct of the staff member, this is addressed as part of issue No. 1.”