The City of Greater Sudbury recently adopted a new complaints protocol to limit the public disclosure of allegations against city council members. Approved during a May 26 meeting, the updated rules introduce an informal resolution process and grant the integrity commissioner expanded discretion to keep certain reports private.

The May 26 shift toward informal dispute resolution

Under the new protocol approved by the City of Greater Sudbury on May 26, individuals who believe a council member has violated the Code of Conduct are now encouraged to resolve the issue informally before filing a formal complaint. According to the report, these informal interactions will not result in public reports being published through city council meeting agendas, effectively filtering out a segment of grievances before they ever reach the public eye.

Mayor Paul Lefebvre defended the change, asserting that the new protocol aligns with best practices across Ontario. Mayor Lefebvre argued that it is inefficient for the integrity commissioner to draft public reports for accusations that lack substance, while city solicitor and clerk Eric Labelle noted that only reports revealing "material" breaches of the Code of Conduct will now reach the council table.

How David Boghosian's report on Bill Leduc shaped the new rules

The drive toward less transparency appears closely linked to a volatile period in late 2024. On November 12, 2024, the City of Greater Sudbury council voted 7-6 to fire their integrity commissioner, David Boghosian. This termination occurred during the same meeting where council considered a report from Boghosian regarding the social media activity of Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc.

The controversy centered on a Facebook post from Coun. Bill Leduc's account that Boghosian described as "without a doubt, transphobic." Although Coun. Leduc claimed his account had been hacked, Boghosian filed a public report despite concluding he lacked the jurisdiction to find a formal breach of the Code of Conduct. As the report highlights, the new May 26 protocol would prevent reports of this nature—where no formal breach is found or jurisdiction is lacking—from being filed publicly .

Three-month pay suspensions and the integrity commissioner's new discretion

While the path to a public report has narrowed, the potential penalties for confirmed breaches remain significant. The City of Greater Sudbury's integrity commissioner can recommend sanctions that the council then votes on in a public meeting; these penalties can include public written reprimands or pay suspensions lasting up to three months.

However, the new rules grant the integrity commissioner the power to unilaterally dismiss complaints deemed frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. crucially, the integrity commissioner now has the discretion to keep certain cases behind closed doors even after a Code of Conduct breach has been determined, meaning some confirmed misconduct may never be disclosed to the public.

The shadow of Bill 9 and the threat of removal from office

Local changes in Greater Sudbury are arriving just as the provincial government introduces Bill 9. This legislation seeks to establish a consistent Code of Conduct across all Ontario municipalities, potentially overriding local protocols. most significantly, Bill 9 includes a provision that could allow councils to oust misbehaving members from elected office entirely.

This provincial shift creates a tension between the City of Greater Sudbury's move toward privacy and a provincial trend toward stricter accountability. While the local council has removed the requirement for affidavits to accompany complaints—a hurdle added in late 2024—the overarching provincial framework may soon introduce penalties far more severe than a three-month pay suspension.

The missing bylaw amendments and the definition of 'material' breaches

Despite the unanimous approval on May 26, the new protocol is not yet fully ratified, as it must still be presented as bylaw amendments at a future meeting. This leaves a window of uncertainty regarding exactly when the new privacy shields take effect .

Furthermore, the report leaves several critical questions unanswered. There is no clear definition of what constitutes a "material" breach,leaving the city solicitor and the integrity commissioner with significant subjective power. Additionally, it remains unclear how the city will track the volume of "informal" complaints to ensure that a pattern of misconduct by a single council member isn't being hidden through repeated informal resolutions.