Council members cleared of all wrongdoing

Jeff Helsdon, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

All members of council were cleared of any wrongdoing by the town’s integrity commissioner in two separate investigations that were presented at Monday’s council meeting

Meghan Cowan, a partner Tillsonburg’s integrity commissioner Aird & Berlis LLP, summarized a report that was part of the Sept. 22 council agenda. There were five complaints under the town’s code of conduct that were filed against Mayor Deb Gilvesy and Coun. Chris Parker.

The allegations were that the member:

“a) used their positions to advance unsubstantiated claims against staff, made misleading statements to council, and improperly used their influence to pressure council;

(b) engaged in intimidation tactics, including raising their voices at council and failing to treat staff with dignity, understanding, or respect, thereby harassing staff;

(c) undermined the town’s decision-making processes, made statements impugning the reputations of staff members, and disclosed confidential information, such as details of litigation and closed meeting discussions;

(d) contravened the code through their conduct and communications directed at staff during the meeting of council held on Jan. 27, 2025 and that the councillor contravened the code by virtue of his conduct at the meeting of council on Nov. 18, 2024. The members’ comments and actions at the Jan. 27, 2025 meeting are alleged to have disrupted meeting decorum, demonstrated a lack of respect for staff and other of members of council, and detracted from the town’s business. The members’ conduct is also alleged to have contributed to a challenging working environment for staff at the town; and

(e) met with and advised a constituent that they would support the termination of certain own employees if the constituent could secure the support of one more elected official.”

In making her ruling, Cowan reviewed the complaints, interviewed the members and complainants, reviewed the agendas and minutes of the meeting and the videos of open meetings. Her conclusion was the members did not contravene the code of conduct.

Cowan explained that, in general, integrity commissioners have been reluctant to review the conduct of members at meetings, allowing them a degree of autonomy. Cases where there were reviews is when the behaviours was “egregious, flagrant or glaringly outrageous.”

“Based on a review of the determined members actions, it did not rise to such a level to merit our intervention and exercise our authority as integrity commissioners,” she said during the meeting. “In short, we have not found that the members' conduct and comments crossed a threshold level that influenced the business at hand, that served to distract from the business at hand, that did not unduly influence other members of council or staff, or harass staff.”

She also stated that there was no evidence of intimidation, influence on the council, undermining staff, questioning their capacity, or supporting the termination of a specific employee.

Cowan explained council has no ability to question her findings under this procedure.

After a motion was presented to accept the report for information, Parker and Gilvesy were the only ones to comment.

“I am relieved, although not surprised, that they found that I did not breach the municipality’s code of conduct,” Parker said. “I must express how disappointed I am that it came to this in the first place. To have my integrity questioned by three councillors, individuals who I work alongside in this chamber, has been not only demoralizing but also personally painful. The emotional toll this process has taken on me and my family has been significant.

Parker also said that one of the three councillors has, in the past, threatened him with a complaint to the integrity commissioner.

“That is not what this tool is for,” he said. “The integrity commissioner exists to uphold accountability and transparency with genuine concerns, concerns that serve a real risk to the municipality and its residents. It’s not a weapon to be wielded over political disagreements or personal grievances.”

Parker said the complaints have driven a wedge between councillors.

“Differences of opinion are not only inevitable, they are healthy, they are the foundation of robust debate and good governance,” he said. “When those differences evolve into baseless accusations, it fractures the very unity we need to serve our community.

“Council must do better. We must engage in constructive dialogue, collaborate respectively and always prioritize the needs of the town and its residents above personal or political ambition. I’m committed to this path and hope the rest of council is as well.”

Gilvesy also spoke about the importance of differing opinions.

“As someone who believes strongly in the principles of democracy, I welcome diverse viewpoints at the council table,” she said. “Respectful debate is not only healthy—it is essential to good governance. Elected officials have a duty to represent the best interests of ratepayers, and every decision we make should reflect our responsibility as stewards of the public purse.”

Gilvesy reiterated her commitment to the people of Tillsonburg.

“Despite the challenges of the past few months, I remain steadfast in my commitment to serving you with dedication and integrity,” she said. “It is an honour to represent the people of Tillsonburg at all levels of government.”

Thanking her family for supporting her, Gilvesy’s was emotional as she said, “This has been an extremely difficult six months and I want to put it behind us, move forward and get the job done we’re elected to do.”

A second investigation

A second complaint was filed on Aug. 26 alleging that Deputy Mayor Dave Beres and Coun. Bob Parsons acted in contravention of the Ontario Municipal Act by not declaring a pecuniary interest in discussion and votes on the expansion of the Tillsonburg BIA. Although it doesn’t explicitly state that this application was filed by a member of the public, it does allude to this possibility and does not indicate that it was filed by a council member.

The accusation against Beres was that he was in contravention of the act because his son is an owner of a property in the current BIA area, and has an indirect pecuniary interest.

Investigator John Mascarin explained the act only applies to known financial impacts, and it is unknown if the expansion of the BIA will affect existing property owners in the area. With this in mind, he said there isn’t a conflict of interest.

The Parsons accusation pertains to the fact that he is a member of the BIA board of management and still voted on a discussion about the expansion at town council.

Mascarin explained that there is an exception to the rule of belonging to another body that has a financial interest when a council member is a member of that body by virtue of being appointed to the council.

“This clause recognizes a councillor may wear two hats, as Coun. Parsons did and will be able to vote both at the council level and in this case, at the board of management at the BIA,” he said, explaining Parsons doesn’t have a pecuniary interest.

This application was done under a different procedure than the one for Beres and Parker, and provides the applicant the opportunity to apply to provincial court if they believe the decision is incorrect and a penalty is warranted.

Speaking to the matter after a motion was made to accept the report for information, Beres said he was not aware of the potential conflict.

“If someone misconstrued that I was in this to help myself or a family member in any financial manner, trust me that certainly is not the intent,” he said, “and if so, I apologize for that if it was taken that way.”

Beres said he would declare a pecuniary interest on the BIA expansion moving forward. With a BIA matter on the agenda, he, Gilvesy and Coun. Chris Rosehart all declared a pecuniary interest.

Asked about the possibility of these cases still going before a judge, Gilvesy said, “I would just hope everyone would respect the decision of the integrity commissioner in regard to the pecuniary decision claims.”