Mike Sullivan files lawsuits against Ritsma, Hunter

CONNOR LUCZKA, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

After a tumultuous summer two years ago where Stratford resident Mike Sullivan was among three residents suspended from City of Stratford property, he is now seeking legal action. Sullivan filed two small claim defamation suits against Mayor Martin Ritsma and Coun. Mark Hunter last week.

In the summer of 2024, the City of Stratford banned Sullivan along with Barb Shaughnessy and Ken Wood over actions made during a February meeting which officials said breached the city’s respectful workplace policy. Sullivan told the Times his two suits stem from the months that followed when Ritsma and Hunter both made comments Sullivan believes defamed him.

“In the case of Ritsma, he suggested that I was violent or had threatened violence,” Sullivan said. “And Hunter, at a council subcommittee or committee meeting, said that people in the room were afraid of me being there … the City of Stratford's policy that led to me being banned, which was what gave rise to the comments, required that you go through the city's appeal process, and then it requires that you appeal that decision to the Ontario Ombudsman. And essentially, I was waiting for the Ontario Ombudsman until this spring.”

In the report, which only addressed Sullivan’s complaint, investigator Johanna Dennie noted the city did not address its concerns with his behaviour prior to issuing the letter of suspension. Under the respectful workplace policy of the day, and the amended version used today, staff must be satisfied that the issue has been thoroughly investigated and that there has been adequate communication with the person in question. Neither policy provides staff with guidance about what is considered adequate.

“We also noted that the restrictions issued by the city were very broad, given that the examples of inappropriate behaviour provided were limited to one council meeting,” Dennie wrote, who also wrote a near identical analysis of Shaughnessy’s suspension. “The city did not explain why it was necessary to restrict you from all city buildings. We explained to the city that as a best practice, a trespass notice or a service restriction should be considered as a last resort and should restrict access as little as possible, based on the circumstances.”

After that report was received, Sullivan decided to file the suits, seeking $50,000 from Ritsma and Hunter both. His suits do not name the city, nor are Ritsma and Hunter representing the city or Stratford city council.

Speaking to the Times, Ritsma said he was surprised to be served with papers by Sullivan ahead of a city council meeting on Sept. 14. When asked if he is confident the court will be in his favour, Ritsma replied, “I believe so.”

“In the role you have to make decisions, and you have to make decisions based on what you believe is right and just,” he said. “And in this case, I felt that that our staff perhaps wasn't being addressed in the proper fashion … I believe that the courts would see that in my actions and council's actions – and I'll say it's council's actions as well – it wasn't meant to defame anybody.”

Ritsma and Hunter are both running to be mayor during this year’s municipal election, a fact which makes Hunter more skeptical of Sullivan’s prerogative.

“I believe the claim is entirely without merit,” Hunter wrote in a letter to the editor to the Times. “As a lawyer, I would never advise a client that their success in litigation is guaranteed. Courts are unpredictable, and outcomes can never be known with certainty. That said, I am extremely confident in my defence. It is the timing of the service of this claim that is suspect …

“… While the courts will determine the merits of Mike Sullivan’s claim, there is a separate and equally important principle at stake: the integrity of the electoral process. The commencement of litigation is a lawful right. The strategic deployment of litigation as a campaign tool is an entirely different matter. If evidence establishes that lawsuits, media outreach, public communications or other activities were coordinated for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a municipal election or disadvantaging particular candidates, those actions may warrant scrutiny under applicable election legislation and the common law.”

Sullivan, however, argues that now was the most fitting time to file.

“If an election campaign is not the time to raise issues of a person's integrity, when is?” Sullivan said. “I don't apologize for the fact that it happened during an election. It wasn't the foremost in my mind that I should wait until the election campaign starts before I do this. I'd waited long enough, and it was just circumstance that prevented me from giving him his lawsuit sooner … I'm hoping that the lawsuits speak for themselves.”