Wilmot Township councillors cleared following investigation; 35-page report illustrates divide between some elected officials

By Lee Griffi, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

“I find that councillors Wilkinson and Sidhu did not contravene the township’s code of conduct through their actions at the Jan. 4, 2025, town hall. Accordingly, no recommendation is made against them.”

That was the final decision made by Benjamin Drory, Wilmot Township’s integrity commissioner, following lengthy complaints levied at councillors Kris Wilkinson and Harvir Sidhu. Councillors Lillianne Dunstall and Steven Martin accused their counterparts of breaching council’s code of conduct as a result of a Jan. 4 town hall meeting hosted by Dunstall and Martin. The pair were also accused of bullying and harassment, a charge dismissed by Drory.

Dunstall also levied a complaint of unbecoming behaviour of an elected official against Wilkinson and Sidhu, which was also rejected by the integrity commissioner.

The complaints stemmed from the possibility the public meeting contravened the Municipal Act as five councillors were present when it was about to begin. Wilkinson and Sidhu were asked to leave the meeting by Dunstall but did not believe they were contravening the act. The report was released to the public, despite no findings of wrongdoing.

“It is essential to clarify that the meeting was not an official council meeting, nor was it sanctioned, nor did it have any motions or official agenda,” said Wilkinson’s response, found in the decision.

“… A meeting is defined as a gathering where a quorum of members is present and where discussions materially advance the business of or decision-making of the township. The Ward 4 town hall did not meet that criteria.”

The decision did not include a ruling on if the Municipal Act’s quorum rules were breached. The LAS, Ontario’s closed meeting investigator, provides professional independent services to examine complaints under section 238 of the Municipal Act.

“It is not my jurisdiction to determine whether the … closed meeting rules would have been breached if four or more members of council had stayed at the town hall – only the LAS can opine on that,” said Drory, noting it was unfortunate LAS was unwilling to provide a formal declaration on the issue but he felt no ruling was delivered since three councillors were present.

“It was clear there could have been a contravention had councillors Martin and/or Cressman also remained at the meeting,” said Drory.

Dunstall provided a statement following the release of the report.

“The integrity commissioner’s report highlights serious governance issues within council. While the report did not find councillors Wilkinson and Sidhu in violation of the code of conduct, it made clear that their actions were disruptive and detrimental to public trust. The fact that the IC felt compelled to issue a report at all, when typically, no report is issued if no violation is found, speaks volumes.”

She added the lack of formal consequences raises concerns about accountability.

“Disrupting a public meeting, dismissing concerns about quorum and creating an atmosphere that led to an elected official leaving their own meeting is not behavior befitting of public representatives. While no legal violation occurred, the real issue is governance, respect and professionalism, qualities that were clearly lacking in this situation.”

Dunstall also admitted council is divided, something that has tangible consequences for residents.

“When political grandstanding and personal conflicts overshadow the actual work of governing, it prevents council from effectively addressing pressing issues such as financial concerns, infrastructure and community services. The dysfunction on display at the Ward 4 town hall has understandably eroded public confidence even further than it already was.”

She added the incident should be a wakeup call.

“Residents deserve better and it is up to council to prove that they can rise above division and work together for the good of the community.”

In his complaint to Drory, Martin said Wilkinson and Sidhu were “bullying and harassing” by not respecting his role as meeting host.

“They also did not respect my decision on the quorum issue. Even if I am wrong on the issue of quorum or an illegal meeting, they should have respected my concern since it was my meeting along with Coun. Dunstall.”

Wilkinson also released a statement following the report’s release, saying he will continue to work hard for residents.

“I appreciate the integrity commissioner’s report and the finding that my colleague and I didn’t break any rules. I look forward to getting back to work and advancing business at council while continuing to work within the rules of our township. I will continue to advocate for the people of Wilmot and focus on their priorities. That means continuing to ask tough questions, challenging the status quo and protecting every tax dollar that this township spends.”

Sidhu provided the Gazette with a statement in response to the report.

“I want to thank the integrity commissioner for their detailed report. As always, I am committed to the residents who elected me first and foremost. My top priority is respecting their tax dollars and asking the tough questions.”

In his testimony to Drory, Sidhu said he did not intend to create an atmosphere where Martin and Dunstall felt bullied.

“I did not see the problem with being there in attendance as a quiet observer. There was no material advancement of any business and no votes or motions that could have been seen as official township business. … I do acknowledge my presence there did disturb the start of the meeting and for that I do apologize as that was not my intention.”

Martin also issued a statement and he feels the rules need to change.

“I understand that the integrity commissioner made his ruling based on our code of conduct. So that is all that he can rule on, and according to the Wilmot Township code of conduct, there were no rules broken. It makes me realize that we need to update our code of conduct.”

He added council works well together but admitted there are ups and downs.

“There are times that votes are divided, and then there are other times that we make decisions with a unanimous vote or only one or two in disagreement. We have come through a difficult budget and reached final decisions.”

Martin said he is interested in working with everyone on council, but added they need to follow the Municipal Act. 

“The reason I left our town hall on Jan. 4 was because the quorum rule is important and I did not want to put our township at risk of an illegal meeting. I continue to show that I will work with everyone on council.”

Drory added the incident at the Jan. 4 town hall meeting did not do the township any good in terms of the image of elected officials.

“Councillors Martin and Dunstall were both clearly frustrated, as were a number of people in the audience. This was a regrettable incident that probably tarnished the township in the eyes of some of its residents.”

The Gazette reached out to Mayor Natasha Salonen’s office for comment but she is on vacation out of the county and unavailable. Coun. Stewart Cressman, who left the meeting to ensure there was not a quorum, did not reply to our request for a statement by press time.

“Councillors Wilkinson and Sidhu didn’t breach the code of conduct. Rather, I believe the concerns in this case are better characterized as being about governance – for example simpler questions like why the township’s members of council appeared unable to respect each other’s positions or work together positively,” added Drory near the end of his report.

The full integrity commissioner report is available on the Wilmot Township website as part of the March 24 council meeting agenda.