Heather Wright/The Herald

North Kent Councillor Rhonda Jubenville was ‘disrespectful’ to her council collegue, however an Integrity Commissioner doesn’t believe she violated Chatham-Kent’s Code of Conduct.

The report, which is heading for council Sept. 9, comes on the heals of an Ontario court overturning part of the last Integrity Commissioner’s investigation into Jubenville’s conduct during a flag flap in 2023. In that ruling, the Ontario court said she didn’t use undue influence when she voiced her pro-life views and publicly disagreed with a decision of Chatham-Kent council.

The most recent investigation into the North Kent councillor’s conduct comes from a complaint filed after a Town Hall meeting in Dresden about Chatham-Kent’s HUB Project.

Jubenville and Councillor Alysson Storey of Chatham and East Kent’s John Wright answered public questions from about 75 people and voiced their concerns about the project.

From that meeting, two complaints were filed; one against Storey for raising concerns about accessiblity to the HUB which will house the Civic Centre, library and museum to the former Sears building at 100 King and Jubenville explaining why her council collegue, North Kent’s Jamie McGrail, was not in attendance and for an email she sent to McGrail.

During the Oct. 20 public meeting, one of the residents asked Jubenville where McGrail was. Jubenville tells The Herald she had talked to McGrail before the Town Hall and was given permission to let people there know she was not in attendance because she had just come back from travelling. 

The resident also asked if McGrail supported the project; Jubenville responded McGrail had voted in favour of The HUB project at council – a fact that can be found in public records. The complaint also alleged Jubenville shouldn’t have sent a text to McGrail after the meeting in which she relayed what happened and explained the people in attendance wanted council to reconsider. Jubenville suggested she couldn’t raise that issue; only someone who had voted in favour of the project, like McGrail, could. “I told them I would ask you,” Jubenville’s text said.

But the complaint suggested that was an improper use of influence. The Integrity Commissioner, Suzzane Craig, disagreed saying Jubenville “ought to have known that her comment undermined her council colleague. I found that the conduct … was inappropriate and disrespectful towards her Ward 4 council colleague.” Craig also found the text didn’t exert undue influence.

While Jubenville is glad there will be no action against her due to this complaint, she still feels the sting of the investigation.

“My name is on this report, so there’s still a blemish against my name. So if people don’t delve into it, do a little bit of investigating and just read it on the surface, they’re going to say, oh, there’s that counselor causing problems,” Jubenville told The Herald.

She added while she doesn’t work closely with McGrail now, she doesn’t believe there is a problem between them. 

If there was, the councillor said she would apologize.

But Jubenville says this report has caused a rift at the council table.

“We can have different opinions, obviously, and we can vote separately, and that’s what we’re supposed to do, but something like this has now caused, in my opinion, …division.”

Craig does recommend sanctions against Storey saying her ongoing questions about accessibility issues at The Hub had been addressed by CK staff.  

Storey’s “second-guessing of the Town staff in respect of the CK Hub, in particular with respect to addressing accessibility standards and service closures in rural areas, was tantamount to undermining the professional subject-matter expertise of the planning staff,” said Craig. “These repetitive behaviours left staff feeling targeted, undermined and at times intimidated.”

The Integrity Commissioner also called out Storey for revealing she had been harassed by one of the principles of the project, saying voters “should know what sort of a person” CK was dealing with. The developer said he had “no ill will” to the councillor but noted he was attacked saying he was only advancing the project to make money; “I have also publicly stated that if I profit in any way from this project, I will donate back those monies,” he said.

Craig found Storey brought “an allegation of harassment in a public forum is not appropriate and then to leave the impression that the accusation of harassment is evidence to suggest that the project should not be supported, is airing a personal grievance while acting in one’s official capacity.”

The Integrity Commissioner found Storey violated the Code of Conduct twice, using improper influence and is guilty of discreditable conduct. She is suggesting a reprimand and a 10-day pay suspension for her actions. The report will be dealt with at the September council meeting.

Meantime, another IC report could be forthcoming after an Ontario court ruling in mid-July. An Ontario judge says North Kent Councillor Rhonda Jubenville didn’t use undue influence when she voiced her pro-life views and publicly disagreed with a decision of Chatham-Kent council.

In the spring of 2023, Jubenville voiced concern online when Chatham-Kent officials didn’t respond to a request from a pro-life/anti-abortion advocacy group which wanted to fly its flag at the Civic Centre. She asked council to only permit government flags on municipal property. Council turned the idea down. After the decision, a complaint was launched against Jubenville citing her remarks online.

The Integrity Commissioner found Jubenville’s comments leading up to the debate and her continued discussion after council turned down her proposal contravened two sections of CK’s Code of Conduct; using her influence of her office for a purpose other than the exercise of her official duties and failing to treat members of the public, councillors and staff in a civilized manner without abuse, bullying and intimidation. Council agreed with the Integrity Commissioner’s suggestion of a 90 day suspension.

Jubenville did not. She filed a judicial appeal in Ontario Divisional Court. Three Justices reviewed the case in May. In the decision, The Honourable Justice D.L. Edwards said it is “unreasonable” to say Jubenville used undue influence for “continuing to advocate for a position after council reaches a contrary decision and, further, that it is a breach for a councillor to advocate about issues outside of the purview of Council.”

The Code of Conduct, he says, describes undue influence as gaining “private advantage,” which he concluded Jubenville did not.

Justice Edwards found the Integrity Commissioner concluded “the principle of requiring a high standard of ethical behaviour means that, after a council decision has been made, continued dissent, respectful or otherwise, is conduct that would bring the council into disrepute.”

He calls that “unreasonable” saying if Jubenville had been advocating for something non-controversial, like an infrastructure project or cancer research, it would be clear she wasn’t exercising undue influence.

Justice Edwards adds “Although a councillor has the right to undertake an activity (of advocating for a cause), how he or she does it might run afoul of the code.”

The justice says councillors have to adhere to a higher standard of ethical behaviour quoting a previous court decision which said “freedom of expression is not an absolute, unfettered right: ‘it is limited by reasonable restrictions, including by requirements to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons’”.

Justice Edwards struck down that part of the ruling and the 90-day suspension sending the issue back to Chatham-Kent Council and possibly the Integrity Commissioner to reconsider what punishment she should face in light of the discreditable conduct finding.

The municipality has also been ordered to pay Jubenville’s court costs.