Councillors vote down Stevenson's ask for city help with legal costs

A London city councillor's move to use city money to challenge a ruling against her by the Integrity Commissioner was voted down by a council committee on Monday. 

Council's corporate services committee voted 3-1 to receive as a motion — but take no action — on Coun. Susan Stevenson's push to have the city cover her legal costs for a judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's decision.

That decision found that the Ward 4 counillor violated the council code of conduct when she posted images on social media of identifiable people who appear to be homeless in posts that also mentioned violence and vandalism. 

Reprimand for social media posts

Council voted in December to accept the Integrity Commissioner's recommendation for a reprimand against Stevenson. However, it amounted to a vote of censure, one that came with no monetary punishment and did not limit her council duties. 

Arguing that the Integrity Commissioner failed to follow council policies in reaching its finding, Stevenson vowed to challenge the decision either through a judicial review or a complaint to the Ontario ombudsman. 

The judicial review would require a lawyer and Stevenson to argue that the city should cover the estimated $20,000 to $30,000 cost to launch the challenge. In her letter to the committee, Stevenson said she intended to hire John Mascarin, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in municipal law. 

At committee on Monday, Stevenson put forward a motion to get funding for the legal bill under the city's indemnification policy, which spells out how and when the city will pay legal bills of councillors sued while doing their job. 

Motion dies with no seconder

But that motion died when none of the three other voting councillors present would second Stevenson's motion. 

Coun. Hadleigh McAlister, who chairs the committee, then put forward a motion to receive Stevenson's motion but take no action. That passed by a 3-1 vote with Stevenson voting against it and councillors McAlister, Corrine Rahman and Paul Van Meerbergen voting in favour. Coun. Peter Cuddy, who also sits on the committee, was absent. 

McAlister said Stevenson could file a complaint with the city ombudsman. 

"I do believe there are other avenues that the councillor can pursue," said McAlister. "The Ontario ombudsman is a free service. I don't believe that this is the best use of taxpayer money and I will not be supporting it."

Stevenson said an ombudsman report can only make recommendations, and doesn't have the teeth to challenge an Integrity Commissioner procedure she sees as flawed and improperly followed. 

"The judicial review is the only avenue to which I can get the results that I'm looking for," she said. 

Stevenson said by bringing forward the motion, she was following the procedure recommended by councillors at the Dec. 19 meeting, when council voted 9-6 to follow the integrity commissioner's recommendation. 

"[Council] pointed me down this avenue so I find this shocking quite frankly, " said Stevenson.

Stevenson asked city staff for clarification on who has jurisdiction over the integrity commissioner's contract with the city. Lynne Livingstone, the city manager, said the oversight lies with council. 

"This is council's integrity commissioner," said Livingstone. "The clerk manages that tool but it is a council tool, a council contract. The results of it are managed and decided by council." 

Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis said an ombudsman complaint would be the best first step for Stevenson instead of "jumping to a judicial review."

In a statement to CBC News after Monday's , Stevenson said she was disappointed with the committee's recommendation, and would be making a decision regarding next steps after the next council meeting on Jan. 23.