A Chatham-Kent councillor had her case for a judicial review heard in court this week, but she'll have to wait for a decision on whether or not it will proceed to a hearing.
Ward 4 councillor Rhonda Jubenville's lawyer Michael Alexander made submissions in Divisional Court in London on Wednesday saying Chatham-Kent's Integrity Commissioner (IC) didn't disclose sufficient evidence to support a conclusion ruling that Jubenville breached Council's Code of Conduct by bullying and intimidating the public with posts on social media regarding flying flags. Jubenville had her pay docked for three months as a result of the ruling, the maximum penalty under the Municipal Act for breaching the Code of Conduct.
Alexander said Integrity Commissioner Mary Ellen Bench's report didn't meet the definition for Statutory Power of Decision, citing it lacked fairness and transparency because it didn't provide full disclosure by not identifying the complainants against Jubenville.
Alexander called the IC report biased and said 18 of 39 items contained in the report were not relevant.
Meanwhile, the lawyer representing the municipality called Alexander's motion for a judicial review unusual and wrong.
Sheila Block told Justice Leach that Bench didn't limit the scope of the report and had every right to not identify the complainants.
Block also argued that parts of the IC report are subject to confidentiality under the Municipal Act and that Bench didn't limit the record by not naming the complainants, calling the IC report a "full and accurate record."
She also accused Jubenville's lawyer of trying to exclude some items from the record, such as social media posts and media articles about her views on flying flags on municipal property and the Pride flag being raised at Blenheim High School, which "charged the climate in Chatham-Kent."
Block noted the news articles were relevant to Bench's investigation and excluding them would hurt and impede the judicial review.
Alexander closed his submissions at the motion hearing for a judicial review by saying there's no proof Councillor Jubenville provoked or influenced anyone, adding that her social media posts didn't cause an "incendiary climate."
He said the media articles shouldn't be introduced, adding the process is being politicized.
Justice Leach countered that the judicial review panel should have everything in front of them to make a proper decision, regardless of the outcome, in the name of fairness and transparency.
Justice Leach told both sides he'll have a decision as soon as possible on whether the judicial review will move forward. If it proceeds, a judicial review hearing will take place in November.
The side that loses the case will be on the hook for the legal fees.