Unreasonable Behaviour Policy Deferred by Addington Highlands

Jeff Green | Sep 06, 2023

At their meeting on Tuesday (September 5) Addington Highland Council deferred By-law “#0882/2023 Being a By-law to Adopt an Unreasonable Behaviour Policy for the Corporation of the Township of Addington Highlands” for a period of two months.

The process of developing the bylaw began in February, when, in response to emails and other communications from Marlean Mclean to township staff, Deputy Reeve Tony Fritsch moved that staff “consult with a solicitor and investigate policies how to prevent and/or deal with harassment of members of staff and Council by members of the public.”

In response to Fritsch's motion, CAO Christine Reed prepared a policy document that was presented to Council at their July 4th meeting.

At that time Reed said Council could look at the document at their leisure and provide written comment, and that the document would return to the August 1st agenda for further discussion, with a view towards being adopted by bylaw on September 5.

On August 1st, the only comment made about the policy document came from Tony Fritsch, who said he found it very clear and well written. A motion was passed unanimously to bring it back on September 5 as a bylaw.

The policy is unusual in that it includes a list of 19 specific forms of behaviour by members of the public.

The 19 behaviours include: “making excessive demands on the time and resources of township representatives with frequent or lengthy communications or by contacting several township representatives about the same matter; repeatedly arguing points without new evidence; making a request with the intention of causing inconvenience, disruption or annoyance, and or, making a request that lacks a legitimate purpose or value; submitting falsified documents; and harassment of a township representative.”

The policy includes a procedure for determining whether the policy has been breached, and a set of 15 potential restrictions that can be placed on a person who has breached the policy, ranging from limiting the number of contacts with township staff to issuing a notice of trespass to prevent an individual from entering township property. The policy also includes a range of timeframes for the restrictions to last, from 1 month to 1 year, at which time the restrictions can also be renewed.

The Chief Administrative Officer will determine if the policy has been breached and will determine the appropriate restriction. Within 14 days of receiving notice that a restriction has been implemented, the person who has been restricted can appeal the restriction(s) to Council.

Before passing the bylaw, Council received five emails regarding the policy, all of which were received in August.

One was from David Garrow, who said the policy was an attempt to restrict “access to public information from concerned, or participating, individuals concerned with council operations” and that it “is just wrong.”

Three of the emails were from Marlean McLean. In the first one, she said, among other things, that “the wording of this policy is an infringement of human rights, access to public information, transparency, our constitution and the rule of law.”

In the second, she said that she contacted the Ombudsman's office and was directed to the Freedom of Information Act, which, in Mclean’s view, the proposed policy contravenes.

She also said “for council to attempt to silence anyone who is advocating for better community standards is a failure to uphold democracy.”

Finally, on August 28, she wrote “I truly believe that this bylaw goes against the Charter of Rights.”

The final email was from Joanne Volpe, who said “While I am saddened that you are experiencing harassment in your workplace, this bylaw smacks of vendetta and is un-Canadian at best. If I understand the Bylaw wording correctly, it allows a council/staff member to define a person as a "Nuisance" and limit that person's access to Municipal property, staff and information. I do not support this bylaw.”

Volpe added that there are already countless laws on the books that the township can make use of to address any situation that arises.

In the days leading up to the September 5 meeting, Marlean McLean posted on Facebook - “If you believe in our Constitution, freedom of expression, The Rule of Law, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, transparency and accountability in elected officials, the right to protest, access to public information, then please write to the council members you voted for in Addington Highlands, in the last Municipal election, or better yet attend the meeting on September 5.”

When contacted on Monday, (September 4) McLean said that she feels that she has been bullied by Council and Staff during and after the election last fall. She said that she brings issues that people bring to her, to the attention of Council and Staff.

“These aren't things that I dreamed up, they are issues that are real and should be available to discuss in a democracy.”

The Unreasonable Behaviour Policy refers to repeated contacts with Council over the same issue. When asked how often she communicates with Council, McLean said that she does not go to the township office in person, but uses email. She would not say how often she has sent emails to township staff this year.

When the matter came to Council on Tuesday, (Sept.5) CAO Reed read out McLean's August 26 letter for the record, including a portion of Section 2B of the Canadian Charter of Rights which addresses Freedom of Expression.

Council also agreed to hear from Marlean McLean and Stephanie Marrisett. McLean reiterated her point that, for the matter, is one of free speech, and said that the circumstances surrounding the proposed policy are “personal, yet it will affect everyone”.

She also said, “We may not like each other, but I hope we agree on the right of freedom of expression.”

At the end of her presentation, Stephanie said, “in all honesty I'm kind of ashamed of all of you. I’d like to see a town hall meeting, in the evening, to talk about this.”

Some of the ideas in the emails or the presentations may have had an impact on Councillor Ken Hook, who proposed that the matter be deferred for two months “because I still have some pending questions.”

It took two calls for the motion to find a seconder, Councillor Kirby Thompson, and it was supported by Hook, Thompson, and Deputy Reeve Fritsch. Councillor Yanch voted against the motion to defer, and Reeve Hogg declared the motion approved without voting.