Re: Unreasonable Behaviour

Brent Cameron | Oct 11, 2023

While I am sympathetic to the editorial on Addington Highlands proposed “Unreasonable Behaviour” policy, I am reminded of the adage that “the devil’s in the details.”

I spent 8 years as a member of Central Frontenac Township Council. During that time, I was aware of instances where Council and staff were subjected to treatment in a way that any dispassionate observer would recognize as abuse. That is, if you took 100 random people and sat them down in Oso Hall for a show of hands, at least 75 of them would agree. Those are the easy ones, and you would likely get no argument for a policy that focused on those types of behaviours.

The trickier part is on the margins, where the definition of “abuse” is not so specifically nailed down.

The policy that Addington Highlands is considering includes such things as “refusing to specify the grounds of a complaint”, “…changing statements made at an earlier stage in a process”, “demanding immediate responses from Township Representatives”, “refusing to accept a decision”, and “repeatedly arguing points without new evidence” to name a few.

If this had been the case in Central Frontenac last year, the people in Sharbot Lake who fought the changes on Mathew Street would have been nailed by it. Also, some folks who used to call me on a regular basis about potholes and plowing on their road could have been silenced – after all, they were repeat calls every spring, so they would qualify as “demanding an immediate response” and “arguing without new evidence.”

And what if the people on Mathew Street or my former constituent had been hit with the penalties being considered by Addington Highlands - measures like restricting access to Township property, and demanding that they can only communicate with the Township through a third party, like a lawyer?

Sound like ridiculous exaggeration on my part? Well, maybe yes, but maybe no. The problem is that the CAO decides what is or is not “unreasonable”. This isn’t a speed limit rule where you can compare the number on your dashboard with the one on the road sign. In some cases, it will be a value judgment – a matter of personal opinion.

For me, there may have been days where the temptation to use such a policy against a resident might have been great. But it is precisely because that temptation exists that any policy should be contemplated with the greatest of caution and care – including more specific definitions on what “unreasonable behaviour” actually is, guidance for the CAO in applying it, and an appeal process for those who feel wronged by a decision.

“Unreasonable behaviour” policies are not bad in principle – but they can be vaguely written and applied without proper oversight. That opens the danger of the remedy being more abusive than the problem they’re meant to fix.

Other townships contemplating a policy of their own should take note and ensure their versions have proper safeguards.

Brent Cameron