News + Insights

On March 10, 2026, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court released its decision in Racco v. Corporation of the City of Vaughan, 2026 ONSC 1075 (Div. Ct.). AGB lawyers Julia Wilkes and David Ionis successfully resisted two applications for judicial review, heard and decided together, on behalf of the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Vaughan.

A municipal councillor challenged two of the Integrity Commissioner's investigations into his conduct and the Integrity Commissioner's related conclusions that he had breached Vaughan’s municipal Code of Conduct by, among other things, making disparaging remarks about other members of Council and sharing confidential material. The councillor alleged that the Integrity Commissioner’s investigative procedure had been unfair, that she was biased, and that her findings were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed both applications and rejected all of the councillor's allegations against the Integrity Commissioner, wholly accepting the AGB team's submissions that the Integrity Commissioner’s investigative process was fair, her findings reasonable, and that she was free of bias.

In the course of these applications, the Divisional Court also faced and decided a novel issue: whether Council’s decision to impose sanctions was tainted by bias because the complainant councillor—who made the complaint underlying the Integrity Commissioner’s investigations—had participated in Council’s vote and decision to sanction the councillor. The councillor insisted that the complainant councillor ought to have recused themself from the decision and vote, and that their failure to do so necessarily tainted the entirety of Council's decision with bias (or at least, a reasonable apprehension of bias).

The Divisional Court disagreed. Following an analysis of the statutory scheme and Council's role in the complaints process, the Divisional Court held that the filing of a complaint does not, in and of itself, necessarily give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Complainant councillors may therefore sit as a member of Council considering and voting on sanctions in relation to their own complaint to the Integrity Commissioner—absent particular facts, such as the complaint itself asserting or advocating for a particular sanction. 

We are grateful for the opportunity to represent the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Vaughan, and other similarly situated municipal Integrity Commissioners, in the discharge of their essential public-service mandates.