Adam Prudhomme
Editor
A report detailing an investigation into whether Greater Napanee Mayor Marg Isbester’s involvement with the town’s sale and development of Heritage Park violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) was presented to council Tuesday night.
Town of Greater Napanee Integrity Commissioner Laura Dean of Aird and Berlis LLP presented her findings over the phone to council’s temporary chambers, located at the Selby Community Hall. Isbester’s involvement on the matter was called into question because her son, Andrew Isbester, owns property adjacent to Heritage Park. A formal complaint was filed with the integrity commissioner’s office on March 1, 2021.
A total of four allegations were made against the mayor:
1. The mayor attempted to influence town staff and others in decisions on the marketing of Heritage Park in such a way that a developer with ties to the mayor’s son would have an advantage in acquiring said property, and knowing that her son stood to gain a pecuniary benefit (direct or indirect) from the sale and development of heritage park as a residential subdivision, contrary to section 5.2 of the MCIA.
- The mayor attempted to influence town staff, council members and others in decisions on the sale of Heritage Park and on its development as a residential subdivision knowing that her son had an interest (direct or indirect) in a four acre parcel of land adjacent to Heritage Park and in a second seven acre parcel of land across Camden Road from Heritage Park and stood to gain a pecuniary benefit (direct or indirect) rom the sale and development of Heritage Park as a residential subdivision, contrary to section 5.2 of the MCIA.
- The mayor failed to disclose a pecuniary interest in the sale and development of Heritage Park and voted on questions in respect of these matters contrary to section 5 of the MCIA.
- The mayor failed to disclose her interest in Heritage Park and the general nature thereof by filing a declaration with the clerk, contrary to section 5.1 of the MCIA.
Dean’s findings indicated insufficient evidence for allegations one and two. For the third one it was determined the mayor’s son’s interest in the property was only hypothetical at the time and therefor did not contravene the MCIA. For the fourth allegation the report reads “The mayor did not file a written statement of her interest and its general nature in the Development Applications at the Oct. 27, 2020 council meeting. The mayor, therefore, contravened section 5.1of the MCIA.”
Dean said the findings do not warrant referring the matter to a judge for the determination of whether the mayor contravened the MCIA.
“Although, in our opinion, the breach is not insignificant, we submit that deterrence can be achieved without the need for a court application,” reads Dean’s report. “Furthermore, in our view, it is most likely that a court would not order that the mayor be removed from her seat in the circumstances. While the breach of the MCIA is clear, there are mitigating circumstances that would allow a court to impose a lesser sanction.”
Following the presentation the mayor was given the opportunity to comment.
“By me making an error in the understanding of the MCIA as it is related to the sale of Heritage Park, it has brought us to this point,” said Isbester. “When this was filed back in March of this year, I immediately got legal advice, at my own cost, to see where I stood on the four allegations of the applicant. From that advice I then understand that it was not just that it was a family member owned land adjacent to the Heritage Park property, but that they would or could benefit from the development. From the filing of the application on the MCIA I declared a conflict of interest on anything to do with this property going forward and have continued to do so, including not signing any documents to do with the property. At this time we could have shortened the almost six month back and forth between the applicant, the integrity commissioner, myself and my solicitor, but within the application there were two other allegations, which some of council has touched on, that just aren’t included within any application. They were allegations that I was charged with contrary to Section 5.2 of the MCIA, both dealing with allegations as follows. That I attempted to influence town staff and others in decisions on the marketing of Heritage Park in such a way that a developer with tie’s to the mayor’s son would have an advantage in acquiring the property, knowing that her son stood to declare a pecuniary benefit, direct of indirect from the sale and development of Heritage Park as a residential subdivision contrary to Section 5.2 of the MCIA. The second allegation was that I attempted to influence town staff, council members and others in decisions of the sale of Heritage Park and on its development as a residential subdivision knowing that my son had an interest direct or indirect in a four acre parcel of land adjacent to Heritage Park and a second seven acre parcel of land across Camden Road from Heritage Park and stood to gain a pecuniary interest benefit, direct or indirect from the sale of the development residential subdivision contrary to Section 5.2 of the MCIA. In both cases there was no evidence or insufficient evidence of those allegations. I’m not going to try and mix in the KPMG report, which the integrity commissioner has spoken to within her report. But both these allegations were extremely important for me to be cleared of. I am in no way trying to influence council’s dealings with this and I thank you for your time. I would point out that I would not and did not speak to any of the media before this meeting tonight because I felt this was a discussion that had to be with council, not in any form of media before this meeting.”
Council voted to receive Dean’s report.