Ontario Ombudsman critical of city in 2024 banning of resident

Two years after three residents were temporarily banned from all city owned building, the province's ombudsman has criticized city's actions.

Article content More than two years after the city banned three residents from all city-owned buildings and barred them from communicating with staff for three months, Ontario’s ombudsman criticized the city’s actions that led to the ban, along with the respectful workplace policy the city used to justify its decision. On April 4, 2024, residents Barb Shaughnessy, Mike Sullivan and Ken Wood all received letters from the city notifying them that they had been banned due to their actions at the Feb. 26 meeting of that year. Another resident, Jane Marie Mitchell, received a warning.

Recommended Videos Shaughnessy attempted to attend a council meeting on June 24, 2024, while the ban was still in effect. The meeting ended less than 30 minutes after it started at the request of Mayor Martin Ritsma when she refused to leave following a recess. The next day, a trespass notice signed by then-Chief Administrative Officer Joan Thompson was delivered to Shaughnessy reminding her of the ban and said she faced a fine of up to $2,000 if it was violated.

Shaughnessy launched her grievance against the city with the ombudsman, an independent provincial office that investigates complaints about services provided by the Ontario government and its organizations, on July 19, 2024 – 17 days after the ban ended – because her appeal to overturn the ban was denied shortly before it expired. Ombudsman investigator Johanna Dennie, in an April 2026 letter to Shaughnessy, was critical of the city’s decision to issue a trespass notice while the ban was still in effect. According to the letter, a trespass notice or service restrictions should be considered as a “last resort” by the city.

“Under both the Respectful Workplace Policy and the current Public Conduct Policy, before classifying a person’s behaviour as inappropriate, city staff must be satisfied that the issue has been thoroughly investigated and that there has been adequate communication with the person in question,” Dennie wrote. “However, neither policy provides staff with guidance about what is considered ‘adequate communication.’ “We suggested that the city review its policy to include details of the steps that the city may take to investigate concerns about inappropriate behaviour demonstrated by members of the public, as well as its communication with the alleged offender, before classifying a person’s behaviour as inappropriate.”

According to Dennie, the city did not address its concerns with Shaughnessy’s behaviour before issuing the letter announcing her ban. While the city provided Shaughnessy with examples of behaviour it said was inappropriate, including statements she made about senior staff at the February meeting, Dennie wrote that the city didn’t provide Shaughnessy with other examples despite its claim that it was a pattern of behaviour. “We encouraged the city to set out in its policy the required documentation to support the issuance of a trespass notice, including records of the complaint and any investigation undertaken,” Dennie wrote.

“The restrictions issued by the city were very broad, given that the examples of inappropriate behaviour provided were limited to one council meeting. The city did not explain why it was necessary to restrict you from all city buildings.” In her complaint, Shaughnessy expressed concerns that Thompson, as the city’s most senior employee, was both personally involved in the matter and the decision maker in her appeal.

While both the former Respectful Workplace Policy and the current Public Conduct Policy outline how those making appeals should submit their concerns in writing to the CAO, or to the director of human resources if the CAO is involved with the complaint, it also states that the final decision will still be made by the CAO. “We suggested that the city review its Public Conduct Policy to ensure that, where the CAO is involved in the occurrence that has resulted in a service restriction and/or a trespass notice, the CAO will not be responsible for reviewing and deciding appeals,” Dennie wrote.

Current CAO Andre Morin said he was unable to elaborate about the particular instance given a legal claim filed against the city, also noting the city “does not speak publicly about matters concerning private individuals.” In relation to the letter from the ombudsman, “their review did not lead to any orders or findings,” Morin said. “However, they have provided best practices and recommendations for the city to consider.

The city did review and revised the policy in October 2024 and separated the Respectful Workplace Policy into three distinct policies.” Morin added that in May 2026, “following the conversations with and the letter from the ombudsman’s office, staff reviewed the policies and have noted several further potential changes. Those changes are still under development but will be brought forward for updates later this year.”

Shaughnessy felt vindicated by the ombudsman’s critique. “I knew what was right (and) what was wrong,” she said. “It was totally satisfying.

“What astonishes me is you have on council people who have been there (multiple) terms, and they were oblivious to what was put in that Respectful Workplace Policy and how it would affect the residents, and they didn’t really care.” While Shaughnessy remains critical of council, calling it dismissive, she said she is willing to work together on forming a better policy. “If the city wanted to review and create a task force to actually look like they legitimately wanted a policy that was fair and equitable, I would run and put my name forward,” she said.

“I’ve always been a collaborator, and I’ve always believed in working with people.”