Province Sets One Ethics Code for Councils

Summary#

Bill 9 (Municipal Accountability Act, 2025) changes how ethical rules for municipal politicians work across Ontario, including Toronto. It lets the Province set one standard code of conduct and creates a new, two-step process that can lead to a council member losing their seat for very serious misconduct.

Key changes:

• The Province (through cabinet) can prescribe a single code of conduct for all municipal councils and local boards. Existing local codes will no longer apply once the provincial code is in place.
• All council and local board members must take code-of-conduct training. Local Integrity Commissioners (municipal ethics officers) must deliver training and hold required meetings. The Integrity Commissioner of Ontario (the provincial ethics officer) will train and support local Commissioners.
• After a local inquiry, a Commissioner may ask the provincial Integrity Commissioner to review and, in the most serious cases that caused harm and where normal penalties are not enough, recommend declaring a member’s seat vacant.
• The provincial Integrity Commissioner must investigate, can use formal inquiry powers (such as calling witnesses and documents), and must keep information confidential except in limited situations.
• Councils must vote within 30 days on any recommendation to declare a seat vacant. It passes only if all eligible members present vote yes. If approved, the seat is vacated and the member is barred from serving for four years.
• During election periods, no new removal recommendations can be made, and ongoing provincial inquiries stop.

What it means for you#

• Residents and voters

  • Ethical rules and training for local politicians will be the same across Ontario.
  • Councils will have a clearer path to remove a member for very serious misconduct that harmed someone’s health, safety, or well‑being.
  • If a seat is declared vacant, your community may face a by-election or an appointment to fill it under existing rules.
  • Some parts of these investigations will be confidential, so fewer details may be public during a case.

• Council and local board members

  • You must complete mandatory code-of-conduct training and may need to attend prescribed meetings.
  • A local Integrity Commissioner can refuse complaints they judge frivolous or in bad faith.
  • For serious, harmful misconduct, you could face a two-step review that may lead to your seat being declared vacant and a four-year disqualification.
  • If a removal recommendation goes to council, you may speak and try to persuade colleagues but cannot vote on it.
  • If council does not approve removal, the council and board cannot then impose the usual lesser penalties (like pay suspension) for that same case.

• Integrity Commissioners (municipal)

  • You will receive training from the provincial Integrity Commissioner.
  • You must follow any provincial standards for handling complaints and inquiries.
  • After your inquiry, you may refer only the most serious, harmful cases for provincial review.

• Municipalities (including Toronto)

  • You must use the provincially prescribed code of conduct once it is in force.
  • You must ensure members complete training and hold required meetings.
  • When a provincial removal recommendation arrives, you must hold a vote within 30 days. Approval requires a unanimous yes from all eligible members present.
  • If a member holds linked seats (for example, on upper- and lower-tier councils, or a council and a local board), declaring one seat vacant can trigger vacancies in the others.
  • You may have new reporting duties to the public set by regulation.

Expenses#

Estimated annual cost: No publicly available information.

• The bill adds duties for the provincial Integrity Commissioner (training, inquiries) and new training/meeting requirements for municipalities, which could increase administrative costs.
• If more seats are declared vacant, some municipalities may face by-election costs.
• No official cost estimate was provided in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

• A single, provincewide code of conduct makes rules clear and consistent for everyone.
• A second, independent review by the provincial Integrity Commissioner reduces local politics and conflicts of interest in serious cases.
• Stronger consequences for serious, harmful misconduct can restore public trust and help keep people safe.
• Mandatory training should prevent problems before they happen and improve conduct.
• Clear rules let Commissioners dismiss frivolous complaints, reducing abuse of the system.
• Pausing cases during elections helps prevent misuse of the process for campaign purposes.

Opponents' View#

• Letting the Province set the code may weaken municipal autonomy and local decision-making.
• The unanimous vote requirement could make removal rare, even in serious cases.
• If a removal vote fails, councils cannot apply lesser penalties for that case, which could leave misconduct unpunished.
• Extra training, meetings, and reporting may add costs and red tape for municipalities.
• Confidentiality rules that override freedom‑of‑information laws during inquiries may reduce transparency.
• Giving more power to the provincial Integrity Commissioner could politicize discipline or cause delays, especially with inquiries paused around elections.