The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has backed a decision by city council in Dryden, Ont., that banned one of its own members from attending meetings in person until he completed workplace civility training. Coun. Ritch Noel was banned from attending meetings in person after an independent investigator concluded he violated Dryden’s workplace harassment policy. “The investigator concluded that the applicant had engaged in workplace harassment and bullying directed toward the city’s chief administrative officer and bylaw enforcement officer,” said the decision by the court. “Council accepted those findings and imposed a number of corrective measures, including a requirement that the applicant complete workplace civility training and attend council meetings and city functions virtually until that training was completed.” Noel’s lawyer appealed that decision, arguing that the process was unfair, council was going beyond its authority and was violating his human rights. A three-person panel of judges heard the case. The ruling said the dispute began in 2024 between Noel and municipal staff “concerning matters including property standards enforcement, bylaw administration and issues relating to the (Noel’s) property.” Several incidents led CAO Roger Nesbitt and bylaw enforcement officer Tanner Pecarski to file workplace harassment complaints against Noel. Noel and his lawyer took part in the investigation that followed. Encounter at Walmart “Among the incidents considered during the investigation were Mr. Pecarski’s report that the applicant (Noel) told him during an encounter at a local Walmart in December 2024 that it would be the last conversation they would ever have,” the court said. “(As well as) the applicant’s decision to have a notice of libel personally served on the CAO at his residence on Christmas Eve. The investigator considered these matters collectively, viewing them as part of a broader course of conduct rather than as isolated incidents.” While rejecting a number of the complaints as not rising to the level of workplace harassment, the investigation concluded Noel had engaged in workplace bullying and harassment. That prompted the rest of council to pass a motion requiring Noel to take remedial training before being allowed to attend council meetings in person again. Noel sought a judicial review of that decision, arguing city council “lacked jurisdiction” to force him to attend council meetings virtually until he completed the training. In rejecting his appeal, the court said precedents such as Del Grande v. Toronto Catholic District School Board upheld that a democratically elected board has the right to exercise its authority to sanction one of its own members. No explicit authorization Noel’s lawyer also argued that remedies in Dryden’s workplace harassment policy doesn’t explicitly give council the power to ban a city councillor from attending meetings in person. “Nor does it expressly authorize council to suspend attendance, exclude a councillor from council chambers, restrict access to municipal facilities, or condition attendance upon completion of training,” the court ruling said. “The issue is therefore whether the city possessed authority to impose such measures notwithstanding the absence of express language in the policy.” However, the court ruled that the city was not only relying on the policy to back its decision, but also on the Municipal Act and the Ontario Health and Safety Act. “The Municipal Act, 2001, directs that municipal powers are to be interpreted broadly so as to enable municipalities to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate and to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues,” the court said. “This understanding of municipal authority is consistent with the Supreme Court’s repeated direction that municipalities possess not only powers expressly conferred by statute, but also powers arising by necessary implication from statutory grants of authority.” That meant the City of Dryden not only had the power to receive workplace-harassment complaints, “it was required to investigate such complaints, determine whether they were substantiated, and take corrective action where appropriate.” If Noel’s arguments were accepted, it would mean complaints could be investigated, but the city couldn’t take “meaningful corrective action” to address complaints that have been confirmed to be true. In this case, the remedial training was “directed toward addressing the conduct found to have occurred and reducing the risk of repetition,” the decision said. “Importantly, (Noel) was not removed from office, suspended as a councillor, deprived of voting rights or prevented from participating in council deliberations. He remained entitled to attend meetings remotely, to speak, to debate, and to vote. The measures altered the manner of participation on a temporary basis, but did not prevent him from continuing to perform the core functions of elected office.” The court also rejected arguments that the process was unfair and that the sanction imposed on Noel was primarily punitive. “I reject (Noel’s) submission that the attendance restriction was imposed for a punitive purpose, to silence him, embarrass him, damage his reputation,” the court said. “It remained in force only until completion of a workplace civility training program consisting of approximately 7.5 hours of online instruction directed toward civility, self-awareness, respectful communication, and workplace interactions. Upon completion of that training, the applicant would immediately regain the ability to attend council meetings and city functions in person.” In addition to dismissing the appeal, the court also awarded the city legal costs of $17,000. Read the full decision here.
