North Bay councillor cleared of Cassellholme conflict accusations

Unlike the Cassellholme board, the city has no authority to appoint members to sit on the board of Castle Arms. (File)

The integrity commissioner in North Bay has ruled that North Bay city councillor Jamie Lowery did not violate the code of conduct by taking part in discussions about the governance of Castle Arms.

The complaint was made by the Cassellholme Board of Management. It accused Lowery, Castle Arms executive director, of failing to declare a pecuniary interest in the matter when it was discussed by city council at a meeting Sept. 2, 2025.

In his decision, integrity commissioner Guy Giorno wrote that there “appears to be a complex history surrounding governance of Castle Arms and its connection to the legally distinct, though practically related, Cassellholme Board, which operates East Nipissing Home for the Aged, known as Cassellholme, a provincially regulated long-term care home.”

The Cassellholme Board created Castle Arms in 1986 as a “non‑profit seniors’ apartment corporation for the primary purpose of providing housing to senior citizens on a rent-geared-to-income basis.”

Unlike the Cassellholme board, the city has no authority to appoint members to sit on the board of Castle Arms. But traditionally, Giorno wrote that there was overlap between the two boards.

“The two boards’ memberships were intertwined by practice rather than legal mandate,” the report said.

But in 2021, the Castle Arms board was told it must have different members. People who had been sitting on both boards then resigned from Castle Arms and a separate board was put in place.

“Whether the advice that prompted this break was correct has been a matter of disagreement,” Giorno wrote.

In 2023, North Bay city council passed a motion to have its CAO review how the two separate boards came to be and make recommendations. At that time, Lowery declared a pecuniary interest, stating that he was an employee of the Castle Arms Board.

While no action was ultimately taken, Lowery later consulted with Giorno, who advised him that, in fact, he didn’t have a pecuniary interest in the matter.

“This means that you are free to debate the motion, to vote on the motion, to move and vote on amendments to the motion, and to attempt to influence other council members concerning the motion,” Giorno told Lowery in May 2023.

For there to be a pecuniary interest, he said council would have to make a decision that affected the financial affairs of Castle Arms.

‘No correlation’

Even if a new board was put in place, “there is no correlation between governance, in particular, membership on the board, and a corporation’s pecuniary interests.”

So when the matter came to council again in September 2025, Lowery took part in the debate. The motion at issue was a call to have member municipalities again appoint members to the Castle Arms Board.

Lowery participated in the debate and voted against the motion, which was approved. The Cassellholme Board then filed its complaint about Lowery in October.

While writing that his 2023 opinion didn’t necessarily translate to the 2025 motion, Giorno said that Lowery didn’t have a pecuniary interest in the 2025 motion, either.

“There is no correlation between governance, in particular, membership on the board, and a corporation’s pecuniary interests,” he wrote.

“The entire board of Castle Arms could be replaced, yet that alone would not necessarily affect the organization’s financial picture.”

Read the full report here.