Judges reserve decision in Chatham-Kent councillor’s pay suspension case

A Chatham councillor is challenging her pay suspension in court after integrity commissioner ruling. CTV Windsor’s Travis Fortnum has more

A panel of judges has reserved its decision in the case of Chatham-Kent councillor Rhonda Jubenville, who is challenging a 90-day suspension of her pay over social media posts deemed to have violated council’s code of conduct.

The judicial review hearing took place virtually Wednesday, with arguments from both sides focusing on whether the integrity commissioner’s findings — and council’s subsequent vote — were fair, lawful and justified.

The Ward 4 councillor is seeking to overturn the suspension, the maximum penalty allowed under Ontario’s Municipal Act, after the municipality’s integrity commissioner concluded she had used her position to intimidate and discredit others.

The controversy began in 2023, when Jubenville proposed a motion to limit flag raisings at municipal buildings to only national, provincial and municipal flags.

She brought forward the motion after a local anti-abortion group’s flag request was denied, while flags supporting Pride and other causes were permitted.

Council voted the motion down.

In the months that followed, the municipality received multiple complaints about Jubenville’s social media activity.

A report by Integrity Commissioner Mary Ellen Bench found that Jubenville used her position to bully and intimidate critics, violating rules around improper use of influence and discreditable conduct.

Among the posts cited in the report:

A Facebook post supporting Norwich Township’s ban on Pride flags, with Jubenville writing: “I wish CK Council felt the same… Good for Norwich! Makes sense to me.”

A post alerting families that teachers in the Lambton Kent District School Board would be attending a workshop “to prepare for Drag Queen Story Time,” which drew sharp criticism and concerns about misinformation.

A post alleging a Pride flag was flown incorrectly beneath the Canadian flag at a local high school, calling the move disrespectful and encouraging residents to “let Blenheim High School know your feelings.”

A post referencing another group’s “healing event” related to the flag debate, in which Jubenville wrote: “FYI… For the trauma I caused them 🙄. The irony is the stress I was caused by vile words and threats... over a motion that had nothing to do with them specifically.”

The commissioner’s report also noted that several municipal staff and members of the public felt intimidated by Jubenville’s rhetoric and the actions of some of her supporters.

One complainant cited concerns for personal safety, saying, “My mental health is suffering worrying about what she is going to do next.”

Council voted to suspend her pay in August 2023.

Thursday’s hearing focused on whether that decision — and the integrity commissioner’s findings that led to it — should be struck down.

What her lawyer argued in court

Jubenville’s lawyer, Michael Alexander, argued the integrity commissioner’s report was legally flawed and lacked sufficient evidence to support its findings.

He said many of the allegations were speculative, based on anonymous complaints or incidents not directly linked to Jubenville’s actions.

He also argued the report failed to apply proper legal definitions of bullying and improper influence, and did not meet the required standards of clarity, fairness or justification.

The lawyer said the commissioner did not give Jubenville enough information to respond to the claims, undermining her ability to defend herself.

A key part of the argument focused on freedom of expression.

Her lawyer said the posts in question were political speech — including opinions on flags and local events — and should be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued the commissioner did not properly weigh those rights before finding misconduct.

The court also heard arguments that council’s decision to suspend her pay was tainted by bias, with some councillors referencing claims not included in the report.

Her legal team is asking the panel of judges to set aside both the report and council’s decision.

What the municipality’s lawyers argued in court

Amy Block, legal counsel for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, defended both the integrity commissioner’s report and council’s decision, arguing the process was fair, lawful and based on sufficient evidence.

She said the findings were supported by specific social media posts and multiple complaints from members of the public and municipal staff who felt disrespected or intimidated by councillor Jubenville’s conduct.

The lawyer rejected claims that the integrity commissioner failed to provide enough detail or evidence, arguing the report outlined the relevant posts and context behind them.

She said councillors are held to a higher standard of behaviour than private citizens, and that freedom of expression does not shield elected officials from accountability under a code of conduct.

They also argued there was no bias or unfairness in council’s decision to suspend Jubenville’s pay.

They said councillors were entitled to share their own perspectives during deliberations, and the integrity commissioner acted within her authority to keep some complainant information confidential to protect privacy while still supporting her findings.

What Jubenville’s lawyer said in reply

Jubenville’s lawyer responded briefly, saying the commissioner failed to clearly connect the allegations to the findings and did not provide enough evidence to support them.

He argued elected officials are entitled to make mistakes when expressing political views, and said the commissioner did not properly balance those rights under the Charter.

What happens next

Following a brief recess, both parties were asked whether they could agree on legal costs.

Each side submitted proposed amounts, with the municipality seeking approximately $80,000 and Jubenville’s lawyer proposing $20,000.

The panel has reserved its decision, with a ruling expected at a later date.