Coun. Stevenson responds after a committee rejects covering legal fees to challenge integrity investigation

The message from council’s Corporate Services Committee (CSC) couldn’t be clearer.

On Monday, Coun. Susan Stevenson requested that her legal fees be covered by city hall if she launches a judicial review of an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner.

Her request received no support from colleagues on the committee.

“There is no seconder, so that motion doesn’t go anywhere,” Committee Chair Coun. Hadleigh McAlister announced.

McAlister then put forward a motion which recommended that “No further action” be taken on the matter.

“I do believe there are other avenues that the councillor can pursue,” he said. “The Ontario Ombudsman is a free service.”

His motion was supported 3-1, with Stevenson opposed.

On Dec. 19, 2023, Stevenson was formally reprimanded by council following an Integrity Commissioner investigation into social media posts that included photos of homeless Londoners along with references to vandalism and criminality.

Stevenson maintained that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the complaint until after the Integrity Commissioner reached a decision.

She argued that it was a violation of the city’s protocol for Code of Conduct investigations.

“There was no pay suspension or anything like that,” Deputy Mayor Shawn Lewis told the committee. “So I think to jump straight to a judicial review is getting the cart ahead of the horse. I think it needs to go to the ombudsman first.

A judicial review would result in a legal decision, whereas an investigation by the Ontario Ombudsman would result in recommendations for council to consider.

Stevenson spoke to CTV News London following the committee’s refusal to financially back her legal expenses for a judicial review.

“I respected the decision coming out of council [in December] saying that it wasn’t the forum, and that there are other avenues,” she said. “And yet, there is no appetite now for the other avenues.”

“She has to take that course of action on her own, and I don’t believe that’s something that taxpayers should pay for,” McAlister explained after the meeting.

Since the Integrity Commissioner is retained through a contract with city council, McAlister suggested other options might be open to Stevenson.

“There are other avenues including our internal processes,” he asserted. “It’s something that could be brought before [council’s Governance Working Group], if it’s something we want to change in the future about our Integrity Commissioner.”

Stevenson intends to find a way to press on.

She’s uncertain what her next step will be at the council meeting on Jan. 23, but will consider referring her concerns to the ombudsman’s office.

“This isn’t really about me. It’s about our protocol, our by-law. Why do we have them if we have no interest in having them followed?” she asked.