Despite a public rally, seven public delegations, and requests from two councillors intimidated and bullied by Mayor Jeff Leal that he be held to account for his behaviour, Peterborough city council has again voted against penalizing the mayor for breaching city council’s code of conduct.
At council’s meeting on Monday night (June 9), councillors ratified the decision made at the previous Monday’s general committee meeting not to impose a penalty on the mayor in response to a report from the city’s integrity commissioner that found the mayor had intimidated councillor Alex Bierk and bullied councillor Joy Lachica in relation to council discussions about the controversial Bonnerworth Park redevelopment in April 2024.
Council voted 6-4 in favour of a motion from councillor Gary Baldwin to not impose any kind of penalty on the mayor, with only councillor Matt Crowley changing his vote from the previous week to join councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Keith Riel in voting against Baldwin’s motion for no penalty.
Mayor Leal had recused himself shortly after the council meeting began, so he was not present in council chambers during the public delegations and for council’s subsequent discussion of the report and voting.
Baldwin had brought forward a motion last Monday in response to the findings of a joint inquiry report from the City of Peterborough’s integrity commissioner Guy Giorno, which also concluded the mayor did not breach the code of conduct by influencing general committee’s decision on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment for the “private interest” of himself or his wife.
Baldwin’s motion included a two-part amendment to the original agenda item, which was only for council to receive the integrity commissioner’s report. The first part of his amendment proposed no penalty for the mayor for contravening the code of conduct, and the second part of his amendment proposed referring remedial measures suggested by the integrity commissioner to staff for consideration.
In his report, Giorno’s recommendations noted that it is the role of council to determine a penalty, if any, for a member of council who contravenes the code of conduct. If council decides on a penalty, it can either be a reprimand or a pay suspension for up to 90 days.
Giorno also noted council could adopt one or more remedial measures in addition to a penalty, and suggested such remedial measures could include providing “focused training related to harassment, abuse, bullying and intimidation,” amending the code of conduct to add a definition of bullying, reconciling the code of conduct with the procedure by-law to define council meeting conduct that is the responsibility of the meeting chair versus the integrity commissioner, and to review the code of conduct for its use of multiple terms related to private interest.
Monday night’s council meeting began with some controversy when, in recusing himself from council chambers, Mayor Leal recommended that councillor Andrew Beamer — who, as chair of general committee, chaired the June 2 meeting on the integrity report — become acting chair of the council meeting.
After the mayor left chambers, councillor Bierk asked city clerk John Kennedy if the acting chair should not automatically go to the deputy mayor (either councillors Lachica or Baldwin) in the mayor’s absence. Kennedy said the procedure by-law permits the mayor to make a recommendation to appoint a chair.
Councillor Kevin Duguay then made a motion that Beamer act as chair, with councillor Lachica raising a point of order noting there was no agenda item advising council that there would be a change to the procedure where “ordinarily” the deputy mayor would become chair.
“Was this something that was requested of you prior to this meeting?” Lachica asked Beamer, who replied he “was told” there would be a vote on who was going to be chair.
“That was planned ahead of time?” Lachica asked and, after Beamer repeated his response, added “This is not an item on our agenda.”
Lachica said there should have been a notification to council that someone else would be chairing the meeting.
“This should have been transparent, because to have this all pre-established and then brought forward as a motion that is not an item on this agenda is, I think, a breach of procedure,” Lachica said.
“Duly noted on the transparency,” said Beamer, before calling a vote on Duguay’s motion, which passed 8-3 with councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Riel voting against it.
After moving to sit in the mayor’s chair, Beamer reminded members of the public in the gallery that “applause, yelling, heckling, or booing” is not allowed, and that the gallery would be cleared if this happened. He said they should wave their hands if they agree with something, and promised to give a running commentary on when this happens throughout the evening.
The first public delegation to address city council on the integrity commissioner’s report was Danielle Turpin, who organized the “Rally for Integrity” outside city hall prior to the meeting.
After noting that the findings of the integrity commissioner’s report are “not in question tonight,” she added “Whether you feel that the mayor is a good guy, is not in question tonight. Whether the mayor has been shamed enough should not be in question tonight. What should be in question tonight is a response (on June 2) or, more disturbingly, the lack of the response.”
“The silence from some around this table was deafening. When words were spoken, they were mostly spoken in defence of the mayor, not in defence of the people who were harmed by his actions. That’s backwards to me — that’s not leadership.”
“The mayor intimidated and threatened city councillors because he didn’t like what they stood for and he didn’t like what they said. Period. And that shouldn’t be okay … it’s about a culture that allows harm to occur and protects the power rather than the people.”
“The mayor’s apology, if you can call it that, was half-hearted at best,” Turpin said. “An apology without full ownership is not accountability, and a truly remorseful leader would not say, ‘I’ll just accept the consequences that council decides.’ A truly remorseful leader is going to say that ‘This is my mistake to own. I’m not going to force my colleagues to sit in judgment of my wrongdoing.'”
Turpin noted that, despite receiving feedback from constituents about the mayor’s actions, councillor Baldwin wrote a motion to do “absolutely nothing.”
“What is worse is that all but a few of you went along with it and agreed, and that tells the public everything they need to know … are the people who are elected even listening to us, or are they just shielding power? And I guess tonight we’re going to find that answer.”
“Silence in the face of harm is complicity,” Turpin said.
Chair Beamer noted the hands in the air in the public gallery after Turpin concluded her remarks, and councillor Riel then asked her about the reaction in her neighbourhood to the general committee vote on June 2.
“I have received tons of messages, tons of emails, lots of support,” she said, gesturing to the gallery, “lots of support outside (at the rally) because we are angry about what had happened, we are hurt about what happened, and I think it’s time tonight that we do have an opportunity to make some difference and made some changes. We really want this council to start looking at rebuilding the trust of the public, because right now we are not happy. There’s a lot of people who are very angry about what happened on June 2nd.”
The next presenter, Jennifer Lacey, shared an anecdote about how her 14-year-old son reacted to general committee vote on June 2 not to penalize Mayor Leal for his behaviour.
“My son said, ‘Mom, if I did what the mayor did at school, I would be suspended and I would probably have to speak with the police,'” Lacey recounted, adding that when she asked her son why he would receive a penalty and the mayor would not, he said “Because people in power don’t get into trouble, and that’s just the way it is.”
“My son, who is a teenager, and every single child in this community, is held to a higher expectation on managing their behaviour towards others than the mayor of Peterborough.”
Lacey added that, by voting against penalizing the mayor on June 2, council reinforced her son’s perception that people in power are not held accountable for their actions.
She also noted the silence of many councillors at the general committee meeting when the integrity commissioner’s report was discussed.
“I worried that the mayor’s actions and the council’s lack of action could have a real consequence for the vulnerable and marginalized people in our community,” Lace said. “Should council members feel intimidated and are bullied, some significant matters may not be dealt with as adequately as they should, out of fear. This could put people’s safety and well-being at risk. I encourage you to change your decision. You are the leaders in the community, and leaders lead by example.”
Chair Beamer noted the hands in the air in the public gallery, and invited the next presenter to the podium: Robert Campbell, who began speaking about Mayor Leal’s character.
“I’m simply here to provide a little bit of historical perspective on my relationship with the mayor,” said Campbell, referring to Leal’s time as MPP for Peterborough-Kawartha. “Any dealings with Jeff were professional, polite, and helpful.”
As Campbell continued to speak to Leal’s character, councillor Bierk raised a point of order that the procedural by-law states “We are supposed to focus on the issues, not the personalities.”
“I don’t see how this is relevant to the integrity commissioner’s report,” Bierk said, after which Beamer asked Campbell to keep his comments “a little closer to the report and recommendations.”
“I have not read the report,” Campbell said. “I’m just reflecting my experience with Jeff.”
Bierk repeated his point of order that the speaker was not addressing the report as per the procedural by-law, and Beamer asked if Campbell could speak to the decision that council needs to make.
“It’s not for me to decide what you are going to decide in terms of the incidents and the impression you have,” Campbell said.
After councillor Riel asked Campbell what he thought the penalty should be, Campbell said he was a friend of the mayor and “it would probably be inappropriate for me to make a decision or to influence you in what you decide is appropriate.”
Councillor Bierk asked Campbell why, if he hadn’t read the report and had no context for the decision council was making on the report, did he decide to present to council to speak to the mayor’s character.
In response, Campbell shrugged as Beamer commented that the question had nothing to do with the speaker’s presentation, although Campbell did respond that he was there as a community member “to provide some information about the person who was being discussed.”
Councillor Lachica asked Campbell if he was aware that making a delegation “must be made, based on a specific report and the content within that report.” When he replied in the negative, she noted the council received an email from someone who said that Mayor Leal had asked that they send a character letter, and asked Campbell if he was asked to provide a “character delegation today by the mayor.”
“I was asked by the mayor to consider (it),” Campbell replied, prompting some noise from the public gallery.
After Campbell completed his presentation, councillor Riel asked Beamer how he was going to handle additional presenters providing character references for the mayor. Beamer referred the question to the city clerk, who said typically a delegate would speak to an item or report on the agenda.
“Let’s try to keep our comments to the report or the proposed motion,” Beamer said to the delegations. “Having said that, we do have to allow a little leeway, councillor Riel, for perspective. The second speaker provided some perspective about their family and their two children.”
“Two people spoke on the item … they brought some personal information,” Riel said. “The last person spoke about the character of the mayor — was asked by the mayor to give a character reference.”
After Beamer said that he would make a determination when he heard each delegation, Dennis Carter-Edwards came to the podium to speak on behalf of the mayor. Before he could begin speaking, Beamer referred to a message from the city’s legislative services commissioner David Potts.
“I’m just going to rule it … one of the recommendations in front of us is about a potential penalty,” Beamer said, apparently reading the message from Potts. “It is in order for deputants to be permitted to speak to the character of a member of council. So that’s going to be the chair’s ruling.”
Councillor Lachica raised a point of order asking him what he was reading and whether he received the information in advance of the meeting, noting that the city clerk had already confirmed that delegates must speak to a report. Beamer replied that he had just received the message, unsolicited, and asked Potts to comment.
“To confirm, you did not message me, I did not message you — I have messaged my staff colleague, the clerk,” Potts said, adding that “it is in my view, and thank you for the question, totally in order — in fact, going to perhaps the mayor’s rights — to have interested citizens speak to the mayor’s character, because the issue is whether council wants to impose an additional penalty.”
Following the chair’s ruling, Carter-Edwards prefaced his remarks in support of the mayor by noting that he had followed media coverage of the issue but had not read the integrity commissioner’s full report. He relayed an anecdote when Leal, as Peterborough-Kawartha MPP, paid tribute to his father as a survivor of a concentration camp.
“To me personally, it speaks to the character of Mr. Leal to acknowledge and to respect the service and sacrifice of our veterans, as he has done throughout his career,” Carter-Edwards said. “That, I think, speaks to the character of the man.”
The next presenter was Granville Anderson, a Bowmanville resident who came to the council meeting to speak in support of Mayor Leal.
“No one asked me to be here,” Anderson began. “Jeff was a former colleague of mine at Queen’s Park. As a matter of fact, Peterborough is a second home for me … my parents lived in Lakefield, I spent a lot of time in Lakefield … I do have a vested interest for what happens in this community.”
Anderson, who was a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 2014 to 2018 representing the riding of Durham, said Leal “has always led with sincerity, respect, and commitment … a man of great character and principle.”
Anderson acknowledged that the integrity commissioner’s findings are “serious and important” and that the mayor’s actions were “not appropriate,” but added that he knows how “emotional charged meetings can become.”
“I’m not here to excuse the behaviour of my former colleague and friend, I am here to talk to about a good person who stumbled in the heat of the moment,” Anderson said, later adding that Leal was “a decent, dedicated public servant who made a mistake, owned it, and wanted to make it right.”
“In close to 40 years of public service, Jeff has never faced something like this, to the best of my knowledge that is, and that should speak volumes about his character and how out of step this moment truly was.”
Councillor Bierk asked Anderson how he felt that Mayor Leal had “made it right” and “owned it.”
“I understand that he has apologized,” Anderson said. “I don’t know what form the apology took, but I was led to believe that he had apologized to council and I believe to the principals involved in this unfortunate incident.”
Bierk asked Granville if he was aware the integrity commissioner concluded that the mayor’s apology “was not enough” and whether Granville agreed with the report. He replied by saying he was aware of it and had read “most of the report,” but it was up to council to decide whether the mayor’s apology was sufficient.
Councillor Lachica asked Anderson if he was aware of what happened during the mediation process between her and the mayor, with Anderson replying he was only aware of the mayor’s public apology.
Referring to a comment from Anderson about having a “thick skin” in politics, Lachica said the issue was about what was appropriate in a political environment.
“Do you not see the difference between having a thick skin and about a safe and healthy, non-toxic work environment?” she asked.
She then asked Anderson if he was in the provincial legislature on the day that Leal, as Peterborough-Kawartha MPP, was ejected for his comments directed at a female MPP.
The incident to which Lachica is referring happened on October 26, 2017, when Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock MPP Laurie Scott asked finance minister Charles Souza about a decision by Ontario Racing to deny Kawartha Downs’ request for additional race dates in 2018. Leal was heard challenging Scott’s questions and, despite being warned by the speaker, continued to angrily shout at Scott and was ejected from the legislature.
Beamer objected to Lachica’s question, saying it was not related to the speaker. However, Anderson did respond, saying “I was there.”
The next speaker, John Gerelus, spoke about integrity and referred to his past life as a hockey referee, noting there is no discretion when it comes to calling penalties for some offences, no matter who the player is.
“It doesn’t matter that you know the player off the ice or that he’s a great guy,” Gerelus said.
“Don’t give it a pass. It doesn’t matter that he’s a longtime friend, or that he runs a good meeting, or that he’s a great guy, or he said he was sorry, or he deserves a second chance. If you can’t separate the person from the office, then ask yourself this: would a person with integrity put all of you in this situation? The answer is no.”
In response to a question from councillor Riel, Gerelus said “This council has become known as the eight-to-three council,” referring to the fact that councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Riel often vote together and in the minority, again repeating that a person with integrity wouldn’t put his fellow councillors in this position.
Councillor Bierk asked whether Gerelus felt that all the public wants is a ruling on the report that matches what was found in the report.
“That’s exactly it,” Gerelus replied. “There’s no discrepancy in what the report found … these are proven — intimidation and bullying — and by not acting on it in some manner, it makes council look like a joke. It really does.”
The next speaker, Ellen Seddon, referred to the fact that the education system takes bullying very seriously, with serious consequences. She noted she was surprised that councillor Baldwin, a former educator and principal, put forward a motion with no consequences for the mayor’s bullying.
“Apparently when you retire, the rules around bullying no longer apply,” Seddon said, before quoting the integrity commissioner’s comments about the inadequacy of Mayor Leal’s apology.
She also referred to Baldwin’s question to CAO Jasbir Raina at the June 2 meeting asking about the mayor’s behaviour and councillor Lachica’s point of order that the question was inappropriate.
“It was dismissed by councillor and acting chair Beamer — big surprise there — and the motion carried,” Seddon said. “And then the well-rehearsed drama continued.”
“The CAO proceeded to give the mayor a ringing endorsement of his abilities,” she added, noting that, under strong mayor powers, the mayor has the authority to fire the CAO.
The next three speakers — James Anderson, Margie Sumadh, Alex Wilding — spoke in favour of council penalizing the mayor.
Anderson criticized the councillors who supported the mayor at the June 2 general committee meeting, specifically councillors Baldwin and Haacke. He also noted that the wording of councillor Baldwin’s motion inaccurately implies that the integrity commissioner had the authority to recommend a penalty against the mayor and chose not to do so.
Sumadh read the poem “The Guest House” by Jalaluddin Rumi, and Wilding read quotes from the integrity commissioner’s report, noting the commissioner’s recommendation for a remedial action involving training about bullying and intimidation.
Following the delegations and a review of the consent agenda, councillor Beamer brought forward the discussion on the integrity commissioner’s report so the mayor would be able to return to chambers to participate in the remainder of the agenda.
The subsequent discussion on the report followed similar lines as the June 2 discussion at general committee meeting, with councillor Baldwin stating he believes the release of the report is a sufficient reprimand for the mayor (calling it a “permanent record”) and that he accepts the mayor’s public apology to the two councillors.
The latter comment prompted duelling points of order between Baldwin and councillor Lachica, who said that the mayor had not apologized in public to her.
Councillor Crowley, who did not speak to the report at the general committee meeting, first apologized to Lachica for not reaching out to her to provide support.
“When I’m wrong or have a failing, which is invariably, I’m usually the first person to admit it,” Crowley said, noting that he received feedback from his post on Reddit about not speaking out at the general committee meeting.
After pointing out that he has been yelled at by other councillors, a comment that drew a point of order from Riel, Crowley said he has seen “multiple councillors berate staff” and asked commissioner Potts what recourse staff have if they feel they are being bullied a councillor.
After Riel raised a point of order that the question was off topic, chair Beamer ruled it in order because part of councillor Baldwin’s motion refers to amendments to the code of conduct.
Potts noted that staff could submit a complaint to the integrity commissioner, that a meeting chair has the authority to expel a councillor, that the city’s workplace harassment policy could apply outside of meetings, that access to city-issued resources such as technology could be revoked, that the city’s trespass by-law includes meetings, and that there may be other civil actions related to defamation as well as the criminal code applying to some behaviour.
After noting that bullying “shouldn’t be part of the job,” Crowley said he would vote against Baldwin’s motion and, should it fail, support a reprimand for the mayor.
“We need to do something to show the city of Peterborough that we are in fact holding ourselves to a higher standard, and that maybe we won’t tolerate bullying in our environment any longer,” he said.
In his comments, councillor Bierk refuted the three arguments he has heard about not acting on the report, one being that “Mayor Leal has suffered enough,” which he said was false equivalence and an “emotional appeal,” and that the integrity commissioner had already taken into account the pressures faced by the mayor when making his findings in the report.
“If someone in any other workplace was found to have engaged in that type of conduct, we would not ask whether they had suffered enough,” Bierk said. “We’d ask what the appropriate response to the behaviour should be. When we start making excuses because someone is liked, because someone is respected or, in the case, under political pressure, we create a double standard. That’s not leadership, that’s not integrity — that’s privilege.”
Bierk also said that councillor Baldwin’s question to CAO Raina asking for comment on the mayor’s behaviour was “inappropriate and coercive,” since the CAO cannot be considered as unbiased because the mayor has the power to fire him under strong mayor powers.
Bierk also rejected the “character argument” put forward by Baldwin, who said at general committee he has known the mayor for 58 years.
“Would it change your mind if the person who did this wasn’t your friend, if they had a history of being difficult, if you didn’t personally like them?” he asked, looking at Baldwin. “Because if the answer is yes, then what you’re really saying is that accountability depends on relationships, not facts.”
He added that, if council chooses to do nothing, it is not only ignoring the findings of the report, but telling future complainants “not to bother.”
“We’re saying that some people are above the rules. That’s not the kind of council that I want to be part of. We might as well rip up the code of conduct … We cannot keep asking people to trust in this city if it refuses to enforce accountability, especially when the violator is the most powerful person on this body.”
In her remarks, Lachica clarified that the mayor’s public apology was only to councillor Bierk, not to her.
While the integrity commissioner’s report noted the mediation between her and the mayor was confidential, “because my story belongs to me,” she shared that the mayor made an “inadequate and incomplete” apology this past February, 10 months after the incident, because he “emphasized more his own suffering and downplayed the gravity of what occurred.”
She also revealed that the mayor promised to come before council and make an apology for what had occurred in closed session, and “months passed, and closed council sessions passed, and nothing came forward, and nothing came forward, and nothing came forward.”
“Over many months, he made no haste to what he agreed to before council, to address and apologize for berating me at the exit doors and again doubling down in anger as stated in the integrity commissioner report in that closed council meeting. Thus it is now June 2025, one year later, and there has not been a resolution as the report states.”
“There has been blame repeatedly ascribed by some to councillor Bierk and to myself for what has been ‘suffered’ on the mayor’s part,” Lachica continued. “This is a great conflation. We are not the perpetrators. It’s not our fault. We refuse to be gaslit. We did not create the mayor’s suffering, a term that councillor Haacke described last week.”
“We just want to be professionals, to be respected fellow politicians for having differences of opinion and for speaking thoughtfully and passionately to the opinions we have at our table. We want it to stop. We no longer wish to experience berating, aggression, sidelining, and constant needling by proxy in meetings, extraneous to this. This is what’s happening, in hallways and in these chambers.”
Beamer noted the hands in the air in the public gallery before passing the floor to councillor Kevin Duguay, who defended not speaking at the general committee meeting about the report.
“I elected to listen — I elected not to speak to the subject,” he said. “There is perhaps a misconception, and it’s undeserved, that because we choose not to speak, we don’t care. That is simply not the case.”
His only other comment on the report was that “there will be a consequence” because the integrity commissioner’s report recommended anti-bullying training and a review of the procedural by-law and code of conduct.
For her part, councillor Lesley Parnell said the mayor did “make a mistake or two,” that he apologized publicly at the first opportunity, and that the “whole process” of the report and council meetings “is reprimand.”
Chair Beamer interrupted Parnell’s comments to ask the public gallery to be respectful.
“There is much penalty already imposed, officially but also privately that many of you probably do not know, and it was not in the report,” Parnell continued, claiming that the mayor and his family have been harassed and bullied, have had their vehicles and home vandalized, and received a death threat.
“He has been brutalized on social media and at events — we all have, we have all been bullied and harassed,” she said. “These things I do take into account.”
She then claimed that someone yelled “the word Bonnerworth as he took a run at the mayor’s wife with his car near her home.”
“The stress caused by all of these actions to the mayor and his family and some of us is also unacceptable. Bullying is not acceptable.”
Chair Beamer again interrupted Parnell’s comments to ask the public gallery to be respectful.
Parnell continued by noting that going to the integrity commissioner is “a very difficult process, and a very expensive process to the taxpayer,” and that she “hasn’t always agreed with the outcomes in previous sessions.”
“I won’t support an ‘additional’ penalty to the mayor. I think there has been more than enough reprimand and penalty.”
In his final comments, councillor Bierk pointed out that council has not asked the victims of the mayor’s actions what they feel an appropriate penalty would be.
“I don’t know if I’m just delusional, but in preparing for the meeting last week, my hopes at the very least is that we would have a healthy discussion about what happened … and maybe someone would ask me, ‘Hey, councillor Bierk, since the majority of this report is about you and Joy, what would you guys feel could be done to make this situation right?’ No-one has asked that question of us.”
He said he is “not out for blood,” and proposed the mayor could make the situation right if he demonstrated “sincere desire” to change through “not just through lip service, but through an action.”
He also noted that “tweaking” the code of conduct has no impact if the code of conduct is not enforced.
“Do you all think around the table that by doing nothing it will promote a better work environment for us?” Bierk asked. “No, it’s not. It just means that people will be entitled to act however they want as long as they have the support around the table when these reports come to us.”
Bierk added that he has reached out to the mayor multiple times to have conversations “that didn’t happen.”
After additional comments by councillors Riel, Duguay, and Baldwin, council voted on each of the two recommendations of Baldwin’s motion.
On the recommendation for no penalty for Mayor Leal, council voted 6-4 in favour, with councillors Bierk, Lachica, Riel, and Crowley voting against.
On the recommendation for city staff to review the remedial actions suggested by the integrity commissioner, council voted 7-3 in favour, with councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Riel voting against.
