Peterborough Mayor Jeff Leal has contravened city council’s code of conduct by intimidating one city councillor and bullying another with respect to the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, but did not contravene the code of conduct by influencing general committee’s decision on the redevelopment for private advantage.

Those are the findings in a 55-page inquiry report from the City of Peterborough’s integrity commissioner Guy Giorno. The report, dated May 26, will be considered by city council at its general committee meeting on Monday (June 2).

Giorno, who is one of the city’s two integrity commissioners and is responsible for investigating complaints, concluded that Mayor Jeff Leal contravened council’s code of conduct in his interactions with councillors Alex Bierk and Joy Lachica in connection to the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, but that the mayor’s decision-making on the development did not involve a “private advantage” for him or for his wife.

Giorno completed a joint inquiry in response to complaints received under section 31 of council’s code of conduct by-law 19-028, which states “A person who believes that a Member has contravened any provision of this Code of Conduct may give to the Integrity Commissioner the person’s complaint which must be in writing and must set out the particulars of the alleged contravention.”

According to Giorno’s report, 13 Peterborough residents filed separate but related complaints about Mayor Leal for making a threat against councillor Alex Bierk during council’s general committee meeting on April 2, 2024 on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, and/or by participating in decision-making on the Bonnerworth Park Redevelopment when he was not impartial.

The collective complaints were filed by Diane Therrien-Hale, Zachary Hatton, Laurie Breese, Jill Staveley, Sarah Byer, Martha Jansenberger, James Anderson, Allison Potts, Ryan Perks, Rob Hailman, Courtney Seddon, John Gerelus, and Robert Gibson.

Some of the complaints involved comments directed to councillor Bierk by Mayor Leal during council’s general committee meeting on April 2, 2024 on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, when the mayor was reported to have said “You’re going to regret you ever said that” and “I’ll carve you like a Thanksgiving turkey” after Bierk mentioned the mayor’s wife by name during the meeting.

Eight of the 13 complaints were filed in the days following the April 2 meeting, and another five complaints were filed after the mayor made a public apology for the comments at the city council meeting on April 8.

In addition to those complaints, Giorno investigated a separate complaint filed by councillor Joy Lachica, who alleged Mayor Leal bullied and intimidated her out of the public’s view following the April 2 general committee meeting.

While Giorno separately processed and investigated both the collective complaints and Lachica’s complaint, he submitted a joint report to council as the complaints share common background.

In his report, Giorno concludes that Mayor Leal did not contravene section 29 of the council code of conduct, which states that no member of council may “use her or his office or position to influence or attempt to influence the decision of any other person, for the Member’s private advantage or that of the Member’s parent, child, spouse, staff member, friend or associate, business or otherwise.”

“Even under a broad interpretation of private advantage, one not limited to pecuniary matters, I find that the Mayor was not acting for the private advantage of himself or his wife,” Giorno states in the report.

“The Mayor’s occasional volunteer service to the PPA (Peterborough Pickleball Association) did not give rise to a financial or non-financial interest in the PPA or a financial or a non-financial benefit from the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment. Simply put, decision making on Bonnerworth did not involve his private advantage.”

“Decision making on Bonnerworth also did not involve a private advantage (for) the Mayor’s wife. She would be affected no differently than any other resident, and the PPA would be affected no differently than any other community group. The new pickleball courts would be accessible to the entire community, regardless of membership or lack of membership in the PPA. If the PPA ever booked exclusive use of a particular court, then it would do so on the same basis as anyone else, and it would pay.”

Giorno adds that the argument that the mayor should not have participated in a decision about the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment because he or his wife plays pickleball “is as flawed as an argument that swimmers cannot participate in decisions on pools and hockey players cannot vote on ice pads.”

However, Giorno concludes that Mayor Leal’s threats against councillor Bierk were intimidation and contravene section 10 of the council code of conduct, which states that each member of council has “the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public, each other Member and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation.”

As the code of conduct doesn’t define intimidation, Giorno used the dictionary definition to make his ruling. While acknowledging that the mayor’s “carve you up like a turkey” comment was “a figurative expression that was not meant or reasonably interpreted as a threat of violence or physical harm,” he added that “intimidation is not confined to physical threats.”

“The ‘regret’ and ‘turkey’ comments, taken together, were reasonably understood to threaten consequences for having angered the Mayor by mentioning the Mayor’s wife,” Giorno writes. “Certainly, Councillor Bierk took the comments that way, and he was intimidated.”

According to Giorno, in Mayor Leal’s response to Giorno’s draft report, the mayor stated his belief that councillor Bierk was not intimidated by the comments.

“In a physical sense, that observation is correct, but intimidation is not necessarily physical,” Giorno writes. “I appreciate that the Mayor did not then, and does not now, feel that his conduct was intimidating, but the evidence indicates that it was.”

Giorno acknowledges the Mayor Leal “felt great stress” during the meeting that contributed to his “overreaction” to councillor Bierk’s comments, “but (Bierk) did not invite, nor was he deserving of, being (intimidated) and threatened,” noting that Bierk had already been called to order during the meeting by chair Andrew Beamer for mentioning the mayor’s wife by name as being against protocol.

“I note that the first threat was made after Councillor Bierk had already apologized three times,” Giorno adds, with reference to Bierk’s reaction after being called to order by the chair.

As for councillor Lachica’s allegation, Giorno concludes she was bullied by Mayor Leal.

Although the code of conduct also does not provide a definition of either intimidation or bullying, Giorno states “In my view, bullying better describes what occurred,” referring to a definition approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 that has been used in subsequent court cases and refers to “behaviour that is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear,
intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property.”

Following the April 2 general committee meeting — when Lachica had put forth a motion to defer the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment plan for discussion of alternative solutions for pickleball courts — Mayor Leal “exchanged words” with Lachica in an internal corridor leading to the parking lot, with the incident observed by witnesses including city CAO Jasbir Raina and councillors Bierk and Gary Baldwin.

According to the report, the mayor believed Lachica was responsible for the presence of people in the gallery during the general committee meeting, including a person who disrupted the meeting.

“Mayor Leal began yelling at her about the individual who had earlier been removed from the meeting, claiming that Councillor Lachica should have stopped the individual and that she was responsible because the person was a Town Ward constituent,” Giorno writes. “Councillor Lachica says the Mayor kept yelling at her, even after she explained that maintaining decorum was the responsibility of the Chair.”

“Councillor Lachica says that Mayor’s conduct continued during a closed session on April 8. She told Councillors what had occurred in the corridor on April 2, that she had had ‘enough’ of the Mayor’s condescension and shouting, and that she should not have been directed to take responsibility for decorum in the gallery.”

“I find that Mayor Leal’s angry, raised-voice confrontation with Councillor Lachica following the General Committee (meeting) constituted bullying according to this definition. What happened should have been known to cause fear, humiliation and distress to Councillor Lachica. The confrontation should have been expected to leave the Councillor shaken and upset. In fact, the Mayor’s confrontation had these effects.”

“The incident in the corridor occurred in the context of a power imbalance that is a hallmark of bullying. The Mayor is more powerful than a Councillor. In a strictly legal sense, this has been the case since October 31, 2023, when Ontario Regulation 331/23 added Peterborough to the list of municipalities subject to ‘strong mayor powers.’ The Mayor’s powers include the direct appointment of the chairs and vice-chairs of committees.”

“Compounding the corridor incident was the Mayor’s upholding of the same position six days later. If the Mayor was unaware of the impact of the April 2 incident on Councillor Lachica, then she made him aware on April 8. By doubling down on his earlier comments, he reinforced the bullying.”

According to the report, Lachica waited 25 days before filing a complaint “because she feared reprisal,” and that she has told the commissioner “the anger and bullying continue.”

“She cites recent examples that she says constitute disrespect, sidelining, and withholding information necessary to her job,” Giorno notes.

kawarthaNOW reached out to councillor Lachica for comment on the integrity commissioner’s report, and she provided a brief email statement.

“There was not a satisfactory resolve to complaint 24-02-CC, this it has come forward,” she writes. “I am appreciative of IC Gioro’s Joint Report. The content and outcome speaks for itself.”

PDF: Joint Inquiry Report – May 26, 2025
Joint Inquiry Report - May 26, 2025

As for recommendations to city council in response to his report, the integrity commission notes it is the role of council to determine a penalty, if any, for a member of council who contravenes the code of conduct.

“In the event of a contravention, the Council may choose to do nothing, or it may impose one of two penalties (but not both): reprimand, or pay suspension (up to 90 days),” Giorno writes. “In addition to imposing a penalty, the Council may also adopt one or more remedial measures.”

Non-punitive and remedial action can include requesting an apology.

Giorno suggests one remedial measure might be to ask John Ewart, his fellow integrity commission assigned to advice-giving and educational functions, “to provide focused training related to harassment, abuse, bullying and intimidation and other issues arising from this report.”

He also suggests that council could consider amending the code of conduct to add a definition of bullying and to reconcile the code of conduct with the procedure by-law “by formally distinguishing what meeting conduct is the responsibility of a Chair and what meeting conduct is the responsibility of the Integrity Commissioner.”

Giorno notes that the code of conduct uses at least seven different terms related to conflict of interest, including “private advantage,” “private interest,” “private gain or benefit,” “future advantage,” “personal benefit,” “personal or private gain or benefit,” and “personal financial gain.”

“The adjectives private and personal appear to be used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes to mean different concepts. Inconsistent use of different terms with similar meanings can result in ambiguity and potential gaps. I suggest that the Code use fewer terms consistently and more precisely.”

After the integrity commissioner’s report was released to the public on Thursday (May 29), Mayor Leal issued a public statement.

“I acknowledge that the Integrity Commissioner has completed his report, and I will accept Council’s decision on this matter,” the mayor said. “I appreciate that his report fully exonerates me of the most egregious and false conflict-of-interest allegations that my family and I have been subjected to over the last year.”

“I acknowledge his findings related to my interactions with Councillors Bierk and Lachica on the nights of April 2 and April 8, 2024. My comments were made in the heat of the moment, during the most hostile meeting environments I have experienced in all my years of public service. I regret my comments, and I apologized to both Councillors last year.”

Mayor Leal added that he will recuse himself during the general committee meeting when councillors discuss the integrity commissioner’s report, “and will accept their recommendations.”

“I have been working in partnership with all members of Peterborough City Council, and will continue to do so for the benefit of our community.”

This story has been updated with a statement from Mayor Jeff Leal in response to the release of the integrity commissioner’s report, along with revised comment from councillor Joy Lachica.

Three local parents have launched Our Future Peterborough, a grassroots advocacy group to “protect the public services and community infrastructure of Peterborough.”

“We’re seeing a climate where things, particularly things around kids and families, are getting underfunded and cut,” says co-founder Laurel Harris. “We realized that as we build up this infrastructure, we build up these connections, and we bring it all together, this could be a really useful response to not only one issue, but any future threats to public service and to resources for family and kids that we might see happening in our community.”

Harris, along with Hilary Evans and Sheetal Rawal, formed Our Future Peterborough after learning about the staffing reorganization at the Peterborough Public Library that was approved by Peterborough city council as part of the city’s 2025 budget.

During budget deliberations, councillors approved the elimination of two positions at the library and the reclassification of some positions to lower-rated positions, saving the city $120,000.

Library management subsequently determined it would lay off three of the library’s four full-time unionized librarians, including the children’s librarian. Two new positions (an outreach coordinator and a programming assistant position) would be created, resulting in a net reduction of one position.

Harris explains that while the parents have been “paying attention” to various concerns and threats to public service, the restructuring of the library — and in particular, the elimination of the children’s librarian — was the “spark” that led to the founding of Our Future Peterborough.

“Of course they’re going to have reduced programming,” Harris says. “You can’t expect to cut the number of people who are offering and designing these programs, particularly with these levels of expertise, without that.”

For Harris, the potential cuts to the programs are personal as that’s where she and her home-schooled six-year-old son connect with other families. The Homeschool Hangout monthly program connects children through games, arts and crafts, activities, and special guest speakers, and, according to Harris, the last one she attended had about 35 participants.

“It’s such a vital social space — it’s a space where we’ve been able to connect with other kids, and with other families,” she says. “I certainly have so many deeply valued memories of being in the library as a kid and being in this magical creative space where I discovered all these new ideas and these new things in my mind felt expanded. The idea of closing in on that or taking that away from kids feels outrageous. It feels too far.”

Before officially establishing Our Future Peterborough, the founders launched an online petition calling to stop the cuts, which, at the time of this writing, has just over 2,200 signatures.

Launched on April 16, the petition demands “that City Council, the Peterborough Public Library CEO, and the Peterborough Public Library Board reverse the planned layoffs and stop the elimination of the Children’s Librarian role.”

“We really strongly believe that a city that is invested in and cares about its future and thinks about its future is one that is going to be cognizant of investing in and prioritizing programs for children,” says Harris.

“More and more, we just see that’s not happening and that these things are getting cut — and they’re getting cut quietly and without public consultation, which is certainly the case here. We also see that in the context of a broader political moment where we have to ask, especially as parents, how collectively do we care about our future?”

Expanding on the “broader political moment,” Harris points south of the border where the Trump administration is cutting funding to libraries and museums, which she says symbolizes the “intentional dumbing down of the public.”

“Putting books into the hands of kids is such an important thing, especially in this moment where the digital stuff takes over so much,” she says. “Not that that’s a bad thing, but we need to have it balanced with books where they can see their identity reflected back at them, where they can have access to these stories, or they can learn things like critical thinking.”

“It sounds maybe a bit overstated, but it feels like a revolutionary act sometimes to put books in the hand of kids. It feels like pushing back. It feels like we’re resisting.”

Our Future Peterborough was at the May 15 rally outside of the library and, Harris says, will support more protests and events with rally organizer Marjorie McDonald and with CUPE 1833, which represents the librarians.

Harris says the aim is to collect a group of children’s authors and people who support open libraries to “see if that can put a little extra pressure on council.”

“There’s such a real, immediate effect, and this is not a nebulous political issue,” she says. “This is going to affect so many people day-to-day in a very real way. I get the sense sometimes that people who don’t really access the library or use these programs don’t understand how important they are to a lot of people, and so we’re sending that message home — particularly to the decision makers.”

During the city’s draft 2025 budget process, all city departments were asked to provide options to reduce operating expenses to lower a potential property tax increase. Management at the Peterborough Public Library provided the options of reducing operating hours by four hours per week for $70,000 in savings (noting that this option would likely result in layoffs of unionized staff and fewer shifts for part-time staff) or eliminating two positions for $120,000 in savings.

Though council’s public deliberations on reducing library staffing were made from November to February, when council approved the 2025 budget, other proposed reductions — including a proposed 25 per cent cut to all city-funded arts and community organizations — received all the attention.

Harris notes there was no public outreach or consultation about the proposed cuts to the library and their impact before city council made its decision.

“The public are stakeholders in this,” she says. “We’re the ones going to feel the effects of it, so that’s really what we’re demanding now: a formal public consultation on this, some kind of public meeting so the public’s stake in this can be expressed and heard by council.”

While fighting the library staff restructuring is the first battle, Harris says this is only the beginning of Our Future Peterborough, as the organization will be working towards the betterment of the future for families and children in other areas like childcare.

“We also just want to have this infrastructure ready and available to just launch,” she says. “As part of our mandate, families and children are our main focus and families and children rely on lots of different public services in our city.”

For more information about Our Future Peterborough, visit ourfutureptbo.org.

“It’s incredible to feel the passion of everyone. You are an amazing organization.”

On its own, this remark is very flattering for Five Counties Children’s Centre. But coming as it did from one of the surveyors on the closing day of our accreditation process last November, it’s extra meaningful.

That’s because the accreditation review of Five Counties being done by three accreditors with the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) was done entirely virtually over two days last fall. The accreditor who made the comment about the passion at Five Counties picked up on this, even though she was sitting at her home in Maine during the review process!

It appears the positive vibes that flow from our Centre are evident even half a continent away.

Earlier this year, Five Counties learned that it had successfully earned another three-year accreditation through CARF. Accreditation — a sort of “seal of approval” for our families — is not given lightly and follows a rigorous review process.

CARF’s mission is to promote the quality, value and optimal outcomes of services at the organizations it accredits.

An independent, non-profit accreditor of health and human resources founded in 1966, CARF does this through a consultative review process and continuous improvement approach, ensuring an organization being reviewed is laser focused on enhancing the lives of the people it serves.

As part of its accreditation process with Five Counties, CARF accreditors reviewed the centre’s policies and procedures, interviewed staff and volunteers, spoke to clients and parents, conversed with our community partners, and posed questions for our board of directors.

Along with that, CARF also has approximately 2,150 standards upon which it rates an organization going through accreditation.

Five Counties began preparing for the CARF accreditation months before. And while it’s lots of work, accreditation is valuable in seeing how Five Counties measures up. In this case, we scored a resounding 99.3 per cent compliance rate with CARF’s standards, only being cited to improve upon in about a dozen or so minor areas.

We’re not perfect. We can always improve. And that’s why Five Counties chooses to go through the intensive accreditation process with an independent third party every three years.

Accreditation is not required, but it does show that Five Counties is committed to continually improve what we do and how we serve families. In fact, Five Counties was the very first children’s treatment centre in Ontario to be accredited! That was back in 1985, and we’ve maintained accreditation ever since.

CARF accreditation recognizes Five Counties for excellence in service delivery, client satisfaction, innovative programs, and community involvement. While the CARF accreditation plaque hanging on the wall in our centre site may not look like much, there is a lot behind it.

Accreditation is an endorsement that what Five Counties does to serve and support families continues to meet high standards. Our kids and families deserve no less!

For the third year in a row, the Rotary Club of Peterborough is rewarding environmental innovators with financial support for local projects through the Rotary Environmental Innovators Fund (REIF).

During its regular meeting on Monday afternoon (May 26) at McDonnel Street Activity Centre, Rotary announced it is awarding a total of $11,000 to five innovative local environmental projects that range from transforming unrecyclable waste plastic into new items to testing new wind turbine technology.

Rotary launched REIF in late 2022 with a goal to promote environmental awareness, sustainability, and remediation by supporting new environmental initiatives in the Peterborough area.

Since then, the fund has awarded more than $30,000 for projects in the areas of biodiversity, water and wastewater technologies, climate change, sustainable living, pollution, waster disposal, and more.

Applications for REIF funds are judged based on how they might impact the local climate and environment, how innovative the project is compared to existing solutions, the practicality of the project, expected benefits, and how the funds would be used.

This year, three projects were awarded $3,000 each for their innovative approach and high potential for impact, and two projects received runner-up awards of $1,000 each in recognition of innovation, strong community roots, and environmental promise.

Wild Rock Outfitters and Kawartha Land Trust received $3,000 for their Native Plant Horticulture for Invasive Species Control project, which will target invasive dog-strangling vine and aim to establish native plant alternatives with horticultural or agricultural uses to restore local ecosystems and support monarch butterfly habitats.

Kawartha Land Trust is one of the beneficiaries of the ComPassion Project, initiated by Wild Rock Outfitters co-founder Kieran Andrews with support from the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough.

Woodleigh Farms in Cavan received $3,000 for its Catching Carbon project, in which waste wood is transformed into carbon-sequestering biochar, which can be used to improve soil quality and reduce the need for fertilizer.

SanoStrategy Corporation received $3,000 for its Clean Energy Generation project, which will test the company’s new wind turbine technology with the goal of providing clean, efficient, and accessible wind energy to farmers and remote communities.

GreenUP received $1,000 for its Taproots for Tomorrow project, which will create air prune bed prototypes — a raised planting bed with a mesh bottom that is elevated off the ground — to grow native trees and shrubs with long taproots, such as hickories and pawpaws.

Clean Up Peterborough founder Steve Paul received $1,000 for his Second Nature Studio project, a grassroots microfacility that would conduct research and development to transform local polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene plastic waste, which is generally not recycled, into creative durable goods while also offering sustainability education and community empowerment. The REIF grant will be used to purchase the project’s first plastic shredder.

The City of Peterborough has once again opened a temporary homeless shelter in the Morrow Building as it conducts evictions at homeless encampments.

On Tuesday (May 27), the city announced a temporary 30-bed shelter for people experiencing homelessness would be open nightly from 9:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m at the Morrow Building, located at the south end of the Peterborough Memorial Centre off Lansdowne Street West, from Monday until Friday.

“It will supplement the traditional shelter network that includes 40 beds for men at Brock Mission, 12 beds for women at Cameron House, 30 beds for youth and families at YES emergency shelter, as well as the homelessness services program that includes an overnight drop-in program for 45 people at Trinity Community Centre,” the city states in a media release.

This is not the first time the city has used the Morrow Building as a temporary shelter, having done so previously in July 2024 and most recently this past March. On both previous occasions, the use of the temporary shelter coincided with evictions at homeless encampments across Peterborough.

The Peterborough Examiner is reporting that, on Tuesday morning, the city began dismantling a homeless encampment with more than a dozen tents in a park next to Rubidge and McDonnel streets. According to the report, residents of the encampment received eviction notices on Monday afternoon.

“People experiencing homelessness who contact emergency shelters or social services to access shelter beds may be referred to the temporary shelter if beds are not available in the regular shelter network,” the city’s media release states.

kawarthaNOW reached out by email to councillors Keith Riel and Alex Bierk, co-chairs of the city’s homelessness portfolio, as well as councillor and deputy mayor Joy Lachica

Councillor Riel replied that councillors were not informed of the evictions until after the fact.

“We need to find solutions not evictions,” he added.

Councillor Bierk said “Councillor Riel and I have been left out of strategizing around these enforcement-driven actions,” before commenting on the encampment itself.

“What I saw today at the encampment was that there were piles and piles of people’s belongings, pushed to the boundary of the park and everyone was just congregating there — those piles remain this evening.”

Councillor Bierk also expressed skepticism about whether clearing encampments while offering a temporary shelter for displaced residents is an effective solution.

“My assumption is that once the temporary shelter is closed, people will eventually start setting up in the park again, and this whole song and dance effort will not amount to much — either to make the situation better for those that are unhoused, or for those living near the encampment.”

For her part, councillor and deputy mayor Lachica said she was in meetings throughout the day, and only became aware of the situation through the media and the city’s media release about opening the temporary shelter.

“With this continuous 30-bed shortage, there is need for the city to provide supplemental shelter and support services based on the Housing First model which we endorsed as a council, and which informed the Wolfe Street project,” she said.

“Our social infrastructure is as dynamic as our physical infrastructure. It’s our responsibility to address both, for whole community safety and wellbeing.”

The original version of this story has been updated with comments from the city councillors.