While there still won’t be lifeguards at Rogers Cove beach in Peterborough’s East City this summer, the water quality at the beach will continue to be tested.

That’s the word from the regional health unit, which has reversed its earlier decision to stop testing this summer after the City of Peterborough eliminated taxpayer-funded lifeguard services at the beach.

“Peterborough Public Health has confirmed that Rogers Cove will continue to be maintained as a public beach by the City of Peterborough; however, it will not be supervised,” the health unit stated in an email to kawarthaNOW. “Sampling of this beach will resume on June 12, 2025.”

In prior years, the City of Peterborough has paid lifeguards to supervise the city’s two public beaches — one at Rogers Cove and the other at Beavermead Park — daily from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. from the last week of June to the end of August.

However, during its deliberations on the draft 2025 budget, city council decided to eliminate lifeguard services at Rogers Cove to save $40,000. However, the city will continue to provide lifeguard services at the more popular Beavermead Park beach.

Every summer, Peterborough Public Health has tested the water quality of the city’s two public beaches on a daily basis from Monday to Friday. After the city’s decision to eliminate lifeguard services at Rogers Cove, the health unit announced it would only perform weekday testing at Beavermead Park and not Rogers Cove — a decision that has now been reversed.

With the exception of Rogers Cove, the health unit began testing water quality at public beaches in the city and county of Peterborough and Curve Lake and Hiawatha First Nations on June 2 to ensure the water quality conditions are safe for recreational use during swimming season. The first sample for Rogers Cove will be taken on Thursday (June 12).

The program will continue through to the end of August, with water at the city’s two public beaches samples on weekdays and the water at most public beaches in the county and two First Nations sampled at least once a week, with a few county beaches only sampled once a month. The health unit posts the results on its website.

Results take approximately 24 hours to be analyzed. If levels of bacteria exceed recommended thresholds for recreational water use, the beach will be posted as unsafe and to avoid becoming ill, people should not use the beach for swimming. If a significant risk to human health is identified, such as a toxic spill or the identification of a harmful algae bloom, a beach may be closed to the public.

Stay tuned to kawarthaNOW in June for The Beach Report™, our weekly report of the results of water quality testing at beaches in the greater Kawarthas region, including the city and county of Peterborough, the City of Kawartha Lakes, Haliburton County, Northumberland County, and Hastings County.

As Peterborough Mayor Jeal Leal’s first use of his provincially legislated strong mayor powers inches closer to a legal challenge, the director of the group bringing that action is appealing to the public for help with legal costs.

A GoFundMe campaign launched by Sarah McNeilly, the sole director of Northcrest Neighbours for Fair Process (NNFP) Ltd., is appealing for $10,000 in donations by June 19. That follows the filing of a motion by the city demanding that she post $10,000 in security for court costs.

“If I don’t raise the funds in time, the case could be dismissed — before a single legal question is heard,” writes McNeilly on the GoFundMe page.

As of Thursday morning (June 12), about 24 hours after McNeilly’s appeal went live — under the title “I challenged Peterborough’s mayor. Now he’s coming after me” — $7,825 had already been pledged by 85 people.

To understand how things got to this point, making the last few weeks “crazy, emotional, terrifying and just really difficult” for McNeilly, some background is required.

Back on February 3, Mayor Leal issued a statement that he would, in deference to a request from Brock Mission, use his strong mayor powers to expedite its development of a six-storey, 52-unit transitional housing building at 783 Chemong Road adjacent to Cameron House, a women’s shelter also operated by Brock Mission.

In doing so, the city’s zoning by-law would be amended and the project would be exempted from existing site plan requirements — a process that ensures development projects comply with municipal policies and minimize negative impacts on the environment and surrounding community.

Under the strong mayor powers of the Municipal Act provided by the provincial government in 2023 to 45 municipalities, including Peterborough, heads of council can propose municipal by-laws under provincial legislation — including the Municipal Act and the Planning Act — if they believe the proposed by-laws could potentially advance the provincial priority of housing.

At the time, Mayor Leal justified his use of strong mayor powers by citing Peterborough’s “critical need for housing,” adding he will do “whatever is within my authority as mayor” to move housing projects forward.

On February 24, Mayor Leal fulfilled his vow during a city council meeting. While seven councillors voted against his motion, three — Gary Baldwin, Kevin Duguay, and Lesley Parnell — supported it. The motion passed just the same, as just one third of council support is required for a strong mayor powers motion to pass.

McNeilly, who lives near the development site, spoke at that council meeting, arguing NNFP’s position that the development doesn’t qualify as “housing” under the rules governing the use of strong mayor powers.

Further, the group argued — and still does — that the building “more closely resembles an institutional facility (in its planned use), therefore falling beyond the scope of strong mayor powers conferred by the Municipal Act.”

Mayor Leal’s use of strong mayor powers in this case forms the basis for NNFP’s legal challenge. McNeilly says any meaningful consultation with neighbours of the project site and the women sheltering at adjacent Cameron House was eliminated from the get-go.

“Allowing major decisions (to be made) with minority council support sets a concerning precedent for governance by exception rather than democratic consensus,” said McNeilly in an April interview with kawarthaNOW, arguing the development should have been subject to entrenched planning oversight and procedures, and then gone before council for approval, much the same as any other development.

And so here we are, with NNFP, represented by McNeilly, asking the Ontario Superior Court to rule whether Mayor Leal’s use of his strong mayor powers is legal in this case.

Pretty straightforward, but then the city tossed a curveball into the mix. On May 27, city solicitor Scott Seabrooke filed a notice of motion for security of costs from NNFP in the amount of $10,000 — “or such amount as this this (sic) Honourable Court may deem just,” according to the motion.

“The Applicant is a shell corporation without operations and it does not have any assets in Ontario or elsewhere to pay the costs of the Respondent,” the motion states. “The Applicant was incorporated for the purpose of insulating Sarah McNeilly from being exposed to a cost award in her personal capacity and thus there is good reason to believe that the Applicant will try to avoid paying any order for costs.”

In addition, the city’s motion claims that NNFP’s legal challenge “was brought for an ulterior motive, namely Sarah McNeilly’s personal opposition” to the section of the Municipal Act that defines strong mayor powers “which she views as undemocratic.”

As an alternative to $10,000 in security costs, the city is requesting an order “piercing the corporate veil” — a legal concept where a court disregards the separate legal entity of a corporation and holds its shareholders, directors, or officers personally liable for the corporation’s actions.

McNeilly, who was upset back in February and still is, is now seeing red.

“The city is pre-emptively saying they will ‘pierce the corporate veil,’ going through the incorporated entity Northcrest Neighbours for Fair Process Ltd. and going for Miss Sarah McNeilly personally,” she says.

“What this means, and it’s another mechanism or tactic if you will, is in order for the application to be heard, this motion has to be decided first. So this has really delayed things, or has the potential to.”

Not helping matters, says McNeilly, was the recent removal of trees at the proposed development site.

“About a week after the city motion was filed, my phone starts exploding, and I’m getting all these email messages from all my neighbours just totally freaking out because every tree on the property was being clear cut,” she says, adding that with its legal challenge pending, NNFP “was under the impression” that such action “is technically unlawful until the matter is settled.”

The first court session dealing with the matter was held on Tuesday (June 10) via Zoom, when McNeilly says the city introduced its motion for security of costs. In response, NNFP’s lawyer brought a request for an injunction on the development.

“The injunction would be for the city not to issue permits,” explains McNeilly.

“It has nothing to do with Brock Mission. They can get permits under the old (existing) by-law and zoning, just not for this one until it’s figured out. The city solicitor responded that would take an ‘awful lot of time’ and that hearing the injunction and the city’s motion first would push back hearing the original application to the next available date in February 2026. Speaking to the rationale of the injunction, our lawyer said that it’s very clear that if we wait until February (2026), the building will be built.”

“You look at all these things combined and it’s hard not to see the tactic. Delay it. Bleed them out. Threaten them financially. They’ll back down. They’ll go away.”

PDF: City of Peterborough’s Notice of Motion – Security for Costs
City of Peterborough's Notice of Motion - Security for Costs

At that first court session, the judge, notes McNeilly, didn’t entertain any delay in the matter, setting a date of June 19 for triage court, which is used to address the scheduling of civil proceedings, particularly for long motions or applications.

“At that time, we’ll be given a much more immediate date to settle first the motion for security of costs so we can then have our application heard. Also, the judge is allowing for our lawyer to submit his request for injunction by letter to whichever judge will overseeing our case.”

That’s where things stand now as it appears the GoFundMe appeal will reach its goal — a show of community support that McNeilly is most heartened by, saying “It’s exactly the boost I needed as the leader of this fight, and it’s what my neighbours needed.”

“Times are tough for everyone right now. I’m really beginning to feel the pressure (but) I don’t want to let my neighbours down. Some of them have made two, three donations (for legal costs). I just can’t keep going to them, asking for money. Every time the city files a new thing, that costs us money for our lawyer to deal with that.”

As McNeilly has made clear since day one, NNFP isn’t taking on Brock Mission or arguing against the need for transitional housing. In fact, she earlier credited Mayor Leal for having “really good intentions” when he exercised his strong mayor powers to expedite the development, but added “He perhaps didn’t have all the information he needed to make a decision like that.”

“It doesn’t matter what it is. This could be a casino. It could be an arena. It could be anything, and I would be against it because of the way it was pushed through. We can’t give up the bedrocks of democracy: due process, public consultation, majority rule. We can’t just freely hand them over because we think there’s an emergency that justifies it.”

Well aware she’s a player in a precedent-setting legal case being watched closely by all the other municipalities whose top elected officials have been granted strong mayor powers, McNeilly feels a responsibility to get this right on the way to her sought outcome of a court-imposed injunction that will ultimately see the proposed development go before council for debate and a vote outside of strong mayor powers.

As for her perception that the city is going after her personally in a bid to see NNFP’s court challenge dropped, her answer is best summed up in three words: bring it on.

“I’m a fighter,” McNeilly affirms. “I’ve never backed down from a bully and I’m not about to start. And it really does put things into perspective. I’ve beaten cancer twice. I’m not afraid of this mayor.”

Stay with kawarthaNOW for updates to this story as they develop.

This story has been updated to modify a quote from Sarah McNeilly, about the city solicitor’s response during the first court session, for accuracy, with the court date also corrected.

From helping bring to life “the dream of a place to farm closer for aspiring farmers,” to creating an inclusive community for newcomers to Peterborough, these are two ways $100,000 is going to be used locally courtesy of grants recently awarded to 10 organizations.

On Tuesday (June 10), Community Futures Peterborough (CFP) announced the recipients of the 2025 Community Advancement Program (CAP), a non-repayable funding program that supports projects that foster economic stability, investment, and employment across the city of Peterborough and Peterborough County.

In celebration of its 40th anniversary, CFP is providing $100,000 to 10 organizations in the region. According to a media release, the “record-breaking investment” underscores the non-profit organization’s “long-standing dedication to fostering resilient, inclusive, and sustainable communities throughout the region.”

CFP executive director Devon Girard told kawarthaNOW there were more than 40 applications on the table for consideration.

“An external committee of board directors scored the applications against the criteria laid out in the application process and made the decision,” Girard said.

The 2025 CAP recipients are Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Foundation, Kawartha Manufacturers Association, Junior Achievement Northern and Eastern Ontario, Hiawatha First Nation, Peterborough County, 4th Line Theatre, Curve Lake First Nation, Farms at Work, New Canadians Centre, and ReFrame Film Festival.

“These projects reflect the spirit and mission we had in mind for the Community Advancement Program — to empower local organizations that are creating tangible, positive impacts on the economic landscape of our communities,” Girard said in a statement. “From arts and culture to agriculture, education, and equity, these initiatives are helping shape a vibrant future for both the city of Peterborough and Peterborough County.”

First launched in 2024 and funded in partnership with the Government of Canada through the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), CAP supports strategic projects that align with CFP’s vision for sustainable economic development and regional resilience. The program is designed to create community economic stability, growth, and job creation, develop and diversify competitive rural economies, and foster economically sustainable communities.

“The projects supported through the Community Advancement Program are a testament to the innovation, ambition, and local leadership driving economic growth in Peterborough and the surrounding region,” said Evan Solomon, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, in the release.

“Through FedDev Ontario, our government is proud to support the Community Futures Program and invest in the people and organizations creating real momentum. We are empowering local entrepreneurs, generating good jobs, and building a stronger, more resilient economy right here at home during these times of global economic uncertainty.”

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Foundation will be using the CAP grant to support a bursary initiative designed to uplift children who were involved with children’s aid societies in achieving their post-secondary education goals.

“Together, we are having a positive impact on the lives of youth who are connected to the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society and pursuing their post-secondary education goals,” said executive director Carrie Truman. “It is amazing the hurdles these youth have overcome, and so exciting that they are focused on their future by working towards achieving their education goals.”

Meanwhile, Farms at Work will be using its CAP grant to hire a project manager to launch and support their community learning farm.

The initiative aims to provide hands-on, experiential education to aspiring entrepreneurs in agriculture through workshops and guided tours of established farms.

“These funds, along with in-kind support from the Peterborough County economic development team and farm owner Jason McIntosh, bring the dream of a place to farm closer for aspiring farmers and will benefit the community for many years to come,” said Farms at Work operations manager Heather Thomas.

The New Canadians Centre will use the CAP grant to advance the goals of its workplace inclusion charter, which includes fostering a welcoming and inclusive community, supporting employee attraction and retention, boosting productivity and innovation, and enhancing overall employee well-being.

“Immigration is a key component of the future of our labour force and working age population,” said Andy Cragg, executive director of NCC. “The workplace inclusion charter project will help participating local businesses attract and retain immigrant talent while fostering positive workplace experiences for newcomers.”

For more information about Community Futures Peterborough’s Community Advancement Program, visit communityfuturespeterborough.ca.

The City of Peterborough is one of the communities hosting evacuees from Sandy Lake First Nation in northwestern Ontario.

The remote Oji-Cree community, which is located near the Manitoba border around 370 kilometres north of Kenora, is being threatened by the fire known as Red Lake 12, which is out of control and has grown to be more than 1,500 square kilometres in size.

An evacuation of the community of around 3,000 residents was ordered on Saturday (June 7). The Canadian Armed Forces has been assisting in the evacuation of Sandy Lake, which is only accessible by air, by flying residents out of the community in CC-130 Hercules aircraft to Thunder Bay.

Around 300 Sandy Lake community members will be arriving in Peterborough. A media release from the City of Peterborough on Wednesday (June 11) states that around 200 evacuees arrived Tuesday evening, with additional evacuees arriving in the coming days.

On Sunday, the federal government approved a request from the Ontario government for federal assistance to support the evacuation efforts. According to a statement on Monday from Ontario’s emergency preparedness and response minister Jill Dunlop, all evacuees will be provided comprehensive wraparound services, including health care, education supports, and social services.

“Our government will continue to work in coordination with the federal government, Indigenous leadership, and the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure safe evacuations for the residents of Sandy Lake First Nation,” Dunlop said.

Dunlop said most of the evacuees are being hosted in Kapuskasing, Mississauga, Toronto, Niagara, and Cornwall — and now Peterborough as well.

“When Peterborough was asked if it would be a host community for evacuees from areas that are threatened by the wildfires that are raging, there was no hesitation in opening the doors to our community,” Mayor Jeff Leaf said.

“Our community is quickly mobilizing to support those in need who are being forced to leave their homes because of the wildfires. Thank you to the numerous community agencies that are showing compassion and commitment to the well-being of the evacuees.”

The city says The Loomex Group is the official host agency contracted by the provincial government to coordinate the hosting of the evacuees. As well as operating the Peterborough Airport, The Loomex Group also provides emergency management services.

“The City of Peterborough’s Emergency Management Division will work with Loomex to coordinate and facilitate support services with community partner agencies,” the media release states.

The release adds that the city and Loomex are not currently accepting donations or seeking volunteer assistance at this time.

However, Indigenous community member Kelli Marshall says donations are needed and has put out a call on Facebook for towels, linens, and blankets as well as baby formula, diapers, and clothes. In a comment on Marshall’s post, Ashley Lamothe says evacuees have requested water bottles, socks, shorts, T-shirts of all sizes, sandals, and colouring books and materials.

Marshall, who says the evacuees are being hosted at Trent University, is asking that donations be dropped off at The Gathering Space at Gzowski College at 2510 Pioneer Road or at the Nogojiwanong Friendship Centre at 580 Cameron Street.

On its Facebook page, Nogojiwanong Friendship Centre says it will accept diapers and pull-ups, baby formula and bottles, women’s feminine pads/tampons, both women and men’s disposable razors, toothpaste, shampoo and conditioner, body wash, loofah, and men’s and women’s deodorant.

Those wishing to make a financial donation can do so online at canadahelps.org/en/charities/nogojiwanong-friendship-centre/ (add a message that the donation is for Sandy Lake First Nation) or by dropping off cash or a cheque at the centre (ask reception to write SLFN on the receipt).

According to a statement from Trent University provided to kawarthaNOW on Thursday (June 12), donations are no longer being collected at Gzowski College.

“Trent is working closely with the City and The Loomex Group to support evacuees from Sandy Lake First Nation,” the statement reads. “At this time, donations and volunteer help aren’t needed and donations are no longer being collected at the First Peoples House of Learning. Loomex is coordinating all supports, and all inquiries can be directed to The Group.”

To contact The Loomex Group, email info@loomex.ca.

This story has been updated with a statement from Trent University.

The City of Peterborough is hosting both an in-person and virtual healing circle on Tuesday (June 17) for community members who have been affected by recent vandalism to the Nogojiwanong Project panels in Millennium Park in downtown Peterborough.

Located next to the Trans Canada Trail near the south end of Water Street, the Nogojiwanong Project is a collaboration undertaken in the spirit of kinship between local First Nations, Indigenous peoples, and the City of Peterborough in recognition of the 200th anniversary of Rice Lake Treaty No. 20 — the agreement between the Michi Saagiig peoples and the British Crown that made it possible for Europeans to settle in this region — and the presence of the Williams Treaties First Nations in the region.

Installed in 2019, the three interpretive panels that are part of the Nogojiwanong Project highlight the evolution of local treaties and inherent rights of Indigenous peoples. In 2022, a public artwork called “Gathering” by Anishinaabe sculptor Michael Belmore — a grouping of glacial erratic boulders embellished with the Treaty 20 Clan Dodems — was installed near the interpretive panels.

Last Tuesday (June 3), the City of Peterborough received reports that the interpretive panels had been defaced with graffiti that included racist remarks. When city staff visited the site the following morning, they found that community members had taken the initiative to remove the graffiti themselves.

“This act of disrespect, particularly during National Indigenous History Month, is a painful reminder of the work still needed to advance truth, understanding, and reconciliation in our community,” Peterborough mayor Jeff Leal said in a statement issued the following day. “These panels are more than signs, they are a reflection of the stories, rights, and resilience of Indigenous Peoples, and a vital part of how we share and learn from the land we call Nogojiwanong.”

“Let us use this moment as a call to action, to learn more, to speak out against hate, and to stand in solidarity with Indigenous communities not only this month, but always,” the mayor added.

Last Thursday, Peterborough MP Emma Harrison also issued a statement about the vandalism, calling it “both disappointing and disheartening.”

“As June is National Indigenous History Month, and if you haven’t already, I encourage you to visit the site and engage with this important work,” she said. “My sincere thanks go out to the community members who responded quickly to help restore the panels.”

“We are all treaty people, and standing together in moments like this reinforces our shared responsibility to honour and respect that truth.”

Last Friday, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians also issued a release about the “outrageous motion of a hate crime,” which included a statement from Chief Laurie Carr of Hiawatha First Nation.

“This is malicious, it is hard to witness that people out there are willingly doing this, and for what?” Chief Carr said.

“It makes no sense except to appease their own hateful thought processes. Regardless of their actions, it will not deter us, as we are a vibrant, proud, independent healthy people. We will not allow this to unsettle us and we will make sure actions will be taken.”

To support those who have been affected by the vandalism, the City of Peterborough is hosting two healing circles on Tuesday, June 17. A healing circle is a traditional Indigenous practice where participants sit in a circle to share stories, express emotions, and support one another in a respectful, inclusive, and spiritually grounded space for healing and reconciliation.

A virtual healing circle will be held first, from 10 a.m. to noon, on Microsoft Teams.

“This gathering is especially intended to support Indigenous community members and allies, offering an opportunity to come together, listen, and contribute to the healing process,” reads a media release from the city, which notes virtual healing circle will be a safe and supportive space.

Space is limited for the virtual healing circle and registration closes at noon on Monday, June 16. Those who register at form.peterborough.ca/Virtual-Healing-Circle-Registration will receive a link to attend the meeting.

Following the virtual healing circle, an in-person healing circle will be held at the Nogojiwanong Project location in Millennium Park from 2 to 4 p.m. Participants are asked to bring their own lawn chair, if desired.

Along with the healing circles, the city has provided a list of resources for people who may need support as a result of the vandalism.

• Provided by Aboriginal Alert – Canada’s Indigenous Awareness Network, Talk 4 Healing is a culturally grounded, fully confidential help line for Indigenous women available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, provided by Aboriginal Alert at 1-855-554-HEAL (4325). For more information, visit www.aboriginalalert.ca/service-providers/talk-4-healing.
• The Canadian Mental Health Association offers a provincial mental health supports directory at ontario.cmha.ca/provincial-mental-health-supports.
• The Kids Help Phone is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for people ages five to 29 who want confidential and anonymous care from trained responders. Call 1-800-668-6868 (toll-free), text CONNECT to 686868, or visit kidshelpphone.ca for online chat support or to access online resources for children and youth.
• The Hope for Wellness Helplin is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples seeking emotional support, crisis intervention, or referrals to community-based services. Call 1-855-242-3310 (toll-free) or visit www.hopeforwellness.ca to chat online. Support is available in English and French and, by request, in Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut.

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.