This bill amends the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to fold municipal workplace violence and harassment policies into the mandatory content of councillors’ and local-board members’ codes of conduct. It makes compliance with locally established OHSA workplace policies a formal code obligation.
The measure also creates a judicial enforcement pathway: where an Integrity Commissioner’s inquiry finds non-compliance with those workplace policies, the municipality or local board can direct the Commissioner to apply to the Superior Court for an order vacating the member’s seat. The bill includes an election-period prohibition on such applications and an extended bar on the vacated member’s ability to stand or be appointed for two subsequent regular elections.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires municipal and Toronto codes of conduct to include a duty for councillors and local-board members to comply with workplace violence and harassment policies established under section 32.0.1 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It authorizes municipalities, local boards and City Council to direct their Integrity Commissioner to apply to the Superior Court for a declaration that a member’s seat is vacant where the Commissioner reports a breach of that duty.
Who It Affects
Municipal councillors, local-board members and the municipalities and boards that employ staff; Integrity Commissioners who investigate and potentially litigate misconduct findings; municipal administrators who draft and enforce codes of conduct and OHSA-related policies.
Why It Matters
This creates a statutory link between OHSA workplace policy compliance and municipal ethical regimes, giving municipalities a new, court-backed enforcement tool that can permanently remove an elected official and bar them from running or being appointed for two subsequent regular elections.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a clear obligation into municipal ethics codes: councillors and local-board members must follow any workplace violence or harassment policies the municipality or local board adopts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That turns what is often an administrative workplace obligation into a code-level duty tied to councillor discipline.
If an Integrity Commissioner investigates and concludes, in their report, that a member failed to comply with those workplace policies, the municipality or local board may instruct the Commissioner to take the matter to the Superior Court. The Commissioner does not unilaterally seek vacancy orders; the local body must give direction to start court proceedings.
The court application must set out the factual and legal grounds for finding a code contravention linked to workplace violence or harassment policy non-compliance.The bill imposes two timing and consequence constraints. First, it blocks applications to the court during the nomination-to-voting window for a regular municipal election.
Second, if a judge declares a seat vacant on these grounds, the removed member cannot stand as a candidate or be appointed to the same council or local board until the day of the second regular election after the vacancy — a multi-election ineligibility that extends well beyond a single term.The same structure and remedies are reproduced for the City of Toronto under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, using parallel sections. Finally, the statute’s operative date is Royal Assent; there are no transitional rules in the bill about pre-existing investigations, and the bill does not change enforcement under the Occupational Health and Safety Act itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The codes must incorporate policies established under section 32.0.1 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act — the statutory source for municipal workplace violence and harassment policies.
A municipality, local board or Toronto City Council may direct its Integrity Commissioner to apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order declaring a member’s seat vacant following a Commissioner’s report.
The bill forbids commencing a vacancy application during the period that begins on nomination day for a regular municipal election and ends on voting day in that election.
If a judge declares the seat vacant, the removed member is ineligible to run or be appointed to the same council or board until the day of the second subsequent regular election.
The removal avenue and the code-content requirement are added in mirror-image fashion to both the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and the Act comes into force on Royal Assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Codes must include OHSA workplace-violence/harassment compliance duty
This new subsection makes compliance with local workplace violence or harassment policies a mandatory item in municipal and local-board codes of conduct. Practically, municipalities must review and, if necessary, revise their codes to reference the specific policies adopted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act rather than relying solely on general civility or ethics language. The change integrates workplace policy enforcement into the ethics regime rather than leaving it only to employer-level procedures.
Authority to require Commissioner to apply for vacancy
This addition allows a municipality or local board to direct the Integrity Commissioner to seek a judicial vacancy order when the Commissioner’s report states, in their opinion, that a member violated the code by failing to follow workplace policies. The provision is permissive, not mandatory: municipalities retain discretion whether to pursue court action after receiving a Commissioner’s report.
Court application process, notice, election blackout and penalty
This new section lays out the procedural framework: the Commissioner must apply to the Superior Court on direction; the notice must set out the grounds for the alleged contravention; applications are barred during the regular-election nomination-to-voting period; and a judge may declare the member’s seat vacant. It also specifies the post-vacancy ineligibility window — tying reinstatement eligibility to the calendar of subsequent regular elections rather than to a fixed number of years.
Parallel code and Commissioner-direction rules for Toronto
The bill mirrors the Municipal Act changes for Toronto: the city’s code of conduct must require compliance with OHSA-based workplace policies, and Toronto City Council or a local board may direct the Toronto Integrity Commissioner to seek a vacancy order. The replication ensures Toronto cannot be treated differently from other municipalities when enforcing workplace-policy compliance by elected members.
Toronto-specific court procedure and post-vacancy ineligibility
This section reproduces the Superior Court application mechanics, the election-period prohibition, the required contents of the notice of application, the judge’s power to vacate a seat, and the multi-election ban on candidacy or appointment following a vacancy. Lawyers and administrators in Toronto should note that the statutory language mirrors the municipal provisions and points to identical judicial review and evidentiary questions.
Royal Assent commencement and Act title
The bill takes effect on Royal Assent and is titled the Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, 2022. There are no transitional or grandfathering clauses in the text: once in force, municipal codes and Toronto’s code must comport with the new mandatory content and enforcement framework.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Municipal and local-board staff who are workplace harassment victims — by making councillors’ compliance with workplace policies a code obligation, the bill creates an additional avenue for holding elected officials accountable when they engage in prohibited conduct toward employees.
- Municipalities and local boards that prioritize safe workplaces — the measure gives them a clear statutory tool (court-backed vacancy orders) to remove officials whose behaviour breaches workplace policies and undermines staff safety.
- Integrity Commissioners and municipal ethics offices — they receive an explicitly recognized remedial route that connects investigation findings to a judicial remedy, clarifying one pathway for resolving serious misconduct by members.
Who Bears the Cost
- Elected members and candidates — they face a new, potentially costly risk of judicial proceedings and the severe consequence of long-term ineligibility tied to code breaches involving workplace policies.
- Municipalities and local boards (especially small ones) — directing a Commissioner to litigate requires legal funding and administrative resources; smaller municipalities may struggle with the financial and reputational costs of court applications.
- Integrity Commissioners and municipal legal teams — the bill increases litigation workload and requires them to prepare court-grade factual records and legal arguments rather than resolving matters purely through internal sanctions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: protecting staff and workplace safety by giving municipalities a decisive removal tool versus protecting democratic representation and due process by imposing a court-driven, politically charged penalty with long ineligibility consequences. Choosing strong enforcement risks overreach, but limiting removal options risks leaving serious misconduct without an effective remedy.
The statutory text raises several implementation and legal questions. The Commissioner’s report standard is framed as the Commissioner’s opinion that a contravention occurred; courts will need to reconcile that administrative finding with the judge’s independent fact-finding role and applicable evidentiary standards.
The statute does not specify which standard of proof applies in Superior Court proceedings, how quickly a court must hear the application, or what interim measures (if any) are available while litigation proceeds.
Operationally, the bill blurs two enforcement tracks: workplace-safety regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and ethical/disciplinary enforcement under municipal codes. Municipalities will have to ensure their OHSA policies are drafted and applied in ways that can withstand scrutiny in a judicial proceeding about electoral removal.
The potential for political misuse is real: directing a Commissioner to litigate is a political decision by council or a board and could be deployed selectively. There is also no guidance in the text about by-elections, cross-jurisdictional conduct (constituency-facing versus staff-facing interactions), or how overlapping remedies (e.g., criminal charges or OHSA enforcement) interact with a court application under these sections.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.