THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT:
FALSE CLAIMS BY BRENNER, COOK AND NAGY WERE ADOPTED AND AMPLIFIED BY PICKERING’S INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER & COUNCIL
The actual motions expose the lies used to sanction Councillor Lisa Robinson and build a damaging public narrative of homophobia and transphobia
PICKERING, ON — The documentary record is clear: Councillors Maurice Brenner, Linda Cook and Mara Nagy made false claims about three Notices of Motion introduced by Councillor Lisa Robinson, and the City of Pickering’s Integrity Commissioner adopted, repeated and amplified those lies in an official report recommending that Robinson’s pay be suspended.
The complaint claimed that Robinson wanted to remove universal change rooms, remove the Pride and Trans flags, and withdraw City support for Pride and LGBTQ+ events.
None of those claims accurately reflected what her motions said.
The Integrity Commissioner had the actual motions. Rather than correct the false allegations, the Commissioner repeatedly rewrote their meaning, attributed motives and beliefs to Robinson that did not appear in the documents, and labelled her conduct homophobic and transphobic.
The media then ran with those official labels, while the actual wording of the motions was largely ignored.
The consequences have been devastating, and the comparison reveals a deeply troubling pattern.
“These were not harmless political exaggerations,” said Robinson. “These were lies placed into an official complaint, adopted by the Integrity Commissioner and presented to the public under the authority of an official City report. The media repeated those lies, my reputation was attacked, and members of the LGBTQ+ community were encouraged to believe that I wanted to take away their rights and remove them from public spaces. None of that was true.”
1 | P a g e
LIE NUMBER ONE: ROBINSON WANTED UNIVERSAL CHANGE ROOMS REMOVED
The complaint filed against Robinson alleged that she wanted to remove universal washrooms and change rooms from City facilities, specifically the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex.
That was false.
Robinson’s motion did not propose removing, closing or restricting the universal change room. It would have remained fully available to every person and family who wished to use it.
The motion proposed giving children and families an additional choice by permitting nonmembers to use the existing male or female change rooms.
The Integrity Commissioner’s own report later acknowledged that the practical effect of the motion would have been to permit non-members’ children to use the male or female change rooms.
That admission directly contradicts the original allegation that Robinson wanted the universal facilities removed.
“As a single mother raising a son, I regularly used family and universal change rooms when he was young,” said Robinson. “I understand their importance, I support their continued availability, and I never proposed removing them. My motion was about providing families with more choice—not taking an existing choice away.”
Despite knowing the actual wording and effect of the motion, the Integrity Commissioner did not correct the lie. Instead, the Commissioner associated the change-room motion with the LGBTQ+ community even though it did not mention Pride, sexual orientation, gender identity or transgender residents.
The Commissioner admitted that this connection was made “by association” because the motion had been discussed alongside two other motions.
“That is not evidence,” said Robinson. “That is guilt by association manufactured by the investigator.”
LIE NUMBER TWO: ROBINSON WANTED THE PRIDE, PROGRESS PRIDE AND TRANS FLAGS SPECIFICALLY REMOVED
Robinson’s flag motion did not say:
2 | P a g e
- Remove the Pride flag;
- Remove the Progress Pride flag;
- Remove the Trans flag; or
- Prohibit LGBTQ+ flags.
It proposed a general municipal policy limiting flags flown on City flagpoles to federal, provincial and municipal government flags, with exceptions for the Poppy and Veterans flags.
The policy would have applied to non-government flags generally, including flags representing organizations, awareness campaigns and advocacy causes.
The Integrity Commissioner’s own report acknowledged that numerous flags would have been affected, including mental-health awareness, Down syndrome, multiple sclerosis, the Boys and Girls Club and Pride.
Robinson’s motion referenced the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 decision in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay, which affirmed that government has a duty of neutrality and must not use the authority of the state to favour one belief over another.
Robinson relied on that principle in arguing that municipal flagpoles should not be used to elevate some organizations, beliefs or political causes over others. Her position was that flying selected community flags while excluding others risks creating a hierarchy in which certain groups appear to receive official government endorsement or preferential recognition.
The Integrity Commissioner acknowledged that Robinson had relied upon the Supreme Court’s duty-of-neutrality principle, but dismissed it as irrelevant, declared that her concern about creating a hierarchy “rings hollow,” and called her explanation a “disingenuous attempt” to conceal a supposed desire to eliminate the Pride flag.
The Commissioner repeatedly characterized the motion as a targeted attempt to take the Pride flag away from the LGBTQ+ community.
The report called Robinson’s explanation “disingenuous,” said it “rings hollow,” and declared that the timing “cannot be considered mere coincidence.”
Those were not factual findings based on direct evidence. They were the Commissioner’s personal opinions about Robinson’s supposed hidden motive.
“The Commissioner was free to disagree with my interpretation of government neutrality or my proposed flag policy,” said Robinson. “The Commissioner was not free to rewrite a policy that applied generally and falsely present it as a motion specifically targeting the Pride and Trans flags.”
3 | P a g e
LIE NUMBER THREE: ROBINSON WANTED TO REMOVE CITY SUPPORT FOR PRIDE AND LGBTQ+ EVENTS
The complaint claimed that Robinson sought to restrict or remove the City’s support for drag queen story time, Pride and Trans flags, and virtually any related LGBTQ+ event or activity.
That was false.
Robinson did not propose:
- Ending all City support for Pride;
- Cancelling all Pride activities;
- Removing LGBTQ+ organizations from City facilities;
- Preventing adults from attending Pride events;
- Ending municipal services for LGBTQ+ residents; or
- Removing funding for every LGBTQ+-related event or program.
Her motion proposed age restrictions for particular live performances and events where children could be present.
Whether one agrees with that proposal or not, an age-restriction motion is not the same as eliminating Pride or withdrawing all municipal support from the LGBTQ+ community.
The Commissioner transformed a debate about age appropriateness into an accusation that Robinson wanted Pride parades prohibited and drag performers banned from participating in children’s programming.
“The complaint exaggerated my proposal beyond recognition,” said Robinson. “The Integrity Commissioner then converted that exaggeration into an official finding and used it to brand me publicly.”
THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER DID NOT SIMPLY INVESTIGATE THE LIES—THE COMMISSIONER AMPLIFIED THEM
The Integrity Commissioner had the written motions and therefore had the ability to compare the complaint directly against the documentary evidence.
Instead, the report repeatedly relied on expressions such as:
- “In our view”;
- “Appears”;
4 | P a g e
- “Suggests”;
- “Rings hollow”;
- “Cannot be considered mere coincidence”;
- “Disingenuous”; and
- “Fair to interpret.”
These are expressions of belief, suspicion and opinion. They are not proof.
The Commissioner speculated that Robinson had a concealed motive for introducing the flag motion.
The Commissioner speculated that she attended a school-board meeting to “capitalize” on the crowd.
The Commissioner portrayed the distribution of a councillor’s business card as evidence that she was “exploiting” the meeting.
In fact, Robinson handed out a single business card. The report did not identify any law, City policy, school-board rule or Code of Conduct provision prohibiting a councillor from giving a member of the public a business card.
The Commissioner nevertheless treated this ordinary act of communication as evidence of improper political intent.
The Commissioner relied on who Robinson sat near and the alleged conduct of other people as evidence against her.
The Commissioner inferred that having copies of her motions with her was somehow suspicious.
The report then treated these assumptions as evidence that Robinson intentionally fuelled fear and intolerance.
“The report did not uncover my intentions,” said Robinson. “It invented them.”
THE COMMISSIONER ATTRIBUTED A “GROOMING” NARRATIVE TO ROBINSON THAT SHE DID NOT USE
The Integrity Commissioner claimed that Robinson’s motion supported a harmful political narrative about “grooming.”
Yet the report did not identify any wording in Robinson’s motion in which she:
- Called LGBTQ+ people groomers;
- Called drag performers groomers;
- Accused a specific performer of predatory conduct; or
5 | P a g e
- Used the term “grooming.”
The Commissioner imported that outside narrative into the investigation and then attached it to Robinson.
“The Commissioner introduced language that I did not use and then judged me as though I had used it,” said Robinson. “That is not a fair investigation. It is the construction of a political narrative.”
THE LABELS “HOMOPHOBIC” AND “TRANSPHOBIC” WERE BASED ON OPINION, NOT PROVEN TRAITS OR CONDUCT
The report did not identify any statement in which Robinson expressed hatred, contempt or hostility toward LGBTQ+ residents.
It did not identify a proposal to deny LGBTQ+ residents ordinary municipal services.
It did not identify a proposal to remove the universal change room.
It did not identify a motion naming the Pride, Progress Pride or Trans flag for removal.
It did not identify a proposal to end all Pride events or municipal support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner concluded that Robinson had promoted attitudes that were both homophobic and transphobic.
The report itself conceded that Robinson’s words did not amount to hate speech or criminal incitement.
“A disagreement about which flags government should fly is not hatred,” said Robinson. “A debate about age restrictions is not hatred. Giving families the option of using a universal or sex-specific change room is not hatred. The Commissioner turned policy disagreements into accusations about my personal character.”
THE MEDIA SPREAD THE NARRATIVE CREATED BY THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER
Once the Integrity Commissioner placed the labels “homophobic” and “transphobic” into an official report, those labels became headlines.
The public was not presented with a careful side-by-side examination of the complaint and the motions.
6 | P a g e
Instead, the public was repeatedly led to believe that Robinson had proposed:
- Removing universal change rooms;
- Removing Pride and Trans flags specifically;
- Ending City support for Pride;
- Cancelling LGBTQ+ events; and
- Taking rights away from LGBTQ+ residents.
She proposed none of those things.
“The lies carried the authority of an official City investigation,” said Robinson. “That made them extraordinarily damaging. Newspapers repeated the Commissioner’s narrative, political opponents repeated it, and people who had never read my motions were encouraged to see me as hateful and dangerous.”
“These lies have cost me greatly. They damaged my reputation, fractured relationships within the community, subjected me to hatred and abuse, and were used to justify taking away my pay.”
COUNCIL VOTED WITHOUT EVER SEEING ROBINSON’S COMPLETE DEFENCE
The fairness concerns did not end with the Integrity Commissioner’s investigation.
Council was responsible for deciding whether Councillor Robinson should lose her remuneration.
Yet Council was never provided with Robinson’s complete written responses to the allegations.
While Robinson submitted detailed responses and supporting materials to the Integrity Commissioner, those documents were not provided to Council in full before the vote.
Instead, Council received the Integrity Commissioner’s report.
If portions of Robinson’s response appeared in that report, it was only because the Integrity Commissioner chose what to include and what to omit.
Council therefore voted without ever reviewing Robinson’s complete defence.
At the same time, Council had before it Robinson’s original written motions and the video that formed part of the complaint.
Those documents were available to compare against the allegations made in the complaint.
Nor did Council publicly deliberate over those alleged contradictions before imposing the sanction.
7 | P a g e
Compounding those concerns, the three councillors who filed the complaint—Councillors Maurice Brenner, Linda Cook and Mara Nagy—were also permitted to participate in the Council decision imposing Robinson’s financial sanction.
“How can elected officials make an informed decision when they are never given the complete response of the person they are judging?” said Robinson.
“A fair process requires decision-makers to hear both sides.”
“Instead, Council was given the Integrity Commissioner’s report, but not my complete defence.”
“The same councillors whose complaint started the process were then allowed to participate in the decision to sanction me.”
“That raises serious questions about whether this process was capable of producing an informed and procedurally fair decision.”
“Natural justice requires decision-makers to hear both sides. Instead, Council was presented with one side of the story—the Integrity Commissioner’s version.”
At the same time, Council possessed the original written motions and the video relied upon in the complaint.
THE SANCTION PROCESS DENIED ROBINSON A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HERSELF
The procedural unfairness did not end with the Integrity Commissioner’s report.
Councillor Robinson says that when she attempted to question the Integrity Commissioner publicly about the findings, Mayor Kevin Ashe repeatedly interfered with that process.
Robinson says the Mayor:
- Prevented her from completing questions to the Integrity Commissioner;
- Frequently answered questions on the Commissioner’s behalf;
- Told the Commissioner that questions did not have to be answered; and
- Used his control of the meeting to prevent the contradictions in the report from being fully exposed.
The Integrity Commissioner’s report expressly stated that the Commissioner would attend the Council meeting, introduce the report and respond to questions.
Robinson maintains that this promised opportunity was rendered largely meaningless when the Mayor intervened in her questioning and permitted the Commissioner to avoid answering matters directly related to the evidence, the investigation and the recommended loss of her pay.
8 | P a g e
“How can Council claim that I received a fair hearing when the Mayor was answering for the investigator and telling the investigator that my questions did not have to be answered?” said Robinson. “The person whose pay was being taken away was prevented from properly testing the allegations, while the people seeking the sanction controlled the meeting.”
COUNCIL NEVER ASKED ROBINSON FOR HER SIDE BEFORE PUNISHING HER
Despite the seriousness of the accusations, Robinson says that Mayor Ashe and the members of Council who ultimately voted on her sanction never personally approached her to discuss:
- What her motions actually said;
- Why she introduced them;
- Whether she supported universal change rooms;
- Whether she intended to remove all City support for Pride;
- Whether she had specifically targeted the Pride or Trans flags;
- What occurred at the DDSB meeting; or
- Whether the complaint accurately reflected her words and intentions.
Council possessed the original motions. Council could watch the video. Council knew Robinson disputed the allegations.
Yet no member of Council sought a meaningful conversation with her before voting to remove her remuneration.
“They judged me, punished me and publicly condemned my character without ever sitting down with me to ask whether the accusations were true,” said Robinson. “They relied on the narrative they wanted while refusing to hear directly from the person they were sanctioning.”
THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER DID NOT IDENTIFY INTERVIEWS WITH DDSB SECURITY OR OTHER MATERIAL WITNESSES
The Integrity Commissioner stated generally that the investigative process included interviewing relevant witnesses “as necessary.”
However, the report does not identify any interview with:
- DDSB security personnel who were present;
- Security personnel responsible for the building or crowd;
- Individuals who directly observed Robinson’s conduct;
- The person to whom Robinson gave her single business card;
- Attendees who could explain the context in which she spoke;
- Witnesses who could confirm whether Robinson encouraged hostility or disruption; or
9 | P a g e
- Witnesses who could provide evidence inconsistent with the complainants’ narrative.
Instead, the report relied heavily on video interpretation, assumptions about Robinson’s motives, the people near whom she sat, the fact that she possessed copies of her motions, and the allegation that she was handing out business cards.
The report transformed one business card into evidence that Robinson was exploiting the event for political support, yet it identified no rule prohibiting a councillor from giving a member of the public a business card and no witness establishing an improper purpose.
“The Integrity Commissioner made sweeping findings about my intentions without identifying interviews with the security personnel and direct witnesses who were actually there,” said Robinson. “They did not investigate what happened with an open mind. They interpreted everything through the narrative supplied by the complainants.”
DOCUMENTS SHOW THE SANCTIONS WERE COORDINATED BEHIND THE SCENES
Robinson says she possesses documentary evidence showing that the sanctions were not simply developed through independent deliberation during public Council meetings.
The evidence shows Mayor Kevin Ashe privately approached members of Council and asked them to bring forward motions imposing sanctions against Robinson. The Mayor also asked councillors to secure seconders for those motions before the matters came before Council publicly.
This means the Mayor was not acting merely as a neutral chair overseeing Council’s consideration of an Integrity Commissioner’s report. He was actively working behind the scenes to organize the motions, recruit the councillors who would introduce them and ensure they had the procedural support required to reach the floor.
“That is collusion,” said Robinson. “The Mayor privately organized councillors to move the sanctions and instructed them to find seconders before the public meeting. The punishment was being assembled behind closed doors while the public was being led to believe Council would openly and independently consider the evidence.”
The behind-the-scenes coordination is particularly serious because the public meetings contained little or no genuine deliberation about whether the accusations were true.
Councillors did not openly examine the contradictions between the complaint and Robinson’s original motions.
They did not meaningfully question why the complaint falsely said she wanted universal change rooms removed.
10 | Page
They did not address the difference between a general non-government flag policy and a motion specifically targeting the Pride or Trans flag.
They did not examine the difference between proposed age restrictions and eliminating all City support for Pride.
They did not speak to Robinson before voting to take away her pay.
Instead, the Mayor privately worked to identify who would move the sanction and who would second it.
“The public vote was the final step of a process that had already been organized behind the scenes,” said Robinson. “The people watching the Council meeting saw the motion introduced and seconded, but they were not told that the Mayor had been privately recruiting councillors to make that happen.”
THE MAYOR WAS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT, NOT A NEUTRAL CHAIR
At the public meeting, Mayor Ashe controlled the questioning and debate. Robinson says that when she attempted to question the Integrity Commissioner:
- The Mayor interrupted and obstructed her questions;
- The Mayor answered questions on the Integrity Commissioner’s behalf;
- The Mayor told the Integrity Commissioner that questions did not have to be answered; and
- The Mayor restricted Robinson’s ability to expose contradictions in the report.
At the same time, the Mayor had already been involved behind the scenes in organizing the motion that would punish her.
“The same Mayor who privately recruited councillors to move and second my sanction then controlled the public meeting where I was supposed to be able to defend myself,” said Robinson. “He was not a neutral presiding officer. He was an organizer of the punishment.”
The Integrity Commissioner’s report stated that the Commissioner would attend Council to introduce the report and answer questions. Yet Robinson says the Mayor repeatedly prevented that questioning from occurring meaningfully.
“That was not procedural fairness,” said Robinson. “The Mayor helped organize the sanction privately and then used his authority as Chair to control my defence publicly.”
11 | Page
COUNCIL’S PUBLIC VOTE DID NOT REFLECT INDEPENDENT DELIBERATION
Council members had access to:
- Robinson’s original motions;
- The video from the DDSB;
- The complaint;
- Robinson’s response; and
- The Integrity Commissioner’s report.
They knew—or should have known—that the complaint’s description of the motions was false.
Despite possessing that evidence, Council members did not publicly deliberate over the central contradictions. Instead, councillors participated in a sanction process that had already been organized through private communications.
The evidence that the Mayor recruited movers and seconders undermines any claim that councillors arrived at the meeting without predetermined positions and independently formed their views after hearing the matter.
“You cannot claim to be approaching a sanction with an open mind when the Mayor has already recruited you to introduce it or second it,” said Robinson. “You cannot call that independent deliberation. You cannot call it fair. It was a coordinated effort to secure a predetermined punishment.”
THE INTEGRITY PROCESS BECAME A VEHICLE FOR POLITICAL PUNISHMENT
The sequence was clear:
- Councillors Brenner, Cook and Nagy filed a complaint containing false descriptions of Robinson’s motions.
- The Integrity Commissioner adopted and amplified those descriptions.
- The Mayor and Council possessed the original motions and video showing what Robinson had actually said.
- Council never meaningfully confronted the contradictions.
- The Mayor privately recruited councillors to bring forward sanction motions and find seconders.
- The Mayor then controlled the public meeting, restricted Robinson’s questioning and told the Integrity Commissioner that questions did not have to be answered.
- Council imposed the prearranged financial punishment.
- The media repeated the resulting labels and narrative.
12 | Page
“This was not an impartial integrity process,” said Robinson. “It was a coordinated political operation that used an official complaint and an Integrity Commissioner’s report to create the justification for a punishment already being organized behind the scenes.”
THE EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION WILL BE RELEASED
Robinson intends to release the documentary evidence showing the Mayor’s role in recruiting councillors to introduce and second the sanction motions.
“The public will not be asked to take my word for it,” said Robinson. “They will be able to see the communications for themselves.”
“The evidence will show who was approached, what they were asked to do and how the sanction motions were organized before the public meeting.”
“The City has repeatedly portrayed these votes as independent decisions made after careful consideration of the Integrity Commissioner’s reports. The documents tell a very different story.”
“They show a Mayor working behind the scenes to ensure that motions punishing a political opponent were introduced, seconded and ready to pass.”
“That is not independent governance. That is collusion.”
THE SAME COUNCILLORS WHO FILED THE FALSE COMPLAINT ALSO VOTED TO PUNISH ROBINSON
The procedural unfairness did not end there.
Councillors Maurice Brenner, Linda Cook and Mara Nagy filed the complaint that began this investigation.
That complaint alleged, among other things, that Robinson wanted to remove universal change rooms, remove the Pride and Trans flags, and remove City support for Pride and LGBTQ+ events.
Robinson says those allegations were false and were contradicted by the actual wording of her motions.
Those allegations nevertheless became the foundation of the Integrity Commissioner’s investigation and report.
The report was then returned to Council for a decision on whether Robinson should be punished financially.
13 | Page
The same councillors who filed the complaint containing those false allegations were then permitted to participate in the debate and vote on whether Robinson should lose her pay.
In other words:
- They filed the complaint.
- They made allegations that Robinson says were false and contradicted by the documentary evidence.
- Their allegations became the foundation of the Integrity Commissioner’s report.
- They then participated in the decision to suspend Robinson’s remuneration.
Robinson says that no reasonable member of the public could look at that process without questioning its fairness.
“The people who accused me using allegations that were contradicted by my own written motions were then allowed to vote on whether I should be punished,” said Robinson.
“That is not an independent disciplinary process. That is complainants sitting in judgment of the very person they accused.”
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS REQUIRES MORE THAN A REPORT
The Integrity Commissioner repeatedly states throughout the report that procedural fairness was provided.
Robinson fundamentally disagrees.
Procedural fairness is not satisfied simply because an accused person is allowed to submit written responses to an investigator.
Procedural fairness requires that the ultimate decision-makers receive both sides before imposing punishment.
It requires that material evidence be fairly examined.
It requires contradictory evidence to be addressed.
It requires meaningful questioning.
It requires an open mind.
14 | P a g e
It requires independent deliberation.
Robinson says none of those safeguards meaningfully occurred.
The complainants were permitted to vote on her punishment.
The Mayor privately organized movers and seconders for sanction motions.
The Mayor then controlled the public meeting, interrupted Robinson’s questioning, answered questions on behalf of the Integrity Commissioner and told the Integrity Commissioner that questions did not have to be answered.
The report itself became the prosecution, the evidence and the recommendation. Council then relied upon that same report to impose the punishment.
[“The public was told this was an independent integrity process,” said Robinson.]
“In reality, the complainants filed a complaint containing allegations that were contradicted by my written motions, the Integrity Commissioner adopted and amplified those allegations, Council was never given my complete defence, the same complainants then voted on my punishment, and the Mayor privately organized the sanction motions before the public meeting.”
“That is not procedural fairness.”
“That is not independent decision-making.”
“That is not what the people of Pickering should expect from their municipal government.”
The Integrity Commissioner declared that challenging the Commissioner’s bias was itself an attempt at obstruction. Filing complaints against two complainants was automatically labelled reprisal. Robinson’s efforts to defend herself were therefore converted into further alleged misconduct.
“The process became self-protecting,” said Robinson. “If I disputed the allegations, I was refusing accountability. If I challenged the investigator, I was obstructing. If I complained about the conduct of my accusers, I was retaliating. There was no path available to defend myself that they could not turn into another accusation.”
ROBINSON’S ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND HERSELF WERE USED AGAINST HER
15 | Page
When Robinson raised concerns about the Integrity Commissioner’s bias, the same Integrity Commissioner investigated and rejected that allegation, then characterized her challenge as an attempt to obstruct or derail the investigation.
When Robinson filed complaints concerning the conduct of councillors who had complained against her, the Commissioner declared that those complaints “must” be considered reprisals.
No meaningful analysis was provided to establish that her complaints were knowingly false, malicious or filed solely for retaliation.
“The message was unmistakable,” said Robinson. “If I challenged the complaint, that became evidence against me. If I challenged the investigator, that became evidence against me. If I filed a complaint about the conduct of the complainants, that became evidence against me. Every attempt to defend myself was reframed as further wrongdoing.”
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW DID NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE
Following the sanctions, Robinson brought applications for judicial review before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Since those decisions were released, Robinson says some members of Council have suggested that the Court confirmed the Integrity Commissioner’s findings and the allegations made against her.
Robinson says that is not what the Court decided.
A judicial review is not a new trial. It is not an opportunity for the Court to hear witnesses, re-weigh disputed evidence or determine whether every factual allegation contained in an Integrity Commissioner’s report is true.
The Court did not compare Robinson’s original written motions with the allegations made in the complaint.
The Court did not determine whether Robinson wanted to remove universal change rooms.
The Court did not determine whether she specifically sought to remove the Pride, Progress Pride or Trans flags.
The Court did not determine whether she intended to eliminate City support for Pride or LGBTQ+ events.
The Court did not determine whether the complaint accurately described Robinson’s original written motions.
16 | Page
Nor did the Court determine whether the Integrity Commissioner’s conclusions regarding Robinson’s motives, beliefs or intentions were factually correct.
Instead, Robinson says the judicial review considered whether Council had the legal authority to proceed under the Municipal Act and whether the decision-making process met the applicable legal standard for judicial review.
“The judicial review did not decide whether the allegations made against me were true,” said Robinson.
“It did not determine whether the complaint accurately reflected what my motions actually said.” “It did not determine whether the Integrity Commissioner correctly characterized my motions.”
“Those questions are answered by comparing the original written motions, the complaint and the Integrity Commissioner’s report side by side.”
“That is precisely why I am releasing this comparison today—so the public can examine the original documents and decide for themselves.”
THIS WAS A POLITICAL SMEAR GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF AN OFFICIAL REPORT
The issue is no longer whether everyone agrees with Robinson’s motions.
The issue is whether elected officials can lie about the content of a councillor’s motions, have those lies adopted by an Integrity Commissioner, and then use the resulting report to impose financial punishment and destroy that councillor’s public reputation.
Councillors Brenner, Cook and Nagy began this process with allegations that were contradicted by the written motions.
The Integrity Commissioner had the evidence necessary to correct those allegations.
Instead, the Commissioner adopted their premise, expanded the accusations, speculated about Robinson’s motives and attached the labels “homophobic” and “transphobic” to her name.
The Mayor and Council also possessed the original motions and video, yet allowed those false descriptions to be relied upon when imposing the sanction.
Council then imposed the sanction.
The media carried the narrative to the public.
17 | Page
“This was not an honest assessment of three municipal policy proposals,” said Robinson. “It was a political smear given the authority of an official report.”
THE DOCUMENTS NOW SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
Robinson is releasing the comparison so residents and journalists can examine the evidence themselves.
She is not asking the politicians who supported the sanction or the Integrity Commissioner who authored the report to investigate their own conduct.
She is placing the original record directly before the public.
“Read the complaint. Read the original written notice of motions. Read the Integrity Commissioner’s report. Watch the video. Then compare what I actually proposed with what the public was told I proposed.”
Then ask yourself one simple question: Do the original written motions actually say what the public was told they said?
“I never proposed removing universal change rooms.”
“I never proposed specifically removing the Pride, Progress Pride or Trans flags.”
“I never proposed ending City support for Pride or all LGBTQ+ events.”
“Those were lies.”
“This was not simply a flawed investigation. It was a coordinated process.”
“The councillors’ lies created the accusation. The Integrity Commissioner transformed those lies into official findings. The Mayor privately recruited councillors to move and second the punishment. Council imposed the sanction without genuine public deliberation. The media then spread the false narrative throughout the community.”
“The public meetings were presented as though Council was independently considering what to do. The evidence shows the Mayor had already been working behind the scenes to arrange who would introduce the sanction and who would support it.”
“When the Mayor organizes punishment privately, controls the hearing publicly and obstructs the accused councillor from questioning the investigator, that is not procedural fairness.”
“When councillors agree behind the scenes to move and second sanctions before openly considering the evidence, that is not independent deliberation.”
18 | Page
“When an Integrity Commissioner repeats false claims despite possessing the original documents, that is not integrity.”
“This was collusion. I have the proof, and the public will see it.”
“Pickering residents deserve to know how decisions are really being made inside their City Hall. They deserve to know whether public meetings are genuine democratic deliberations or merely the final performance of decisions already arranged behind closed doors.”
“Integrity cannot exist without truth. Accountability cannot exist without independence. Democracy cannot exist when punishment is organized privately and merely ratified publicly.”
“The truth is coming out – and this time, the documents will speak louder than the people who tried to silence me.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKNs6wVUGo0
______________
19 | Page
