The City of Toronto recognizes that City employees, Members of Adjudicative Boards, and Members of Council are expected to conduct themselves with personal integrity, honesty, and diligence in the performance of their duties. This policy builds upon this recognition by addressing conflict of interest in the administration of the City’s Administrative Penalty System (APS) for parking violations.
Ontario Regulation 611/06 requires the City to define what constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to APS, to prevent such conflicts of interest and to redress such conflicts should they occur. This policy serves to address these matters with respect to the City’s APS.
This policy sets out the requirements of Screening Officers, Hearing Officers, and City officials and employees in order to prevent real and perceived conflicts of interest. Failure to comply with this policy and other applicable City Policies could undermine the public faith in the administration of the APS program.
This policy applies to:
For City employees (including Screening Officers) engaged in the administration of APS, the conflict of interest, disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal protection provisions in Chapter 192, Public Service (the “Toronto Public Service By-law”), shall apply in regard to the activities of that City employee in the administration of APS.
For Hearing Officers, the conflict of interest provisions in the Code of Conduct for Members of Adjudicative Boards, and any successor policies, shall also apply in regard to the activities of Administrative Penalty Tribunal Members. In addition, the provisions in Article 4 of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 192 shall apply to Hearing Officers under this policy as if they were City employees with any necessary modifications.
For Members of Council, provisions in the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and prevailing Provincial legislation (i.e. Municipal Conflict of Interest Act), and any successor policies, shall also apply in the administration of APS.
Regarding the selection of Hearing Officers, the conflict of interest provisions in the Toronto Public Appointments Policy, and any successor policy, shall also apply in the administration of APS.
“APS” – means Administrative Penalty System
“City” – means City of Toronto
“Council” – means Toronto City Council
“Hearing Officer” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
“Hearing Review” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
“Penalty Notice” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
“Screening Decision” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
“Screening Review” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
“Screening Officer” – has the same meaning as set out in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 610
All Screening Officers and Hearing Officers shall, in accordance with this policy, applicable City policies and by-laws including the Toronto Public Service by-law and the Code of Conduct for Members of Adjudicative Boards, where applicable;
a) both be and appear to be independent, impartial, and unbiased;
b) avoid all conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, and are responsible for promptly taking appropriate steps to disclose, resolve, or obtain advice with respect to such conflicts when they arise
c) not be influenced by partisan interests, public opinion, or by fear of criticism;
d) not use their title and/or position to promote their own interests or the interests of others;
e) discharge their duties in accordance with the law, City by-laws, City policies and APS policies, procedures, and guidelines;
f) refrain from openly and publicly criticizing the administration of the APS program or the conduct of others in relation to the administration of the APS program;
g) not accept, arrange to accept, give or request to be given a reward, gift, advantage or benefit of any kind from any person or entity that influences or could be perceived to influence the performance of the officer’s duties;
h) not directly or indirectly use or disclose any confidential information obtained by him or her during the course of his or her duties to another person or entity unless the officer is required by law; and
i) not participate in a decision-making process with respect to a matter that the officer is able to influence in the course of his or her duties if the officer, or family, friends or business associates of the officer, could benefit from the decision.
Conflict of interest is defined as set out in the Toronto Public Service By-law.
The keys to preventing conflicts of interest are identification, disclosure and withdrawal from the power of decision-making with respect to a Screening Review or Hearing Review. The need for identification, disclosure and withdrawal from a power of decision-making applies to any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
If a Screening Officer becomes aware of any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest in regard to the review of a Penalty Notice, the Screening Officer shall report to their Supervisor to declare the conflict. If the Screening Officer is not sure if a conflict exists, he or she should seek advice from their immediate supervisor/manager or their Ethics Executive as defined in City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 192, Public Service.
In the case of a scheduled review of a Penalty Notice that has not yet commenced, where a Screening Officer has declared a conflict of interest, their Supervisor will assign another Screening Officer to conduct the review.
In the case of a review of a Penalty Notice that has commenced, the matter will be adjourned immediately upon the realization that a conflict of interest exists. The City will then reschedule the Screening Review with another Screening Officer.
If a Hearing Officer becomes aware of any real or perceived conflict of interest in regard to a review of a Screening Decision, the Hearing Officer shall declare a conflict of interest to the Chair of the Administrative Penalty Tribunal. If the Chair becomes aware of any real or perceived conflict in relation to the performance of their duties as Chair including the review of a Screening Decision, they shall declare a conflict of interest. Upon declaration of the conflict by the Chair, the Chair shall designate another Hearing Officer to carry out the duties of the Chair in relation to the matter in which the conflict arose. If a Hearing Officer or Chair is not sure if a conflict exists, he or she should seek advice from the Integrity Commissioner.
In the case of a scheduled review of a Screening Decision that has not yet commenced, where a Hearing Officer has declared a conflict of interest, the Chair of the Administrative Penalty Tribunal will assign another Hearing Officer to conduct the review.
In the case of a review of a Screening Decision that has commenced, where a Hearing Officer has declared a conflict of interest, the matter will be adjourned immediately upon the realization that a conflict of interest exists. The Tribunal will then reschedule the review of a Screening Decision with another Hearing Officer.
Where a conflict has been declared, the Administrative Penalty Tribunal administrator may immediately assign the matter to another present and available Hearing Officer so that the review of a Screening Decision can occur without delay.
The Toronto Public Service By-law will govern any breaches of the By-law by City employees in the administration of the APS program.
If an individual suspects that a Screening Officer conducted a Screening Review where there was a conflict of interest, he or she may make a complaint in accordance with the Public Complaints Procedures for the Administration of the APS Program.
If an individual suspects that a Hearing Officer conducted a Hearing Review where there was a conflict of interest, he or she may make a complaint in accordance with the Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol for Members of Local Boards, including Adjudicative Boards or the Public Complaints Procedures for the Administration of the APS Program.
Should a Supervisor receive a formal complaint in accordance with the Public Complaints Procedures for the Administration of the APS Program and determine that a Screening Officer made a decision in a review of a Penalty Notice and the Supervisor determines that the Screening Officer had a conflict of interest which was not declared, a Supervisor will set aside the decision and reschedule the Screening Review with another Screening Officer.
Should the Chair of the Administrative Penalty Tribunal receive a formal complaint in accordance with the Code of Conduct Complaint Protocol for Members of Local Boards, including Adjudicative Boards or the Public Complaints Procedures for the Administration of the APS Program, and determine that the Hearing Officer had a conflict of interest which was not declared, the Chair of the Administrative Penalty Tribunal will set aside the decision and reschedule the Hearing Review with another Hearing Officer. Allegations of reprisal will be the subject of investigation.
This policy shall form part of the orientation for all current and new Screening Officers, Hearing Officers and APS administration staff.
All Screening Officers, Hearing Officers, City officials and City employees involved in the administration of the APS program shall comply this policy.