We Need Tools to Hold Misbehaving Municipal Councillors Accountable

In Ontario today, there’s no clear path to remove a municipal councillor from office—even when they’ve engaged in serious misconduct. Despite growing concerns around harassment, abuse of power, and unethical behavior by elected officials, municipalities remain largely powerless to act.

Under the current system, councillors who violate codes of conduct can be reprimanded or suspended without pay for up to 90 days. But they cannot be removed from office, no matter how egregious the violation. The most a municipal council can do is ask the offending councillor to resign—and hope they comply.

This legal and ethical gap has real consequences. In Ottawa, the case of former councillor Rick Chiarelli is still fresh in the public’s mind. After multiple allegations of workplace harassment were substantiated by the city’s integrity commissioner, the council imposed every sanction available to them—but could not force him to step down. Chiarelli remained in office until the end of his term, collecting a salary funded by taxpayers, despite having been barred from city hall and committee meetings.

This is not just an Ottawa issue. Similar cases have surfaced across Ontario, and with no real enforcement power, councils often find themselves stuck between protecting their staff and preserving democratic representation.

The Ontario government has taken notice. Bill 5, introduced earlier this year, proposes giving municipalities the power to remove councillors who seriously breach their code of conduct. However, the bill has drawn criticism for setting the bar too high.

Under Bill 5, a councillor could only be removed if two separate integrity commissioners—one municipal, one provincial—recommend their dismissal, and if the rest of the council votes unanimously (excluding the member under review) to do so. Critics argue this threshold is nearly impossible to meet, especially in polarized or divided councils, and could effectively shield bad actors from accountability.

Supporters of stronger measures are calling for a more realistic and effective process. Some advocate for a supermajority vote (rather than unanimity) or the ability for residents to initiate a recall. Others want clearer criteria for what constitutes a “serious violation” to prevent political abuse of the system.

What’s clear is that the current status quo does not serve municipalities, their staff, or the public interest. Ethical standards mean little without enforceable consequences, and repeat misconduct by elected officials undermines public trust and threatens the health of local democracy.

The challenge now is to strike a balance: creating mechanisms that hold councillors accountable while safeguarding against political weaponization. As Bill 5 heads to committee review, Ontarians have an opportunity to speak up about what real accountability should look like.

What Do You Think?

Should municipalities have the power to remove councillors who violate ethical standards?

What kind of safeguards should be in place to ensure fairness? Would you support a voter-led recall system?

Let us know your thoughts. Your voice matters in shaping a more accountable local government.