PEI ombud calls for Victoria to retract councillor disqualification and apologize

Prince Edward Island’s ombudsperson has called on the Rural Municipality of Victoria to withdraw a purported councillor disqualification, correct its records and public statements, and apologize after finding repeated unfairness in its handling of municipal complaints.

Ombudsperson Matthew Chapman’s October 2026 report, released October 23, concerns a former councillor identified only as EG. It found that council bypassed required complaint procedures, imposed an indefinite suspension, failed to give immediate effect to its reversal and later purported to disqualify EG after their resignation.

The report also rejected the mayor’s statement that the disqualification prevented EG from serving on council or committees in the future. The legislation authorized no such continuing prohibition.

The findings concern how complaints were handled, not whether EG’s conduct was appropriate or the allegations were substantiated. They are the ombudsperson’s opinions under section 27 of the Ombudsperson Act, not court declarations or findings of civil liability, bad faith or personal misconduct.

Suspension without the required investigation

The initial complaint concerned comments EG made at a September 2, 2025, public meeting about municipal finances. EG raised provincial funding, administrative efficiency, grants and procurement oversight. The chief administrative officer alleged that the comments publicly discredited staff, amounted to bullying and intimidation, and breached standards governing council-staff relations.

The mayor relayed the CAO’s request for a public apology and gave EG one day to apologize, describing an apology as a constructive resolution. EG regarded the request as an ultimatum before they had been heard and disputed that the comments constituted harassment.

On September 8, council found EG in breach of its code of conduct and suspended their council and committee functions until an apology was received and read at a regular meeting. It also suspended compensation and required renewed code-of-conduct training before reinstatement.

Chapman found that the province’s regulations and the municipal bylaw required an independent investigation, an opportunity to be heard, a written investigation report and council’s review of that report before this decision. Council had appointed no investigator, received no report and failed to disclose all relevant material cited in the complaint.

The apology-dependent suspension also lacked an end date. The applicable rules limited a suspension to six months or the end of the councillor’s term, whichever came first.

The mayor and CAO acknowledged procedural failures during OmbudsPEI’s initial assessment. The office proposed removing the sanctions, retroactive compensation and a public explanation. Council passed the proposed resolution on October 6, 2025.

That did not resolve the matter. The mayor prevented EG from immediately returning to their seat, saying the change would take effect only after the CAO advised EG. Chapman found no authority for the mayor to delay council’s resolution or for the CAO, the original complainant, to control when restored status took effect. The report’s account of the resolution does not establish that compensation was paid.

Workplace safeguards were not temporary

Council took a separate step on November 24, removing EG as chair of two committees and requiring an escort by a non-conflicted councillor to enter municipal offices. The mayor and CAO explained that the measures relied on workplace-harassment regulations and addressed the CAO’s original allegations.

The ombudsperson accepted that an employer can sometimes use proportionate, neutral and temporary safeguards while investigating harassment. These measures did not meet that description: they applied only to EG, impaired elected and committee functions, had no end date and were publicly presented as though harassment had been established. No independent investigation followed.

Given the overlapping allegations, history of conflict and earlier procedural failures, Chapman concluded that an investigator independent of the municipality and the parties was necessary in these circumstances. The report does not prohibit genuinely interim workplace protections.

Resignation left no office to disqualify EG from

EG resigned at the outset of the December 8, 2025, council meeting, before council considered a conflict-of-interest complaint from the mayor. Council nevertheless voted on the complaint and purported to disqualify EG.

Chapman found that the statutory consequence of such a disqualification was loss of a sitting councillor’s position for the remainder of the term. EG no longer held that position. Nor did the legislation allow council to turn its decision into a prohibition on future municipal office or committee service.

The report warned that the mayor’s subsequent public statement about future ineligibility could improperly affect the electoral process if left uncorrected. It did not endorse or oppose any candidate.

A further finding concerned two complaints EG made against the mayor. The CAO advised council not to consider them because the mayor’s procedural rulings had not been appealed during the meetings. Chapman distinguished an immediate appeal of a ruling from a complaint about standards of conduct: failing to use the first process did not eliminate the second. Council unreasonably accepted the advice, which the CAO gave while their own complaints against EG remained outstanding.

Corrections and apologies recommended

The report, Public Report No. 4, makes four recommendations. Council should rescind any decision or administrative notation purporting to disqualify EG and record that it had no effect. The municipality should publicly correct the claim that the December vote barred future office or committee service. The mayor and council should give EG a written apology addressing the findings and apologize publicly to residents for the unfair processes and failure to follow legal requirements.

These are recommendations, not enforceable orders. The ombudsperson cannot compel the municipality to implement them.

The Department of Housing and Communities was involved in the inquiry but was not itself investigated. It said it had urged legal advice and voluntary conflict resolution. It also arranged coaching, although that began only after EG and other councillors had resigned.

The Department told OmbudsPEI it had never facilitated an official municipal examination under the Municipal Government Act and lacked a policy to guide that decision. It committed to developing one and proposing regulatory changes allowing procedural review of municipal code-of-conduct sanctions. Those were commitments, not enacted reforms reported in the investigation.

The Department had separately informed Victoria’s municipal electoral officer that the purported disqualification created no future prohibition. That communication is distinct from the public correction and apologies recommended to the municipality; the report does not establish that those recommendations have been implemented.