Integrity Commissioner Investigations

Over the past year, East Gwillimbury’s integrity commissioner has twice found Councillor Brian Johns in breach of the town’s code of conduct. In early 2026, the commissioner concluded that a letter Johns sent on official letterhead about the 31 Sand Rd. development broke rules on respect for staff and tried to influence staff through improper means, and gave a “false impression” that staff had failed to carry out council’s direction. Council upheld the finding and imposed a pay suspension and additional training. This summer, a second report found that Johns went too far in how he advocated for a feasibility study on moving Huron Heights Secondary School to East Gwillimbury, implying town back

This summer, a second report found that Johns went too far in how he advocated for a feasibility study on locating a Secondary School to East Gwillimbury, implying town backing without any council direction, and council reprimanded him on July 23. These matters have also carried a cost to residents. Over the past 18 months, approximately $165,000 in taxpayer money has been paid to the Integrity Commissioner for investigations, and an estimated $100,000 of that is attributable to Councillor Johns alone. For residents choosing the town’s next leader, these findings go to the heart of how elected officials communicate and represent the municipality.

Councillor Brian Johns Integrity Commissioner Investigations:

Investigation #1  Naming and Shaming Town Staff on Social Media

https://www.eastgwillimbury.ca/IC-Complaint-Report-_102625.pdf

Excerpts:

“Here, the omission of relevant facts made staff look as if they had done something wrong. I conclude that the Respondent made a misleading statement which failed to respect staff. It falsely injured the reputation of staff.” 

&

“The Respondent’s letter had the effect of naming and shaming staff on social media. This is a textbook example of what the above Code provisions seek to prevent. The tone and manner of the Respondent’s communication were disrespectful.”

(Source page 18 of the report)

“In summary, the Respondent’s actions interfered with the proper separation of political oversight and administrative execution. By publicly inserting himself in an operational timeline and pressuring staff, the Respondent breached Rule 3.1, 3.2(b), and 9.3 of the Code. The Respondent could have achieved accountability in proper ways. The Respondent chose the wrong approach and ran afoul of the Code.”  (Source page 20 of the report)

“The Respondent’s’ conduct in this matter represents a significant lapse in judgment and a failure to uphold the standards expected of a Town Councillor under the Council Code of Conduct. By publicly criticizing and casting doubt on staff’s integrity, the Respondent not only harmed those individuals but also risked eroding public confidence in the Town’s governance, by stepping outside proper channels and using official trappings for an unsanctioned communication. Such actions cannot be condoned and merit a formal response by Council to affirm the importance of the Code.”  (Source page 23 of the report)

Investigation #2  Councillor Johns, through his employment with Water Ambassadors Canada has a professional relationship and pecuniary interest with the developer Rice Group, who has business regularly before Council. 

https://www.eastgwillimbury.ca/Town-of-East-Gwillimbury-Complaint-220326-Dismissal-Written-Reasons—May-6,-2026-FINAL.pdf

Dismissed on insufficient evidence.

Investigation #3  Councillor Johns improperly implied he was speaking on behalf of the Town and that he made statements that were misleading to the public.

https://eastgwillimbury.civicweb.net/document/211422/

Excerpts:

“There was significant public confusion that followed the Respondent’s delegation and public statement. There was public criticism from elected officials in neighbouring municipalities, media reporting framing the issue as a proposal to relocate Huron Heights Secondary School, and a clarifying letter issued by Huron Heights Secondary School to families confirming there were no plans to move the school.”  (Source page 5 of the report)

“The slides also note Town planning and capital commitments that have not been discussed and not endorsed by Council.  These assertions ran afoul of the requirement for transparent, fact-based communication. As a member, the Respondent knew that Council had not provided any direction to Town planning staff to engage with this issue and that planning staff had not “envisioned” anything.  I received information from Town staff that staff felt it necessary, after receiving inquiries for the public and other jurisdictions, to reach out to representatives of the YRDSB to clarify that the Respondent did not speak on behalf of the Town of East Gwillimbury. In addition, the YRDSB had to issue a letter to parents and the community in Newmarket pointing out that the Board follows the Ministry of Education’s direction and their capital strategy, and apologizing for the confusion created by the Respondent.”  (Source page 10 of the report) 

“For these reasons, I maintain my findings that the Respondent contravened sections 11.1 and 15.4 of the Code. My finding under section 11.1 that the Respondent used the indicia of office to create an objective impression of municipal planning authority and endorsement that did not exist is not affected by the documents relied upon, because the existence of a documentary antecedent for the idea does not confer on an individual Member the authority to present it as the Town’s current planning direction before an external body.”  (Source page 20 of the report)

Councillor Johns accumulated nine contraventions of the Council Code of Conduct from two of these investigations.