Chiarelli says he's going to court to stop integrity commissioner's report

The lawyer acting for embattled Coun. Rick Chiarellisays he's launching a judicial review against the City of Ottawa and its integrity commissioner in an effort to halt the release of a much-anticipated report on the councillor's alleged behaviour toward female staffers and job applicants.

Councillors learned of the development in a memo from the city solicitor Tuesday. Integrity commissioner Robert Marleau's report is due to be made public later this week.

The application for the judicial review contends that both the integrity commissioner and city council showed a "reasonable apprehension of bias" toward Chiarelli, that theintegrity commissioner doesn't have the authority to undertake aninvestigation intocomplaints against the councillor, and that Chiarelli was denied "procedural fairness"when council refused to grant him a medical leave of absence or have taxpayers cover his legal bills.

The application includes a request for a "prohibition order" that would stop the integrity commissioner (IC) "from taking any further action in relations to the IC complaints."

Report can still be released: city lawyer

Last fall, aCBCNews investigation corroborated the stories of 13 women who accused the councillor of inappropriate behaviour, and reported the experiences of eight of them.

One job applicantalleged that Chiarelliasked her about going braless to work events, while another said the councillorasked if she had ever considered stripping. A former employee said Chiarelli would pressure her to wear revealing outfits and took her to a strip club to spy on another councillor.

• 'Better without a bra': More women come forward with allegations against Chiarelli
• Councillor asked job applicant about going braless, woman alleges
• Former Chiarelli staffer comes forward with familiar tale

Last October, the College ward councillorthreatenedto go to court, but no action was taken.

According to city solicitor DavidWhite's memo, theapplication for the judicial review of which White said he was informed late Monday in an emailed letter from Chiarelli's lawyer, Bruce Sevigny hasn't been filed in court yet, either.

Despite being put on notice that Chiarelli could be taking imminent court action, White told councilthe release of the integrity commissioner's report can proceed as planned.

"Assuming that the application is commenced in the coming days, the mere commencement of the process does not impede either the Integrity Commissioner's presentation of his Report on the findings of his investigation, nor does it impair Council's receipt and consideration of that Report," White said in his memo.

Marleau's report on whether Chiarelli contravened the councillors' code of conduct is expected to be released on Friday, and considered by council at its July 15 meeting.

While the integrity commissioner will make recommendations on whether and how to sanction Chiarelli, it's council that will make anyfinal decision. The most severe measure council can impose is docking the councillor 90-days' pay.

Asked about Chiarelli's application for a judicial review, Marleau declined to comment Tuesday. However, in his interim reportsMarleau has saidChiarelli has refused to participate in the investigationand dodged official summonses.

Chiarellisays council biased against him

The councillor, who has denied all allegations of improper comments and behaviour, has previously argued that the integrity commissioner does not have the authority to investigate the complaints against him, and that theyshould instead be dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The application for the judicial review also argues that council and the integrity commissioner have acted in a biased way against Chiarelli, and thus cannot be objective in their handling of the six official complaints filed against him.

In particular, the application arguesthat council "wilfully" refused to approve Chiarelli'srequest for a leave of absence. In October, council did make theunprecedented move of denying Chiarelli's request forpaid leave, with somecouncillors feeling they lackedsufficient information on Chiarelli's medical condition to grant him an indefinite leave.

In December, Chiarelli announced he was to have open heart surgery, however he never reapplied for leave.

The 30-year councillor also argued his council colleagues demonstrated a "closed mind" when most of them refused to sit at the same table as him at a meeting last December, and when Mayor Jim Watson told an Ottawa radio station that he'd preferChiarelli resign if the councillor was not going to address the allegations against him.

Chiarelli also arguescouncil is trying to "out-resource" him, giving the integrity commissioner "an unprecedented and unreasonable budget" the bill for this investigation is in the six digits while at the same time refusing to reimburse Chiarelli's legal expenses.

The code of conduct says that a councillor "who is the subject of the investigation may consult with a lawyer and charge this to their office budget. If the complaint is determined to have merit, the Integrity Commissioner may require the Member to reimburse these expenses to the City."

Marleaualso biased, says Chiarelli

The application argues that the integrity commissioner has also demonstratedbiasagainst Chiarelliby failing to properly consider whether the complaints against the councillor were "vexatious and/or politically motivated,"and by refusing "to accept objective medical evidence" related to Chiarelli's health.

As well, Chiarelli and his lawyer charge that Marleauhas focused on evidence that is "potentially favorable" to the complainants, "while purposely ignoring, dismissing, or mischaracterizing evidence that is favorable to the applicant."

It is not clear what evidence theymay be referring to.

The councillor also takes exception with the investigators hired by Marleau the firm headed by former RCMP commissioner Robert Paulson as "unqualified and unlicensed third-party investigators" who are "motivated and/or encouraged to make a finding of 'guilty,'irrespective of the objective evidence."