Hamilton City Council appeared to be prepared to consider Ward Three Councillor Nrinder Nann’s motion to rescind the council reprimand of LQBTQ activist and former ward two council candidate Cameron Kroetsch, but the possibility was sidelined by legal issues. Council was informed that Kroetsch had filed a judicial review application into the Integrity Commissioner’s report that had led to his censure in the first place for alleged breaches if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
With that in front of them, Councillors started asking legal staff if they could discuss rescinding the censure without impinging on the Judicial review. City legal staff said they could but they would have to be careful not to say anything that would prejudice the judicial review. Councillors Nann and Wilson argued the discussion could go ahead with that caution in mind, but others, Councillors Jackson and Clark were not comfortable trying to thread the needle around the impending Judicial review. Clark said “this thing could drag on for months or years.” In the end council voted 11-3 to defer a decision until after the Judicial review application runs its course.
The official reprimand came after Kroetsch had issued a tweet that the IC had alleged revealed the identity of two individuals—one a member of the Police Board and the other a former city staffer accused of white supremacist ties. But it turned out Kroetsch had only referred to the individuals by their titles. Also it turned out the names and titles had been on a city website all along. Neither fact were made clear in the IC report, and some councillors said they voted without the benefit of the information and probably would have voted differently had they been fully in possession of all the facts.