Does the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 Really Strengthen Municipal Accountability?

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

Introduction

Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act, 2026, Ontario’s long-gestating municipal accountability reform legislation, was finally given third reading in the legislative assembly on May 26, 2026, and passed on a vote of 110 to 1. Royal assent is still required for the bill to become law.

Purported to “strengthen accountability at the municipal level,” Bill 9 proposes to “improve” upon the current ethical framework for local government by:

• establishing a multi-step process and incredibly high threshold whereby a member may be removed from office for egregiously bad behaviour;
• enabling the creation of a uniform province-wide code of conduct for members; and
• importing the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario into the scheme.

Attempts at Reform

Bill 9 is just the latest attempt to revise and update the local governmental accountability regime in Ontario. The last time amendments to the accountability framework were made was in 2017 when Bill 68^[1] made both codes of conduct and Integrity Commissioners mandatory for all municipalities in Ontario. Bill 68 also substantially augmented the role of Integrity Commissioners by assigning them the express statutory authority to provide specific ethical advice to members of councils and local boards, and a role in applying and enforcing the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Heightened public awareness and concern over unacceptable behaviour by municipal politicians led the Province of Ontario to launch consultations with the municipal sector on March 5, 2021.^[2] The consultations took place between April and July 2021, were broadly based, and included submissions from key industry players such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (“AMO”), Association of Municipal Managers Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (“AMCTO”) and Municipal Integrity Commissioners of Ontario (“MICO”).

Legislation was to be introduced at Queen’s Park in November 2021. Briefings were provided to the opposition parties and to the City of Toronto, as well as to AMO and AMCTO, which indicated that the forthcoming bill would have allowed Integrity Commissioners to apply to a judge to have a member removed and disqualified from holding office. However, the proposed legislation was abandoned days before it was to be tabled.

Two private member’s bills, titled the Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, were put forward by Liberal MPP Stephen Blais (a former City of Ottawa councillor) – Bill 10 in 2021 and Bill 5 in 2022. Bill 10 died on the order paper and Bill 5 was defeated on May 31, 2023, by a vote of 34 to 72. New Democrat MPP Jeff Burch introduced Bill 207 on June 5, 2024, which contained some marked differences from the two private member’s bills, but it did not advance to second reading.

In 2024, Premier Doug Ford sought advice from the former Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, J. David Wake, regarding the role of integrity commissioners in Ontario’s 444 municipalities. In a September 2024 report, Commissioner Wake provided his insights into the local accountability system and offered nine proposals for reform.^[3]

Former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Paul Calandra, introduced Bill 241, Municipal Accountability Act, 2024, in the Ontario legislature on December 12, 2024. This bill was the first sponsored by the provincial government. It picked up on some of the features proposed in the earlier private member’s bills but contained marked differences which were carried over into Bill 9 and will be discussed below. Bill 241 did not move past first reading, and it died on the order paper when the provincial election was called.

Bill 9, Municipal Accountability Act, 2026

Bill 9 is virtually identical to Bill 241 and was introduced at Queen’s Park on May 1, 2025, with the following statement:

The proposed legislation, the Municipal Accountability Act, if passed, will strengthen accountability at the municipal level by improving how codes of conduct are applied across Ontario. The legislation allows the province to set consistent codes of conduct for all municipalities. We are proposing to give the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario new tools to support and oversee local integrity commissioners. These changes will help ensure local governments operate with greater transparency, fairness and public trust.^[4]

At second reading on May 28, 2025, Bill 9 was referred to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy for a summer tour of public hearings held in six different municipalities throughout Ontario. The Standing Committee reported at Queen’s Park on October 20, 2025, and Bill 9 was ordered for third reading.

As noted, Bill 9 passed third reading on May 26, 2026.

Analysis of Bill 9

Bill 9 is a brief statute that proposes to amend both the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 as described below:

(a)      Regulation-Making Authority

The Lieutenant Governor in Council will be empowered to make regulations to:

• prescribe codes of conduct for members of council and local boards;
• require Integrity Commissioners to provide education and training to members;
• require members to take education and training provided by the Integrity Commissioner;
• require Integrity Commissioners to hold meetings with members regarding matters and circumstances set out in the regulations.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will also be empowered to make regulations to prescribe:

• the content requirements, standards and process requirements for inquiries, including prescribing,
  • the manner in which complaints shall be provided to the Integrity Commissioner; and
  • the types of complaints in respect of which the Integrity Commissioner may refuse to conduct or continue an inquiry.
• the education and training the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario is required to provide to Integrity Commissioners and the manner and timing in which the education is to be provided;
• the information the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario must provide to municipalities regarding the status of each local Integrity Commissioner’s training and education;
• additional functions to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario.

(b)      Role of Integrity Commissioner of Ontario

The Integrity Commissioner of Ontario is proposed to be provided with a role within the local governmental accountability system and will be required to perform the following functions:

• advise municipalities on the independence of a person considered for appointment as Integrity Commissioner, including when the person has a conflict of interest;
• provide prescribed education and training to Integrity Commissioners;
• provide prescribed information about the status of Integrity Commissioners’ education and training;
• conduct inquiries on recommendations from local Integrity Commissioners that a contravening member meets all statutory criteria for removal from office; and
  • refer the matter back to the local Integrity Commissioner if the member’s conduct does not meet all criteria; or
  • report recommendations to council to remove the member from office when all criteria have been met.

(c)      Removal of Members

The cornerstone of Bill 9 and the central touted “strengthening” of local accountability relates to the potential to remove members from office if their behaviour has crossed a specific and very high threshold. Removal can only occur if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(i)       Integrity Commissioner Recommendation

The local Integrity Commissioner must investigate and recommend that a member’s seat be declared vacant if all of the following criteria are met:

• the member had contravened the code of conduct;
• the contravention is of a serious nature;
• the member’s conduct has resulted in harm to the health, safety or well-being of any person; and
• the statutory penalties are insufficient to address the contravention or to ensure that the contravention is not repeated.

(ii)      Integrity Commissioner of Ontario Recommendation

Upon receiving a recommendation from the local Integrity Commissioner that the seat of a member be declared vacant, the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario must conduct an inquiry (not just a review) and determine that each of the above criteria are met and they may also consider, amongst other things, whether the contravention negatively impacts:

• public confidence in the ability of the member to discharge their duties; and
• public confidence in the ability of municipal council or the local board to fulfil its role, including by meeting its statutory obligations.

(iii)     Council Decision

If both the municipal and provincial Integrity Commissioners determine that a member’s conduct is so egregiously bad (i.e., of such a “serious nature”) that it warrants the member’s removal from council or the local board, they can only recommend removal – the final decision is left in the hands of the council:

• the council must vote within 30 days of receiving the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario’s recommendation (the municipal clerk “shall call a meeting” within the 30-day deadline);
• the member who is the subject of the inquiry cannot vote but is permitted to make submissions and attempt to influence voting on the matter;
• council’s vote to remove the member must be unanimous.

If council votes to remove the member, the member’s seat is declared vacant, and the member is also disqualified from holding local office for a four-year period commencing when the seat is declared vacant. However, if the council does not vote to remove the member from office, the municipality and the local board cannot impose any statutory penalties.

Conclusion

Accountability and ethical conduct are foundational expectations of elected representatives at all levels of government. While Bill 9 has been presented as an effort to strengthen municipal accountability, it is our view that it ultimately falls short of that objective.

To promote ethical consistency and good governance, Bill 9 arguably undermines local autonomy by giving the provincial government the ability to replace functioning local standards with a province-wide, uniform code of conduct applicable to all municipalities, regardless of whether they are upper-, lower- or single-tier, urban or rural, or densely or sparsely populated. This proposal may elevate a number of wholly deficient codes of conduct, but it may also serve to lower the measure in municipalities with robust and carefully drafted codes of conduct.

Importing the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario into the municipal sphere is peculiar and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the particular role of an Integrity Commissioner at the local level. In fact, the concept of a provincial commissioner having a role in the municipal ethical framework was expressly rejected many years ago when the Local Government Disclosure of Interest Act, 1994 was never proclaimed in force and then eventually repealed.^[5]

While Bill 9 allows for the removal from office of members that contravene the ethical standards of their municipalities, its scope is exceedingly narrow and limited to the most egregious ethical misconduct of officials. While a democratically elected representative should not be easily removed from their seat except in extraordinary circumstances, Bill 9 misplaces the authority to do so by leaving it in the hands of other elected officials (which appears to be contrary to recent efforts towards depoliticizing local decision-making).^[6]

Moreover, requiring unanimous council approval for the removal of the worst-of-the-worst misbehaving members creates an onerous threshold for removal that will likely never be met. Previous proposals, which would have allowed the court to make the decision on a member’s removal from office, would have led to a more effective and responsive system. It is baffling that the provincial government would have not simply followed the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act in leaving the decision to remove a member with a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Despite its shortcomings, Bill 9 reflects a clear provincial recognition that misconduct by local elected officials is real and, in some cases, may warrant removal from office. Whether this recognition translates to accountability at the local level will be left to our municipal politicians to decide.

The Municipal Accountability Group at Aird & Berlis LLP delivers timely, strategic advice and impartial oversight that municipal councils, local boards and other public bodies trust. For more information, please reach out to the authors or a member of the group.

[1] Modernizing Ontario’s Municipal Legislation Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 10.