Councillor Harrison has been under scrutiny for not recusing himself from either Council discussions or voting on the municipality’s settlement agreement with the Terminals.

In October, Council voted 7 to 6 to settle with Picton Terminals rather than proceed with a court case over its expanding operations. 

Following the close vote, two formal complaints to the interim Integrity Commissioner alleged that Mr. Harrison, who voted yes, had a conflict; his son, Drew Harrison of Drew Harrison Haulage Ltd., has an established business relationship with Picton Terminals and could benefit from any expansion of its activities. 

According to section 7 of the Municipal Code of Conduct, individuals must not use their position in office to advantage either themselves or an immediate family member. 

Likewise, section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act states that elected members must disclose if they or an immediate family member has a pecuniary interest in a matter before Council. 

The report from the outgoing Integrity Commissioner, Meaghan Barrett of Aird & Berlis LLP, the law firm the County appointed to fill in after the departure of former IC, Robert Swayze, reveals that Councillor Harrison sought the advice of Mr. Swayze on any potential conflict of interest when it came to Picton Terminals. 

Mr. Swayze, whose contract was terminated in October 2024 after 8 years of service to the County, told Mr. Harrison he was not in conflict, and need not recuse himself from either debate or voting.

Because written records show Councillor Harrison sought and followed the advice of Mr. Swayze, Ms. Barrett wrote, Aird & Berlis, did not feel it could retroactively over-rule his decision.

“We take note that the Councillor was proactive in seeking the advice of the former Integrity Commissioner with respect to this matter, which was the correct course of action in accordance with the Code.

“In our view…if a member of Council seeks advice from the Integrity Commissioner regarding his or her obligations…the member is entitled to rely on the written advice that has been provided by the Integrity Commissioner.

“When a member has sought written advice and has received it from the Integrity Commissioner it should not be open to a subsequent Integrity Commissioner to reconsider the same matter, even if the latter Integrity Commissioner might arrive at a different conclusion.”

An application for a separate judgment may be submitted to a judge within six weeks. 

Council received Aird & Berlis’s report at its March 11th meeting, but offered no comments or questions. 

While Council was silent, the report was the subject of a deputation from Paul Allen. 

Mr. Allen argued that the question of Councillor Harrison’s possible conflict of interest should be open to reconsideration.

“In July 2024, I made an informal complaint about Councillor Harrison’s potential conflict of interest to the Clerk’s Office. My complaint alleged that his votes in favour of Picton Terminals’ plans to expand could benefit his family’s business. 

“Councillor Harrison promptly clarified: ‘I have not declared a conflict in the Picton Terminals matter. I took it upon myself to contact our Integrity Commissioner in June 2023 to seek his opinion on this issue. Mr. Swayze concluded, after our discussions, that I do not have a conflict of interest and therefore do not need to declare one’.”

Mr. Allen asked Council, “Are we to be forever bound by Mr. Swayze’s advice?”

The report from Aird & Berlis wraps up the firm’s time as interim IC. 

David Boghosian of Boghosian + Allen LLP, was recently appointed the County’s  Integrity Commissioner for a four-year contract.