The land entanglements of Niagara Falls Councillor Victor Pietrangelo  

On May 9, 2017 local elected officials met behind closed doors at Niagara Falls City Hall. 

According to the limited information provided to the public, councillors were considering, “a proposed or pending acquisition of land...related to properties at the intersection of Montrose Rd and Biggar Rd” as well as “city owned lands known as the Montrose Business Park”.

To most observers it was a simple land purchase. To keen local City Hall watchers it was the culmination of years of secretive work that led to the selection and securing of a site for a future hospital the City was doggedly pursuing. According to the original minutes of that meeting, “all members of council” were present and none of them declared a conflict of interest (after questions were asked by The Pointer in October, those minutes were changed; the discrepancy is discussed later in this article).

“We had a very lively debate downstairs (in camera), and all of the council weighed in on it,” Councillor Vince Kerrio remarked publicly. 

The “it” Councillor Kerrio referred to was whether or not the City should purchase an additional 20 acres of land required to build a hospital. It was land the municipality claimed it had only recently learned the Province was demanding as part of its requirements before it would provide funding for the South Niagara Hospital project. According to the City, municipal officials originally understood that only 30 acres were required, and had arranged a donation of land in exchange for other considerations. It was only later that City Hall was informed the provincial government required 50 acres for the hospital. With no further donations of land possible, the City either had to purchase the additional 20 acres or risk losing the funding for the hospital altogether.

That night council voted to purchase the land at a cost of $11 million, or $550,000 per acre. It was a high price to pay, but as the CAO at the time, Ken Todd, said that night: “It’s the price we’re going to have to pay to ensure this hospital gets built on the site that it’s proposed for.” 

In an unusual move the valuation of the land came from an assessment provided by an appraiser under contract with the sellers of the land and was based on “highest and best use” for the zoning that dictated what the land could be used for at the time. The City was not involved in determining the value of the land, which would usually be the case, especially in such a costly use of the taxpayers’ money, and was in effect relying on the numbers demanded by the seller to determine what the public would pay that seller for the land.

At that same meeting council discussed and voted to transfer $382,574 from the OLG fund—a reserve supported by a share of casino revenues given to the municipality as part of a local agreement—to the “Future Hospital Reserve Fund”. The motion was moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo. 

A review of real estate records and the provincial land registry reveal that the next day, May 10, 2017, Pietrangelo and multiple members of his family including his siblings and parents, took ownership of 13.4 acres of land on the corner of Montrose Road and Lyons Creek Road. The property is directly diagonally opposite, 50 metres away from the South Niagara Hospital Site, the property he had just discussed and voted on the night before as part of the decision to purchase an additional 20 acres. 

The family owned plot kitty-corner from the hospital lands was zoned rural, had no services (water or hydro) and the purchase price was $450,000, or $33,600 per acre—6 percent of the per acre cost taxpayers, thanks to Niagara Falls council members, would have to pay for property 50 metres away.

Councillor Victor Pietrangelo and members of his family own several parcels of land around the site of the new South Niagara Hospital.

(City of Niagara Falls)

Through review of property record documents and interviews, The Pointer has learned members of the Pietrangelo family had made attempts to purchase the property diagonally across from where the hospital was to be built from its past owners several times over a three-to-four-year-period while the City was actively trying to move forward with the hospital plan. Eventually, the Pietrangelo family purchased the property in May of 2017.

Given that the new hospital's construction would significantly boost the value of Pietrangelo’s acquired land, his failure to declare a conflict of interest during discussions that would trigger the use of taxpayer money that would drastically increase the price of land immediately surrounding the hospital site raises serious concerns about his efforts to purchase property so close by.

On multiple occasions when the hospital project has been dealt with Councillor Pietranglo has declared a conflict, sometimes referring to his family owning land in the area and sometimes not explaining why he declared a conflict. During some council discussions and votes regarding the project he has not declared a conflict.

Council discussions and subsequent decisions were crucial steps in securing the future hospital, a project that would cause a significant increase in the value of the Pietrangelo land holdings.

The above example was not the only time Councillor Pietranglo voted, discussed or participated in a matter where he appeared to have a conflict of interest.   

An investigation by The Pointer into Councillor Pietranglo’s land holdings and voting record has raised numerous questions about his duty as an elected official as outlined in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The Pointer’s findings call into question not only his behaviour inside the council chamber, but the validity of laws like the MCIA that rely almost entirely on self-enforcement and citizen oversight for issues vital to the functioning of a healthy local democracy. 

The investigation involved reviewing council minutes and agendas spanning a seven-year period, analyzing videos of those meetings, examining similar cases in legal databases, searching real estate databases and conducting land title searches at Service Ontario. The Pointer investigation found Councillor Pietrangelo had inconsistently declared a conflict of interest on matters that relate directly to land he or his family members own.

Asked for his comments, Councillor Pietranglo told The Pointer all of his decision making around when to declare a conflict is done in close consultation with his legal counsel or the City’s Integrity Commissioner. 

“It’s quite evident that neither yourself, nor the group that you’re asking these questions on behalf of, have chosen to seek any legal opinion,” the Councillor said in an emailed response. “This is unfortunate as I would have envisioned that anyone with character would want to ensure that they were correct in their assumptions prior to deciding to publicly criticize another.”

Councillor Pietrangelo is the longest-serving member of Niagara Falls City Council. He has been in office since 1994 and is now in his 31st year of service. On the website for his 2022 election campaign, he described himself as, “Experienced, Sensible, Accountable”.

As a long time member of council he would have participated in numerous training sessions regarding his obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. While any elected official can seek advice from the City's Integrity Commissioner, the final decision to declare a conflict always rests with the council member.

The MCIA outlines the responsibilities of elected council members, emphasizing their duty to perform "with integrity and impartiality, in a manner that will bear the closest scrutiny." To meet this high standard, the MCIA dictates the actions elected officials must take when they are involved in a meeting where a matter related to their personal financial (pecuniary) interest could be impacted. 

According to Section 5(1) of the MCIA, if an elected official has a pecuniary interest in an issue being considered by the council they must declare it, refrain from participating in any discussion, voting or “influencing the decision-making process related to the matter”; and they must leave the room during any closed session meetings (they are allowed to stay during open session, but must not participate). The Act is clear, the council member must “not attempt to influence the outcome in any way and at any time.”

While there are exceptions to these rules, they are clearly defined.

The Ontario courts have expanded the definition of a conflict of interest through numerous cases. A frequently cited principle from the courts asserts that: “conflict-of-interest rules are founded on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no person can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-meaning individuals may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected.”   

At the May 2017 meeting Councillor Mike Strange rose to comment on the effects of the newly announced hospital site. He made a point of identifying himself as a real estate agent in the preamble to his comments and then went on to say in part, “...we’re getting an unbelievable hospital on this land. We’re going to see that ripple effect…with that hospital being built there the ripple effect of not only residential but commercial along that highway corridor as Niagara Falls is growing and growing…you’re going to see that side of Niagara Falls just grow dramatically.”  

Strange was stating the obvious. The construction of this hospital was going to be an engine of growth for the entire area, messaging that was often repeated by many on council.

While Councillor Pietrangelo, along with members of his family, now own the 13.4 acres diagonally across from the hospital site, it is not the only parcel of land owned by him or his family in the vicinity of the new hospital. 

The Pointer has documentation showing at least seven parcels of land owned by various members of the Pietrangelo family. The plots total more than 75 acres, all of which are within 750 metres of the new hospital. A search of real estate databases show that the family has been accumulating land in the area since at least the early 1990s, well before any talk of a hospital being built. That does not negate that under the MCIA if Pietranglo has a pecuniary (financial) interest he should have consistently been declaring a conflict then excusing himself from any discussions on the matter.  

The MCIA states “the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member (councillor) shall be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member (councillor).” Plainly stated, a councillor has a financial interest even if they are not the listed owner of a property. If it belongs to parents, children or the spouse of the councillor, according to the law, the councillor is bound by the rules of the MCIA and must declare a conflict.  

Site #1 is owned by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo and several members of his family and Site #2 is owned by his parents—both could place him in a conflict of interest under Ontario law. The remaining sites (3-6) are owned by more distant family members.

(Ed Smith/The Pointer)

Penalties for violating the MCIA can be severe, depending on the circumstances. A judge has wide authority to take action, from a simple reprimand, to suspending the councillor's pay for up to 90 days; to even removing them from office and disqualifying them from seeking reelection for seven years. A judge can also order the councillor to pay restitution if the contravention resulted in financial gain. These more severe penalties, while extremely rare, are not unheard of in Ontario.  

In 1985, Justice Henry Holland of the Ontario High Court of Justice heard an appeal in a case titled Greene and Borins.  

The case involved former North York councillor Andrew Borins, who in 1983 had participated in debates and voted on four development proposals near properties owned by his father and other family members. Judge Henry Holland found Borins in violation of the MCIA, resulting in the councillor's seat being vacated. In his decision, the judge highlighted that, as a council member, Borins was undoubtedly aware of the feasibility and planning studies conducted by municipal staff. He further emphasized that the proposed developments were so close to Borins's family land that it was obvious they would have a financial impact, stating, "It would offend against all reason to conclude otherwise."

The judge also ruled the conflict went far beyond what in legal circles is called an “interest in common”. This refers to one of the exceptions to the MCIA that allows for elected officials to participate in discussions even if they have a pecuniary interest because it is effectively the same interest of residents generally. An example of this would be a consideration by council whether or not to reduce taxes for residents. As a taxpayer, a councillor would have an obvious pecuniary interest in such a discussion, but because their interest is more or less “in common” with all property owners they are not considered to have a conflict. The judge in the Borins case made it clear that “interest in common” did not apply to privately owned lands. 

A review of discussions and votes at Niagara Falls council reveals an inconsistent decision-making pattern by Councillor Pietrangelo. 

Along with the apparent violation in May 2017 mentioned above, there are many other examples where Pietrangelo did not declare a conflict on issues regarding the new hospital.

On September 26, 2017, council was considering the approval of the Transfer Agreement between Niagara Health System and the City. It was among the final decisions needed to ensure the hospital would get built right across the street from Pietrangelo’s recently acquired  property. He did not declare a conflict and voted in favour of the consent agenda item.

On December 13, 2022, council was receiving a presentation from the senior leadership of Niagara Health System (NHS) who were seeking funding for the hospital project—over and above the $22 million council had already committed. Councillor Pietrangelo did not declare a conflict. He participated in the discussion stating, “it’s great that you (NHS) would come and make a presentation, I know that staff has been in discussion with you, and it’s great to be your partner on such a project.”  He then asked some questions of staff and the NHS delegates before voting in favour of accepting their presentation.

On July 11, 2023, council was considering the final approval of $30 million to the NHS for the hospital. During this meeting, Councillor Pietrangelo did not declare a conflict, and he requested to act as the Chair of this portion of the meeting as he is the Chair of the City’s budget committee. He subsequently oversaw a divided debate on the amount of funding and the challenges to get other Niagara municipalities to pay a portion for the new hospital and in the end he called a vote to approve a $30 million commitment from the City of Niagara Falls.  

On January 23, 2024 council was considering the implementation of a special hospital tax levy of 1.5 percent to help fund the new hospital. Councillor Pietrangelo did not declare a conflict and engaged in the discussion. He made note of the fact that he had spoken with staff behind the scenes about the levy, and moved the motion to approve the levy, which carried. According to the MCIA a councillor with a pecuniary interest in a matter is not permitted to “use his or her office in any way to attempt to influence any decision or recommendation”.

These decisions appear noncompliant with the MCIA and are particularly concerning given that Councillor Pietranglo seems fully aware of his conflict of interest regarding the hospital project and his nearby land. Between 2017 and 2024 there are numerous instances where he appropriately declared a conflict of interest and recused himself.

On August 18, 2018, council considered a zoning bylaw amendment to rezone the hospital lands from agricultural to “Institutional” zoning, with a special height allowance—zoning necessary for the hospital's construction. Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion, stating, "my family owns property in the area." He did not mention that he also co-owns land in the area with his family.

On February 16, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment was considering an application for a minor variance required for the hospital in order to allow the height to be increased.  Councillor Pietrangelo, who chairs the committee, declared a conflict of interest. He gave no recorded reason for his conflict.

On November 22, 2022, council was considering two issues regarding road widening to allow for the hospital and for future development that would be happening around the hospital. Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion stating, “my family owns lands that are affected.” He did not mention that he also co-owns land in the area.

On March 21, 2023, council was considering an amendment to the budget to spend an additional $1.5 million for road and sewer works around the hospital. Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion stating, “my family owns lands that can be affected.” He did not mention that he also co-owns land in the area.

On May 30, 2023, council was reviewing the Grassy Brook Secondary Plan and whether or not to proceed to the next phase of the study. The plan would permit 4,500 residential units and commercial development around the hospital. Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the discussion stating, “My parents own property within the notification zone.”  

Numerous times, Councillor Pietrangelo declared a conflict of interest on issues related to the hospital’s construction, including additional floors for the hospital, road widening, sanitary sewer improvements, and potential residential and commercial developments near the new hospital, and his lands. He demonstrates an awareness that his ownership of the property kitty corner to the hospital, and his family's ownership of other lands very near, create an issue of conflict; but he has been inconsistent, influencing decision making and taking votes on some of the most critical matters to push the hospital project forward.  

Asked by The Pointer why he consistently refers to his family owning land but does not declare the fact that he owns land in the area, he responded: “I can add myself, so that future declarations are clearer. Quite honestly, you’re the first person to ever raise this.”

Ongoing construction at the site of the future South Niagara Hospital.

(Niagara Health)

Compounding the concerns around Pietrangelo’s voting record, is the situation regarding in-camera meetings (held behind closed doors away from public view) on hospital-related issues. Under the MCIA a councillor with a conflict of interest on an in-camera item must declare it prior to any discussion, abstain from attending the in-camera meeting, and ensure the conflict is recorded in the minutes of the subsequent open session meeting. However, in at least two documented instances, Councillor Pietrangelo failed to follow these procedures.

In the original minutes of the May 9, 2017, meeting, there is no record of Pietrangelo declaring a conflict of interest prior to the in-camera discussion. The original minutes— which were formally ratified as the official record—state: 

"Council met on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in a Closed Meeting related to the items noted in the resolution below. All members of Council were present." 

If Pietrangelo had a conflict, his presence during the in-camera discussion would constitute a violation of the MCIA.

A review of the video recording of the meeting after council ended the closed session, reveals Pietrangelo verbally declared a conflict of interest immediately prior to the vote in the open session. This declaration—made after the in-camera discussion—fails to align with the procedural requirements of the MCIA and leaves unresolved whether he was present during the in-camera session, for which no video evidence exists. When asked about this meeting Pietrangelo did not address it directly but referred to the city clerk to clarify the discrepancies.  

A similar issue arose on May 28, 2024, during an in-camera discussion regarding the widening of Biggar Road and associated expropriations near Pietrangelo’s property. Once again, Pietrangelo failed to immediately declare a conflict of interest, only doing so moments before the vote in open session after council had already met behind closed doors. As with the 2017 meeting, the original minutes do not record Pietrangelo declaring a conflict or leaving the in-camera session. Instead, under the section titled, “Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest” it is noted that there are, “None to report”.

After inquiries from The Pointer regarding these apparent problems, City Clerk Bill Matson amended the minutes of both meetings to reflect Pietrangelo’s compliance with the MCIA—for one meeting that took place 9 months ago and the other, which occurred more than seven years ago. Matson’s actions, amending the public record after The Pointer brought forward concerns, raise serious questions about procedural integrity. The minutes, previously ratified by council as the legal record, have now been unilaterally altered by Matson. When questioned about his authority to do so, Matson offered no clear explanation but commented:

• Regarding the 2017 meeting:
  "The minutes of that meeting (2017) missed the fact that the conflict was declared, but I have updated those minutes and noted the error after watching the video."

• Regarding the 2024 meeting:
  "The attached minutes of that meeting were updated to reflect what is clearly shown in the video."

Matson concluded: "Yes, errors were made in the minutes in both cases, but I thank you for pointing out that in the video the conflicts were clearly given."

The video evidence does not support Matson’s amendments. Pietrangelo declared a conflict only after the discussion had occurred—contrary to MCIA requirements—and the recently amended minutes do not clarify his presence during the in-camera sessions when the matters involving his conflict were discussed. No video exists of in-camera meetings to verify this compliance.

Matson stated that the in-camera minutes from the 2017 meeting indicated Pietrangelo had declared his conflict of interest during the session and subsequently left the room. When asked to allow The Pointer to review the attendance section of the minutes, Matson declined, explaining, “In-camera minutes are not accessible to the public.”

Regardless of Matson’s actions, the responsibility lies with a councillor to properly declare all conflicts of interest. In accordance with the MCIA, they are obligated to ensure that their conflicts are declared and accurately recorded. If they discover discrepancies they must publicly identify them at the next meeting and have the records amended only with council approval. Pietrangelo voted to ratify both copies of the original minutes—minutes that, on their face, suggested he was present for the in-camera portions of the meeting without declaring any conflict.

"My decision when to declare a conflict and when not to declare a conflict is made in prior consultation with my legal counsel and/or the Integrity Commissioner and their review of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, including the exceptions listed in the Act," Pietrangelo said.  

He did not respond to follow-up questions seeking further clarification. 

Councillor Pietrangelo is connected to various property interests around the new hospital site, where he and his family own large parcels of land. His pecuniary interest in the hospital’s development—and the substantial influx of investment it will bring to the area—is clear. He sometimes declares a conflict of interest and sometimes does not, an inconsistent pattern that can undermine public confidence in the system.

Conflict of interest rules exist at every level to prevent officials from making decisions in situations that could reasonably be seen as compromising their judgment, which is supposed to serve the public good. 

At the municipal level residents who believe an elected official has breached conflict of interest rules have two potential avenues for redress: filing a complaint with an Integrity Commissioner or seeking recourse through the Ontario courts.  

The onus for accountability lies squarely with the public. At the federal and provincial levels, elected officials are required to undergo public disclosure processes that provide details about their sources of income, real estate holdings, and investments. Ethics and accountability officials can investigate potential conflict breaches on their own and have powers to hold elected officials accountable, with information to assist them maintained in online databases, making it easily accessible. The same is not true for municipal politicians. While they are expected to reflect high ethical standards, their accountability is largely trust-based, as they are not obligated to disclose their assets or other financial interests, and there are no regular reporting requirements to accountability officials who could then keep a close eye on their conduct to protect against conflicts. 

Councillor Victor Pietrangelo himself is involved in the ownership of property in the city (not including his primary residence) while his family members also are listed as owners of properties, making it difficult for the public to discern his interests. The lack of transparency hinders the oversight responsibility that falls on residents at the municipal level, making the effectiveness of the MCIA difficult.

Theoretically, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is supposed to play a vital role in disentangling locally elected officials from personal interests and ensuring they serve the public interest. In reality, its heavy reliance on officials' good faith and the doggedness of residents significantly limits its effectiveness. 

The current system shifts the burden to residents but provides no mechanism for them to access the information required to identify potential conflicts. 

The inconsistent behaviour by Councillor Pietrangelo raises more concern about the current system of accountability for elected municipal officials.  

Editor’s note: The course of this investigation has brought to light other areas of concern with Niagara Falls council and conflict of interest. More to come. 

Email: [email protected] 

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you