‘Abuse of taxpayers’: Employment lawyer Howard Levitt calls out Brampton Council members who gave themselves a severance even upon retirement

“It is an abuse of taxpayer dollars.”

That is how well-known Toronto employment lawyer Howard Levitt described the recent decision by Brampton council members, who approved a policy that gives themselves a lavish severance package, even if they choose to retire.

Under the new policy, “a severance allowance shall be payable to the Mayor and to each Member of Council upon retirement, resignation or death of a Member of Council while in office, or upon failure to be re-elected to office for the term immediately following a current term of office.” 

The policy ensures members who lose an election or decide not to run again are compensated by taxpayers who had no say in the recent council decision, which was passed quietly on May 14 under a consent motion, which is only supposed to be for matters that are deemed “non-controversial”. The decision was categorized as “non-controversial” by council members despite their questionable use of taxpayer dollars to give themselves one month’s severance pay for every year served, up to a maximum of a full year’s salary, even when they choose to retire.

The move ensures Brampton’s council members will be treated specially compared to other employees in Ontario, who, under provincial guidelines, do not get the same protection that the city’s municipal elected officials now enjoy. For example, under Ontario’s employment standards, “An employee qualifies for severance pay if their employment is severed and: they have worked for the employer for five or more years.”

The new policy in Brampton, created by the same people who will benefit from it at the expense of taxpayers, ensures members will get a severance even if they only serve for one year, or for one four-year term, before deciding to retire. They would still get one month’s pay for each year.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown has been criticized for abusing taxpayers throughout his career.

(Alexis Wright/The Pointer)

Residents had no ability to challenge what Levitt describes as an abuse of taxpayers, because council members slipped the decision into the “consent motion” on May 14. This meant there was no debate, the motion was not even highlighted in the council meeting agenda, it was not read out for the public to hear it, and it was passed without any mention or specific vote that addressed the lavish new payment package funded by taxpayers who were never given a chance to ask questions about how their money will be used to give Brown and the other council members a golden parachute. 

“People ran for office on the basis that they might ultimately lose that office and would have to resume their careers,” Levitt wrote in an email response to The Pointer last week, after Brampton council members quietly made the controversial decision.

“If they are not prepared to take that chance they should not be running for office.”

Levitt, who advises clients on severance issues and often appears on media offering his expert guidance on how to handle circumstances when employers might be obligated to provide payouts when staff are let go, said the policy just passed by Brampton’s council members, giving themselves a lump sum severance even if they choose to step down, raises many concerns.

He said elected office “provides career opportunities and exposure they would not have had otherwise. It is unfair to the taxpayers to change the rules of the game midstream at taxpayers expense.”

He questioned why taxpayers should pay a retiring council member a lump sum amount, without proper protection of the public purse.

“It is particularly unfair that the severance is to be paid in a lump sum” and “regardless of how quickly they find alternate work.”

He said the policy council members created for themselves is out of line with the way the courts handle severance matters.
“Even courts only provide wrongful dismissal damages up to the point that the employee finds other work. So this policy puts the [councillors] in a better position than if they were fired employees suing for wrongful dismissal.”

Under the new Brampton policy, severances will not be paid if the reason for a retirement is to assume elected office in another government; or if the departure is because of immediate employment with another company or organization. However, a lump sum would still be paid even if the retiring council member took up employment elsewhere shortly after.

The way the decision was made also raises questions.

The motion was introduced at a May 5 meeting of the Governance and Council Operations Committee, without any invitation to the public to weigh in on how their money would be used for the lavish new severance policy, which is unprecedented. 

Employment lawyer Howard Levitt says Brampton’s new severance policy for council members is an abuse of taxpayers.

(Supplied)

The lavish severance package is also out of line with Ontario’s Employment Standards Act in other ways. 

Under the Act: “The maximum amount of severance pay required to be paid under the ESA is 26 weeks”. Brampton council members gave themselves a maximum of 52 weeks, double what others are entitled to. 

The amount of severance pay Ontario workers are entitled to under provincial legislation is also far less than what Brown and his fellow council members just gave themselves. 

For example, if one of them steps down or decides to retire after almost eight years, they would get about eight months pay under their new policy. Under provincial legislation a typical worker in Ontario would only be entitled to about two months pay, a quarter of what Brampton council members just gave themselves.

The Pointer reached out to Brampton’s City Clerk's office and asked why the motion for the new severance policy was placed under the “consent” section of the May 14 council meeting agenda, denying taxpayers the ability to see it on the agenda as its own separate item which might have prompted residents to demand answers.

The Clerk’s office said an email had to be sent to the media/communications department. When a request was later made at City Hall to meet a media relations representative, a City employee said no one was available.  

Eventually, another staffer said the request would be passed on.

It was then confirmed by a public relations employee that the severance motion was approved as a consent item by all members of council present at the May 14 meeting.

There was no mention of the motion or the new severance package for Brown or the other members while they discussed city business during the meeting.    

The Pointer attempted to contact Mayor Brown for comment and asked in an email how he could justify supporting a severance package for himself that would be paid out even if he chooses to step down. 

He did not reply.

Brown has a history of allegedly abusing taxpayers throughout his controversial political career. 

He secretly used City Hall staff for his 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership campaign when he tried to move on from Brampton and refused to take a leave while criss-crossing the country. 

When he was Ontario PC leader, expense reports revealed his alarming use of taxpayer funds while in office, before the party dumped him following allegations of sexual assault, which he denies. He spent almost $300,000 of public money on his MPP office in two months.

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