‘It's about avoiding scrutiny’: Niagara residents deterred from filing complaints against Mayor Jim Diodati, Councillor Mike Strange

In April last year, Niagara Falls elected officials refused to consider a request from Councillor Lori Lococo to review the process for residents to file complaints against their municipal representatives, including the possibility of removing the $500 fee that has been widely criticized as shielding councillors from accountability. 

It was admitted by elected officials at the time that the fee was meant to deter residents from filing “frivolous” complaints. 

Following weeks of controversy inside City Hall, sparked first by City officials barring women’s rights advocates from appearing before council, and inflamed by Mayor Jim Diodati calling the police on a group of peaceful demonstrators, the impact of the City’s rules around integrity commissioner complaints has become abundantly clear. 

Two of the women arrested that night in June are blocked from filing complaints against Mayor Diodati due to procedural barriers in Niagara Falls.

Niagara Regional Councillor Haley Bateman was among the three women arrested. She is not a resident of Niagara Falls and under the City’s existing rules she would not be allowed to file a complaint against the mayor if she wanted to, as she is not a resident of the municipality. 

She describes the situation as “absurd”.

“Under his leadership, the City of Niagara Falls has put up barrier after barrier to avoid accountability. This isn’t about saving taxpayers money — it's about avoiding scrutiny. The Council Chamber is intended to be a democratic space for everyone. When elected officials use their power to silence dissent, we all lose.

“His antics are unbecoming of a mayor,” Bateman continued. “And the public should be paying close attention as these events continue to unfold.”

On June 17, Vicki-Lynn Smith (who is the sister of this reporter), was among those sitting quietly in the public gallery at Niagara Falls City Hall, holding a small sign reading “The Women of Ontario Say No.” The message referred to the grassroots advocacy group of the same name and its ongoing efforts to strengthen accountability for municipal officials facing serious criminal charges through support of Bill 9, a proposed amendment to provincial law. The group’s founder, Emily McIntosh was denied a chance to speak before Niagara Falls council numerous times. 

Before the meeting began, Mayor Diodati ordered the signs removed. As reported by The Pointer, three women refused to follow the mayor's orders that day. Smith sat silently, refusing to lower her sign. A stand off ensued and the mayor directed the police to be called. Smith and two other women were arrested and removed from municipal property. 

The move was widely seen as an effort by the mayor to shield Councillor Mike Strange from a subject that could overlap with his ongoing criminal charge of assault (although McIntosh repeated several times to City officials that her delegation was strictly about Bill 9, not Strange). Councillor Strange was charged with assault in early May after police responded to his home and found an injured woman. He is currently subject to a series of court-imposed conditions as his case awaits final adjudication. He has denied the allegations against him which have not been tested in court.

Councillor Mike Strange speaking during a council meeting earlier this month where he requested members of the Falls View Hose Brigade attend and stand up and clap for him. (Jerry Manco)

Smith believes the mayor’s actions violated her right to peaceful protest and breached multiple sections of the Code of Conduct that elected officials swear to uphold.

“It wasn’t disruptive. It wasn’t loud. It was a sign,” she said. “I was arrested because the mayor decided to call the police on peaceful women sitting quietly.”

Smith tried to file a formal complaint through the City’s Code of Conduct process, but she quickly discovered the system was not built to support people like her.

Because she lives in nearby St. Catharines, not Niagara Falls, her complaint was rejected. 

In a July 18 email, City Clerk Bill Matson wrote: “you do need to be a Niagara Falls resident to file a complaint.”

For those who clear that initial hurdle, there’s a second barrier that effectively blocks complaints from coming forward: the fee. Despite recommendations from the Ontario Ombudsman, the City of Niagara Falls charges residents $500 to file a complaint about the behavior or actions of their elected officials. A complainant can be refunded $250 if the complaint is deemed valid. A fee council has openly discussed and was put in place by them to deter complaints.

The Municipal Act requires municipalities to adopt a code of conduct and establish a system for handling complaints about potential breaches. The Act, however, is silent on whether municipalities can charge a fee to receive such complaints.

As for other Niagara municipalities, the Region, Welland, Lincoln, Thorold, Port Colborne and West Lincoln do not charge to file a Code of Conduct complaint. The fee in St. Catharines appears to be strictly related to the City’s administration cost to process and send off a complaint to their Integrity Commissioner, coming in at $40.75. Fort Erie charges $100, while Grimsby charges $200.

The only Niagara municipality that comes close to the $500 fee Niagara Falls charges is Wainfleet, which will charge $500 for a “frequent complainant”, though normally the fee is $100 and the full amount will be refunded if the complaint is judged to be valid. Similarly, Pelham has a graduated fee structure, with it being free to first-time complainants, $100 for a second complaint and $300 if the individual has filed three or more complaints.

Niagara Region Councillor Haley Bateman holds a sign in Niagara Falls council chambers in June. She and two others were arrested after Mayor Jim Diodati called police to remove them.

(Ed Smith/The Pointer files)

The Ontario Ombudsman has repeatedly criticized the $500 fee, warning it will deter public participation and undermine trust. 

“Charging a fee to complain is entirely inconsistent with the primary intent of the system, which is to foster democratic legitimacy and public trust at the local level,” a letter from the Ombudsman’s office stated.

In a previous letter to Hamilton city council in 2022, which had a $100 fee in place at the time, the Ombudsman wrote: 

“This system is premised on a willing public coming forward to assist in ensuring that transparency is maintained at the municipal level… While some municipalities have chosen to implement a complaint fee, my Office has publicly denounced this practice as it penalizes complainants for exercising their statutory rights, and may prevent legitimate complaints from being brought forward due to concerns about financial cost.”

Smith argues that the process isn’t just exclusionary, it’s fundamentally unjust, especially for low-income residents or non-residents affected by municipal decisions.

“If you can be arrested by a city and still be told you don’t have the right to complain, what kind of democracy is that?” Smith asked. “And then to be charged $500 for the privilege of being heard? It’s offensive.”

This reality has been recognized by other municipalities in Ontario. In 2022, Hamilton city council, after receiving criticism from the Ombudsman, immediately cancelled the $100 fee. One of the municipality’s elected officials, who voted to get rid of the charge, said at the time that “it fundamentally prevents those with lower income from being able to access this accountability and transparency mechanism.”

Smith’s concerns deepened when she attended the Niagara Falls City Council meeting on July 8. According to her, she witnessed multiple public breaches of the same decorum policy–which is now being challenged in the courts as unconstitutional by the Canadian Constitution Foundation—that had been used to justify her arrest. 

However, because the disruptive behavior supported an issue the mayor endorsed, she says he allowed it to continue and no police were called.

“I sat there and watched people clap and make noise, all of which is forbidden by the decorum policy, and nothing happened,” Smith said. “The difference couldn’t be more clear. If the mayor supports you you have nothing to worry about, if he doesn’t you just might end up arrested."

The incident Smith is referring to occurred at the request of Councillor Strange. A day before the meeting, Strange messaged a member of the Falls View Hose Brigade, requesting they come out and try to prevent supporters of Women of Ontario Say No from sitting in the council chambers. 

“...I want my supporters to come out and fill the chambers so there is no space for the women’s group to sit,” Strange instructed the Hose Brigade’s members.

The Pointer is aware of at least one “informal complaint” filed with the City against Councilor Strange’s conduct at the July 8 meeting. It remains unclear if an official complaint will be filed, or if the procedural barriers upheld by Niagara council will prove insurmountable. 

The experience of Smith and the others arrested inside Niagara Falls City Hall points to broader concerns about municipal accountability in Ontario. Critics say local oversight systems often shield those in power, leaving citizens with no meaningful path to justice.

Under Ontario’s municipal framework, local councils often control the very process used to investigate themselves.  A council selects and pays the Integrity Commissioner who will eventually investigate them in the event complaints are filed.

While Bill 9 addresses some of these concerns with the creation of a provincial integrity commissioner to review complaints, critics say it needs to go further. 

“While Bill 9 takes a few steps in the right direction to improve broken, unethical, conflict-ridden and ineffective municipal political ethics systems across Ontario, the bill is far from what is needed to have an effective system across the province,” Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch said. “There should be one strict, strong ethics law for all municipal councillors and staff across Ontario, and the provincial integrity commissioner should be empowered and required to investigate and rule publicly on all complaints, and to penalize all violators, with appeals to the courts allowed, similar to the system in place for enforcing the freedom of information and privacy law that applies to all municipalities.”

Smith hopes her story will spark wider interest and louder calls for reform. She says complaint fees need to be eliminated, residency requirements are a “joke” and there must be truly independent oversight of municipal officials.

“The system doesn’t fail by accident. It fails by design.” 

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