The exception to the rule is when the elected person injects their family members and/or personal issues into the controversy. Such is the case with Coun. Darren Hill.

Last January, I was asked if I had read Hill’s Facebook posting wherein he pours his heart out about his personal problems, including his 2016 brain injury and alluding to possible cognitive issues.

I responded that if this person was a good friend to Hill, they should advise him to remove the posting and request a leave of absence from council while he deals with his health issue. Either the advice was not passed on or it was ignored.

It was subsequently reported that Hill was a no-show at committee meetings and that Mayor Charlie Clark had asked former councillor Ann Iwanchuk to do a wellness check on him. She did check on him and advised he was, in her opinion, suffering poor mental health.

At that same time, Hill missed the filing date for the Campaign Disclosure and Spending Limits Bylaw 8491 leaving him, as a successful candidate, to suffer the bylaw penalty which was to immediately resign from office.

Iwanchuk suggested council impose the crippling fines rather than disqualification from office given his health condition. I’m unsure how well this recommendation serves either Hill or council.

Of course, all of this became public information and the controversy exploded.

Articles were written, phone lines on call-in shows lit up and an online poll was conducted, asking whether or not Hill should be disqualified from council in accordance with the bylaw.

Then, social media kicked in and created mind boggling reactions. In one instance, a private email to an established social group was sent out which suggested the recipients should vote in the online poll.

Someone leaked this email to Hill, who sent it to his supportive online trolls and every recipient of the email was then labelled a homophobe, even though nothing in the two-sentence email had anything to do with Hill’s sexuality.

Remember, the recipients of the email did nothing other than receive it, yet some recipients had their employers contacted by the trolls demanding they be fired because of their alleged homophobia. It is a good reminder not to believe everything you read on social media.

During his tenure on council, Hill spent significant time climbing the hierarchical ladder of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) board and he was nearing the pinnacle of his quest for the presidency.

According to reports, the current president of the FCM contacted our mayor and asked that council rescind Hill’s nomination to the board due to concerns regarding Hill’s pattern of inappropriate past behaviour, behaviour which Hill acknowledged.

Although I am not always in agreement with Mayor Clark, I did agree with him asking the FCM to put their concerns in writing (rather than just a quick phone call to Clark) so he could share the FCM’s concerns with council, who would ultimately be making the decision about rescinding the nomination. That action precipitated Hill accusing Clark of leading the charge against him and allegations of shunning by council. By Hill’s own account, some of his behaviour relates to his mental health issues.

So, what is next?

If Hill had been diagnosed with any other medical condition, he would be placed on disability leave while he sought medical treatment and I expect the same remedy should apply now. If he had cancer or a stroke and needed care, he would be granted such leeway.

However, he should not be left in a position to vote on decisions that could negatively impact on the city for years to come, or in the event of 6-5 vote, decisions that could be challenged in court based on his mental unfitness.

Harsh as it is, politicians, like other professionals, cannot be allowed to practice their trade if they are medically impaired from doing their best work.

Although the penalties for failing to file the Bylaw 8491 disclosure documentation are extremely harsh, we must remember Hill was on council and voted on the bylaw when those penalties were put in place. And if past performance is indicative of future performance, Hill would have been first in line to attack another errant councillor.

If his collective reasons for not filing during the first four months of his term were a brain injury stemming from a 2016 accident, death of a stepson in 2018, breakdown of his marriage and a bout with COVID, it only makes one question some of his decisions over the last few years.

As for council passing the buck to the court on the decision whether Hill should be ousted from office based on Bylaw 8491, it should never have been left to a council to make that decision.

It would be too easy for council to rid themselves of an unpopular colleague. (Remember how quickly they all turned on Pat Lorje a while back for sharing “confidential” information that was already public?) Besides, I can’t find an alternative measure in the bylaw to ousting a duly elected and sworn in councillor should they refuse to resign from office.

What I will be most curious to hear from the court is whether a city bylaw trumps provincial legislation. For publicly elected offices, legislation exists outlining reasons and/or misconduct that can lead to removal of an elected person and a duly established process for doing so. It is voters that put candidates into offices, and barring legislated abuses of that elected position, it is voters that remove them from office.

Methinks come the next civic election voters may relegate him to Boot Hill.

-Elaine Hnatyshyn