Human Rights and the Elimination of Internet Voting by Oro-Medonte Council

“In Ontario, it is clear that a failure in the procedural Duty to Accommodate can lead to a breach of the Code.”

“A failure to give any consideration to the issue of Accommodation, including what, if any, steps could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the procedural Duty to Accommodate.”

“In Ontario, it is clear that a failure in the procedural Duty to Accommodate can lead to a breach of the Code.”

Supreme Court of Canada

The Ontario Human Rights Code takes precedence or prevails over all other Legislation in Ontario, including the Municipal Elections Act, unless a Law specifically states otherwise, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

---

Members of Council

I have reviewed the tape of the November 24, 2021 Council meeting and have serious concerns in how and why Council arrived at its decision to eliminate Internet and Telephone Voting in the 2022 Municipal Election. In this report, I have provided information regarding Human Rights and the Law, as it pertains to the Duty to Accommodate those Persons with a Disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code, in this case, in the 2022 municipal election.

The evidence strongly suggests that several Members of Council may not have been aware of the Law as it pertains the Ontario Human Rights Code and Human Rights, and how the law being applied in this instance would provide the necessary accommodations required by disabled members of the Oro-Medonte community to enable them to vote in the 2022 Municipal election, if possible at all, in some cases.

THE ISSUES

Did some Members of Council by voting for In-Person Paper Ballot and Mail-in Paper Ballot on Request, as the only two voting options in the 2022 Municipal Election, thereby eliminating Internet and Telephone voting, Forms of Accommodations for those with a Disability, Discriminate on the Grounds of Disability in Services?

Was Age a Factor in the decision by one or more Members of Council to vote for In-Person Paper Ballot and Mail-in Paper Ballot on Request, as the only two voting options in the 2022 Municipal Election, thereby eliminating Internet and Telephone voting, Forms of Accommodations for those with a Disability, Discriminate on the Grounds of Age in Services?

Does the Threat of a Breach of Internet Election Voting Security Systems in the 2022 Municipal Election, the Justification stated by several Members of Council for the elimination of Internet and Telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election, Outweigh the Lawful Duty to Accommodate those persons with a Disability pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Is the Threat of a Breach of the Internet Election Voting Security Systems in the 2022 Municipal Election a Real and Legitimate Threat, as stated by Councillors Keane, De Sousa, Scott and Mayor Hughes?

The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits Discrimination on the Grounds of Disability and Age in Services. Services are broadly defined, but include Government Services for the purposes of the Code.

The Ontario Human Rights Code takes precedence or prevails over all other Legislation in Ontario, including the Municipal Elections Act, unless a Law specifically states otherwise, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

BACKGROUND

On November 24, 2021 Town Clerk Yvonne Aubichon of the Township of Oro-Medonte, provided a revised report to Members of Council in which she presented four (4) options to be considered by Council in their decision of how the electorate would vote in the 2022 municipal election. A decision was to be made at the next Council meeting on December 8, 2021.

Clerk Aubichon provided provided an initial brief summary of her recommendation to Council during the Council meeting as follows;

“The recommendation that I have provided is In-person Electronic and Remote Internet/Telephone with Paper Ballot on Request..I am recommending this because it is the most accessible, it requires less resources to run, this form of election requires less tabulators, as there is a shortage of tabulators in the system at this point in time, it is most cost effective while still providing voters the atmosphere of who still want the voting day experience...” (emphasis added)

The Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA) provides “Clerks with significant authority...to create and implement any policies and procedures that are necessary to conduct an election in a manner that reflects the principles of the Municipal Elections Act, and its Regulations... these principles are founded in case law... These principles are recognized as follow, in part; “... Provide an election that is accessible to the electors...” (emphasis added)

Section 42(1) of the MEA states, in part; “... Council has the very distinct responsibility of authorizing the voting method or vote counting equipment...”

And further, the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws,

(b) authorizing electors to use an alternative voting method, such as voting by mail or telephone, that does not require electors to attend at a voting place in order to vote.

In her report Clerk Aubichon wrote; “Without knowing the success of the Province and SMDHU in decreasing case numbers, it is safe to anticipate many of the current COVID-19 safety protocols could continue to remain for an extended period of time. Given the concern and uncertainty associated with the pandemic, and considering protocols could still be required, public health measures should play an integral role in determining the voting method for the 2022 election.”

In her November 24, 2021 report, Clerk Aubichon provided four (4) options for Members of Council to consider in its decision of how the electorate was going to vote in the 2022 municipal election.

All four of the following voting methods addressed in this report uphold the Principles of the Municipal Elections Act that are outlined in the background section above, however, some of the options may provide greater accessibility, supporting broader voter access and enfranchisement more than others. (MEA) (emphasis added)

Option #1

“Internet/Telephone voting has increased in popularity due to the convenience in form of voting that it provides to electors. It accommodates changing lifestyles and demanding work schedules, and enhances accessibility for persons who may not be available or able to vote due to mobility issues or transportation limitations... This last point may be of greater significance depending upon the situation relating to COVID at election time... This option is the most convenient and economical of the four options. Since the onset of COVID-19, seniors and others in the Township may prefer to vote from a remote location due to vulnerability, mobility issues, etc., if provided that opportunity. (emphasis added)

“Municipalities that utilized Internet/Telephone voting, in conjunction with another method of voting on final Voting Day noticed a steady increase in those who have decided to vote online.” (emphasis added)

This method of voting is defined as In Person Electronic and Remote Internet/Telephone Voting with Paper Ballot Tabulator on Request.

Option #2

“This option, defined as the Hybrid Method, allows for Internet/Telephone voting and Paper Ballots with Tabulators. If a voter chooses not to vote online, they would be provided with a pre-printed paper ballot then proceed behind a screen to vote at a voting location...In addition, accessible polling locations are at a minimum in the Township and accessibility is one of the guiding principles of the Act...” (emphasis added)

This method of voting is defined as Internet/Telephone voting and Paper Ballots with Tabulators.

Option #3

‘This option entails voters receiving a Voting Kit which contains a Voter Declaration Form Ballot, Secrecy Envelope and Return Envelope. Staff are not recommending this method, even if offered as a hybrid option, it would be more cost prohibitive...as opposed to the paper ballot tabulator on request option recommended as a hybrid alternative in option #1 above. (emphasis added)

The method of voting is defined as Vote by Mail with Tabulators.

Option #4

“Traditional Paper Ballots at Polls with Tabulators is the most traditional voting method with voters attending a local polling station in order to cast their vote. This is considered the most restrictive voting option, as voting is fixed to polling locations during set hours that often may not meet the needs of all voters and is not as accessible as other methods. (emphasis added)

This method of voting method is defined as Traditional Paper Ballot with Tabulators.

In her report, Clerk Aubichon wrote; “... given the percentages from the 2018 election (6,397 vs. 1,359) opting to use the internet voting, the increase in understanding and comfort with technology through COVID-19, together with the opportunity for cost savings with the in-person electronic voting experience; staff are anticipating that the number of voters seeking the vote via paper ballot will be relatively low.” (emphasis added)

“Staff are not recommending traditional paper ballot with tabulators, due to the challenges with obtaining skilled election personnel resources...restricted access voting locations and vaccination protocols under the Townships vaccination policy, that may still be required.” (emphasis added)

Further, Clerk Aubichon clearly pointed out in her report to Members of Council her concerns regarding voting by Traditional Paper Ballot with Tabulators: “Accessibility Restrictions for voters, Locations, Public Safety and that this method of voting was Less Fair and Unbiased due to Accessibility Restrictions. (emphasis added)

“Regardless of the voting method used, it will not be possible to host a polling station in each ward, as polling locations are required to be accessible and there are limited locations that currently meet the accessibility requirements... given the number of voters favouring internet voting in the 2018 election, increased understanding relative to the use and comfort in technology, as well as the opportunity for cost saving with the in-person electronic voting experience and Paper Ballot Tabulator on Request Option, Staff are recommending Council support the enhanced hybrid option through Option #1, In-Person Electronic and Remote Internet/Telephone Voting with Paper Ballot Tabulator only on Request for the 2022 election. (emphasis added)

On December 8, 2021, notwithstanding Clerk Aubichons recommendation, Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes disregarded the recommendation of Clerk Aubichon and By-law # 2021-132 passed by a majority of the votes cast. This Hybrid Method restricts voting to In-Person Paper Ballot and Mail-in Ballot on Request voting only in the 2022 municipal election. Internet and telephone voting, forms of Accommodation for those persons with a Disability, were not now an option for electors in the 2022 municipal election, as was the case in the 2018 election.

The vote was three to three (3-3) Councillors De Sousa, Keane and Scott voting in favour of in-person paper ballot voting and mail-in paper ballot voting on request, as the only two options to vote, thereby eliminating internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election. Councillors Greenlaw, Veitch and Deputy Mayor Hough voted in favour of Option #1 internet and telephone voting with paper ballot tabulator, as the three options by which voters inclusive of those with a Disability could vote in the 2022 municipal election.

The tie vote was broken by Mayor Hughes who voted in favour of in-person paper ballot voting and mail-in ballot voting on request, as well, as the only two options to vote, thereby eliminating internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election. It should be noted that the 2018 Council of the day of which Mayor Hughes was the Mayor voted in favour of including internet and telephone voting in the 2018 election that resulted in 72% of those that voted using the internet.

THE EVIDENCE

Statements by Members of Council – Council Meeting November 24, 2021

The evidence indicates that Councillor Greenlaw made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I concur with your [Clerk Aubichon] recommendation and the great detail tha t you provided. I have no more questions and I do support your recommendation...My concern is 72% of the public voted by internet last election. Some people won’t vote electronically I agree.. .I still think electronic and phone should be included... I truly think that we have to give the opportunity when 72% of the public chose to vote by the internet last time and our internet coverage is getting better and better as times past due to the great work the internet task force has done, so to go backwards and eliminate the internet is not necessarily the path we should take... I want this to be a cohesive agreement.”

The evidence indicates that Deputy Mayor Hough made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I support this for sure and we have to have people to be able to use a paper ballot. I know we had technical issues last time, hopefully that wont happen again. There’s certainly a lot of people that support the on-line ballots and even the phone ones. But there are issues with residents and I know quiet a few that depend on access to a computer at home, so if they got to go down the office to vote by computer, they may as well let them vote by paper. Some people will not vote other than paper. I think that we have them available. But we’ve got to change with the times too.

If you don’t want to use it as a result of concerns regarding the security or integrity of the internet, then a resident does not have to use it, but it should be in place to accommodate those with a disability who prefer to vote by internet, given the convenience and ease of voting by the internet.” (emphasis added)

The evidence indicates that Councillor Veitch made a motion during the debate to amend Option #4 to include Internet and Telephone voting in Option # 4.

Deputy Mayor Hough stated, “I support Veitch’s motion. I don’t like the idea of mail-in ballot, it's time consuming. Last time, a lot of people chose that option, but they also had the internet. Anybody that is skeptical of the internet also has the option of choosing not to vote by internet. We gotta have enough equipment for accessibility for internet voting. I would much prefer internet as an option than a mail-in ballot... Councillor Greenlaw has already seconded Councillor Veitch’s motion, and I support and don’t like the idea of the mail-in ballot, its time consuming...Anybody that is skeptical of the internet also has the option of choosing not to vote by internet...I would much prefer the internet as an option than a mail-in ballot.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor De Sousa made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I’m going to say that I do not support the internet voting experience. To me the most important thing is the validation of the voter and making sure the vote corresponds with the person, as opposed to a nu mber that is sent out in the mail for access. I believe that there is a good reason why the feds. and the province chose paper ballot in the last election and everyone before that. Also, based on the last election I don’t see any need and basically the system crashed...There was a large volume of people that actually voted in person in that extra day at the last election that tells me something that people were not likely to vote at all and perhaps did not have access to the internet or a computer chose to take the opportunity for the last day to vote. Voting is a very important right that we as citizens have and I do not want to see it reduced to a click on a computer. Where to me in my mind it diminishes the right and opportunity to for someone to exercise their day and their vote. I fully support the paper ballot and I do not have faith in the electronic means at all. For me, if the feds. and the province feel paper ballot is an appropriate way to go, as opposed to the internet then what’s good enough for the them is good enough for me... I cannot, as I stated earlier, support any motion that involves internet voting. The more methods and the more expensive it becomes. Paper ballot would be simply be paper ballot. So the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot. So, I cannot support the amendment... I cannot, as I stated earlier, I cannot support a motion that includes internet voting...the more methods the more expensive it becomes... so the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot cost of the election.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor Scott made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I certainly want to provide as much unencumbered access to anybody that wants to cast a vote.. I was aware of the format chosen by the municipality and how it included internet and telephone voting. I must admit I was a little skeptical due to the potential security threats and the overall integrity of the process, as many have experienced in the community. There are hackers, thieves, scammers. There are always looking to victimize people including government agencies. No different than us. Probably one of the reasons why we have so many different firewall protections and passwords... However, at the conclusion of the election process, I must admit that I was disappointed by the service provider and the subsequent failure to be able to deliver on time... I recognize society has shifted due to the pandemic and this paradigm shift has brought with it more reliance on the internet. I recognize the need to make accessibility to vote easier especially in an ever changing world that want convenience, all that said, I do not have faith in providing election integrity while relying on the internet and telephone voting... My thoughts are of traditional in-person voting with advance polling and special request mail-in voting should be the direction our municipality should take for 2022... I will not be supporting option number one, but rather I would support traditional voting with advance polling and special request mail-in voting, as the individual might need... I don’t want to see us regress as it were, but I believe that all the concerns that I laid out at the beginning of my narrative are legitimate and those are the concerns I have. I will not support the internet at this time... I would prefer to adopt the Federal and Provincial methods in which they vote which is by traditional paper ballot with advance polling and with special requests main-in voting after that... I respect and acknowledge the comments of the Deputy obviously, and my colleagues Veitch and Greenlaw. I don’t want to see us regress as it were, but I believe all the concerns that I laid out at the beginning of my narrative are legitimate and those are the concerns that I have. I’ve seen far too may municipalities being strangle held by hackers and we are all aware of those reports.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane made the following statements, in part, during the November 24, 2021 Council meeting;

“I want to echo the Deputy's comments about the lack of internet. We have internet issues. This reaches beyond the age of of our residents who are not comfortable with using these sort of device. My dad doesn’t touch one. That is something on a daily basis we see hear from. We have two issues right there on internet voting and the telephone voting which has not been brought up... The township actually had to do a posting or an update outlining exactly in detail how the telephone voting works because people were not waiting to receive a number, I guess, or a feedback that their phone was actually registered. So, right off the bat, I do not want to see telephone voting. I think a number of votes were lost in that method. There was problems. The internet, I embraced it completely the last term. I thought it was great. It provided people to vote from home. I did that. However, again, there was problems. I met people who didn’t have the internet. So right there, we are actually limiting people. If we are trying to push this on people, then from the internet, I have to question the integrity of the vote. Anyone who reads the news sees on a daily basis that anything on line, identities are being stolen. This is happening everywhere and I m not diminishing our level of security, but this has to be in the forefront of every decision going forward with anything on the internet as a municipality. And again, brings me back to the comments about seniors and accessibility. The internet is not a way a lot of seniors want to even do internet banking for example. So, internet banking did not make it easier. People were not more inclined. Like I said, I gave it a shot last time. I thought it was a great idea. Awful lot of problems arose from it, and I’m not comfortable going back to that method again. I have to support paper in-person with a mail out f or those that cannot make it for some reasons No, I don’t support the internet...Lack of internet is prevalent through the municipality right now. There is a huge problem. Seniors, generally, and Ill put the word, generally there, are not comfortable with the technology and putting personal information over the internet. Seniors, again, lack of internet service and prefer to vote in person. Internet voting does not, as we have seen in these elections does not increase voter turnout. We saw the result. It does not benefit the municipality, so I will not be supporting it...Voting is a privilege and Canadians see that and its like a doctors or dentists appointment, your going to go, if you are going to go to the dentist you're going to go, if you're going to vote you're going to go.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor Veitch made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I have to say I felt in looking at this that option number one appears to be basically the most cost effective, less tabulators, were still getting some of the voter experience and accessibility... I am leading really to option number two which allows people the old way, to some extent, with the kids. I really am intending to vote for option number two, maybe with a little more information on cost. I would like to keep that option open. We can still do remote voting which is important, internet, telephone whatever, but I think that it is really important that we give people confidence and also some degree of accessibility for their potential abilities to do it properly and do it in a way they are comfortable with so, I’m going to be supporting option number two. I would propose your worship the amendment to Councillor Scott’s motion which would be traditional and internet voting that would be a fallback... I think that the combination with internet voting which is as Councillor Greenlaw said is about 72% of the public vote on the internet last time around is a pretty hard number to not think about, and in terms of the seniors idea, in terms of they preferring to vote traditionally, understood as I think what we are proposing here in this option is traditional paper ballot with tabulators and internet voting, so I think we’ve covered both sides of this to basically bring it forward...”

As indicated earlier in this report, Councillor Veitch put forth a motion during the debate to amend Option #4 to include internet and telephone voting in Option #4. This motion was defeated four to three by votes from Councillors Scott, Keane, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes.

The evidence indicates that Mayor Hughes made the following statements, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I would like to refer to a couple of sections in this report... First of all, the whole notion of voter turnout dependence on whether you make it more convenient or weather you don’t, I truly believe that if anyone is going to vote whatever method is open to them they will vote. I would like to reinforce one statement that has been made that verifies that. She [Clerk Aubichon] has clearly indicated that there is no indication that making voting more convenient through the internet will increase the number of voters...Now, well go over to 2018 where we made every effort that we could to facilitate, make it easier to vote, all of those kinds of things and we look at the data... On election day 22 %, the number of people who voted on election day which is the day when most people vote, and yet if you look at the emergency exte nsion of the extra day, 11% of the people that voted, that’s half that people that voted on election day. And that, in my mind asks a lot of questions and instills in me a lot of doubt and credibility in terms of the process being used with an internet or electronic system...The other thing to keep in mind is that some people will not vote electronically. People will not give personal information over, means over an electronic system. One of the fundamentals, of course, is being given the opportunity, but the other one that which exceeds that is to ensure that everybody’s vote is registered and everyone is counted... One other aspect, it is rather peculiar is when you looked at Oro-Medonte voting section and how people voted even though we know that a number of people have very poor access to internet, the number of people who don’t have computers, particularly four years ago, only 10% utilized the telephone which most people have. I share the notion of the desire to make things more convenient, the benefits that voting could, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur. I still believe that the method of voting and I go back to 2006 that said paper ballot with manual count appears to be the that has all the security to it and less complications and has the greatest integrity to the election. The internet I would far see, rather see a system that is more secure and agree with some of the comments... I share the notion of the desire to make things as convenient as possible, the benefits that internet voting could have, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur... Unfortunately, because of my experiences, the internet election, I’m not in a position to have the confidence in the internet to be able to support it... When we see a 72% option for internet voting that doesn’t necessarily mean that was the preference. It may simply mean that was the availability because we did not have the options of the paper ballot through out the time of the voting. There were only specialized days. The internet voting was that. The data does not show that there is a perfect relationship between the age of a person who uses it who is familiar with a computer, so this isnt just senior related.. I believe that we are falsely letting ourselves get pulled into is the notion that we have to have the results quickly that day... I share the notion of the desire to make things as convenient as possible, the benefits that internet voting could have, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur... Unfortunately, because of my experiences with the internet election, I’m not in a position to have the confidence in the internet to be able to support it.”

The evidence indicates that Clerk Aubichone commented on the Mail-in Ballot on Request Option during the debate in response to a question from a Member of Council stating;

“Although the mail-in ballot is requested, it would be different because you have to buy voter kits for every eligible voter in the event that they were requested... So, you have to buy the voter kits in advance... So, there would be extra costs there for sure, as well, as the mail-in back and forth...”

The evidence indicates that a number of Oro-Medonte residents wrote in to Members of Council objecting to the elimination of internet and telephone voting, in the 2022 election. Below is a sampling of those e-mailed letters;

“Councillors De Sousa, Keane, Scott and Mayor Hughes are well aware of the fact that there are residents who are handicapped and unable to attend a voting station...internet voting should continue in the 2022 election, so that voting is “accessible” to all electors, as mandated by law...”

“In other words, besides trying to suppress the votes of those that are immune compromised, disabled, out of the country...you are also trying to suppress the votes of those that only live here seasonally.”

“Electronic ballots are secure, they are convenient and they meet the needs of those who might otherwise not be able to or willing to attend in person... Some may not be fully vaccinated or face waning immunity and therefore not able, or not willing, to line up.”

“As there were more people voting in the last election BECAUSE they could access voting via the internet or phone – I think it is very short-sighted indeed to not allow this type of voting in the future... Please allow voting via the internet and phone and allow your constituents to be able to place their votes.”

“I read the Staff Reports prepared by Clerk Aubichon and found it... provided voters an open and accessible system...”

“The Councillors that disagreed with her recommendations had no relevant facts to support their position and were instead relying on speculation and their feelings... I strongly urge all members of Council to listen to the concerns of the electorate and re-examine their position on this important matter.”

“This decision goes against the advice of your own Town Clerk’s recommendation & goes against the interests of your constituents. Please re-instate internet & telephone voting.”

“It might lead to many votes not being cast thus limiting the voice of the electorate and perhaps skewing the results in a manner not intended”

“Why is an accepted form of voting supported and implemented in many other jurisdictions not safe for Oro-Medonte?”

“Your [our] community deserves to have every possible way to vote available to them for the coming election in 2022 and for all those that follow.”

ANALYSIS

“A failure to give any consideration to the issue of accommodation, including what, if any, steps 8 could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the procedural duty to accommodate”.

“In Ontario, it is clear that a failure in the procedural duty to accommodate can lead to a breach of the Code.”

- Supreme Court of Canada

The evidence clearly indicates that no substantive debate took place by Members of Council during the November 24, 2021 Council meeting on the Duty to Accommodate those persons with a Disability in the 2022 municipal election who may have been intending to vote in the election with the Accommodation of the internet or telephone, as they may have done in the 2018 municipal election.

The evidence clearly indicates that the focus of the debate was whether or not internet voting was going to be an option to vote in the 2022 municipal election.

“Elections should be designed inclusively and must be adapted to Accommodate the needs of persons with a Disability in a way that promotes integration and full participation.”

“Accommodation requires service providers to go beyond treating all people the same and to recognize that people may in fact need to be treated differently in order to achieve true equality in a meaningful way.”

The evidence indicates that during the debate, Deputy Mayor Hough did inform the other Members of Council of the Duty to Accommodate those persons with a Disability in stating; “... it [the internet] should be in place to accommodate those with a disability who prefer to vote by internet, given the convenience and ease of voting by the internet... But there are issues with residents and I know quiet a few that depend on access to a computer at home... but it should be in place to accommodate those with a disability who prefer to vote by internet, given the convenience and ease of voting by the internet... We gotta have enough equipment for accessibility for internet voting.”

Councillor Veitch stated; “... I have to say I felt in looking at this that option number one appears to be basically the most cost effective, less tabulators, were still getting some of the voter experience and accessibility... I think that it is really important that we give people confidence and also some degree of accessibility for their potential abilities to do it properly and do it in a way they are comfortable.”

Councillor Scott stated; “... I certainly want to provide as much unencumbered access to anybody that wants to cast a vote... I recognize the need to make accessibility to vote easier especially in an ever changing world that wants convenience...I would support traditional voting with advance polling and special request mail-in voting, as the individual might need...”

The evidence indicates that Councillors Keane, De Sousa, Greenlaw and Mayor Hughes did not, in the absence of clear, comparable wording, address the issue of Accommodating those persons with a Disability during the debate, as did Deputy Mayor Hough, Councillor Veitch and Councillor Scott.

The evidence strongly suggests that Mayor Hughes knew or ought to have known, given his tenure as Mayor, and the Supervisory positions that Mayor Hughes has held in the past, of the lawful obligation as Members of Council to Accommodate those persons with a Disability, in this case, in the 2022 election by providing the accommodations of internet and telephone voting in the election, as was done in the 2018 election.

The evidence clearly indicates that Mayor Hughes, given his position as head of Council, failed, in my view, in his responsibility to introduce it, debate it, or inform and advise the other Members of Council of their lawful obligations under the Code and the Municipal Elections Act to accommodate those voters with a disability, as had Deputy Mayor Hough, or re-affirm the advice of Deputy Mayor Hough during the debate.

The evidence indicates that several Councillors and Mayor Hughes used the word “convenience” at times during the debate. The word “convenience” does not equal accommodation in the Human Rights sense in the absence of any stated relationship between “convenience”, disability and accommodation.

The word “convenience”, as in the “convenience” of using the internet” was used in the statements of Mayor Hughes, Deputy Mayor Hough, Councillor Scott and Councillor Veitch during the debate with no stated association or relationship to accommodation or disability. The evidence clearly indicates that Mayor Hughes focused his attention on the voting statistics in the 2018 election and how those 2018 voting statistics could effect the 2022 election, and therefore justified by his analysis his vote to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election.

In my view, “convenience” speaks more to the “convenience” of not having to drive to a voting location in order to vote although being physically capable of doing so, and more to the “convenience” of voting from home or a workplace, in comparison to a person with a disability who may not have the option to choose how and where they are going to vote, but are compelled due to their disability to vote from home using the internet or telephone. In that instance, I believe that a person with disability with no other option but to vote from home via the internet or a telephone, would find it more than a “convenience” to vote using a computer or telephone, but a necessity.

The evidence clearly indicates that there was an absence of stated thought, debate and consideration given or introduced by Councillors Keane or De Sousa on the issue of accommodating those voters with a disability in the community and how those voters were going to vote without difficulty, if at all given their disability. And further, what those persons with a disability may view as a more difficult, involved and time consuming way of voting, that being by the mail-in ballot option that may not be an option to those with a disability and may dissuade some voters with a disability from voting entirely given the difficulty in doing so.

Councillor Keane made the following statement during the debate, “I met people who didn’t have the internet. So right there, we are actually limiting people. If we are trying to push this on people, then from the internet, I have to question the integrity of the vote.”

I fail to understand Councillor Keane’s thought process or logic in her stated reason for the elimination of internet voting in the 2022 election. It is understood and accepted that those who do not have the internet cannot vote by the internet in the absence of internet service, and it is therefore factually not“actually limiting people” as there is no loss of votes. Those people without internet who were intending to vote would vote via the in person paper ballot or mail-in ballot, if physically or mentally capable of doing so given their disability, and therefore, again, there is no loss of votes.

As such, it is reasonable to conclude that including internet voting in the 2022 election is not “limiting people” from voting without the internet or diminishing the vote, but increasing the vote by those who will use the internet to vote. It is logical to conclude that those who did vote by the internet would be in addition to those who voted by in-person paper ballot or mail-in ballot.

Further, Councillor Keane stated, “If we are trying to push this on people, then from the internet, I have to question the integrity of the vote.” The evidence clearly indicates that what is being pushed onto people is the decisions of Councillors Keane, De Sousa, Scott and Mayor Hughes to accept their decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election. Including internet voting in the 2022 election, an option presented by Clerk Aubichon in her report, is not “pushing” it on people.

In my view, Councillor Keane’s reasoning is non-sensible and raises serious questions as to how Councillor Keane views “integrity” in an election.

Further, the evidence clearly indicates that 72% of the votes cast in the 2018 election were via the internet. The evidence indicates that the introduction of internet voting is not “limiting people” from voting as reasoned by Councillor Keane, but provides another opportunity to vote which may be the only option available to a disabled person to vote.

The evidence indicates that the following statements were made by Councillor De Sousa during the November 24, 2022 Council meeting; “Voting is a very important right that we as citizens have and I do not want to see it reduced to a click on a computer. Where to me in my mind it diminishes the right and opportunity for someone to exercise their day and their vote.”

What Councillor De Sousa apparently fails to recognize, acknowledge or consider is that the “click of a computer” may be the only means or option by which a person with a disability can vote in the 2022 election, and is in my view, is somewhat thoughtless, insensitive and arrogant. What “diminishes the right and opportunity to vote” is eliminating the necessary accommodation of internet and telephone voting for those who are disabled in order to vote in the 2022 election.

I suggest that those persons who are disabled and who have no other option than to vote but by the “click of a computer” or by telephone would disagree, in that it does not “diminish the right and opportunity to exercise their day and their vote”, as suggested by Councillor De Sousa. On the contrary, the “click of a computer” may provide the accommodation and inclusive opportunity for a person with a disability “to exercise their day and their vote” in the 2022 election.

Further, I fail to understand Councillor De Sousa’s rational or reasoning, as well, for the elimination of internet voting in the 2022 election. Again, it is reasonable to conclude that the introduction of internet voting is an additional option to vote and thereby provides another opportunity for those persons with a disability to vote who cannot attend a voting location to vote, or cannot vote by mail-in ballot due to their disability.

In light of the evidence to date in this matter, it is reasonable to conclude that by voting to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election, Councillors De Sousa, Keane, Scott and Mayor Hughes have eliminated the votes of those voters with a disability who were intending to vote via the internet or telephone in the 2022 election given that the internet or telephone may have been the only option that they have to vote due to their disability, as they may have done in the 2018 election.

In her report, Clerk Aubichon wrote; “Electors may also be uncomfortable to attend in-person voting going forward, due to the heightened public health concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic and despite every attempt to eradicate the virus, causes continue to increase.”

The evidence indicates that that there was no debate by any Member of Council on the effects of COVID-19 or any variation thereof in how persons with or without a disability are going to vote in the absence of internet and telephone voting given how voting in person at a voting location among other voters could adversely affect the health and disability of a voter.

The limited and restricted accommodation afforded by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes in the form of the voting option of a mail-in ballot on request is insufficient and does not address the required specific accommodations that a persons with a disability including mobility issues may need in order to vote, as was provided for in the 2018 election.

A mail-in vote on request requires a disabled person with a mobility disability to first having to obtain a mail-in ballot vote by either requesting a ballot from the Township offices to be mailed to their residence, or by picking up the mail-in ballot at the Township office which could present difficulty, if not an impossibility for those persons with mobility or transportation issues. If the voter has requested a mail-in ballot be mailed from the Township, the disabled person would have to retrieve the document from the mail box, complete the form, if capable of doing so, and then mail the ballot back to the Township from a mailbox which may be difficult, again, or an impossibility to reach by themselves, if at all, due to their disability.

Further, if living alone a disabled person may require the assistance of someone else to assist in obtaining the ballot, in completing the accompanying documentation and then mailing the document in a mail box or taking it to the Township office.

The process of the mail-in ballot on request voting option has what is known inherent barriers to those with a disability in the difficulty that it may present in both obtaining and mailing the ballot. The evidence clearly indicates that it was not given due consideration by Members of Council other than by Deputy Mayor Hough when stating, “I don’t like the idea of mail-in ballot, its time consuming.”

In her report, Clerk Aubichon wrote; “Those who are unable to easily leave their home due to mobility issues, transportation issues or simply due to work life schedules may have a hard time voting. This can contribute to lower voter turn-outs and disengagement of the community with its election process...”

In her report, Clerk Aubichon wrote that she found the mail-in ballot process, the “back and forth” and the costs to be “excessive.”

Proxy voting is an option where the voter allows someone else to vote on their behalf if they cannot attend the polling station themselves. Proxy voting is more complex and requires the completion of a form that is sworn to and witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths and then brought to the voting location by the Proxy. For these reasons, this method is “time consuming” and has inherent barriers for some disabled voters, as well.

The evidence clearly indicates that accommodating those with disabilities in the forms of internet and telephone voting was an option available to the current Members of Council to choose for the 2022 municipal election, as clearly indicated in Clerk Aubichons report and could have been voted for in the 2022 election by all Members of Council providing the necessary accommodation for those with a disability without Undue Hardship to the Township. (financial costs)

In her report, Clerk Aubichon clearly indicated that Option #1, the option recommended by her, would be the most cost effective of all of the options, and therefore given the stated costs, Undue Hardship is not a defence available to the Township or Members of Council. (emphasis added)

During the debate, Councillor De Sousa stated; “I cannot, as I stated earlier, support any motion that involves internet voting. The more methods and the more expensive it becomes. Paper ballot would be simply be paper ballot. So the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot. So, I cannot support the amendment... I cannot, as I stated earlier, I cannot support a motion that includes internet voting...the more methods the more expensive it becomes... so the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot cost of the election.”

The evidence of election costs in Clerk Aubichon’s report clearly indicates that Councillor De Sousa is incorrect. In Clerk Aubichons report, Option #1 the option recommended by Clerk Aubichon, includes both in-person paper ballot voting and internet and telephone voting, and was the least costly method of voting at an estimated cost of between $60-70,000.00.

“Section 11 of the Code prohibits discrimination that results from requirements, qualifications, or factors that appear neutral, but that have an adverse effect on people identified by Code grounds.”

“Substantive equality involves accounting for people’s differences and taking active steps to address the discriminatory effects of any policies or initiatives.”

“Constructive Discrimination is defined as a right of a person is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground, but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference, or a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground, or the person is a member except where a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances.”

“No tribunal or court shall find that a requirement, rule or policy is reasonable and bona fide unless unless Undue Hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those circumstances considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements made in the public interest.”

“Accommodation should be developed and implemented with a view to maximizing a persons integration and full participation achieving integration. Full participation requires barrier-free and inclusion design, as well as removing existing barriers.”

“In order to achieve full substantive equality, barriers that prevent full participation in society by those with a disability should be removed.”

The decisions of Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and the Mayor Hughes that voters in the 2022 municipal election will be permitted to vote only by in-person paper ballot and mail-in ballot upon request while appearing to be a neutral policy on its surface, directly results in the construction of a barrier making it more difficult, if not impossible, for those persons with a disability including mobility issues or other forms of disability to vote.

The question arises is it necessary to have a voter with a disability be required to engage in what I view as an unnecessary and time consuming process of voting by mail-in ballot, when an easier and more accommodating way of voting exists, that being by the internet or telephone, as was done in the 2018 municipal election without Undue Hardship to the Township.

In my view, limiting the voting options to in-person paper ballot and mail-in ballot on request for the 2022 election given that internet and telephone voting was permitted in the 2018 election and could have been permitted in the 2022 election, is lacking in a stated understanding by several Members of Council including Mayor Hughes of what those who are disabled may require in the way of accommodation in order to vote in the 2022 election.

Further, the elimination of internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election, is clearly not in the public interest, nor is the decision to choose a voting option that is going to cost the residents of Oro-Medonte more financially when other less costly voting options are available, as clearly indicated and recommended by Clerk Aubichon in her report.

In fairness and in a somewhat defence of several Members of Council, it appears that several members of Council may not have been aware or as knowledgeable, or accepting of their lawful responsibilities under the Code, as they should have been given their positions as Members of Council and their Code of Conduct.

“A failure to give any consideration to the issue of accommodation, including what, if any, steps could be taken constitutes a failure to satisfy the procedural duty to accommodate”.

“In Ontario, it is clear that a failure in the procedural duty to accommodate can lead to a breach of the Code.” SCC

The evidence indicates that in the absence of a substantive debate by Members of Council on the lawful Duty to Accommodate those voters with a Disability has resulted in violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code, as cautioned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Councillor Keane, in her defence of her decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election due, in part, to cost, challenged Clerk Aubichon’s well researched and professional estimated election costs based only, it would appear, on her unprofessional assessment and opinion of the documented elections costs. Councillor Keane stated; “The costs, to Counsellor De Sousa’s point, we were told $160,000.00 for an election, a by-election for the two members, I question the numbers, I think it’s going to me more...So, I’m very sorry Yvonne, I really enjoyed your report. It was great. I don’t agree with it and I have to support paper in-person with a mail-in for those that cannot make it out for some reasons...”

The evidence from an area newspaper article dated December 12, 2019 indicates that it was Mayor Hughes who publicly stated that it was going to cost the Township $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 to hold a By-election to fill the two vacant Councillor positions on Council. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it was Mayor Hughes who advised a number of first term, naive Members of Council, including Councillor Keane, that a by-election was going to cost the Township $160,000.00 for a By-election based on only two vacant positions on Council, according to Councillor Keane. It would appear that that is the reason why Councillor Keane challenged Clerk Aubichon’s estimated cost of Option #1 for the 2022 municipal to be $60-70,000.00 for the election involving seven candidates.

Were Internet Election Security concerns during the 2022 Municipal Election a contributing Factor in the decision to eliminate Internet and Telephone voting in the 2022 Municipal Election by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes?

Clerk Aubichon wrote in her report that “...internet and telephone voting has gained popularity with Ontario municipalities since its introduction in 2003. In 2014, a total of 97 Ontario municipalities used Internet/Telephone voting. In 2018, that number increased to 194 of the 444 Ontario municipalities or 43.7 %...Out of the twenty-four (24) municipalities surveyed...twelve (12) municipalities have selected Internet/Telephone as the preferred method of voting for the 2022 election...Six (6) municipalities confirmed Internet/Telephone with Paper Ballot Tabulators...The larger municipalities will conduct the

election through a combination of internet and vote-by-mail.”

As indicated earlier in this report, the evidence indicates that 72% of those who voted in the 2018 municipal election in Oro-Medonte used the internet to vote.

In her report, Clerk Aubichon wrote; “The ability to vote from home...provides an opportunity to further engage those who wish to vote from the comfort of their own home or office rather than travelling to a physical voting location. This last point may be of greater significance depending upon the situation relating to COVID at election time. With COVID-19 propelling the use of technology across all age groups, it is expected that interest and use of internet and telephone voting will continue to grow for the 2022 municipal election. In addition, accessible polling locations are at minimum in the Township and accessibility is one of the guiding principals of the Act and must be reported on post election.” (emphasis added)

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane stated the following, in part, during the Council meeting;

“We have internet issues...We have two issues right there on internet voting and the telephone voting which has not been brought up...The internet, I embraced it completely the last term. I thought it was great. It provided people to vote from home. I did that. However, again, there were problems...If we are trying to push this on people, then from the internet, I have to question the integrit y of the vote. Anyone who reads the news sees on a daily basis that anything on line, identities are being stolen. This is happening everywhere and I’m not diminishing our level of security, but this has to be in the forefront of every decision going forward with anything on the internet as a municipality. The internet is not a way a lot of seniors want to even do internet banking for example. So, internet banking did not make it easier. People were not more inclined. Like I said, I gave it a shot last time. I thought it was a great idea. Awful lot of problems arose from it, and I’m not comfortable going back to that method again... No, I don’t support the internet... Lack of internet is prevalent through the municipality right now. There is a huge problem. Seniors, generally, and Ill put the word, generally there, are not comfortable with the t echnology and putting personal information over the internet. Seniors, again, lack of internet service and prefer to vote in person. Internet voting does not, as we have seen in these elections does not increase voter turnout. We saw the result. It does not benefit the municipality, so I will not be supporting it...”

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane further stated; “It [the internet] provided people to vote from home. However, again there [were] problems...Anyone who reads the news sees on a daily basis that anything on line, identities are being stolen...Awful lot of problems arose from it.”

The evidence indicates that there was only one “problem” during the 2018 municipal election in using the internet and that was a technical problem, unrelated to internet security and not an “Awful lots of problems” as stated by Councillor Keane. The evidence strongly suggests that the embellishment or exaggeration of the facts by Councillor Keane was intentional and with purpose, that being to support her and the Mayor’s decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election.

Councillor Keane’s statement that “Identities [are] being stolen” has no relationship to internet security during an election and is again, an embellishment in support her and the Mayor’s decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting from the 2022 election.

Councillor Keane further stated, “I think a number of votes were lost in that method...” I find this statement by Councillor Keane to be careless, “off the cuff “ and thoughtless and a disregard for the consequences and implications of making such a statement without evidence. Councillor Keane provided no factual evidence in support of her erroneous statement. This is referred to as the “Big Lie” in the United States where former President Trump claims he lost the election due, in part, to “lost votes”.

The evidence clearly indicates that Councillor Keane based her decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, in part, on her stated concerns about the security of the internet during the 2022 election.

The evidence indicates that Councillor Scott stated, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I was aware of the format chosen by the municipality and how it included internet and telephone voting. I must admit I was a little skeptical due to the potential security threats and the overall integrity of the process, as many have experienced in the community. There are hackers, thieves, scammers. There always looking to victimize people including government agencies. No different than us. Probably one of the reasons why we have so many different firewall protections and passwords... I recognize society has shifted due to the pandemic and this paradigm shift has brought with it more reliance on the internet...I do not have faith in providing election integrity while relying on the internet

and telephone voting..I will not support the internet at this time...I’ve seen far too many municipalities being strangle held by hackers and we are all aware of those reports.”

Councillor Scott provided several “examples” of breaches of internet election security, the Elections Ontario Voter Data Base being compromised in 2012 and the Philippine Election Voter Data Base being breached in 2016. As indicated by Councillor Scott, the Ontario Voter Data Base was “compromised” ten years ago, and the Philippine Voter Data Base was “breached” six years ago. In other words, there has been only one known breach of internet election security in Ontario and that breach was ten years ago.

Councillor Scott stated; “The foundation of my reasoning for voting in favour of “in person with tabulator & mail in upon request” is based on security and risk management.”

Councillor Scott provided an unrelated “example” of a non-election breach of internet security in the private sector being Desjardine Financial Services, date not indicated, however with a settlement in 2021, to support his and the Mayor’s decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election. Councillor Scott further mentioned examples of breaches of internet security in the Towns of Wasaga Beach, Midland, Woodstock and at three Ontario Hospitals, no dates provided.

I believe that Councillor Scott is referring to breaches of the daily computer operating systems in those Towns by the placement of malware onto the daily computer operating systems by criminals rendering them inoperable, and not operable until a ransom is paid by the Townships to the criminal element, not breaches of internet security during a municipal election.

In his statement Councillor Scott stated, “There are hackers, thieves scammers.” I agree, but not in relation to the security of the internet during an election, as evidenced by there being only one known breach of internet security during an election Ontario and that was in 2012, ten years prior.

Further, I find the statement by Councillor Scott, “I was a little skeptical due to the potential security threats and the overall integrity of the process, as many have experienced in the community” to be without any demonstrated, factual basis by Councillor Scott and, in my view, a further embellishment to support his and Mayor Hughes decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election. (emphasis added)

The fact that Councillor Scott has been able to provide only one example of a breach of internet security in Ontario during an election and that breach of internet security was ten years ago, is clear and convincing evidence that a breach of internet election security is highly improbable and remote to occur and that the use of the internet should have been permitted as an option in the 2002 election, not eliminated on the basis of exaggerated threats to internet election security in the forthcoming 2022 election contrived by Councillors Keane, De Sousa, Scott and Mayor Hughes.

In my view, this decision by these three Members of Council and Mayor Hughes is symptomatic of the decisions made by these Members of Council and exposes the complete disregard for the facts on issues and is reflected in their decisions confirming the existence of what can be defined as a pre-conspiratorial mindset prior to and during Council meetings by these four Members of Council.

I believe that Mayor Hughes has lost his political moral compass as leader of Council and that this is reflected in his exploitation of Councillors Keane, De Sousa and Scott, apparently willingly on their part, to further his political agenda at their expense, and at the loss of their personal integrity fearing retribution from the Mayor, as was clearly demonstrated during the May 26, 2021 Council meeting given his tyrannical behaviour on Councillors who challenged or disagreed with the Mayor during that meeting.

The evidence clearly indicates that Councillor Scott based his decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, in part, on his concerns about the security of the internet during the 2022 election.

Clearly, as known or should be known by every Member of Council, internet security systems are much more sophisticated and secure today than they were ten years ago to prevent breaches of security. Councillor Scott acknowledges this in stating; “Probably one of the reasons why we have so many different firewall protections and passwords...”

In his statement during the debate, Councillor Scott stated: “However, at the conclusion of the election process, I must admit that I was disappointed by the service provider and the subsequent failure to be able to deliver on time.” In his statement during the debate, Mayor Hughes stated; “I believe that we are falsely letting ourselves get pulled into the notion that we have to have the results quickly that day.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor De Sousa stated, in part, during the Council meeting;

“I’m going to say that I do not support the internet voting experience... Also, based on the last election I don’t see any need and basically the system crashed...There was a large volume of people that actually voted in person in that extra day at the last election that tells me something that people were not likely to vote at all and perhaps did not have access to the internet or a computer chose to take the opportunity for the last day to vote. Voting is a very important right that we as citizens have and I do not want to see it reduced to a click on a computer...I fully support the paper ballot and I do not have faith in the electronic means at all. For me, if the Feds. and the Province feel paper ballot is an appropriate way to go, as opposed to the internet then what’s good enough for the them is good enough for me...I cannot, as I stated earlier, support any motion that involves internet voting... So the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot... So, I cannot support the amendment... I cannot, as I stated earlier, I cannot support a motion that includes internet voting...the more methods the more expensive it becomes... so the internet expense would be in addition to the paper ballot cost of the election.”

The evidence indicates that Councillor De Sousa based her decision, in part, to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election on her inferred concerns about internet security in the 2022 election and her belief that including internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election was going to cost more money. As stated earlier in this report, Councillor De Sousa was incorrect in her assessment of election costs.

The evidence indicates that Mayor Hughes stated, in part, during the Council meeting;

“... And that, in my mind asks a lot of questions and instills in me a lot of doubt and credibility in terms of the process being used with an internet or electronic system... I share the notion of the desire to make things more convenient, the benefits that voting could, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur. The internet I would far see, rather see a system that is more secure and agree with some of the comments...I share the notion of the desire to make things as convenient as possible, the benefits that internet voting could have, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur...Unfortunately, because of my experiences, the internet election, I’m not in a position to have the confidence in the internet to be able to support it..I share the notion of the desire to make things as convenient as possible, the benefits that internet voting could have, but I really have difficulties with the risk and the issues that occur...Unfortunately, because of my experiences with the internet election, I’m not in a position to have the confidence in the internet to be able to support it.”

The evidence indicates that there was only one issue, a technical one, and not issues, as described by Mayor Hughes that occurred during the 2018 election. Mayor Hughes reached back to the municipal election in 2006, some sixteen years prior to support his position that internet voting is not secure. As stated earlier in this report, internet security systems are much more sophisticated and secure today than they were sixteen years ago to prevent breaches of internet security.

In my view, Mayor Hughes knowingly with intent and strategic, political purpose exaggerated and embellished the risk of using the internet during the 2022 election, as well, in his statements despite the evidence of Councillor Scott that there has not been a breach of internet election security since 2002 in Ontario. Further, the mayor provided no examples of what he inferred were negative “experiences with the internet election.”

Further, in my view, Mayor Hughes was insensitive, dismissive, and may lack a true understanding of what accommodation needs of those persons with disabilities require in order to vote in the 2022 election, and if aware, chose to ignore the accommodation needs of those persons with a disability that would have allowed them to vote in the 2022 election. In doing so. Mayor Hughes has suppressed the vote of those who require the accommodation of the internet or telephone to vote in the 2022 election.

Mayor Hughes stated, “When we see a 72% option for internet voting that doesn’t necessarily mean that was the preference.” I fail to understand Mayor Hughes reasoning or logic given the factual evidence before him.

The evidence clearly indicates that Mayor Hughes based his decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, in part, on his concerns about the security of the internet during the 2022 election.

As two members of the community who wrote in Council requesting internet voting in the 2022 election stated;

“Everyone was aware of the technical band-with glitches prevalent throughout the province. It was not a hacking or security issue as you imply as the truth. Were there other “issues”? There was no public knowledge of such “issues”... Do you realize that the public is aware that by reducing the opportunity for your constituents to vote you are skewing the vote likely to yours and your supporters advantage?... You are suppressing the vote of all these people and taking away their democratic right to vote for one person of their choice. Eliminating the above mentioned excludes thousands of people from exercising their rights.” (emphasis added)

“I gather the decision by Council was against Internet and telephone voting based on the dangerous nature of the Internet... Because of this risk filled environment, enormous time and money has been put into developing encryption and authentication technologies by some of the best security companies in the world. As a result, billions of dollars, if not trillions, flow daily over the Internet in absolute security. For retail merchant and central banks, whose security of the internet depends on the security of these transactions, they would not use the Internet if the encryption technologies were not completely secure. Likewise, with companies that have developed Internet based voting systems, their very existence depends on the security of their product. They would not be in business if the internet could not be used securely. The length of the encryption keys in use today would probably take a network of computers weeks, if ever, to crack and bear in mind that technologies change the keys every 30 seconds or less. Therefore, the internet, when using every day encryption, is guaranteed to be safe or thousands if not millions of businesses around the world would not survive. I find it disappointing that Oro-Medonte chooses to remain in the last century when it comes to voting.”

In her November 24, 2021 report, Clerk Aubichon addressed the anticipated internet security concerns of Members of Council in writing; “Although there have been documented cases of malicious attempts designed to compromise an online voting system, there are no known controverted elections resulting from the use of an internet voting channel... Technical protective measures decrease the likelihood and effectiveness of these threats... Internet voting platforms utilize the same stringent access methodologies and encryption principles which protect internet banking sites and Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems... Without an internet connection, in-person traditional paper voting would also need to be stopped... Regardless of the voting method(s) used in an election, risk cannot be eliminated, rather mitigated.”

The evidence indicates that Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa, and Mayor Hughes based their decisions to exclude internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, in part, on their opinions absent of any demonstrated, factual evidence regarding internet election security concerns clearly ignoring and dismissing the factual information presented in Clerk Aubichon’s well researched report.

The evidence clearly indicates that the stated concerns raised by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes regarding a threat to internet security in the 2022 municipal election was a factor, if not the factor, in their decisions to eliminate internet voting in the 2022 municipal election, despite the known fact of the absence of any breach of internet security during a municipal election since 2002 and being re-assured by Clerk Aubichon of the security measures currently in place to prevent a breach of the internet election security systems which will be in place during the 2022 municipal election.

Is a Breach of the Internet Election Security Systems a “Reality” in the 2022 Municipal Election?

As stated earlier in this report, the evidence indicates that there has been no known breach of the daily operating computer systems in Oro-Medonte at any time, only attempts. Further, there has been no known breaches of internet security during any election in Ontario since 2002.

While it is acknowledged that most computer systems, currently, are not fail-safe from a breach of security into a system, the fact remains that since 2002, 2016 and the 2018 election, computer systems have become much more sophisticated and safer than they were since those dates, as stated earlier in this report. Something it would appear that Councillors Scott, Keane, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes strategically ignored and dismissed resulting in their expected unified vote to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election regardless of the facts, that is irresponsible.

In reviewing all of the evidence in this matter, I can come to no other conclusion than Councillors Keane, Scott and De Sousa knowingly with a strategic, political purpose at the behest of Mayor Hughes misrepresented and exaggerated the risk of a breach of internet election security during the 2022 municipal election to suit another purpose other than allegedly ensuring the integrity of the 2022 election, that purpose being to suppress a segment of the voters in Oro-Medonte for their perceived, political advantage for Mayor Hughes, and possibly them, as well, in the 2022 election.

It is important to understand the factual reason why there has been no known breaches of internet election security or malware or ransomware placed onto internet election security systems during an election in Ontario.

The reason being the criminals know that a Municipality or Township would only need to hold another election, this time using paper ballots without the need to use the internet or computers and therefore, the Township would not be compelled to pay a ransom.

This does not sanction the use of in-person paper ballots and mail-in ballots only during the 2022 municipal election in Oro-Medonte. If a breach of internet election security were to occur, the absence of the accommodations of the internet and telephone for those with a disability would still exist.

In other words, there is no financial gain for criminals placing malware onto computers during an election, a municipality having time on their side to hold another election, as opposed criminals disabling the daily operating computer systems of a company or a municipality who require the use of their daily operating computer systems to be up and running immediately in order to carry on business as usual, where money is to be realized by the criminals once a ransom is paid.

Given this fact, I find it reasonable to conclude that it is highly improbable and remote that a breach of the internet election security will occur during the 2022 municipal election, or during any other election in Oro-Medonte or elsewhere in Ontario.

Did Councillor Keane and other Members of Council by voting for In-person Paper Ballot and Mail-in Ballot voting for the 2022 municipal election, thereby eliminating Internet and Telephone Voting, Accommodations for those with a Disability, Discriminate on the Ground of Age in Services?

The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits Discrimination on the Grounds of Age in Services.

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane made the following statements, in part, during the November 24, 2021 Council meeting;

“This reaches beyond the age of of our residents who are not comfortable with using these sort of devices. My dad doesn’t touch one. That is something on a daily basis we see hear from. We have two issues right there on internet voting and the telephone voting which has not been brought up...The township actually had to do a posting or an update outlining exactly in detail how the telephone voting works because people were not waiting to receive a number, I guess, or a feedback that their phone was actually registered. So, right off the bat, I do not want to see telephone voting. And again, brings me back to the comments about seniors and accessibility. The internet is not a way a lot of seniors want to even do internet banking for example. So, internet banking did not make it easier. Seniors, generally, and Ill put the word, generally there, are not comfortable with the technology and putting personal information over the internet. Seniors, again, lack of internet service and prefer to vote in person.”

The evidence indicates that Mayor Hughes made the following statement during the Council meeting; “The data does not show that there is a perfect relationship between the age of a person who uses it who is familiar with a computer, so this isn’t just senior related”, seemingly contradicting Councillor Keane’s statements in drawing a relationship between a senior’s Age and a senior’s inability to use a computer and the internet to vote due to their Age.

The evidence indicates that no other Members of Council drew a relationship between the Age of a person and an inability to use a computer and the internet to vote during an election due to their Age.

The evidence clearly indicates that Councillor Keane perceived that due to Age, the senior residents in Oro-Medonte have difficulty in using computers and likely would not use a computer to vote in the 2022 municipal election.

Statements made by Councillors Keane regarding her perception that “generally” older people find difficulty in using a computer due to their Age exhibits and confirms a stereotypical and systemic attitude that exists in society towards older persons.

I am going to assume that Mayor Hughes, a senior, is capable of operating a computer in his day to day work given his position and tenure as Mayor in his office without difficulty. Similarly, I am going to assume that Deputy Mayor Hough, as well a senior, does not have difficulty in operating a computer on a day to day basis given his position and tenure as Deputy Mayor.

Numerous residents of Oro-Medonte disagreed with Councillor Keane’s statements regarding her perception of the inability of seniors to use a computer due to Age and wrote in to Council expressing their views, as evidenced by the following extracted statements;

“I work in health care, and many seniors can use computers”

“Older folks do not have to travel to vote... Do the right thing and cease this tour toward old methods and retain electronic voting as a means to engage more participation of the citizens”

“The suggestion made by one councillor that seniors lack the skill to use the internet effectively is just plain hogwash and an insult to our intelligence.”

“I personally know several seniors up to 92 years of age who log onto their computers daily for various reasons (e-mail, reading the paper, booking appointments, etc.)”

“I teach technology classes to the seniors of CFUW Orillia and even 90 year old members and those living in areas with poor internet access have figured out how to participate in Zoom sessions.”

“Internet usage in Canada is pegged at 95.6% and seniors are a big part of that... your (Council) decision excludes those that would vote via phone or internet.”

“The attempts to reduce accessibility is a clear suppression of voters rights to vote... seniors are too old to vote... Democracy will overcome the attempt to stop people from voting and at the very least to needlessly make it difficult to access their rights to vote.”

“It is stated that “old” people don’t have a computer or don’t know how to use it. I voted electronically on my computer and I’m 81 years old... Internet voting allows your constituents who are shut-ins at home, in hospitals... and others to vote... Internet voting provides an election that is accessible to ALL voters.”

I find in reviewing the statements made by Councillors Keane during the Council meeting on November 24, 2021, specifically her perception of a correlation between the Age of a person and their inability to operate a computer to vote due to Age, to be a factor in Councillor Keane’s decision to exclude internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election.

Does the Threat of a Breach of Internet Security in the 2022 Election outweigh the Accommodation Needs of those Persons with a Disability that enable those Disabled Persons to Vote in the 2022 Municipal Election?

In reviewing all of the evidence in this matter, for the reasons stated above in this report, I find that it is highly improbable and remote that a breach of internet election security will occur during the 2022 municipal election in Oro-Medonte.

I further find that the Threat of a breach of internet security, in the absence of any known recent history of a breach of internet security during an election, does not outweigh the accommodation needs of those persons with a disability who may require the accommodation of the internet or telephone to vote in the 2022 municipal election.

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane voted to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, in part, because of the absence of “reliable internet service”, or no internet service in some areas of Oro-Medonte.

The evidence indicates that Councillors Scott, Keane, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes by their decisions eliminated all residents in Oro-Medonte from voting via the internet in the 2022 election, whether you have reliable internet service, or don’t have reliable internet service, or don’t have internet service at all. In my view, those decisions by those Members of Council make no sense, unless there is an intended, strategic, political purpose.

I find the decisions of these three Councillors and Mayor Hughes raises serious questions as to the integrity of the 2022 election, and they as Members of Council given that their decisions that in my view, make no sense and clearly are not in the public interest.

As stated sensibly by Deputy Mayor Hough, if a voting resident has concerns about the security of the internet or in this case, about the reliability of the internet, they can vote by in-person paper ballot, or if physically incapable of doing so, by mail-in ballot on request. In my view, that makes sense, rather than the total elimination of internet voting in the 2022 election due to poor internet service or no internet service in some areas of Oro-Medonte.

The Charter – Sec. 15(1) -“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national origin or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Differential Treatment Under the Charter -“Sometimes the differential treatment is often apparent on the face of the challenged law or policy. This is referred to as direct discrimination. However, other occasions, differential treatment could result from the effects of the law. When a law that appears to be neutral has a negative differential impact on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination (the effects of the law), the result is referred to as “adverse effects” discrimination... under Sec.15(1).”

In Fraser v Canada (Attorney General ), “... the SCC confirmed that a law may still be discriminatory even when it appears to treat everyone equally, and any negative consequences are not explicitly based on enumerated or analogous grounds. This is known as “adverse impact” discrimination, and it occurs when “instead of explicitly singling out those who are in the protected groups for differential treatment, the law indirectly places them at a disadvantage.”

In Law v. Canada, the SCC ruled that “... for the government action or legislation to be found discriminatory it must be shown to violate human dignity. In other words, it must harm or devalue an individuals sense of self-respect or self worth.”

In my view, by voting to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, forms of accommodation for those persons with a disability, Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes have not provided, adequate and acceptable accommodation for those persons who are disabled and require the accommodation of the internet and telephone in order to vote given their disability and in doing so, these four Members of Council have devalued the “self-respect” and “self-worth” of those people with a disability in removing their opportunity, possibly their only opportunity, to vote.

If questioning the veracity of that statement, I suggest that those Members of Council who voted to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election take the time to ask those who are disabled and read the e-mails and letters directed to Members of Council, as I have, who were intending to vote via the internet or telephone in the 2022 election and who are now unable to vote given the elimination of internet voting and the difficulty or impossibility of voting by mail due to their disability.

The evidence indicates that Councillor Keane, is familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given her citing of the Charter in her introduction of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Public in December 2020.

The evidence indicates that Councillor Scott is very familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms given the following statements made by Councillor Scott during the May 26, 2021 Council meeting, in part; “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolute and it is afforded to every Canadian citizen and visitor to this country...If an investigative entity is comfortable in a reliance on some aspects of the law, then they should, as a matter of fairness, respect and rely the most significant portions of the law, as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, with the respect and the greatest of respect to all four lawyers involved in this matter, and at the risk of appearing arrogant and probably chastised by some, I suggest that I have more practical and real world experience regarding the Charter of Rights specifically section 10 as it pertains to right to counsel, and section 7 as it pertains to the duty to disclose as a principle to fundamental justice.”

I believe that we can assume that Councillor Scott is very familiar with Sec. 15 (1) of the Charter, as undoubtedly Mayor Hughes is as well. It would appear, given the evidence in this matter, that all four named Members of Council violated Sec. 15 (1) of the Charter.

In my view, supported by the evidence in this report, Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes being aware of the fact that there are no known breaches of internet security related to an election in Ontario since 2012 in Ontario, knowingly provided misleading, meritless and unrelated examples of breaches of internet security including from around the world in a seemingly desperate attempt to support and justify their decisions and that of the Mayor Hughes, as to why internet and telephone voting should not be allowed in the 2022 election in Oro-Medonte.

While the Municipal Elections Act authorizes Ontario Councils to decide in how the electorate will vote in an election, it does not allow a Council to discriminate in making that decision. As stated earlier in this report, the Ontario Human Rights Code takes precedence over all other legislation in the Province including the MEA, unless the legislation states otherwise.

The final decision as to whether or not Members of this Council in not permitting internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election, the accommodation required by some persons with a disability, constitutes Discrimination, as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and case law, rests with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and/or the Ontario Human Rights Commission and potentially the Courts given the political and case law implications of Council’s decision.

In an April 28, 2021 Council meeting, Mayor Hughes made the following cautionary statements to other Members of Council:

“We wouldn’t have a separate motion for this... there’s one reminder I think that everyone needs to keep in mind. We get all kinds of recommendations from people in the community in regards to what council should or should not do with professional reports... The thing that we have to keep in mind is that failure to comply with the regulations isn’t something that a council can take lightly... and when the expectations are that a council follow the advice of the professional people who say, you need to do this in order to be in compliance and if you aren’t in compliance, you can have severe penalties which could affect you, everything that you own personally, along with potential criminal charges, that the expectation of the public to disregard our professional people to keep that in mind and listen to their advice instead is something that, that a council is really not in a position to do...Council really needs to make sure that all of the ability to defend their decisions on the basis of qualified professional advice is there. There are a lot of consequences involved.”

The evidence suggests that Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes, himself, appear not to have followed his own cautionary advice in ignoring the professional advice of Clerk Aubichon in her recommendation for voting Option #1, with the resulting consequences, including this report, to date.

In a response e-mail to an e-mailed letter dated January 4, 2022 to Mayor Hughes from a senior member of this community who had complained about the elimination of the internet voting in the 2022 municipal election, Mayor Hughes wrote, in part;

“Reflecting while reading the names on war memorials can result in achieving a broader prospective and help us all better understand why elections need be held with the upmost integrity.”

I do not know if the intent of Mayor Hughes was to tug on the heart strings of this senior in some sort of assurance from him that the 2022 election was going to be an election of the “utmost integrity.” The evidence indicates otherwise.

I find that statement by Mayor Hughes to be highly inappropriate and misplaced given the issue at hand, the elimination of internet voting in a municipal election. It would appear by his vote that Mayor Hughes has failed to understand, acknowledge or accept the fact that being able to vote by internet may be the accommodation required by those disabled residents of Oro-Medonte, including veterans of wars, who are now disabled do to injuries suffered from wars and have no other option, but to vote by way of the internet or telephone given their disability.

Respectfully, I suggest Mayor Hughes, that you re-read those names of those young men and women killed in wars and those currently disabled and living because of injuries suffered in wars, keeping that thought in mind, as you profess that the 2022 election is going to be an election with the “utmost integrity” in Oro-Medonte.

In my view, you have done a disservice and have dishonoured those young men and woman killed in wars and veterans of wars by somehow linking the elimination of internet voting and telephone voting in an election in Oro-Medonte, as an example of an election of the “utmost integrity”. You know better. There is nothing in this report thus far in terms of evidence that gives justification for your words that the 2022 election is going to be one of the “utmost integrity.” The evidence clearly does not support your assertion, and in my view, is somewhat fraudulent.

I am well aware as most Canadians are, but not for the ultimate sacrifices of those young men and women killed in wars, we Canadians would not have the freedom to live in a democracy where we have the freedom for all to vote for a government. Excluding internet and telephone voting from the 2022 municipal election does not allow for all persons to vote in 2022 municipal election including disabled war veterans residing in Oro-Medonte. You should be ashamed.

As stated by one resident of Oro-Medonte in a letter to Mayor Hughes, “Will you please tell me what your paragraph about war veterans has to do with internet voting.”

This is a serious matter not to be played with by you or any other Members of Council who have voted \with you, whether or not they personally believe that internet and telephone voting should or should not be included in 2022 election, fearing retribution from you if they do not vote with you on all matters before Council including this one. A review of recorded votes over the last three and a half years would substantiate that statement.

I question whether you honestly believe that the 2022 it is going to be an election with the “utmost integrity” with the exclusion of internet and telephone voting, given your intellect. I don’t believe you do despite what you state publicly. If you do, given the evidence to date in this matter, I believe that you should not be in the position that you are in currently as a Mayor.

In my opinion, I believe that Councillor Scott does not believe, as well, given his statements, in addition to Councillors Greenlaw, Veitch and Deputy Mayor Hough that the 2022 election will be an election with the “utmost integrity” given the absence of internet and telephone voting, forms of accommodation for those with a disability.

In my view, the evidence clearly indicates that the 2022 election is going to be an election lacking in inclusivity and integrity, a direct result of not including internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election.

Voting on motions by Members of this Council clearly indicates a history or pattern of block voting by Councillors Keane, De Sousa and Scott that is always consistent with that of Mayor Hughes, no matter what the issue is, or whether or not they are personally in agreement, and in the process having given up, in my opinion, their autonomy and personal integrity.

I find the meritless and questionable “reasons” provided by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa in support of the Mayor’s decision that internet and telephone voting is to be eliminated from the 2022 election, raises serious questions as to the integrity of the 2022 election, as stated earlier, and gives a somewhat appearance of a “fixed or fraudulent election”, out of the play book of former President Trump.

The evidence indicates that numerous residents of Oro-Medonte wrote in to Members of Council complaining about the elimination of internet voting in the 2022 election. The following statements were taken from some of those e-mails and letters;

“Is this “corruption”, in making it more difficult or impossible for a segment of those eligible to vote unable to vote...Corruption can be defined as; “The abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further, exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division and the environmental crisis. Exposing corruption and holding the corrupt to account can only happen if we understand the way corruption works and the systems that enable it.”

And,“What is it that these three Councillors and, in particular, the Mayor have to lose by permitting internet and telephone voting in 2022...an election?”

“In other words, besides trying to suppress the votes of those who are immune compromised, disabled, out of the country, attending school out of the area, the young and busy, you are also trying to suppress the votes of those that only live here seasonally.”

“It’s a regressive step based on the personal opinions of several councillors who naively believe that the internet is insecure and that anyone would have an interest in actually hacking into our municipal election. Even is remotely possible, please explain what would be gained by doing so.”

“The suggestive made by one councillor that seniors lack the skill to use the internet effectively is just plain hogwash and an insult to our intelligence.”

“Older folks do not have to travel to vote...So, why is council trying to revert to old methods? Is there a deeper plan to rig elections?...One of the problems seems to be that the Councillors themselves have detached themselves from honest representation and indeed, there has surfaced ethical questions that have been swept away.”

“I would like the Council and the Mayor to reconsider the decision and repeal the by-law. The votes against by De Sousa, Keane, Scott and Mayor Hughes were not backed up by any facts, data, or proven security breaches.”

“In other words, your decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting (as was used very successfully in 2018) is ignoring the current pandemic and public health measures should play an integral role in determining the voting method for the 2022 election.”

“I work in health care, and many seniors can use computers.”

“I cannot support your rational for this decision...I personally know several seniors up to 92 years of age who log onto their computers easily for various reasons...The desire to vote is important, the manner in which you vote is a personal decision. It does not have to be by placing an X on a piece of paper.”

“I would like to express my disappointment in this decision and would strongly request that the council reconsider its decision...I teach technology classes to the seniors of CFUW Orillia and even our 90 year old members and those living in areas with poor internet access have figured out how to participate in Zoom sessions...Why would you want to limit those who prefer to be at home and click a button to complete the all important act of voting.”

“I urge you to repeal this suppressive by-law and to improve voter accessibility by offering internet voting. The choice would be a valid and correct decision...The attempt to reduce accessibility is a clear suppression of voters rights to voter...a democracy is supposed to run based on Voters needs and hence Councillors are supposed to be elected to serve these needs in an open, transparent and accountable fashion based on facts, not whims and hearsay as was done in this instance.”

“I strongly support internet and telephone voting...You state there were “issues” with the voting in OM in 2018. What were they? Everyone was aware of the technical band-with glitches prevalent throughout the province. It was not a hacking or security issue as you imply as the truth...it is stated that “old” people don’t have a computer or don’t know how to use it. I voted electronically on my computer and I’m 81 years old...Are you so afraid you wont get elected this time because too many constituents know the conduct of this Council. Do you realize that the public is aware that by reducing the opportunity for

your constituents to vote you are skewing the vote likely to yours and your supporters advantage?...Internet voting allows your constituents who are shut-ins at home, in hospitals...and others to vote...You are suppressing the votes of all of those people...Internet voting provides an election that is accessible to ALL voters....”

“I am writing to share my dismay at the Decision of the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte to not provide access to Telephone and Internet voting in our municipal elections. I have a disease called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. It is characterized by chronic pain, widespread pain, debilitating fatigue, neurological and cognitive deficits, as well as many other accompanying symptoms (refer to https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Myalgic encephalomyelitis for more information). As a person with a disability, the right to access services online, such as voting, is essential. I am unable to stand in line, and often unable to drive myself places. As voting is a right and a civic duty, if able, I will attend in person despite my limitations, but do it despite pain and exhaustion, knowing it will exacerbate my condition for days afterwards. Further, to that, from past experience, I can attest that the accessible parking at local voting centres is unreasonable and humiliating to have to ask for help or accommodations at the centre, In the past when I have asked, I have been made to feel as if I was histrionic or bothersome, as I am relatively young and do not appear outwardly disabled. I believe the AODA was put in place to address issues such as these, but far too often the legislation is not followed or ignored altogether, despite the fact that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), states that “All AMO employees, volunteers and third party contractors are required to have an AODA test of knowledge.” (Reference: https://www.amo.on.ca/accessibility). In closing, the suspension of the right to vote online or by telephone is without question, discriminatory, as statistically, we know there are many people with health conditions or disabilities that exclude them from attending the voting centres in person.”

Given the evidence in this matter, I do not believe that there is any comparison in denying the community of the opportunity to vote by the internet or telephone on the basis of the uncertainty and the highly improbable breach of internet security during the 2022 election, to that of the certainty of those persons with a disability who require the accommodation of the internet or telephone to vote, or those of an Age or medical condition that do not want to attend a voting location to vote, given the presence of other members of the community and of the potential presence of COVID.

I believe that Mayor Hughes and Councillor Scott are well aware of their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Municipal Elections Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but made the choice to ignore their legal obligations, as did Councillors Keane and De Sousa and proceeded by their vote to deny the accommodations of internet and telephone voting to those persons with a disability in the 2022 municipal election in Oro-Medonte.

As stated earlier in this report, the Ontario Human Rights Code takes precedence or prevails over all other Legislation in Ontario, including the Municipal Elections Act, unless a law specifically states otherwise, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“The purpose of the Code is to foster a society...in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life, and to provide a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and in rights.”

“Organizations, including government, should use the principles of inclusiveness when they are developing and building procedures, standards, requirements, programs and policies, as well as removing existing barriers to those with a disability.”

The question arises if those persons with a disability who voted via the internet or telephone in the 2018 election, and those who have become disabled since the 2018 election, have been treated with the same dignity and respect in light of the absence of the same accommodations, those being internet and telephone voting, that were provided for in the 2018 election by Members of Council.

There is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of other residents of Oro-Medonte and certainly in the minds of those persons who are disabled, that they have not been treated with the same dignity and respect by Councillors Scott, De Sousa, Keane and Mayor Hughes. This is often symptomatic of society in general in the treatment of those persons with a disability, as has been seemingly exhibited here in Oro-Medonte by these four Members of Council.

The evidence clearly indicates that no breach of security occurred in the 2018 municipal election in Oro-Medonte, or any other place in Ontario. It is reasonable to assume that there were less sophisticated internet security measures in place in 2018 than are currently in place to prevent breaches of internet election security, just as there are currently in the daily computer operating systems in municipalities including Oro-Medonte since 2018, as evidenced by the attempts, and attempts only on Mayor Hughes computer, as reported by Mayor Hughes himself.

This is hard, factual evidence that was ignored and summarily dismissed by Councillors Keane, Scott De Sousa and Mayor Hughes in their decisions to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election, as if it didn’t exist, not speculative and unsubstantiated reasons masquerading as evidence.

It is not enough to recognize and state that all potential voters should be able to vote “unencumbered”, as was stated by Councillor Scott, and then go on to deny those voters the very means, possibly the only means by which they may have voted in the 2018 election and required to vote in the 2022 election.

The evidence indicates that by eliminating internet and telephone voting, forms of accommodation for those with disabilities, Councillors Scott, Keane, De Sousa and mayor Hughes have relegated those with disabilities wanting to vote in the 2022 election to having to physically attend a voting location to vote by in-person paper ballot, or by obtaining and mailing the mail-in ballot, or by Proxy, all three being a more involved and a more difficult means of voting than voting by the internet or telephone and creating what I find to be unnecessary barriers to those voters with a disability.

I further find that the evidence clearly indicates that Councillors Scott, Keane, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes could have provided the accommodation that is needed by those with a disability by voting to include internet voting and telephone voting in the 2022 election to ensure that those persons with a disability can vote in the 2022 election without Undue Hardship to the Township.

I find the reasons stated by Councillors Keane, Scott and De Sousa and Mayor Hughes during the November 24, 2021 Council meeting as to why internet and telephone voting should not be included in the 2022 municipal election due to a potential Threat of a breach of the internet election security systems to be neither cogent, compelling, or persuasive, and that those reasons do not outweigh the accommodation needs of those persons with a Disability, pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code that would have enabled those persons with a Disability to vote in the 2022 election.

The evidence clearly indicates that there has been a complete and blatant disregard for the practical and common-sense requests from the people of Oro-Medonte to allow internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election. I believe that what has contributed to the disrespect and gradual loss of accountability to the people of this community, whether or not recognized by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes, is the fact that where once these Members of Council regularly physically appeared before members of this community in Council chambers and where, at times, could be immediately held accountable by members of this community by voicing their objection, are now detached and isolated from members of the public due to COVID.

It would appear that the two year isolation has detached these four Members of Council from reality and now believing that they are an “island unto themselves” unaccountable to those people who placed them into the positions that they occupy today, and it further appears to have emboldened these four Members of Council to make what I view as questionable, unjustified and illegitimate decisions at times, including their recent decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election ignoring the numerous requests of members of this community to repeal the By-law, as exemplified in this report, and in doing so, have completely disregarded the accommodation needs of those people with a disability who may require the accommodations of the internet or telephone to vote in the 2022 election.

CONCLUSION

Did Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes by voting for In-Person Paper Ballot and Mail-in Paper Ballot On Request, as the only two voting options for the 2022 Municipal Election, thereby eliminating Internet and Telephone voting, Forms of Accommodations for those Persons with a Disability, Discriminate on the Grounds of Disability and Age in Services?

Does the elimination of Internet and Telephone Voting in the 2022 Municipal Election, the result of the vote by Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes, due to what they stated to be a Threat to Internet Security during the 2022 election, outweigh the Duty to Accommodate those Persons with a Disability, as required pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

In reviewing all of the evidence in this matter, I find that Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes by their decisions have denied needlessly, the Accommodations that were provided in the 2018 election to those persons with a Disability, and that those forms of Accommodation, those being the internet and telephone, could still have been provided for in the 2022 election without Undue Hardship to the Township to be Discrimination on the Grounds of Disability in Services.

Further, in reviewing all of the evidence in this matter, I find that statements made by Councillor Keane given her Perception that Senior residents have difficulty in using computers and would likely not vote in the 2022 municipal election, to have been a Factor in her decision to vote for in-person paper ballot and mail-in paper ballot voting only in the 2022 municipal election, thereby eliminating the Accommodations of internet and telephone voting to be Discrimination on the Grounds of Age in Services.

As indicated earlier in this report, numerous members of the Oro-Medonte community wrote in to Members of Council requesting that Council re-consider its decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election and to repeal the By-law.

I note that despite the number of residents who have written in to Mayor Hughes and other Members of Council requesting that Council reconsider its decision, some of whose letters being represented in this report, the By-law remains in place as of this date.

As such, given this fact, I have no expectation that Council will revisit it’s decision to having eliminated internet and telephone voting in the forthcoming 2022 municipal election upon receipt of my report.

I and another members(s) of this community, will therefore be proceeding to file formal Human Rights Complaints of Discrimination on the Grounds of Disability in Services and Discrimination on the Grounds of Age in Services with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and a copy to be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in addition to other entities, with the Township, Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes being named as Respondents in our complaints.

If the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is in agreement with my analysis and conclusions and it is decided that this matter should go forward to a hearing in the public interest, and it is concluded in a subsequent hearing that the evidence supports that there is Discrimination on the Grounds of Disability and Age in Services, then a case law precedent would be established affecting the decisions of all other Municipal Councils in Ontario.

It should be noted that depending on the context, the Courts and Tribunals may decide Discrimination cases by applying the Charter, the relevant Federal or Provincial Provisions, or both.

It should be further noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission may decide to become involved in this matter and conduct their own investigation whether or not a hearing is held by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal given the issue of potential systemic discrimination in the public interest and the broader provincial implications and significance, whether or not this Council re-visits its decision to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election and repeals the By-law.

In light of the evidence in this matter, I find the decisions of Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes to eliminate internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election to be absent of any reasonable and acceptable justification for the elimination of internet and telephone voting from the 2022 municipal election, as I believe the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Courts will, as well.

What are purported to be valid, legitimate reasons by Councillors Keane, De Sousa, Scott and Mayor Hughes for the elimination of internet voting in the 2022 election, I find to be contrived and more akin to “weak excuses” to support their decisions than valid reasons for the elimination of internet voting and telephone voting in the 2022 municipal election.

In my view, in reviewing all of the evidence in this matter, and in the absence of any acceptable or legally justified reasons for the elimination of internet voting, it is reasonable to conclude that another reason must exist for the decisions of Councillor Keane, De Sousa, Scott and Mayor Hughes’.

The evidence strongly suggests, as stated earlier in this report, and in a previous letter that I sent to Council, what I view as the real reason for the elimination of internet and telephone voting in the 2022 election, that being the suppression of the votes of an identified segment or group of voters in Oro-Medonte for an expected political benefit for one or more of the incumbents running in the 2022 municipal election in Oro-Medonte, and as was suggested, as well, by several residents of Oro-Medonte who wrote in to Council. If not, for what other reason that makes sense given the evidence in this matter. I invite a response from any Member of Council to that question.

The question arises in my mind, if this is going to be another public “black mark” on this Council, this Township and the residents of Oro-Medonte who voted for the Members of Council of this Council with the exception of Councillors De Sousa and Deputy Mayor Hough who were appointed by Mayor Hughes in lieu of a By-election, if and once the media becomes aware of the fact that complaints of Discrimination have been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against named Members of this Council.

It brings to mind the following statements allegedly made by Councillor Keane in a Midland newspaper article dated January 16, 2021 in defending her Code of Conduct for Members of the Public motion;

“I think everyone here today and watching from home today has seen the comments in the Orillia Matters and Barrie Today article and subsequently, on social media. Seeing the effect by the perpetrators of the misinformation, the damage it has done goes far beyond this virtual council table... The township has received “international notoriety” since the article was published and it is a black mark on this municipality. Oro-Medonte is now world renowned and not for what is should be. We have been showcased internationally as an embarrassing behind-the-times municipality rather than the moving-forward-with-everything-to-offer place to be... I will not be retracting or pausing this motion as that will be an action against provincial and federal legislation, and essentially, an inaction in the eyes of compliance, enforcement officers.”

As stated earlier in this report, in fairness, some Members of this Council may not have been as knowledgeable or cognizant of Human Rights Law as they should have been given their positions as Members of Council at the time of the vote, and as a result failed to apply or consider Human Rights Legislation as they should have in making their decisions. No one expects Members of Council to know all there is to know about every issue that is put before them, and that is why staff reports are requested, as was done in this case.

However, Members of Council are now aware of the Law as it pertains to the Ontario Human Rights Code and Council’s legal responsibilities. It is the decision of this Council, at this point in time, in how or if this matter proceeds further in other forums.

As stated by Mayor Hughes and indicated earlier in this report; “... when the expectations are that a Council follow the advice of the professional people who say, you need to do this in order to be in compliance and if you aren’t in compliance, you can have severe penalties which could affect you, everything that you own personally...”

In the instant case, the evidence clearly indicates that Councillors Keane, Scott, De Sousa and Mayor Hughes did not follow and disregarded “... the advice of the professional people...” that “professional” person being Clerk Aubichon, and hence, the genesis for this report and Council being in the position it is about to be in as of this date.

In conclusion, in light of the evidence in this matter and my analysis of the evidence, if still a Human Rights Officer with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, it would have been my decision to recommend a Board of Inquiry be convened in this matter.

The Integrity Commissioner does not have Jurisdiction in this matter.

Respectfully submitted for your information and attention.

Respectfully,

Robert J. Young

cc: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

cc: Ontario Human Rights Commission

cc: Ombudsman of Ontario

cc: George Cornell

cc: AMO

cc: Clerk Aubichon

cc: Robin Dunn

The writer was employed for ten years at the Ontario Human Rights Commission drafting complaints of Discrimination made by members of the public, as an Investigator recommending Boards of Inquiry or no Boards of Inquiry, as a Manager of twelve Human Rights Investigators reviewing and evaluating their reports to ensure the evidence supported the Investigators recommendation for a Board or no Board of Inquiry, and as a Provincial Government Mediator attempting to resolve complaints of Discrimination before complainants, respondents and their respective Counsels, and further, investigating Human Rights complaints in the Provinces correctional facilities (Workplace and Harassment Policy-WDHP) while seconded to the Independent Investigation Unit (IIU), and while seconded to the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner investigating Human Rights complaints and other complaints involving Police Officers in the Province.

RJY February 28, 2022

35