Integrity commissioner report says councillor harassed, intimidated community members over Sprung structure debate

It was July 2024 when Barrhaven learned it was shortlisted to house a Sprung structure. At the time, Ottawa was seeing many newcomers with no place to go and had to find quick ways to provide temporary housing. But the issue set off a firestorm in the community that made it clear the tent-like structures would not be welcomed there. 

Barrhaven councillors Wilson Lo and David Hill opposed the project. But they faced fierce opposition from urban councillors in support of the plan, like Rideau-Vanier Coun. Stéphanie Plante. She made her stance clear during media interviews and posts on social media. 

Now Karen Shepherd, the city’s integrity commissioner, says some of those interactions went too far, stating that Plante intimidated, harassed, and bullied some of those with whom she disagreed. 

Just hours after the report was released late Friday evening, Plante issued a statement on her website, saying she “categorically” rejected the report’s findings, saying “this is a curtailment of my freedom of speech” and she was only “engaging in legitimate public debate.”

The investigator who looked into the complaints, however, said that because Plante named people publicly on social media it “would tend to make one feel uncomfortable and underscore that their character and motivations were being called into question.” 

“I accept that the witnesses, along with some other members of the public observing the Respondents' posts on social media, felt intimidated and hesitant about engaging in the public debate about Sprung structures," read Shepherd in the report. “The respondent (Plante) did not simply state factual information about the witnesses, she made inferences and insinuations that to a reasonable person would appear to challenge the credibility and integrity of the witnesses.”

The report said it would be difficult to conclude that Plante intentionally tried to be intimidating, but said the use of emojis, memes, and innuendo “was disrespectful and rose to the level of intimidation and bullying.”

Plante did later delete the posts, the report noted, and said the councillor was willing to meet with the concerned parties who declined that opportunity. 

A breakdown of what happened

While the 39-page report is extensive in detail and examples, it does not name the four people who made the complaints. The integrity commissioner said more than one of the complainants expressed hesitation about filing the complaint because they did not want their identities to be exposed, but Shepard also noted since many of the social media posts were public, their identities could be traced. 

Witness 1 and 2 are described as previously working for Witness 3, who served as an elected official at the city for over 20 years. Witness 4 is categorized as a member of the public, a Barrhaven business owner, and a member of the Barrhaven Business Improvement Association (BIA).

The first incident is said to have been reported on July 25, 2024 when a “well-known media personality” posted to X about the Sprung structure debate. Witness 4 commented on the post, which Plante then responded to with a meme which read “Behold, a man has arrived to share his manly views.” 

In her interview with the investigator, Plante said “the meme was intended to convey someone who was commenting beyond their knowledge and that Witness 4 was incorrect about the proposed uses of the Sprung Structure.”

In November, before the complaints were filed, the Ottawa Lookout reported that the above tweet was aimed at Barrhaven BIA president Jason MacDonald. In a follow-up interview at the time, the Barrhaven business owner, who was speaking on behalf of himself and not the BIA, expressed concerns over how urban councillors were commenting on the matter when they represented wards on the other side of the city. 

“I will be considerate in the fact that everyone has a different spot on how to solve the problem, but the level of conflict, accusations, and name calling from downtown councillors without knowing our community has been extremely hurtful and harsh,” said MacDonald in November. 

Around the same time, Plante got into a spat on X with then-Nepean MPP Lisa MacLeod who was opposed to the Sprung Structures being built anywhere in her suburban riding. 

Quoting one of MacLeod’s tweets, Plante said: “I have reached out to you by text @MacLeodLisa and you have my number. I also emailed the Barrhaven BIA in the summer. Happy to chat anytime but stop pretending that Jan isn’t behind this or that Jason’s property is not next to the site.”

That X post by Plante has since been deleted. 

Two weeks before this post, MacDonald had also confirmed in a public meeting put on by MacLeod that his office was located next door to the Highbury Park site. In an interview with the Lookout, he said there was never an effort to hide that fact and said his name is clearly advertised on his building. 

As was reported at the time, some accused former Barrhaven West Coun. Jan Harder of being behind the local movement to stop a Sprung structure from being built in the community. But when the rallies were held, she was in Florida. 

The integrity report does not mention MacDonald, MacLeod or Harder by name. 

Plante told the investigator that she had heard from other councillors that Witness 3 was in conversation with them about Sprung structures. When asked, Witness 3 confirmed she had received calls from the local ward councillors and  another Member of Council and had discussed the issue, but said they never “lobbied or accessed Councillors in a way that other citizens would not be able to do  to put forward her views on Sprung Structures.”

The social media feud continued. Later in the day, Plante emailed Witness 4 and the BBIA Executive Director to “suggest they meet to discuss community shelters and the integration of refugees into a community.” 

Witness 4 told the investigator he was not available to meet with Plante when she had asked, and did not feel the need to engage with the respondent since her ward was on the other side of Ottawa. “He said he felt this way because of the tone of the meme and the fact that the local Ward Councillors were engaged on the Sprung Structure matter. The meeting did not take place,” read the report. 

Over the next few months and through the fall, the integrity commissioner made multiple notes of social media debates Plante had either with or referencing the concerned Barrhaven residents. In one post, she accused MacDonald of doing an interview with a local radio station “on the company dime and has the wrong information.” Plante confirmed she had reached out to the Barrhaven BIA for a meeting and had not heard back. 

That same day, on Nov. 7, the city announced that Barrhaven would no longer have a Sprung structure with two locations shortlisted instead: Next to the Nepean Sportsplex in Knoxdale-Merivale Ward and at the Eagleson Park and Ride in Kanata. A few months later, in March, the plans were cancelled altogether. 

Through November, Plante had taken multiple jabs at MacLeod on X alongside MacDonald, saying in one post that the Barrhaven Sprung structure opposition was “about protecting [Witness 4]’s property values and demonizing immigrants,” the post read, according to the report. 

Plante also took various jabs at Witness 1, who she repeatedly identified as the niece of a former elected official. Plante said that Witness 1 was organizing a demonstration on Nov. 24, and accused them of collecting people's personal information because they asked people to register. 

In a video, Plante cautioned viewers, “Do not give these people your personal information. These types of events are generally held to get your personal information, because as everybody knows, we have federal and provincial elections just around the corner and these will be used eventually as propaganda tools, as recruitment tools, whatever.” 

Witness 1 denied to integrity investigators that the personal information collected from rally participants would be used for political purposes and confirmed that she had never shared the information with anyone. 

Plante later did a radio interview where she shared the same assumptions and said Witness 1 was a “political operative.”

A copy of the full Integrity Commissioner’s report can be found here.

The four witnesses accused Plante of disclosing personal information, however, Shepherd said that was not the case because the information was already in the public domain. 

What comes next

Plante sent an email to her council colleagues where she said "I want to be clear: I do not accept these findings,” reported the CBC. 

In a statement on her website, Plante said the complaint was “politically motivated” and said she is working on an appeal with her lawyer. 

“To the residents of Rideau Vanier: We have a housing crisis, opioid problem, and a downtown truck problem. We do not have an emoji crisis,” wrote Plante. “This investigation is a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars, city resources and time. I will continue to do the important work of representing you and holding those in positions of power to account – even when it makes them uncomfortable."

On Wednesday city council will vote on the integrity commissioner’s report, which recommends Plante be docked three days’ pay. 

"If council endorses these findings, we are saying that elected officials can be sanctioned and financially penalized based on the subjective feelings of complainants and a 'balance of probabilities' or that your social media posts could be deemed 'intimidation'," Plante wrote in an email to her colleagues. 

In late 2020, the Code of Conduct was updated to include a new policy on social media. Later that year, in the 2020 Annual Report, the Integrity Commissioner commented on the ethical context of the Interpretation Bulletin on the Use of Social Media: 

“As with any space where a Member of Council interacts with members of the public, the general spirit of the Code of Conduct already applies, because social media platforms are simply extensions of physical spaces. While the line between private and public roles may blur over social media, positions of authority persist online—along with the power to misuse that authority. As such,  public office holders using accounts representing the City will always be perceived to be acting in their public capacity, and will always be expected to practice “sober second thought” before speaking, and to maintain the same decorum expected of them during Council proceedings.