Pete Fry: The integrity commissioner found that material decisions were being made by the ABC caucus to move council business while bypassing public oversight.
An investigation by Vancouver’s integrity commissioner has found that Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC party violated the rules of local government — apparently without consequence. Now, ABC is suggesting that taxpayers could foot the bill for the legal costs they incurred while resisting the year-long investigation.
In late August, the integrity commissioner ruled that Sim and ABC breached the code of conduct and contravened the Vancouver Charter. Much has been said since, but I want to break down the breakdown in democratic process from my perspective as an elected councillor.
Over a year ago, I filed a complaint with the integrity commissioner, as I was concerned that ABC’s council majority was making decisions privately and enforcing whipped votes, both contrary to the laws governing Vancouver.
The integrity commissioner is an independent office appointed to uphold ethical standards among elected officials in the City of Vancouver. Led by a seasoned lawyer and legal team with decades of experience, the office found that material decisions were being made by the ABC caucus, as a council majority, to move council business while bypassing public oversight.
In practical terms, that allowed ABC to push through particular agenda items like eliminating the climate justice charter and putting millions of dollars of capital funding into their preferred projects.
ABC and their supporters, in their defence, have suggested they did nothing wrong, arguing that federal and provincial politicians meet privately to make decisions as party caucuses all the time. That is a fundamentally wrong interpretation of the law however, kind of like saying an offence committed in Canada is OK because it’s legal in the U.S.
Federal and provincial legislators are obliged under rules set out in the Constitution, but Vancouver, like all local governments in Canada, doesn’t exist under the Constitution; our municipal governments exist by provincial legislation. The province of B.C. has enacted the legislation that allows local governments to exist, collect taxes, make bylaws, land-use decisions and so forth.
In Vancouver, that legislation is called the Vancouver Charter and it specifies, among other things, that decision-making meetings of council must be open to the public. Open meetings have been a statutory requirement in B.C. for more than 140 years. This oversight and transparency is designed to keep local governments accountable to the people who elect them.
Multiple legal and judicial experts have concurred with the integrity commissioner’s position on open meetings within the construct of local government law. Earlier this year, the provincial ombudsperson called ABC’s defiance “a disturbing repudiation of the rule of law.”
The response from Sim and his ABC caucus has been defiant — they maintain the rules of law don’t apply to them. Sim has dismissed the complaint as a technicality or playing politics, and their office has insinuated through communications with Postmedia News’s Dan Fumano and others that my code of conduct complaint has cost the taxpayers a significant amount of money.
But the commissioner’s report makes clear that it was ABC’s legal teams that prolonged the process, likely racking up significant costs. Ironically, the bill for resisting an ethics investigation may now fall to the public. A disappointing end to what could have been a teachable moment — especially since the report offered no sanctions, just sound advice on good governance.
Published in the Vancouver Sun, September 3, 2025