A Chatham-Kent councillor who had her pay suspended for three months for breaching council's Code of Conduct will have to wait longer to find out if her appeal will be successful.
Dresden councillor Rhonda Jubenville had her Judicial Review heard in London Divisional Court on Wednesday, but the panel reserved its written decision until a later date that is yet to be determined.
Jubenville's lawyer argued that the findings by Chatham-Kent's Integrity Commissioner missed the mark, contained errors in law, and were not justified following public complaints about Jubenville's controversial social media posts over her failed motion to only fly government flags at municipal buildings and drop the Pride Flag and others that don't meet the criteria.
Michael Alexander argued that the commissioner's findings in August 2023 that Jubenville breached the Code of Conduct, resulting in her pay being suspended, violated his client's freedom of speech under the Charter of Rights, and was biased.
He also told the court there were no names in the report, accused the commissioner of withholding evidence, and claimed there was a lack of disclosure.
The Integrity Commissioner ruled Jubenville used her position as a councillor to improperly influence the community, used intimidation, and created a toxic environment when she posted her displeasure over the failed flag raising motion on her social media.
Alexander said she was just conducting regular political activities, adding the conclusion was vague and inconsistent with the Charter of Rights.
He noted someone shouldn't be punished for their opinion just because it offends someone.
"The speech that we hate isn't necessarily hate speech," said Alexander.
He also said Jubenville received death threats from the non-binary community after allegations she was campaigning against the LGBTQ community and decided to speak out about the ongoing harassment and criticism, adding some posts were misunderstood.
The municipality's lawyer, Amy Block, argued the case isn't about the social media posts, it's about civility, respect, and upholding the integrity of the office.
Block said the commissioner and council were reasonable with their decisions, adding Jubenville used her "very strong" social media presence to influence those who disagreed with her position on flag etiquette.
She told the court Jubenville played the victim in this "very significant and polarizing issue", attacked an unidentified private citizen and opposing councillors on social media, and posted disparaging remarks about drag shows.
Block said Jubenville posted about issues outside of her ward and interfered in school board matters when she posted about the Pride Flag flying at Blenheim High School.
"This really was about targeting people. The community felt it was being threatened," Block said.
She also noted the commissioner had enough evidence to make her "reasonable" conclusion against Jubenville and "preserved confidentiality" with no identities needed, adding the Municipal Act states confidentiality is a priority during investigations, referring to the allegation of a lack of disclosure.
Block added Jubenville incited others and improperly used her office to spread misinformation.
"She was aware of her influence on social media when she called others to action," Block noted.
Block argued the Code of Conduct states the office is only to be used for official business and requested that the appeal be dismissed, saying free speech has limits.
Alexander replied by admitting Jubenville made a mistake when she meddled in school board business, adding no identities were required in the report, just support for allegations against his client.
Alexander is asking for $20,000 in litigation costs while Block is requesting $80,000.