Four cellphone videos showing Councillor Peter Cuddy’s aggressive tirade after being served with a lawsuit by his former political consultant Zak Rahim became the subject of a Code of Conduct complaint to London’s Integrity Commissioner after airing on CTV News.
However, in a letter written to the complainant on February 28, Principles Integrity decided a formal investigation and public report was not necessary.
After calling the confrontation an isolated incident the letter states, “given that in context the Councillor was reacting to the actions of the consultant which we would consider provocative and confrontational, and given that the Councillor has apologized both publicly and to the consultant, in our view no further action is warranted.”
The videos show Rahim hand the papers to Cuddy on the sidewalk in front of his home.
Cuddy immediately begins cursing at Rahim, grabs the phone, and later wraps his arm around Rahim’s neck mocking a friendly embrace.
He then challenges Rahim to throw a punch, which Rahim refuses to do while backpedaling from Cuddy’s advances.
Rahim, who recorded the videos, declined to comment on the Integrity Commissioner’s description of his actions as “provocative and confrontational.”
In January, Rahim made his only comment to CTV News about the incident, “you do not have my consent to publish my footage.”
The disposition letter implies that Rahim is at least partially to blame by suggesting the incident demonstrates why process servers can be hired to deliver lawsuits, and that he was in front of the councillor’s home.
“Nevertheless, municipal Councillors are expected to respond, even to emotionally charged situations, with control and restraint,” Integrity Principles added.
Cuddy says the letter confirms the statements he made to CTV News four days after the videos first aired.
“(Principles Integrity) questioned me, and I gave them the answers just as I did earlier in interviews. (The answers) aligned with all of the reports they had—so I was vindicated,” he explained.
Cuddy says he has fulfilled a commitment made to his constituents.
“I took a course, a program, through the city,” the Ward 3 councillor said. “And I appreciate city staff allowing me to do that.”
Principles Integrity responded to CTV News that it does not comment on disposition letters.
Earlier this week, however, the Toronto-based firm’s co-principle Jeffrey A. Abrams spoke to a council committee about its annual report.
Abrams also referenced their approach to launching investigations, “We do not commence an investigation lightly, and we do truly focus on the achievement of course-correction over punishment.”
On Tuesday, councillors aired their grievances about the performance of Principles Integrity including an annual report covering a period of 20 months, and a philosophical difference over a councillor’s ability to advocate for their constituents.
Next week, council will consider a recommendation from its Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to give 30-days notice that the contract with Principles Integrity will be terminated, and recruitment of a new Integrity Commissioner will begin.
Political Scientist Andrew Sancton believes having each municipality in Ontario hire their own Integrity Commissioner should be improved.
“Right now, these people who are Integrity Commissioners are competing for the same projects as though they were, repaving a road or something,” Sancton said. “I’m not sure that’s the best way to procure an Integrity Commissioner.”
Sanction suggested a process similar to the Ontario Ombudsman who investigates closed meetings for municipalities across the province.
“Having some more central, provincial mechanism to do it is likely to work better,” he added.
