THE PATIO DEBACLE: LET’S TALK ABOUT FAIRNESS, FACTS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

When did fairness for all businesses become controversial?

Over the past several months, I’ve watched the temporary patio debate in Niagara-on-the-Lake become another opportunity for people to question my integrity and suggest that I had a conflict of interest because my father owns Corks Winebar & Eatery on Queen Street.

But there is a rather important fact missing from that narrative.

My father also owned Firehall Flame, which had a temporary patio under the very same program Council voted to end.

That’s right.

When Council voted in February 2025 to end the Temporary Patio Program effective December 31, 2025, that decision affected his temporary patio too.

So, if the suggestion is that I was somehow trying to protect my family’s business interests, perhaps someone can explain how supporting the end of a program that also benefited my father’s business fits that narrative.

LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY VOTED ON.

The Temporary Patio Program was introduced during COVID-19 to help restaurants and hospitality businesses survive an extraordinarily difficult period.

It allowed eligible establishments to operate temporary patios on public and private property.

And it wasn’t a program exclusively for Queen Street.

It was a municipal program available to eligible businesses across all five villages of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

When Council considered ending the program in 2025, we were discussing a broad municipal policy.

We were not debating an individual patio application for Corks.

We were not debating an individual patio application for Firehall Flame.

We were discussing the future of the entire temporary patio program.

That distinction matters.

WHAT ABOUT THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act recognizes that not every financial interest constitutes a disqualifying conflict.

Section 4 includes exceptions, including an interest in common with electors generally.

My vote concerned a program that applied to eligible businesses throughout the municipality, including a business owned by my father.

That is an important fact when assessing the circumstances of the decision.

However, whether the statutory exception applies depends on the nature and breadth of the financial interest, not simply the number of businesses participating.

A family relationship does not, by itself, establish that a councillor acted improperly. The actual legislation and the circumstances of the vote must be considered.

I have taken my obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act seriously throughout this term.

And I believe allegations about someone’s integrity deserve a proper examination of the facts, not assumptions made on social media.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE “APPEARANCE” OF A CONFLICT?

I’ve also heard people suggest that, even if there wasn’t an actual conflict of interest, there was an “appearance of a conflict.”

And I have to ask: An appearance based on what?

Because had those individuals taken the time to read Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, review the information I continually shared throughout this process, or simply reach out and ask me directly, they might have a very different understanding of the circumstances.

I have never hidden my family’s business interests.

I have never avoided questions about them.

In fact, I have gone out of my way to provide information, explain my decisions and make relevant documentation available.

That includes sharing court documents when conflict-of-interest allegations against me became the subject of proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

I openly shared information throughout that process because I believe residents deserve facts, not rumours.

And after two Integrity Commissioner reviews and a court application that was ultimately abandoned by the applicant, I continued to answer questions publicly.

Yet somehow, the suggestion of an “appearance” continues to circulate.

Let’s be clear about something.

An allegation, an assumption or someone’s personal perception does not automatically establish a conflict of interest under the law.

Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act sets out specific rules concerning pecuniary interests, family relationships and statutory exceptions.

Those rules matter.

The actual circumstances of a Council decision matter.

And the difference between a municipality-wide policy and an individual application matters.

I recognize that public officials must be held to high ethical standards.

I welcome that accountability.

But accountability should also involve a willingness to examine the evidence before making accusations.

You cannot ignore the legislation, disregard the documents, overlook the explanations and then claim that the absence of information creates an appearance of wrongdoing.

Especially when that information has been made available repeatedly.

I have always said that residents don’t have to agree with every decision I make.

But I do ask that they take the time to understand why I made it.

My door has always been open.

My phone and email have always been available. And I have never been afraid to have a difficult conversation.

There is a difference between asking questions to understand the facts and repeating accusations without examining them.

I will continue to be transparent, answer questions and stand behind my decisions.

Because public trust is built through accountability, openness and facts.

And an appearance created by an incomplete narrative should never be mistaken for proof of a conflict.

THEN THE CONVERSATION CHANGED.

After the municipality-wide temporary program ended, the discussion shifted toward allowing temporary patios specifically on Queen Street.

And that’s where I had a serious problem.

Why Queen Street?

Why only those businesses?

What about the Sandtrap?

What about the Olde Angel Inn?

The Irish Harp?

The Garrison House?

What about wineries, restaurants and other establishments throughout our municipality that had also operated temporary patios, including patios on private property?

These businesses were subject to the end of the temporary program too.

Some went through the appropriate planning and approval processes to establish permanent patios.

Others complied with the rules and discontinued their temporary arrangements.

Why should businesses elsewhere in Niagara-on-the-Lake be required to follow one set of rules while a select group on Queen Street receives special consideration?

That is the question I asked.

And it is a question I believe every councillor should be asking.

FAIRNESS DOESN’T STOP AT THE HERITAGE DISTRICT.

I’ve spent decades working in the hospitality industry.

I understand the importance of patios to restaurants.

I understand the seasonal challenges, the cost of operating a business, and how important additional seating can be to an establishment’s bottom line.

I’m not against patios.

I’m against creating policies that favour one group of businesses while leaving others behind. I believe municipal policies should be developed through fair, transparent and consistent processes, with consideration given to how decisions affect businesses throughout all five villages. When different rules or opportunities are proposed, there should be a clear, justifiable reason for that distinction.

If Council wants to consider a new patio program, then let’s discuss a fair framework for eligible businesses throughout Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Let’s examine the impact on parking,

accessibility, pedestrian safety, municipal infrastructure and neighbouring businesses.

Let’s hear directly from business owners in all five villages.

And let’s make decisions based on consistent criteria.

That is what good municipal governance should look like.

WHAT ABOUT THE BUSINESSES THAT FOLLOWED THE PROCESS?

This is the part of the conversation that I believe has been overlooked.

Businesses that wanted permanent patios had to navigate the appropriate municipal approval processes.

Those processes can involve planning requirements, building regulations, accessibility considerations and costs.

Some business owners made those investments.

Some adjusted their operations when the temporary permissions expired.

They did what the municipality required of them.

What message are we sending those business owners if Council turns around and creates a special arrangement for one street?

That following the rules doesn’t matter?

That location determines who receives special consideration?

That some businesses deserve opportunities others don’t?

I don’t believe that’s fair.

And I won’t pretend it is simply because supporting patios might be a popular political position.

LET’S REMEMBER THAT NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE IS FIVE VILLAGES.

Queen Street is an important part of our tourism economy.

But it is not our entire municipality.

Our businesses in Virgil, St. Davids, Queenston, Glendale and throughout Old Town contribute to our economy, provide employment, pay taxes and support our community.

They deserve to be part of municipal policy discussions too.

Throughout my term, I’ve consistently advocated for hearing directly from businesses before making decisions that affect them.

That includes organizing business roundtable discussions so owners could speak face-to-face with elected representatives.

Because fairness shouldn’t depend on who has the loudest voice or the most visible storefront.

AND FINALLY, ABOUT MY FATHER.

I have never hidden the fact that my family has owned and operated businesses in Niagara-on-the-Lake for more than 30 years.

I am proud of that history.

It has given me firsthand experience with the challenges local business owners face.

But that experience does not mean my family should receive special treatment.

In fact, my position has consistently been that the same rules should apply to everyone, including my own family.

When the temporary patio program ended, my father’s temporary patio at Firehall Flame was affected too.

That is a fact.

When the conversation shifted to Queen Street alone, I raised concerns about fairness to businesses throughout the municipality.

That is also a fact.

People are entitled to disagree with my vote.

They are entitled to support or not support Queen Street patios.

They are entitled to believe the program should have continued.

But disagreement with a policy decision is not proof of misconduct.

If someone wishes to raise a legitimate conflict-of-interest concern, it should be assessed against the actual legislation, the specific motion and the relevant facts.

Not political speculation.

Not selective storytelling.

And certainly not by leaving out facts that don’t fit the narrative.

My position remains simple:

If we’re going to create opportunities for businesses, let’s make sure we are considering all eligible businesses.

If we’re going to establish rules, let’s apply them consistently.

And if we’re going to question someone’s integrity, let’s make sure we have the facts first.

Because fairness isn’t about choosing sides. It’s about representing everyone.

Councillor, Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake