By Pepper Parr
February 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
Asked if he had any plans to put a Motion on the table at the Monday Council meeting, Ward 3 Council member Rory Nisan said:
“Definitely”
Definitely!
He chose not to expand on what he had in mind.
Nisan is one of three Council members who are almost an opposition to the Mayor and fellow Council members Sharman and Galbraith.
The unknown is Ward 6 Councillor Bentivegna.
What is now known is that there is a Ward 6 resident thinking about running for public office.
City Council needs someone who understands the rural community.
Struggling.
As for what Bentivegna decides is best for the city, it isn’t at all clear at this point. Bentivegna is reported to feel that he has been misled by staff and not given all the information he needs.
Giving Bentivegna all the information he wants is a challenge. Add to that the difficulty Bentivegna has in understanding the issues.
The Monday meeting will be a long one.
Given that the Mayor can no longer forbid clapping, it might get a little boisterous as well.
The disappointment many feel is the position Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith has taken.
At times, Galbraith leaves you thinking he really doesn’t want to be in the room.
He tends to be risk-averse and certainly understands the arguments.
He is one to pay attention to on Monday.
Councillors meet as a City Council on Monday followed by a Standing Committee on Tuesday
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lets give Angelo some credit. He at least asks questions to deepen his understanding of an issue. How he votes is something those who voted for him will decide on as to whether he was on the right or wrong side of issues that are near and dear to them.
Galbraith I think really does not want to be in the room. His problem is obvious public thoughts that he has an interest in the question. The following legal case law quotes illustrates this. The Integrity Commissioner used one in their advice to him. IC. March 8 2022.
“The applicable test to determine whether a member has an interest that is so remote or insignificant in its nature such that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member is set out in Whiteley v. Schnurr (1999), 4
MPLR (3d) 309.
“The question to be asked is as follows: Would a reasonable elector, being apprised of all the circumstance, be more likely than not to regard the interest of the councillor as likely to influence that councillor’s action and decision on the question?”
“In many of the cases determining a councillor’s pecuniary interest to be remote and insignificant, the interest arises out of an indirect pecuniary interest resulting from the pecuniary interest of a member of the councillor’s family, business relationships or other memberships.
In the current circumstances, because the interest arises from your ownership of three properties within the study area, two of which are destined for redevelopment which the re-designations will enable, a pecuniary interest for you would not be considered remote or insignificant.”
Accordingly, we conclude that, now that the plans include reference to proposed
designations affecting your properties, you are required to recuse yourself from the discussion and voting on consideration of the Aldershot GO MTSA. This includes refraining from participating and attempting to influence the outcome during the open house and other occasions at which the public, staff and Members of Council are contemplating proposed policies affecting the Aldershot GO MTSA.”
There is another Case Law citation that is relevant here, fitting to this present public mood.
“In the case of Threader vs. Treasury Board, the Federal Court of Appeal put the test as follows: “Would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought it through, think it more likely than not that the public servant, whether consciously or unconsciously, be influenced in the performance of his public duties by considerations of his private interests.”
“What is significant in evaluating conflict of interest cases is that there need not be an actual conflict of interest. As the B.C. Court of Appeal has noted, merely the potential for conflict is sufficient. Another aspect of conflict of interest law is that the “rule of Caesar’s wife” applies with particular rigour to more senior executives”.
This may be relevant to the Gazette quote in this story – “The disappointment many feel is the position Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith has taken.”
He is one to pay attention to on Monday.
Having a Councillor who doesn’t understand the issues is very concerning.Time for change and getting out the vote.