By Pepper Parr
June 23rd, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan has decided he should be the next Mayor of Burlington.
Whether that happens is something the city’s citizens get to decide.
What kind of Mayor would he be were he to defeat Marianne Meed Ward, the current Mayor and Lisa Kearns?
Disruptive, divisive, and limited in his understanding of how a city council should direct staff.
Nisan either fell asleep on the aircraft or opted to watch the movie because earlier today, it became very evident that he didn’t understand the finer points of a point of personal privilege or a point of order.
I first met Nisan when he was running for the Ward 3 seat in 2018. He had thought then that he would run in ward 6, against Blair Lancaster, because he lived in that ward at the time.
He was raised in Ward 3 and decided that is where he would throw his hat into the ring.
In a conversation with him, I advised that he make a point of learning the Procedural By-Law – the document that spells out how Council is to conduct its affairs. At the time, Nisan was on his way to Europe to serve as an aide to people taking part in an international conference in Belgium.
Nisan either fell asleep on the aircraft or opted to watch the movie because earlier today, it became very evident that he didn’t understand the finer points of a point of personal privilege or a point of order.
Mayor Meed Ward put him in his place while he continually disrupted the meeting.
Follow this:
Councillor Nisan: Yeah, I think it’s always important to properly inform the community about what actually we’re working on here. I’ll just reread the first top line of this motion here, which is to direct the chief administration officer to work with appropriate staff to report back with recommendations and financial implications, if any, on the following matters raised by the community, raised by the community regarding the renovations of the cricket pitch in Central Park, and more generally, cricket in Burlington. That includes pulling back on the possibility of limiting the number of hours. It’s not here that we are saying limit the number of hours. So, could we please inform the public correctly when we speak?
Mayor Meed Ward serving as chair: Go ahead, Councilor Nissan. A point of order relates to the order of the business, that you’re right, it’s a point of privilege.
Okay, I didn’t hear a name of anyone, so there is no point of privilege on the floor, that’s my ruling. If you wish to challenge it, you can, and I’ll take the vote, and we’ll move on. Nobody has been named. A point of privilege is only to be used when an individual has their own integrity challenged. The councillor simply asked that the deliberations today be reflected accurately when any of us speak about this, so would you like to hear?
Nisan: No, no, I no, I would not.
Meed Ward: I think that I’ve ruled. If you wish to challenge that and overrule, you can put that on the floor. I didn’t hear anybody say anything that would require minor privilege, and I’d like to move on. Not hearing a challenge to the chairs ruling on that. I am going to move on. There is no point of order.
Nisan: Would Clerk, please read out point of privilege rules. Thank you.
Meed Ward: Hang on, that is not a point of order. You are welcome to read the point of privilege on your own time. I have ruled on the matter. We’re moving on.
Nisan: “The order of this council meeting is not being followed by not allowing a person to raise their concerns …”
Nisan: The order of this council meeting is not being followed by not allowing a person to raise their concerns around a point of privilege, so if the point, the point of privilege rules would be read from the procedure by law, you will find that someone who raises a point of privilege is given the opportunity to share their point of privilege.
Meed Ward: I’m going to stop you now. I’m going to stop you now. I have ruled that there’s no point of privilege. I have advised you, according to our point of order, that your option is to challenge the chair, and we will take a vote. You have elected not to avail yourself of that option, and so we are moving on. We have followed the point of order. There is no point of order. There is no point of privilege. I have ruled on it. You can challenge me. If you do not challenge me, we are moving on, and I am not going to entertain any further business that is delaying the business of the city. I have followed the procedure to the letter. Do you like to challenge the chair or are we moving on with our business?
Nisan: Yes, I will challenge the chair you want to challenge. I challenge you on the point of order. Thank you.
Meed Ward: Okay, I’ve ruled that we don’t need to have the procedure by law read, the councilor can read the procedure by law on his own time. I assume we need a recorded vote on the ruling of the chair that there is no point of order. Go ahead, Clerk.
Nisan: That’s not my point of order, Chair.
Meed Ward: Support would be supported chairs, not support would be ruling against the chairs ruling.
Clerk: The vote is four in favour, one against. The chair’s ruling carries.
Mayor Meed Ward: “So we are now moving on.”
Meed Ward: So we are now moving on to. We were on limiting the consecutive hours on the cricket pitch. I will ask if there are any further speakers on that. All right, I will simply echo what Councilor Sherman said, that we are not making a decision to limit hours. It’s very important that everyone understands that and communicates it that way, we are asking about the options, and staff will report back on options and implications.
Councillor Nissan: Thank you, Mayor. I couldn’t agree more. Maybe we need to read it again. . They said it’s more information only. That’s not all that matters. We’re talking about staff time here. We’re talking, I think, about wasting staff time on things that are don’t make sense to me at all, so it’s not responsible to send staff on these missions that don’t, that don’t make sense. We shouldn’t be bringing reports that are, that are just for, you know, to a very small number of people by signalling to them that we’re going to look into something, instead we should let staff do their job. If they need to limit the number of consecutive hours of unpermitted cricket pickup play they will. They don’t need us to direct them to do that. I just want to be clear once again that this is for information only, but that doesn’t mean it is without implication. Thank you,
When the public goes to the polls on October 26th, this event might be something they want to recall.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I do not want to comment but this article is just too much to ignore so I’m making an exception. What even is this?
What I will recall when I go to the polls:
1. The only dog and pony shows and shameful behaviour I have seen in the past eight years — with nauseating regularity — are from the current mayor; her entire schtick is to promote herself, IN MY OPINION. Anyone who thinks that the council meetings demonstrate a clearly toxic and often dysfunctional environment and have long before the current election cycle kicked in would realize that the tone is set at the top. Good leaders don’t create such environments. Both Rory and Lisa are likely fed up to here with the antics as are a very good number of residents. Most of them no longer comment, but believe me, we are out there. We have other ways of spreading the messages and discussing the IMPORTANT issues.
2. I will remember how I hope that Rory or Lisa are elected mayor so that I no longer have to feel the need to delegate, comment, or be infuriated at the theatrical performances by the mayor and her endless self-promotion and virtue signalling. She’s been electioneering, in my opinion, since day 1 of her mandate. Rory and Lisa have been the only ones to consistently speak out strongly against the mayor’s use of undemocratic strong mayor powers and that it seems was the beginning of the mayor turning on Rory in particular. She had already turned on Lisa (and before that Shawna); I guess apparently it’s an outrage for councillors to disagree with the grand poobah. And how dare they write their opinions in the Spectator! Only the mayor can do so! (*See the mayor’s recent IC complaint against Rory and Lisa for doing so (!!) — which the Integrity Commissioner threw out with pretty strong language, including about “electioneering,” noting the fact that the complaint was filed three months after the fact, but right at the start of the election campaign time.)
3. People should listen to Jim Thomson who is one of the only people here who watches almost all meetings and who knows the procedural rules inside and out. Rory has every right to raise a point of privilege (as then-councillor MMW did pre-2018 election, only then, at least Mayor Goldring let her finish her explanations). Maybe, after 8 years of absolute nonsense, Rory (and Lisa) are sick of it, and hence, running for mayor because they believe they can do a better job, and that WE deserve better, and also trying to call out the nonsense they see. I respect that far more than seeing the rest of the council either be blatant toadies or sit there in silence collecting their big paycheques.
4. Projection: Accusing others of what one does oneself. I think about that a lot of late, so I’m sure I’ll think about it on poll day too.
PS: I would have “liked” Jim’s comment, but I should be able to do so without signing up for WordPress, so I didn’t.
I have commented previously that Rory Nisan needs to step away. He has no chance of winning and will end up a distant 3rd.
What he will accomplish is to split the vote. This is the worst thing that can happen.
It’s time for change and I hope that Lisa will run a very successful campaign and win.
The one who doesn’t understand the Procedure Bylaw is Mayor My Way.
Councillor Nisan tried to raise a point of privilege. Typically the Chair actually listens to what the person who raises a point of privilege has to say before making a ruling. Mayor My Way made a ruling that there could be no point of privilege as she didn’t hear a name mentioned. She was wrong to not ask what the point of privilege was before making a ruling and even more wrong on her understanding of what the Procedure Bylaw says:
2. Point of Privilege
2.1 A member may at any time raise a point of privilege directing attention to a matter that affects the integrity, character or reputation of an individual, individuals or the entire Council, or the ability of an individual to participate.
Thank you Jim for spelling this out.
Our City Clerk, who is present at all Council meetings should know the Procedural Rules, and he sat there and said absolutely Nothing.
It is his job as the Clerk to speak up.
Why did our City Clerk not correct Mayor Meed Ward regarding the Procedural Rules and tell her that Rory Nisan’s calling out a “point of privilege” was allowed according to the Rules?? And that Rory should have been allowed to speak?
But our Clerk sat there and said nothing?
(Same for Rory’s request for a “point of order”).
And why does Mayor Meed Ward still not know the Procedural Rules after almost 16 years at City Council??
Seems that our current mayor has to always have the final say on everything whether she is in fact correct or Not!!
He should be ashamed of his recent behaviour. Childish, immature, disruptive, unknowledgeable, petty, I could go on. Does he honestly think this strategy of grinding committee and council meetings to the point of embarrassment is working for him? He and Kearns seem to be two peas in a pod lately. Kearns is a very smart woman, but she too is employing the same head scratching tactics as Nisan, and just like Nisan, it’s making her look like an unworthy candidate. Collectively their new dog and pony show is only making the Mayor look better as the only adult in the room between the three of them. Nisan stands no chance of winning. Ever. Kearns could still make a solid run if she gets her head back on straight and stops with the games.