Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Read by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you Read by hand. We read North Bay's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 8 so far
Things worth asking about
We read North Bay's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 4 similar Ontario places. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
$5,557.77of $17,253.01 repaid by the Mayor was found by the Integrity Commissioner to breach the Code of Conduct
An Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer a city hires to check that council members follow the Code of Conduct. In June 2025 the Mayor asked the Integrity Commissioner to look into his own expense reports and claims. The report, dated October 25, 2025, looked at his City credit card use and expense claims for 2023 and 2024 (and some 2022 items) that had already been repaid. It found that most items did not break the Code, and that three kinds of expense did: meals where the only people present were relatives, hockey tickets, and golf in 2023. Of $17,253.01 the Mayor had repaid, the report found Code breaches for $5,557.77 of it. The report leaves the response to Council, which can do nothing, reprimand, or suspend pay for up to 90 days. We did not find where Council answered.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
2 breachesfound by the closed meeting investigator on a closed session of August 12, 2025
Council can meet in private ("in camera") only for reasons the Municipal Act lists, and it must say in public what the meeting is generally about and vote on the big decisions in public. A person complained about a closed session on August 12, 2025. The closed meeting investigator, a lawyer the City names for this job, reported on November 10, 2025 that Council broke the rules in two ways: the motion to go private did not describe the subject, and Council voted on a motion that made substantive decisions. The investigator also said that discussing the allegations in private was allowed. The Act says Council must pass a resolution on how it will respond. We did not find it.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$66,910,081annual surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $27,776,345
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The 2025 statements show an annual surplus of $66,910,081 against a budgeted $27,776,345. About $18.7 million of the gap is in grants and transfers, which came in at $66,997,878 against a budget of $48,253,091 (worked out by us). Investment income was $4,758,110 against $1,760,000. A third piece is a $10,459,838 gain from re-timing the City's share of the Cassellholme care home project, which the City explains. The City also explains that its budget number is rebuilt from a cash-based budget, which adds in capital spending.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$52,617,400present value of the City's share of the Cassellholme rebuild, with payments expected to start in 2029
Cassellholme is a long-term care home that North Bay and nearby municipalities run together through a board. The board is borrowing money to rebuild it. The City has promised to pay its share, and has also signed a guarantee. The 2025 statements put the present value (what a future stream of payments is worth today) of the City's share at $52,617,400, with payments starting in 2029, and say the City's maximum liability under the guarantee is $46.1 million. The 2026 capital budget shows a different picture: a project total of $46,229,562, with $3,250,000 to be paid in 2026 out of reserve funds.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$122,670,523total cost of the airport PFAS remediation project, of which the City's budget says 97% is funded by National Defence
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals that the budget says raise environmental and public health concerns. The City's 2026 capital budget has a project to clean up PFAS in soil and groundwater on the airport lands, with a total cost of $122,670,523. It says that under an agreement with the Department of National Defence, 97% of the cost is paid by National Defence and 3% by the City. That is about $3.7 million for the City (worked out by us). The 2025 statements show a liability for contaminated sites of $4,106,859, up from $1,033,162, but do not say which sites it covers. The project runs to December 31, 2038, and the budget says nothing about who pays if costs rise.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$2,422,835spent on outside fleet repairs in 2025 (before year-end adjustments), against a budget of $938,898
Fleet Management keeps the City's trucks, plows and buses running, and charges the departments that use them. Its "outside fleet repairs" account (repairs bought from private garages) was budgeted at $400,000 in 2024 and cost $1,432,293. It was budgeted at $938,898 in 2025 and cost $2,422,835 before year-end adjustments. The 2026 budget raises it to $2,250,000, and pays $1,300,000 of the Fleet Management budget from reserves. The CAO's message says the budget uses reserves "coupled with a plan to gradually phase them out". The adjustments list records the $1,300,000 as a transfer from the Tax Stabilization Reserve. We did not find a reason given for the repair costs.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$65,434.88paid in 2025 for the Integrity Commissioner, against $7,703 in 2024 and a $75,000 budget
The Mayor's office budget carries a line for legal fees, which its notes say "relate to costs associated with the Integrity Commissioner for the Mayor & Council". The City budgets $75,000 a year for it. It cost $65,267 in 2023, $7,703 in 2024 and $65,434.88 in 2025. Every payment in the three years went to the same law firm.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$5,557.77of $17,253.01 repaid by the Mayor was found by the Integrity Commissioner to breach the Code of Conduct
An Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer a city hires to check that council members follow the Code of Conduct. In June 2025 the Mayor asked the Integrity Commissioner to look into his own expense reports and claims. The report, dated October 25, 2025, looked at his City credit card use and expense claims for 2023 and 2024 (and some 2022 items) that had already been repaid. It found that most items did not break the Code, and that three kinds of expense did: meals where the only people present were relatives, hockey tickets, and golf in 2023. Of $17,253.01 the Mayor had repaid, the report found Code breaches for $5,557.77 of it. The report leaves the response to Council, which can do nothing, reprimand, or suspend pay for up to 90 days. We did not find where Council answered.
Why it matters
Council members spend public money on a City credit card and through expense claims, and approvals are only as good as the checks behind them. The report is an official finding, and it also lists gaps in the City's own rules: what a vehicle allowance covers, and who approves a claim when the approver took part in the meal.
It could be because…
The Mayor asked for the inquiry himself, and every expense in the report has been repaid.
The Integrity Commissioner found that most items (the Mayor's offsets of personal costs, missing receipts, gas, car washes and club fees) were mistakes or poor process, not Code breaches.
The report says it is not a comment on staff responsibility, and says the City's own process for reviewing and offsetting claims was poor. Part of the fix may be in City rules rather than in any one person's conduct.
Council may have dealt with the report in open session at a meeting whose minutes we did not read.
Questions you could ask
Has Council decided whether to reprimand, suspend pay or take no action on the October 25, 2025 findings, and where is that decision recorded?
Has the City changed its credit card and expense rules since the report: what a vehicle allowance covers, and who approves a claim when the approver took part?
How are council members' credit card charges now reviewed, and how often?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Paragraph 2: "On June 26, Mayor Peter Chirico made the following written request: "I would ask that you conduct an investigation under the Code of Conduct, regarding issues surrounding my expense reports/claims."" The report is dated October 25, 2025 (Re Chirico, 2025 ONMIC 6).
Paragraph 18: "I have concluded that Article VI was not contravened and that there were some contraventions of Article XII." Paragraph 20: the final list of claims the Mayor was required to repay "totalled $16,179.01"; "on his own initiative, he repaid an additional $1,074." Paragraph 21: the Mayor "had transparently stated that $8,176.26 of these expenses should not be paid by the City" and wanted them offset against money he thought the City owed him.
Paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 find that Article XII was contravened for three personal meals claimed as City business where "the only participants were relatives of the Mayor"; for hockey tickets "worth $3,166.50" ("the election did not transform the Mayor's attendance at hockey games into City business"); and for 2023 golf spending of "$2192.96" including a "$1604.60 season pass". Paragraph 34: "Every expenditure in this eighth category has been reimbursed."
Paragraph 215: "Of the $17,253.01 that the Mayor has already reimbursed, I have found Code of Conduct breaches in relation to $5,557.77 of these expenses and have not found breaches in relation to $11,695.24 of them." Paragraph 216: Council decides how to respond. Paragraph 220: "I make no recommendation of remedial action."
Paragraph 221 (general recommendations, "not specific to the Mayor or his conduct"): (c) "To provide clarity about what may and may not be expensed by someone who receives a vehicle allowance, its scope ... should be clarified." (d) "The City should consider how to address the situation where the approver of an expense is also beneficiary of the expense".
2 breachesfound by the closed meeting investigator on a closed session of August 12, 2025
Council can meet in private ("in camera") only for reasons the Municipal Act lists, and it must say in public what the meeting is generally about and vote on the big decisions in public. A person complained about a closed session on August 12, 2025. The closed meeting investigator, a lawyer the City names for this job, reported on November 10, 2025 that Council broke the rules in two ways: the motion to go private did not describe the subject, and Council voted on a motion that made substantive decisions. The investigator also said that discussing the allegations in private was allowed. The Act says Council must pass a resolution on how it will respond. We did not find it.
Why it matters
Open meetings are how residents see decisions being made. When a vote happens in private, residents cannot see how their council decided. The fix is mostly about process: how the motion is worded and which votes happen in public.
It could be because…
The investigator said that discussing the allegations, and steps taken about them, was properly closed. The breaches are about wording and about where one vote was held.
The investigator said part of the motion (asking for an independent review) probably could have been voted on in private if it had been voted on separately. Council may not have split the motion because it was drafted as one.
Council may have passed the required resolution at a public meeting whose minutes we did not read.
Questions you could ask
What resolution did Council pass on the November 10, 2025 report, and on what date?
Has Council and staff training on closed sessions taken place, and has the City changed how it words motions to go in camera?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Report dated November 10, 2025: "We have found that Council breached the closed meeting requirements of the Act in two ways": "1) The resolution to go into closed session failed to provide sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the meeting. 2) Council voted on a motion to make substantive decisions."
"In our opinion, the allegations against the specific individual crossed into the personal realm, and could, therefore, be discussed in closed session." The motion at item 9.6 proposed suspending and reassigning certain delegated authorities, retaining an independent third party to review certain issues, and keeping the suspension in place until conditions were met. "Because these three proposals were voted on in one single motion, they constituted a single vote", and "The vote was very clearly substantive in nature."
Page 1 to 2: if a report finds a meeting was closed contrary to the Act, "Council is required to pass a resolution stating how it intends to address the recommendations in the report." Page 7: "First, we recommend Council and relevant staff obtain training on closed sessions."
$66,910,081annual surplus in 2025, against a budgeted $27,776,345
A surplus is what is left when a year's revenue is more than its spending. The 2025 statements show an annual surplus of $66,910,081 against a budgeted $27,776,345. About $18.7 million of the gap is in grants and transfers, which came in at $66,997,878 against a budget of $48,253,091 (worked out by us). Investment income was $4,758,110 against $1,760,000. A third piece is a $10,459,838 gain from re-timing the City's share of the Cassellholme care home project, which the City explains. The City also explains that its budget number is rebuilt from a cash-based budget, which adds in capital spending.
Why it matters
A budget is the promise made about what the year will cost. When the result is far from the promise, a reader cannot tell how much money is really free. The answer here is partly accounting, and the City says so. What it does not say is what the grants were for.
It could be because…
Capital grants are counted as revenue as projects are built, but the money is spent on assets. A big grant year lifts the surplus without leaving cash free.
The "budget surplus" of $27,776,345 comes from a reconciliation in Note 18 that adds $83,727,685 of capital spending and subtracts debt proceeds and amortization. The approved net budget figure on a cash basis, the note says, started at $91,000.
The Cassellholme gain of $10,459,838 is an accounting estimate of a future payment, not cash.
Investment income can be budgeted cautiously on purpose, because markets are unpredictable.
Questions you could ask
Which grants make up the $66,997,878 of government transfers and grants in 2025, and how much of it was for capital projects?
How much of the 2025 surplus was cash that could be spent on services, as opposed to grants for assets and accounting changes?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Consolidated Statement of Operations, 2025: "Annual surplus" budget 27,776,345, actual 66,910,081 (2024: 24,865,472). "Government transfers and grants" budget 48,253,091, actual 66,997,878 (2024: 30,988,352). "Investment income" budget 1,760,000, actual 4,758,110 (2024: 5,942,723). "Annual surplus before undernoted item" budget 27,776,345, actual 56,450,243. "Cassellholme redevelopment commitment (note 9(a)(iii))" 10,459,838 (2024: (2,654,953)).
Note 18, Budget: the chart "reconciles the approved net budget figure prepared on a cash basis with the budget figures presented in these consolidated financial statements." It starts at "Budget By-law for the year" 91,000, adds "Investment in tangible capital assets" 83,727,685 and "Debt principal repayments" 9,040,504, deducts "Debt proceeds" (23,833,945) and "Amortization of tangible capital assets" (28,661,685), and ends at "Budget surplus per Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus" 27,776,345.
Note 9(a)(iii): the present value of the City's expected Cassellholme payments is "$52,617,400, a decrease of $10,459,838 (2024 - increase of $2,654,953) over the prior year. The decrease in the present value of the expected payments compared to the prior year is primarily due to a change in timing assumptions, with the debenture now anticipated to be issued in 2029 rather than in 2026".
$52,617,400present value of the City's share of the Cassellholme rebuild, with payments expected to start in 2029
Cassellholme is a long-term care home that North Bay and nearby municipalities run together through a board. The board is borrowing money to rebuild it. The City has promised to pay its share, and has also signed a guarantee. The 2025 statements put the present value (what a future stream of payments is worth today) of the City's share at $52,617,400, with payments starting in 2029, and say the City's maximum liability under the guarantee is $46.1 million. The 2026 capital budget shows a different picture: a project total of $46,229,562, with $3,250,000 to be paid in 2026 out of reserve funds.
Why it matters
This is one of the biggest promises the City has made, and it will land on tax and reserves for decades. Two public documents describe it in different ways, so a resident cannot tell what the City will pay each year or when.
It could be because…
A present value and a total of payments are different measures of one debt, so the two numbers need not match. The statements discount future payments at 4.85% over 30 years.
The capital budget says its figure "is subject to change based on the start date, Ministry's approvals, and final financing agreements". The $3,250,000 may be money set aside early, not payments to the lender.
The Ministry of Health pays capital subsidy, which lowers what the municipalities pay. That is outside these documents.
The City's payments of $2,649,693 a year to Cassellholme (an operating line) are separate from the rebuild.
Questions you could ask
What are the City's expected payments to Cassellholme for the rebuild, year by year, and how do they relate to the $3,250,000 in the 2026 capital budget?
Why does the capital forecast start paying in 2026 when the statements say payments start in 2029?
What happens to the City's share if the debenture is issued later than 2029, or the final cost is higher?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Note 9(a)(iii): "Based on a municipal borrowing rate of 4.85% for a 30 year period, the present value of the expected payments commencing in 2029 (2024 - 2026) is $52,617,400"; "the City is named as a joint guarantor ... In the event of default, the City's maximum liability is $46.1 million". Note 9(a)(iv): the unamortized discount on the commitment is 9,486,529; expected accretion 2,551,966 in 2026, 2,675,714 in 2027, 2,805,486 in 2028 and 1,453,363 in 2029.
Project 6483AA, Cassellholme Redevelopment Project: "This project represents the City of North Bay's estimated share of the redevelopment and is subject to change based on the start date, Ministry's approvals, and final financing agreements." Forecast: 2026 3,250,000; 2027 3,802,000; 2028 3,900,000; 2029 3,900,000; 2030 to 2035 3,800,000 each year; "LTD Amount: 8,577,562 Total Project Cost: 46,229,562". The 2026 revenue line is "0461 TSF FRM REV FUND-PAYGO 3,250,000".
Operating budget, account "6059 CASSELLHOLME": 2024 actual 2,647,538; 2025 actual to year end 2,647,420; 2025 budget 2,649,693; 2026 approved 2,649,693.
$122,670,523total cost of the airport PFAS remediation project, of which the City's budget says 97% is funded by National Defence
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals that the budget says raise environmental and public health concerns. The City's 2026 capital budget has a project to clean up PFAS in soil and groundwater on the airport lands, with a total cost of $122,670,523. It says that under an agreement with the Department of National Defence, 97% of the cost is paid by National Defence and 3% by the City. That is about $3.7 million for the City (worked out by us). The 2025 statements show a liability for contaminated sites of $4,106,859, up from $1,033,162, but do not say which sites it covers. The project runs to December 31, 2038, and the budget says nothing about who pays if costs rise.
Why it matters
A project this large, run over 12 years, can change a lot. The City's share is small only while the agreement holds and the cost stays near the estimate. The budget's 3% figure rests on an agreement that residents cannot read.
It could be because…
The agreement may cap the City's share at 3% of whatever the cost is, so a higher cost would be shared the same way.
The $4,106,859 liability is recorded "net of any expected recoveries" (Note 1), so it may reflect only the City's share, and may also include other sites.
The 2027 amount of $102,670,523 is a forecast for a long project, and plans are updated every year.
Questions you could ask
Will the City publish its agreement with the Department of National Defence, or say whether the 3% share is capped?
Which sites make up the $4,106,859 contaminated sites liability, and does it include the City's share of the airport project?
What is the expected cost of the PFAS treatment system for the drinking water plant, and who pays for it?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Project 4132WS, Remediation on Airport Lands: "This project is to capture all costs associated with PFAS remediation." "As per the agreement with the Department of National Defence, 97% of the project costs will be funded by the Department of National Defence, while the remaining 3% will be contributed by the City." Forecast 2027: 102,670,523. "LTD Amount: 20,000,000 Total Project Cost: 122,670,523". Completion Date Dec 31, 2038.
Water and Wastewater Capital Budget, "Grants and Other Funding Sources (F)": "4132WS - Remediation on Airport Lands" (19,400,000) in 2026 and (99,590,407) in 2027, total (118,990,407). The same project in the project list totals 122,670,523.
Note 15, Liability for contaminated sites: "The City's financial statements include a liability of $4,106,859 (2024 - $1,033,163) relating to contaminated site remediation costs. The increase in the liability reflects updated estimates arising from ongoing site investigations, environmental assessments, and revisions to anticipated remediation requirements." The note does not name the sites.
Note 6, Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: "Liability for contaminated sites (note 15)" 4,106,859 for 2025 and 1,033,162 for 2024. (Note 15's own wording gives the 2024 amount as $1,033,163, one dollar higher than the tables.)
Operating budget, Environmental Services goals for 2026: "Ongoing PFAS remediation at the Jack Garland Airport lands, including groundwater remeditation; initiate a six-month pilot project and full design of a PFAS treatment system at the North Bay Drinking Water Treatment Facility." The budget does not give a cost for the treatment system.
$2,422,835spent on outside fleet repairs in 2025 (before year-end adjustments), against a budget of $938,898
Fleet Management keeps the City's trucks, plows and buses running, and charges the departments that use them. Its "outside fleet repairs" account (repairs bought from private garages) was budgeted at $400,000 in 2024 and cost $1,432,293. It was budgeted at $938,898 in 2025 and cost $2,422,835 before year-end adjustments. The 2026 budget raises it to $2,250,000, and pays $1,300,000 of the Fleet Management budget from reserves. The CAO's message says the budget uses reserves "coupled with a plan to gradually phase them out". The adjustments list records the $1,300,000 as a transfer from the Tax Stabilization Reserve. We did not find a reason given for the repair costs.
Why it matters
A budget line that missed by about $1.0 million in 2024 and $1.5 million in 2025 (worked out by us) is a sign the plan did not match what the fleet needs. Paying $1,300,000 of the fix from a reserve means it does not come from the 2026 tax levy, but a reserve can only be spent once.
It could be because…
An aging fleet, higher parts and labour prices, or a shortage of mechanics could each raise the cost of outside repairs. The budget books we read do not say which applies.
The 2026 budget also raises what departments are charged for vehicles (internal transfers up $831,982), so part of the cost moves to the users of the fleet.
The 2025 actuals are marked as subject to year-end adjustments.
Reserves exist to smooth out one-time pressures, and the City says it plans to phase out their use.
Questions you could ask
What caused outside fleet repair costs to run well over budget in 2024 and 2025, and what has the City done about it besides paying for it?
How much was in the Tax Stabilization Reserve before and after the 2026 transfers, and what is the plan to phase out its use?
Does the City review whether replacing older vehicles would cost less than repairing them?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Account "3316 OUTSIDE FLEET REPAIRS": 2024 actual 1,432,293; 2025 actual to year end 2,422,835; 2025 budget 938,898; 2026 approved 2,250,000; change 1,311,102 (139.64%). The report footnote says actuals are "subject to year-end adjustments and accrual".
Changes made at the special committee meetings: "Infrastructure & Operations - Increase to Fleet Outside repairs" 1,300,000 and "Infrastructure & Operations - Transfer from Tax Stabilization Reserve" (1,300,000). The list gives no reason for the increase.
Message from the Chief Administrative Officer: "Recognizing the importance of affordability, the Operating Budget includes the use of reserves, coupled with a plan to gradually phase them out." Budget at a glance: "The $119 million tax levy represents a 3.95% increase over 2025."
North Bay spent $17.6M on water, sewers and garbage in 2019 and $30.1M in 2025. Prices only went up about 21% in that time.
Why did the cost of water, sewers and garbage grow 71% in 6 years?
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
+0%+20%+40%+60%+80%
+71%
2019202020212022202320242025
Show as a table
Year
Water, sewers and garbage
Prices (inflation)
2019
+0%
+0%
2020
+3%
+1%
2021
+7%
+4%
2022
+17%
+11%
2023
+10%
+16%
2024
+38%
+18%
2025
+71%
+21%
Change since the first year shown. The grey line is how much prices rose overall, for comparison.
Why it matters
When one area grows much faster than prices, it is either doing more (which may be great) or paying more for the same thing. Residents deserve to know which.
It could be because…
The city added a service, a building or staff that residents asked for.
Costs were moved from another area, so the total did not really change.
Accounting rules changed how costs are sorted.
Large one-time costs, like a study, lawsuit or repair, landed in one year.
Questions you could ask
What did the extra $12.5M a year pay for?
Why did water treatment go from $2.4M to $3.1M?
Was each increase approved by council as a separate decision, or did it happen through the yearly budget?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
$65,434.88paid in 2025 for the Integrity Commissioner, against $7,703 in 2024 and a $75,000 budget
The Mayor's office budget carries a line for legal fees, which its notes say "relate to costs associated with the Integrity Commissioner for the Mayor & Council". The City budgets $75,000 a year for it. It cost $65,267 in 2023, $7,703 in 2024 and $65,434.88 in 2025. Every payment in the three years went to the same law firm.
Why it matters
An independent Integrity Commissioner is a check on council, and it costs money only when complaints are made. Residents can still ask what the money bought, because the statements list the payee and date but not the matter.
It could be because…
The Integrity Commissioner only bills when there is work. The City posts Integrity Commissioner reports from October 2023, December 2023 and October 2025, which line up with the busy years.
In 2025 the Mayor asked for an inquiry into his own expense claims (the October 25, 2025 report), and an application about a councillor was received October 7, 2025. The statements do not say which payments belong to which matter.
The City sets the budget at a flat $75,000 on purpose, because the number of complaints cannot be predicted.
Questions you could ask
Can the City say how much of the 2025 Integrity Commissioner cost belongs to each inquiry or application, without naming anyone who asked for advice?
Does the City report the Integrity Commissioner's cost to council in any one place, rather than only in the Mayor's office statement?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for North Bay?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
Office of the Mayor, year 2023: "3105 - Legal Fees" budget $75,000, actual $65,267. Note (2) says the legal fees "relate to costs associated with the Integrity Commissioner for the Mayor &" Council.
Office of the Mayor, year 2024: "3105 - Legal Fees" budget $75,000, actual $7,703. The six payments, all to Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP ("Legal Matter - Integrity Commissioner for the Mayor & Council."), total 7,703.25.
Office of the Mayor, January 1 to December 31, 2025: "3105 - Legal Fees" budget $75,000.00, actual $65,434.88, variance ($9,565.12). Six payments to Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, including 2025-08-19 20,896.46 and 2025-11-19 36,663.39, total 65,434.88.
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy