The city’s integrity commissioner has found that a downtown Toronto councillor violated the Code of Conduct during an interaction with a constituent last year but is not recommending a penalty.
Earlier this week, Integrity Commissioner Paul Muldoon submitted his final report on two complaints filed against Coun. Chris Moise concerning an incident that occurred on Jan. 16, 2025.
That evening, after a budget town hall meeting at City Hall, Moise was approached by Daniel Tate, the executive director of the advocacy group IntegrityTO, who is also a constituent.
Tate, who recorded the interaction, asked Moise what he was doing in 2025, “relating to renaming things that hurt your feelings for whatever reason?” He has strongly opposed the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square, in which Moise was involved.
“I know you have a different view than I do. I know you have a white supremacy view. I don’t support your views,” Moise said in response to Tate’s repeated question about what the councillor planned to rename in 2025.
“Did you just call me a white supremacist, Councillor Moise? That’s an appalling thing to say to a constituent,” Tate replied.
“I find you appalling,” the councillor said.
Moise then told Tate that he had harassed him and his staff for months. When Tate asked for an apology, Moise responded that he would never apologize, “because you are.”
- READ FULL REPORT HERE: Report on Councillor Chris Moise’s Comments to a Constituent
Tate filed a complaint to the integrity commissioner days later, accusing Moise of violating the Code of Conduct. A second complaint was filed days later by a third party who was not personally involved in the incident but became aware of it when the video was posted online.
In his response to the commissioner, Moise did not contest what happened but said the comments “did not occur in isolation but should be viewed against the backdrop of a prolonged and highly publicized dispute surrounding the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square and disputes about other city equity initiatives he has championed.”
The councillor pointed out that Tate has been a “persistent critic” not only on the renaming but also on other equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives, describing his relationship with Tate as “one of open tension and ideological opposition.”
Moise also said the exchange was “not neutral or spontaneous” but was a result of Tate’s “calculated” actions to provoke him.
“The respondent says the complainant’s language and tone were confrontational and his comments not made in good faith, but rather in an effort to elicit and catch on video a reaction, what the councillor’s legal counsel described as a ‘gotcha moment,’” according to the report.
Moise said the words he used were not an act of bullying, intimidation or harassment but rather “the articulation of a viewpoint while responding to repeated provocation by a constant critic of the Councillor and City Council’s efforts to become more inclusive.”
“He submits his words were neither abusive nor derogatory; they reflected a moment of frustration in the face of provocation by an individual intent on confrontation, not conversation,” the report stated.
In the end, the commissioner concluded that Moise violated Article 14 of the Code of Conduct, saying the councillor acted in a derogatory manner towards an individual while in his official role.
“While under no obligation to engage with the complainant, the respondent decided to do so and his conduct in this interaction crossed the line; his words targeted the complainant personally,” Muldoon said.
As to why he is not imposing a penalty on Moise, Muldoon wrote that it’s because of the context that surrounded the comments.
“The Councillor was caught in a brief reactive exchange with one of his most vocal critics, who was persistently pursuing the Councillor in a manner likely to elicit an emotional response,” the commissioner wrote.
“In his submission, the respondent said that, as a Black man who has experienced racism and hate throughout his life, the complainant’s persistent criticisms of equity-based projects, and of the Councillor himself, are connected to racism.”
Muldoon also took into consideration that this was the first time his officer had investigated Moise for allegations of discreditable conduct.
“In closing, this matter serves as a reminder that while disagreement is inevitable in a vibrant democracy, the way we engage with one another matters. Members of Council hold positions of public trust, and with that, the responsibility to model high standards of respectful conduct,” the commissioner wrote.
“At times, this means choosing not to engage at all. When confronted with behaviour intended to provoke a reaction, the wisest course may be to simply walk away. By choosing civility and de-escalation, members of Council can help counter toxic political discourse.”
Councillor disagrees with commissioner
Moise, in a statement, disagreed with the commissioner’s decision and said he has no regrets.
“We encourage our children and others that if they see something, say something. I will continue to say something when I see something. As an elected representative, it is incumbent on me to lead by example and stand up to racism, bigotry, and marginalization,” the councillor said.
“I will always stand up to white nationalism and white nationalist politics,” he added.
Meanwhile, Tate welcomed the commissioner’s findings but was disappointed that Moise was not penalized.
“This kind of derogatory rhetoric fuels toxic, divisive discourse and erodes trust in public officials. When citizens fear reputational harm for speaking out, democracy itself is weakened,” said Tate in a statement.
He then urged councillors to impose a “significant penalty” on Moise, including but not limited to his pay being docked, when they debate the commissioner’s report at their meeting this week.
