The Count from Sesame Street is here to let us know the number of the day is five. It’s now the fifth time that Pickering City Councillor Lisa Robinson has faced sanctions following a report by the Integrity Commissioner. Sesame Street is an educational program, but Lisa Robinson never seems to learn. Some of the issues covered in the report aren’t new, they’re repeats of behaviour previously addressed in letters, reports, or training.
She’s becoming known as #DoubleDownLisa.
The current report, dated June 16, 2025 from Principles Integrity, arises from a complaint about her “Town Hall” held on November 28, 2024. She repeated some of the same claims that previously got her in trouble. The situation is concisely summarized at the beginning of the current report:
[1] This report is the result of complaints arising following Councillor Robinson’s Ward 1 Town Hall held on November 28, 2024 (the Town Hall), at which she publicly made several claims about the City of Pickering which were flagrantly misleading or categorically untrue. In particular:
• That fees of up to $650 are charged to those issued Trespass Notices
• That City staff skewed survey results to achieve desired results
• That the City has spent over $20M on consultants
• That Council’s “gift” policy allows members to accept generous gifts from developers and so long as they are passed along to others, and that there is no requirement to account for them or disclose them publicly
[2] The Councillor also encouraged the attendees to provide their personal information on a sign-in sheet, knowing that such practice is contrary to the relevant privacy legislation.
Trespass Notices and the $650 Fee Claim
Robinson claimed that the City of Pickering increased the fine for trespassing from $65 to $650 when issuing trespass notices. The City derives its authority to issue such notices from the Trespass to Property Act, but it also uses its Respectful Conduct Policy to guide decisions and provide public notice of behaviours that could lead to a ban and potentially a trespass notice.
The Respectful Conduct Policy does not authorize the imposition of fines, and the City does not charge a fee when issuing trespass notices. If a prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act were initiated, a court could impose a fine of up to $10,000.
Robinson was sanctioned for making unsubstantiated allegations – in December 2024 – but she made other unsupported claims at this Town Hall. Despite a Code of Conduct provision requiring members of council to fairly describe matters they disagree with, she again failed to do so. As a licensed paralegal, she is expected to understand municipal bylaws, yet she described the Nuisance Bylaw as the “hurt feelings” bylaw. It’s unclear why she would characterize a bylaw that deals with behaviours like urinating and defecating in public or discharging water from a sump pump onto a neighbour’s property in that way.
Robinson most likely meant to characterize the Respectful Conduct Policy as a “hurt feelings” bylaw. Given the threats received by councillors and staff over social media, this description trivializes the serious issues facing the City. The policy outlines several unacceptable behaviours.
For clarity, unacceptable behaviours involving employees and/or customers include, but are not limited to:
- Physical violence, assault, or fighting
- Unwelcome physical contact
- Possession of a weapon
- Intimidation or threats of violence, verbal, written, or via social media
- Verbal abuse including shouting, profanity, or aggressive language
- Failure to follow directions of City employees
- Language that demeans, humiliates, or incites hate or harassment
- Unsafe activity
- Participating in a bylaw-prohibited activity despite signage
- Stalking
- Excessive communications (calls, emails, etc.)
- Alcohol possession/consumption without a liquor licence
- Conduct impaired by alcohol or drugs
- Unauthorized recording in pools, washrooms, private offices, etc.
- Creating unsanitary conditions
- Wearing attire with profane or racist imagery
- Bullying or harassment, including sexual harassment
- Aggressive or hostile conduct toward City staff or customers
- Any other unsafe or inappropriate activity, as determined by staff
We would argue the policy is reasonable and isn’t a “hurt feelings” policy but deals with public safety and public enjoyment of City facilities.
Robinson’s False Claims About Surveys
The Integrity Commissioner addressed Robinson’s survey-related claims in paragraphs 28-40 of its report and found she provided no evidence to support her false claims. The report concluded:
[38] We find that the Councillor’s claims regarding the City’s reliance on surveys which generated as few as 5 or 6 responses, and the claim that the City is making its decisions on the basis of such surveys, is categorically false.
[39] We find that the statement is made to discredit the City, its processes and its decisions.
Robinson’s False Claims about City Spending on Consultants
Robinson also falsely claimed the City had spent $20 million on consultants. Even after council received a report outlining actual consultant spending, she told the Integrity Commissioner that since the information came after her Town Hall, it only meant “further clarity” was needed – expressing no regret.
Robinson’s False Claims about Loopholes in the Gifts Policy
She also misled constituents about the gifts policy, stating that councillors didn’t need to declare gifts if they were passed on to non-family members. Robinson should be familiar with the policy by now, especially after receiving training following an informal resolution. Ironically, the original complaint stemmed from Robinson’s own acceptance of excessive gifts.
Improper Collection of Personal Information
When she was sanctioned in September 2023 for bullying neighbours, she was given a pass for allowing her mother to collect names at a Town Hall without proper safeguards. That was considered a “rookie mistake.” But at the November 2024 Town Hall, she again allowed someone who wasn’t a City employee to manage a sign-in sheet. That individual has a history of being trespassed from City Hall for threatening the mayor and violating trespass orders. She frequently distributes conspiracy material door-to-door in the City.
Robinson’s Op-Ed and Video About The Report
Ahead of the June 23, 2025 meeting where council would vote on the report, Robinson published an op-ed in the Oshawa Central News and posted a video on her YouTube channel.
In her op-ed, Robinson said, “They use words like ‘sentencing’ and ‘deterrence,’ as though this were a criminal courtroom and I were some repeat offender, not a duly elected official fulfilling her mandate, by being the voice of the people who voted for me, and even those who didn’t.”
Let’s face it. Robinson is a repeat offender. This is the fifth time that sanctions are in front of council and some of the breaches of the Code are the same or similar to previous incidents. She also has no mandate to misrepresent decisions or council or city operations – no councillor does – and that is clearly set out in the Code of Conduct. Misrepresentation does not equal being the voice of the people, and Robinson is well known for not responding to constituent inquiries about municipal matters. Deterrence and sentencing are not exclusive to the criminal context either, the words are used in all sorts of regulatory contexts. Rules and regulations exist in many cases for the very purpose of deterrence.
She didn’t stop there, she suggested penalties that don’t exist and also accused Council of bias and complicity:
The Municipal Act allows for alternatives: training, education, even community service. But they’ve never once considered a single other option. It’s always straight to the most extreme measure: take her pay. Why? Because that’s what hurts most.
And if Council votes in favour of this – knowing the report is flawed, knowing my response exists, knowing the bias behind these complaints – then every councillor who votes yes is complicit. It will say everything about their character, their cowardice, and their willingness to follow orders instead of doing what’s right.
This should concern every person in Pickering. If this council can financially destroy an elected official simply for telling the truth, what will they do to you when you speak up?
This is not democracy. This is dictatorship by majority vote. This is not discipline. This is targeted political punishment.
Let’s break that down. Section 223.4(5) of the Municipal Act is crystal clear:
Penalties
(5) The municipality may impose either of the following penalties on a member of council or of a local board if the Commissioner reports to the municipality that, in his or her opinion, the member has contravened the code of conduct:
1. A reprimand.
2. Suspension of the remuneration paid to the member in respect of his or her services as a member of council or of the local board, as the case may be, for a period of up to 90 days.
That’s it. There are no provisions for “community service” or “education” as alternate penalties in this context. And Robinson knows that – or should. Section 22.01 of Pickering’s own Code of Conduct mirrors the penalties set out in the Act.
Council may of course decide not to impose the penalty recommended by the Integrity Commissioner, but it cannot substitute its own view of the conclusions about the facts investigated by the Integrity Commissioner. The Code of Conduct states at section 18.04 that: “Without limiting the generality of Section 18, all determinations of the Integrity Commissioner under the Code of Conduct shall be made in his or her own absolute discretion and shall be final and binding.”
There is no “order” that Council must follow when it votes whether to sanction a member. Council “may” impose a penalty – or it may not. A majority vote is hardly a “dictatorship”, in fact it is the opposite. And there is nothing council can do if a member of the public “speaks up”. Council has no enforcement power over the Respectful Conduct Policy, yet Robinson suggests council may penalize someone for speaking out.
The real question is: why does Robinson keep pretending the rules don’t apply to her? She’s been sanctioned multiple times for nearly identical behavior, sometimes penalized and even given a pass. How many chances does one councillor get? No amount of education can change Robinson’s propensity to misrepresent facts.
The Integrity Commissioner concluded that Robinson’s conduct was deliberate:
[79] We find that her conduct in these matters is intentional, with the goal of discrediting and disparaging City staff, and casting doubt on and undermining the public’s trust and confidence in the City as a whole, in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Robinson likes to double down, and she certainly did so at her Town Hall. The fact that she has breached the Code of Conduct in similar ways before does not give her license to repeat the behaviour simply because she has already been punished. She is, quite clearly, a repeat offender. Pickering deserves better than #DoubleDownLisa.
