Mayor and 2 councillors file claim against 5 colleagues alleging bad faith conduct, misuse of authority
RIDEAU LAKES — A legal dispute first reported in December has escalated into a lawsuit, with Mayor Arie Hoogenboom and councillors Marcia Maxwell and Ron Pollard filing a claim against five fellow members of Rideau Lakes council.
The Rideau Lakes lawsuit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, names councillors Paula Banks, Jeff Banks, Deborah Anne Hutchings, Sue Dunfield and Linda Carr as defendants.
The claim alleges the five councillors engaged in misfeasance in public office, with the plaintiffs stating their actions were carried out in bad faith and intended to cause harm.
The lawsuit seeks damages, including $26,243.97 in lost wages, along with general, punitive and aggravated damages.
The legal action follows a Nov. 21, 2025 letter sent to the five councillors, first reported by Hometown News in December, warning that continued conduct could expose them to personal legal liability.
In that correspondence, legal counsel for the mayor and two councillors raised concerns about the use of the integrity commissioner process and public commentary they said was damaging to their reputations.
A public statement released March 30 says those concerns were not addressed, prompting the decision to proceed with legal action. In that statement, Hoogenboom, Maxwell and Pollard said the lawsuit was necessary to address what they described as ongoing conduct affecting their reputations.
The claim outlines a prolonged period of conflict within council, including multiple integrity commissioner complaints and disciplinary decisions involving several members.
It states that dozens of complaints were filed in 2024 and 2025, resulting in investigations and legal costs to the municipality.
A key incident cited is an Oct. 6, 2025 meeting that was terminated by the township’s chief administrative officer due to safety concerns. Council meetings later moved to a virtual format, and provincial officials began attending to observe proceedings. Meetings have remained virtual.
The lawsuit centres on disciplinary actions taken against the three plaintiffs in October 2025.
According to the claim, the mayor received two 90-day suspensions of pay, totalling 180 days, while Maxwell received suspensions totalling 120 days and Pollard received suspensions totalling 105 days.
The plaintiffs allege those penalties were excessive, not reasonably connected to integrity commissioner findings and motivated by personal or political considerations.
Defendants react
Councillors named in the claim dispute the allegations and say their actions followed the options available under the integrity commissioner process.
Paula Banks said council acted within its authority when imposing penalties.
“We have followed the letter of the law,” she said, adding the 90-day suspension option was among those available through the integrity commissioner process.
Banks also questioned the scope of the lawsuit, including the amount being sought and the choice of court, and said the claim does not fully reflect the broader context of council tensions leading up to the Oct. 6 meeting.
Jeff Banks said his vote on the penalties reflected what he viewed as serious breaches.
“I voted to give the penalty that I did because the mayor broke the Municipal Act by giving penalties where there was no fault found,” he said.
Jeff Banks said the penalties imposed by council reflected the severity of the situation raised during council discussions.
Paula Banks said they intend to defend the case and expect legal costs to be covered through municipal insurance.
Dunfield declined to comment, saying questions should be directed to her lawyer.
Hutchings also declined to comment, stating her lawyer would be handling the matter.
Carr did not respond.
Funding the lawsuit
In a March 30 public statement, Hoogenboom, Maxwell and Pollard said the lawsuit is being funded personally and argued the township should not be responsible for legal costs related to the case.
They also raised concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for legal matters tied to the ongoing dispute.
None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been tested in court.
A statement of defence has not yet been filed.
How it happened
2024–2025
Multiple integrity commissioner complaints filed among Rideau Lakes councillors, leading to investigations and legal costs.
March 3, 2025
Council imposes pay suspensions on several councillors following integrity commissioner findings.
April 7, 2025
Some penalties rescinded after legal advice found portions exceeded council authority.
Oct. 6, 2025
Contentious council meeting ends abruptly due to safety concerns. Further penalties imposed against mayor and two councillors.
Nov. 21, 2025
Legal counsel issues cease-and-desist letter warning of potential personal liability.
December 2025
Hometown News reports on legal notice and escalating tensions.
Feb. 27, 2026
Statement of claim filed in court.
March 30, 2026
Public statement released confirming lawsuit and next steps.
Keep connected to your community—Read the latest Rideau Lakes news.
Ibeyond the merrits of the suit, if the Township covers the legal costs of the persons being sued through personal litigation, citizens should be very concerned because it it’s tantamount to a council members, when acting as a block, abusing the public trust and forcing citizens to pay for their abuse of power. If Jeff and Paula Banks are so confident in their position they should defend it personally and if they win, ask for legal costs to be reimbursed by the litigants. A court deciding versus a questionable IC, allows them to put their money where their mouth is. All citizens of Rideau Lakes should be watching this very closely. Let’s see where the Banks with such bluster are confident or not when the their legal costs is on the line.
Anyone trying to defend themselves in a court situation where intricate knowledge of the laws is paramount would be crazy. Besides, you say that the Claimants/Litigants who lodged this action should not be the ones to pay court costs but only the Defendants should. That’s surely putting the cart before the horse.