Springwater mayor uses strong mayor powers to fire legal counsel
By: Wayne Doyle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Source: BarrieToday.com, Nov 08, 2025
On Friday, Springwater Township Mayor Jennifer Coughlin used strong mayor powers to veto a bylaw she believed could “potentially interfere” with the provincial priority around building hundreds of thousands of new homes.
In a notice posted to the township’s website Friday afternoon, Coughlin recommended the bylaw passed this week be revoked, in part, as it applied to a resolution to direct the municipality’s legal counsel, Loopstra Nixon LLP, to commence legal proceedings.
Within hours of the notice being posted, Quinto Annibale, a partner at Loopstra Nixon, sent an email to Renee Ainsworth, the township’s deputy chief administrative officer, advising her that in his opinion, “the mayor’s veto does not have the effect of overriding the council resolution.”
He advised Ainsworth he was “proceeding on the basis that the applications are still authorized by council” and he would be drafting and issuing the various proceedings as quickly as possible.
Saturday morning, the township posted another notice — this one stating Coughlin used strong mayor powers to fire Loopstra Nixon.
“I, Jennifer Coughlin, mayor of the Township of Springwater, direct township staff as follows:
- Retain external legal counsel, without delay, to advise and continue to represent the township with respect to the process and decision making of the township in relation to all matters relating to the Barrie boundary adjustment in order to potentially advance prescribed provincial priorities, in addition to other resources as required to protect the integrity of the township.
- Issue a written notice to Loopstra Nixon LLP confirming cessation of its engagement effective 12:15 p.m. (EST) on Nov. 7, 2025, directing the firm to cease all work immediately, and clarifying that the Township of Springwater will not be responsible for any costs incurred on or after that time.
- Preserve all correspondence and records related to this matter.
- Confirm to my office once legal counsel has been engaged and the notice to Loopstra Nixon LLP has been issued.”
BarrieToday reached out to Coughlin on Saturday morning for more information, but she declined to elaborate on the notice.
At Wednesday night’s township council meeting, Coughlin used strong mayor powers to secure Springwater’s acceptance of the City of Barrie’s boundary expansion proposal.
Immediately after it passed, Coun. Phil Fisher brought forward a motion that directed the township’s solicitor, Loopstra Nixon, to “challenge the validity of the impugned bylaw” to accept Barrie’s land deal.
The motion provided a “broad range of authority to the solicitor to take any and all course of legal action that, in the opinion of the solicitor, are required to have the matter resolved.”
Fisher’s motion allowed the solicitor to seek an application to the courts to quash the bylaw on the basis of potential illegality and/or an application of a judicial review. It also directed the solicitor to seek an injunction to restrain the municipality and any other party from acting upon the bylaw, unless and until the matter is determined by the courts.
Fisher’s motion passed in a 4-3 decision, with Fisher, Deputy Mayor George Cabral, Coun. Anita Moore and Coun. Danielle Alexander voting in support.
Friday, the notice of Coughlin’s veto was posted, which included her reason for the veto.
She said the bylaw could potentially interfere with the provincial priority of building 1.5 million new residential units by Dec. 31, 2031, and the provincial priority of constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support housing.
“In particular, council’s decision to challenge the use of strong mayors powers and to obtain injunctive relief constitutes an interference with a prescribed provincial priority as it seeks to quash a decision that could potentially advance a provincial priority,” she said.
Annibale challenged the validity of the veto.
“In my opinion, the mayor’s veto does not have the effect of overriding the council resolution,” Annibale wrote in the email to Ainsworth, which was forwarded to all members of council.
Fisher forwarded the email to BarrieToday.
“The veto vetoes the confirming bylaw and the confirming bylaw merely confirms the actions taken by council at the meeting.
“As you know, the actions were authorized by resolution of council, not a bylaw, so while the confirming bylaw confirmed the resolution, I don’t believe the veto of the confirming bylaw affects the resolution at all.”
He said the resolution still stands, and unless and until a court deals with the matter stating court applications can only be commenced by bylaw — a debatable point in his opinion — then the resolution continues to have effect.
Springwater mayor uses strong powers to veto council’s pushback
By: Wayne Doyle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Source: BarrieToday.com, Nov 13, 2025
As predicted by Springwater Coun. Matt Garwood, a motion put forward Wednesday night by Coun. Danielle Alexander and passed by council was vetoed by Mayor Jennifer Coughlin on Thursday.
According to a post on the township’s website, Coughlin used her strong mayor powers to veto a bylaw, in part, as it applies to the resolution “to oppose the City of Barrie boundary adjustment proposal and to direct Loopstra Nixon LLP to proceed with legal proceedings, despite previous mayoral directions.”
In her written reason for the veto, Coughlin said it was her opinion that the bylaw “could potentially interfere with the provincial priorities.”
Specifically, she wrote, “council’s decision to continue to challenge the exercise of powers under Part VI.1 of the Act seeking to potentially advance provincial priorities, to obtain injunctive relief in relation thereto and to request a judicial inquiry respecting the lawful and good faith exercise of said powers constitutes a potential interference with prescribed provincial priorities.”
Her decision came into effect Thursday.
As the discussion on Springwater’s budget was beginning to wane Wednesday night, Alexander requested to waive procedural bylaw so she could put forth a motion without notice that would see township staff draft and send correspondence to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to ensure “the minister understands the position of this council” as it related to Barrie’s proposal.
Her motion challenged the mayor’s authority to veto two resolutions last week.
“Be it resolved that the official position of Springwater council remains and continues to be Springwater council opposes the Barrie framework agreement proposal but supports the (Coun. Anita) Moore motion of Nov. 5, 2025,” she read.
Surprised by the motion, Coughlin told Alexander that it sounded like council was being asked to reiterate decisions that have already been made.
“It’s muddy here and I just think I would like the minister to know again, if passed, where the majority of council stands on this issue,” Alexander said.
Following a short back and forth on procedure, Garwood jumped in seeking additional information and clarity before going down a path that he believed would lead to a never-ending loop.
“I am concerned that we are spending a considerable amount of time and money on this matter to go in a circle,” he said.
He asked Renee Ainsworth, the township’s deputy chief administrative officer and acting clerk, what Alexander’s direction does.
Before she responded, Garwood wondered aloud why council wasn’t utilizing the veto process that is built into the legislation around strong mayor powers.
“If we are as worried and focused as we should be on transparency and following process, that is the process that’s outlined, not continuous motion after motion after motion,” he said, referring to the override option in the legislation.
“Respectfully, Coun. Alexander, I do suspect your motion will pass and if I’m going to use my magic ball, I do suspect there will be another veto and then, come next week, there will be another special meeting and we will continue this process,” Garwood added.
Ainsworth provided council with the details of the override process, advising them that within 21 days after the clerk provides the written veto document to members of council, council may override it if two-thirds of council members vote to override it.
During this process, the clerk noted, the head of council remains as a member of council for council decision-making with one vote.
As Springwater council has seven members, five members of council must vote the same.
Ainsworth reiterated to council what she told them Monday night during a special session of council — the two mayoral decisions, unless rescinded by the mayor, are still in effect.
Garwood said the process Ainsworth described is the one that should be followed.
Coughlin agreed with Garwood on both points — this would be a cyclical process and the process has a built-in override option.
“Every strong mayor bylaw that goes out, every direction that goes out, is done so with legal consultation to ensure that the corporation is protected,” Coughlin said. “As far as the Moore motion, the province already has it.”
The mayor said she understands that some members of council don’t like the Barrie proposal and some don’t like strong mayor powers, but she’s using what’s she’s been given.
“I’m following the process and I have great advice moving through it,” Coughlin said. “There is a veto avenue if you choose to use it, utilize it.”
Deputy Mayor George Cabral contended there were two things to consider: one was strong mayor powers legislation and its use, and the second was a judicial review. He thinks a judicial review is needed “to ascertain whether or not strong mayor powers were used in the manner for which they were actually legislated.”
Cabral contends it’s a way to validate a decision.
“It’s not necessarily to suggest that strong mayor powers are good, bad or indifferent,” he said. “Just in this particular instance, I would like to know whether or not strong mayor powers were actually used in the manner for which they were legislated.”
A vote was held on Alexander’s motion. It passed with four votes — Alexander, Cabral, Moore and Coun. Phil Fisher.