GORE BAY—The ongoing saga of charges against Gore Bay resident Bill Concannon, mediator of the popular ‘What’s Doin’ on the Manitoulin’ Facebook page, were withdrawn on June 19, 2025 during court in Wiikwemkoong. A 12-month peace bond was entered into by Mr. Concannon the same day.
Mr. Concannon was originally charged by the Manitoulin OPP following an investigation regarding criminal harassment in Billings Township on April 11, 2024. At the time, township staff reported ongoing unwanted communication from a member of the community. Mr. Concannon (57 at the time) was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and held in custody until he was scheduled to appear before the Criminal Court of Justice in Gore Bay the following Friday, April 12, 2024.
On June 19, 2025, Keesha Seaton, media spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, told The Expositor: “Court staff have conducted a search of the court case tracking system and can advise the following. On June 19, 2025, two counts of Criminal Harassment – Section 264(1) of the Criminal Code before the court were withdrawn. On the same date, the accused person entered into a common law peace bond for 12 months.”
The peace bond conditions include keeping the peace and being of good behaviour. Mr. Concannon has access to the Billings mayor and CAO. The peace bonds do not include locations.
Previously, on November 28, 2023, Billings Township had sent a trespass notice to Mr. Concannon for three months. That policy was reviewed by Billings council in February 2024 and then extended to August of that same year. Under that policy, Mr. Concannon was prohibited from attending the township office, council and committee meetings.
Billings Township was then faced with an integrity commissioner’s probe after three residents levelled complaints against the municipality in its handling of filling a vacant council seat, alleging “impropriety” and “corruption.”
Expertise For Municipalities (E4M, Billings’ integrity commissioner) found Billings Township not guilty of any wrongdoing under the Ontario Municipal Act under which it filled a vacant council seat nor did they contravene the municipal code of conduct, a report from E4M stated.
E4M explained at a May 21, 2024 meeting of Billings Township council that it, “is within the integrity commissioner’s discretion to decline to conduct an inquiry into a matter that they believe to be frivolous and/or vexatious or made in bad faith. It is our opinion that the allegations made in the electronic communications are both frivolous and vexatious. It is our opinion that the allegations have been submitted to our office because the preferred candidate of the complainants did not get appointed. Had their candidate been appointed, it is unlikely the complainant would have found fault in the process.”
E4M also made the rare decision to name the three complainants, one of whom was Mr. Concannon.
“Under most circumstances we would notify the complainants of our decision and that our report would be going to council and on what date,” a letter from E4M to the municipality in April of 2024 states. “I am writing to advise you that we will not be notifying the complainants. To that end, we feel it necessary to advise the municipality that one of the complainants was Mr. Bill Concannon … To be clear, it is our practice not to identify individuals making complaints in our report to council. In this circumstance, however, we feel it necessary to advise the municipality of who the complainants are and the rationale as to why we are identifying them. We believe that all parties are acting together and are concerned about the treatment of our investigator by Mr. Concannon.”
“The request for inquiry was assigned to Craig Davidson,” wrote E4M. “When Craig contacted Mr. Concannon and advised him that council was within their right to follow whatever process they wished to fill a vacancy, Mr. Concannon advised Craig that it was his ‘right to walk into the municipal office and tell the mayor to F-off and there was nothing the municipality could do to stop him.’ Additionally, Mr. Concannon was rude and disrespectful to Craig.”
“Typically, we would advise complainants of our decision to dismiss,” E4M noted. “In this situation, however, we will not be advising the parties of our decision at this time. We do not want them, and more specifically Mr. Concannon, to openly attack the decision publicly, manipulate what the decision states or make slanderous remarks about Mr. Davidson before the matter becomes a public record at the next council meeting. It is our opinion that township policy does not require us to provide such notice to complainants and, as statutory officers, we are protected by the township’s Workplace Violence and Harassment Policy and ought not to be subject to further belligerent and disrespectful behaviour.”
“I felt it important to advise you of this as there is every possibility that Mr. Concannon could complain to the Office of the Ombudsman who may disagree with our decision not to provide notice,” E4M added.
The Expositor, which has been reporting on the case as it proceeded through the courts, erroneously published a story indicating the accused had been convicted in April of this year. The Expositor published a correction and apology for the error.
This error prompted Mr. Concannon to lodge a complaint, citing The Expositor, with the National NewsMedia Council for its judgment.
The report from the National NewsMedia Council’s adjudicator, sent to Mr. Concannon and copied to The Manitoulin Expositor, follows in its entirety:
“Dear Mr. Concannon, “The National NewsMedia Council has reviewed your complaint about accuracy in an April 9, 2025, news article. In reviewing your concerns, we understand you take issue with an error that appeared in the original version of the article, which stated that you had been scheduled for sentencing when in fact the allegations had not yet been tested in court. “You also raise concern with the statement, “The case underscores the evolving relationship between digital platforms and public discourse, as well as legal boundaries around persistent communication in civic context.” “You indicate that given the sensitivity of the issues inherent in court proceedings, more care should have been taken to ensure accuracy prior to publication. “As is standard, the NNC requested more information from the news organization about how it handled the matter. “We understand that the news organization updated the online version of the article and ran a correction in the April 23 print edition of the newspaper indicating the error. We also see the online version of the article includes an editor’s note explaining the error for readers. “The article now states, “An earlier version of this story described Mr. Concannon as scheduled for ‘sentencing,’ when in fact he has not been found guilty by the court, and as such there is to be no sentencing. The author of the article extends their apologies for the unintentional misrepresentation of facts. The matter is returning to court on April 15th 2025.” “Standard journalistic practice calls on journalists and editors to take steps to ensure accuracy of the reported facts. When alerted to errors of fact, news organizations are expected to correct the error in a clear and consistent manner. “In this case, we agree with you that court cases are sensitive matters that should be handled with appropriate care. That said, it is standard practice for newsrooms to report on court cases as matters of public interest, and to report the outcome of court proceedings when they become available. Canada has an open court system, and this is an important part of promoting public transparency and judicial accountability. “The NNC agrees that the news organization erred in its original description of the facts. That said, the news organization took steps to remedy the error by correcting the information and explaining the nature of the correction to readers. While it is unfortunate that the news organization erred in its original reporting of the facts, the correction and editor’s note explaining the error and changes to readers aligns with standard practices when correcting the record. “Regarding your second concern about the statement referring to the “evolving relationship between digital platforms and public discourse,” we find no indication that the statement is derogatory in nature or contains a factual inaccuracy based on the submission provided. Rather, an ordinary reading of the statement offers a description of the wider issues and context related to online communication for a general audience. It is not unusual for journalists to provide context or characterize the issues for readers. “For the reasons outlined above, the NNC considers the matter resolved due to corrective action and will not take further action on the complaint at this time. The news organization has been copied on this correspondence for their information.”
