A former Alnwick/Haldimand Public Library Board member is speaking publicly about what she describes as a four-year ordeal involving 14 allegations of harassment, questions about the handling of an investigation, more than $40,000 in personal legal expenses and tens of thousands of dollars in estimated public costs.
Joan Stover says she has decided to speak out because residents deserve answers about how the matter was handled, how taxpayer money was spent and whether the Library Board followed its own policies.
“Sometimes a dirty secret needs to be exposed,” Stover said. “Had I remained silent, I would have regretted it.”
Stover, who says she dedicated her time to fundraising, community activities and supporting the local library, maintains that she was entitled to fair and equitable treatment as a volunteer.
“I didn’t start this ordeal. I fought back.”
The dispute began on November 1, 2021, when concerns were raised about Stover’s conduct as a volunteer Library Board member. These concerns were taken to the Township Staff instead of the Library Board Chair as per the Library Board’s own policy.
Stover says the process went downhill from there.
According to Stover, Northumberland County Human Resources contacted her on November 8, 2021 and asked her to attend a meeting the following day with the Board Chair and Northumberland County Human Resources.
“I was blindsided,” Stover said.
She maintains that she was not provided with the Board’s HR-07 Workplace Harassment Policy, detailed allegations or an explanation of her right to representation at that initial stage.
That information was not provided to her till December 10, 2021 via an email from the investigator hired by the Library Board.
Stover says she was facing 14 allegations of harassment and had to obtain her own legal representation to protect herself.
“The Board had access to professional advice and resources. I was left to defend myself at my own expense.”
Questions about the investigation
One of Stover’s central concerns involves the timeline for the investigation and whether the Library Board followed its own policies.
She says she contacted the Board Chair on November 16, 2021, because she had not heard from the investigator. The following day, she was advised the investigator still had not received the necessary documents.
According to Stover, the investigator did not contact her until December 10, 2021 — 40 days after the matter began.
She points to Section 4 of the Board’s HR-07 policy, which she says requires an investigation to begin immediately and be completed within 30 days.
“How could that requirement possibly be met when the investigator hadn’t even contacted me until December 10?” she asked.
“Who was responsible for ensuring the investigation proceeded properly? Who was overseeing the process? And why was I, the person facing the allegations, the one chasing answers?”
Stover also questions why she was not initially provided with the detailed allegations, why she says she was not informed of her right to representation and why the investigator interviewed the complainant and witnesses before interviewing her.
After the interview with the investigator on December 17, 2021 Stover says she asked the investigator for specifics and was advised that the witnesses had not taken contemporaneous notes, raising concerns for her about the evidence available during the investigation.
On April 7, 2022, Stover attended a meeting to receive the findings. Despite requesting the investigator’s report beforehand, she says it was not provided to her in advance.
She maintains that she did not obtain the detailed complaint and investigator’s report until court proceedings more than two years after the original events.
“How is that fair?” she asked.
“A volunteer facing serious allegations deserves to know the case against them and have a meaningful opportunity to respond. That is basic fairness.”
Thirteen allegations not substantiated as harassment
Stover says the investigation’s findings are important to understanding what actually happened.
Of the 14 allegations, she says 13 were not substantiated as harassment. The remaining finding came down to the tone and wording of two emails sent following the termination of an employee.
In those emails, Stover questioned why Library Board members had not been informed promptly about an employee’s termination. Stover advised that she was concerned about that employee’s well being and the well being of the Library Board staff.
One email stated: “As a Board Member I expect more.”
Another stated: “Board members deserve and expect nothing less.”
The investigator considered the tone and wording inappropriate and concluded that they constituted harassment, according to Stover’s account.
She disagreed with that conclusion, arguing that her emails reflected legitimate questions about communication and accountability in her role as a Board member.
Stover says the investigator found that she had not intended to harass anyone.
She also says the investigator reviewed recordings of three Board meetings and found no harassment or bullying in her conduct at those meetings.
According to Stover, the investigator recognized that her financial questions were reasonable, found insufficient evidence that she was using the Library Board for political purposes and described her conduct, both orally and in writing, as generally polite and respectful.
“These were the investigator’s findings, not simply my opinion,” Stover said.
She argues that the distinction between the allegations and the investigation’s findings is essential to understanding the dispute.
“That is a very different picture from the one some people have presented publicly.”
Legal expenses exceeded $40,000
Stover says the financial consequences were substantial.
She requested reimbursement of approximately $5,000 in legal expenses at an early stage, but says that request was refused.
Her personal legal expenses eventually exceeded $40,000.
Stover says her lawyer raised concerns about the investigation and sought clarification, while efforts to resolve the dispute failed to produce an outcome she considered satisfactory.
“I wasn’t prepared to accept what I considered an unfair process simply because challenging it was expensive,” she said.
“Fair treatment shouldn’t depend on whether someone can afford a lawyer.”
She says a new Library Board was appointed following the 2022 municipal election, with some members of the previous Board continuing to serve.
Before commencing litigation, Stover’s lawyer sent a demand letter giving the new Board an opportunity to review the matter and consider a resolution.
According to Stover, the response was that the Board did not have sufficient information about the history of the matter to proceed.
She questioned why the Board could not examine its own records, correspondence and previous decisions, or seek independent advice.
“A new Board term doesn’t erase unresolved issues or the responsibility to address them,” she said.
“Competent governance requires more than occupying a seat at a Board table. It requires judgment, accountability and a willingness to deal with difficult issues.”
Court proceedings lasted more than two years
Stover commenced legal proceedings on March 15, 2023.
She says the other parties brought a motion dated November 17, 2023. The motion was subsequently scheduled for December 31, 2024, but was not heard until September 12, 2025.
The court released its decision on December 30, 2025.
Stover says she wants residents to understand that the court proceedings did not end with every aspect of her case being dismissed as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
However, Stover decided not to pursue that claim because she estimated that doing so could cost her another $50,000 to $60,000.
Having already spent more than $40,000, she decided the additional financial risk was too great.
“There comes a point when you have to make a responsible financial decision, even when you remain convinced that your concerns deserve answers,” she said.
Stover says the litigation also enabled her to obtain the detailed complaint and investigator’s report, documents she considers important to understanding the allegations and findings.
Taxpayers’ share of the costs
Beyond her personal expenses, Stover estimates that public expenditures associated with legal services, the investigation and Human Resources involvement exceeded $50,000.
She emphasizes that this is her estimate based on public financial information available, rather than a verified final accounting.
Combined, her personal legal expenses and estimated public expenditures exceed $90,000.
Stover says residents should be provided with a complete accounting of the public costs, including expenses associated with legal representation, the investigator, County Human Resources and other professional services. Stover hopes that the taxpayers ask for costs associated with this investigation.
But she argues that the most important questions go beyond the final dollar figure.
“Why was this allowed to escalate? Why weren’t the policy requirements followed, or any departures properly explained? Why wasn’t an independent review pursued? Why were opportunities for resolution unsuccessful?”
She also questioned why a volunteer was left facing substantial personal legal expenses while public money continued to be spent.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the consequences of poor decisions without receiving clear explanations and accountability.”
Questions about governance and oversight
Stover says the decisions and administration of the matter raise serious questions.
She points to the investigation timeline, the difficulties she says she experienced obtaining documents and the failure to resolve the dispute before litigation.
“After examining the documented evidence, I still find myself asking: What was the point of putting a volunteer through all of this? What was being accomplished? And what, if anything, were those responsible trying to avoid addressing?”
Those questions, she says, deserve answers.
Stover was elected Deputy Mayor in 2022 and although litigation with the Library Board was initiated she advised her role as Deputy Mayor did not inhibit her from fulfilling her duties. She took direction from the Integrity Commissioner when required and declared a pecuniary interest when Library finances where discussed at the Council table.
Stover also raised concerns about municipal oversight and the responsibilities of Library Board members.
Under Ontario’s Public Libraries Act, a public library board is a separate governing body with its own responsibilities for library governance and administration. Municipal councils appoint board members and council representatives and provide funding, but the board’s independent role makes the selection of qualified members and the proper administration of its policies particularly important.
Stover says she questioned why an appropriate independent review was not pursued and why the Integrity Commissioner was not involved or asked to provide assistance.
“When an organization is responsible for investigating complaints against a volunteer, there must be confidence that the process is fair, impartial and properly administered,” she said.
“Independence cannot become an excuse for avoiding accountability.”
A message to Alnwick/Haldimand residents
Stover says her years with the Cobourg Police Service taught her the importance of evidence, fairness and accountability, while her experience in municipal government reinforced the need for sound judgment and responsibility.
She stressed that her criticism of the handling of this matter should not be interpreted as a condemnation of current township staff.
“We have competent, dedicated township staff working for our community today, and that gives me confidence moving forward,” she said.
She believes good governance depends on elected officials, board members and municipal staff understanding their respective roles and working together in the public interest.
Looking back, Stover says she never wanted to spend more than four years dealing with the dispute or more than $40,000 defending herself.
But she says she was unwilling to remain silent about what she considers an unfair process.
“I make no apology for standing up for myself.”
Her final message to residents is that they should examine the evidence rather than rely on rumours or speculation.
“Don’t judge someone based on rumours, speculation or only part of the facts. Look at the documented evidence.”
Stover says she cannot change the decisions that were made, but believes the community can demand answers and learn from the experience.
“We need competent people making responsible decisions, protecting taxpayer dollars and treating volunteers with the respect they deserve.”
She says she wants to ensure that no other volunteer finds themselves facing a similar ordeal.
“Sometimes a dirty secret needs to be exposed. Had I remained silent, I would have regretted it.”
Stover says she intends to continue listening, working hard and contributing to the community.
“I define myself by my actions, my integrity and my willingness to stand up for what is right, even when it comes at a tremendous personal cost.”
“That is how I have lived my life, and that is how I serve my community.”
Stover said perhaps the most important question is, “why was any of this allowed to happen in the first place?”
Author: Pete Fisher
Has been a photojournalist for over 30-years and have been honoured to win numerous awards for photography and writing over the years. Best selling author for the book Highway of Heroes - True Patriot Love
