Armed Police Block Councillors at North Bay Seniors’ Housing Town Hall: Governance Battle Intensifies

Police Presence at Cassellholme Sparks Outrage Among Councillors

On a chilly December afternoon in North Bay, a routine town hall meeting at Cassellholme took a dramatic turn. Instead of a transparent exchange between municipal leaders and residents, armed police officers—representing both the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and North Bay Police—stood sentinel at the auditorium’s entrance. Their orders: admit only Castle Arms residents and select mayors. For councillors and some board members, the doors remained firmly shut.

This unusual measure wasn’t lost on those excluded. North Bay councillors Chris Mayne and Mark King, both with seats on Cassellholme and Castle Arms boards, watched from behind glass as the meeting unfolded inside. “It’s extremely frustrating … unprecedented … never seen that before,” Mayne told BayToday, voicing a sentiment echoed across the locked-out group. King described the scene as “unbelievably shocking,” recalling his decades in public service without witnessing such exclusion. “I have never in my life ever watched intimidation like that where the OPP and the City Police were used to stop board members from just listening to a response from mayors in a public facility.”

Governance Dispute Over Castle Arms Comes to a Head

Castle Arms, a non-profit housing over 250 seniors, has long been the center of a bitter dispute over governance. At issue: whether municipal oversight should be restored, and what that means for the future of the facility and its residents. The mayors’ presentation, led by East Ferris Mayor Rick Champagne and Chisholm Mayor Gail Dégagné, sought to reassure the small group of attending residents—just eight in total—that regaining municipal control wouldn’t lead to a sale of the property.

Yet skepticism ran high. Residents cited past comments by Cassellholme board chair Dave Mendicino, who had previously acknowledged that the board could technically vote to sell Castle Arms. Mendicino, present at the meeting but silent throughout, later clarified to BayToday that he would never support such a sale. Still, the specter of asset sales, conflicting legal opinions, and historic governance changes weighed heavily in the room. For many, trust was in short supply.

Transparency and Representation Under Fire

The exclusion of councillors and board members raised sharp questions about transparency and process. While two Cassellholme board members, Mendicino and Jim Bruce, were allowed entry, others with similar roles—including Castle Arms Board Chair Larry Fuld and Executive Director Jamie Lowery—were kept outside. Municipal officials explained that Mendicino and Bruce were assisting the mayors in a capacity not related to their board positions, yet this did little to quell concerns. “This is another reprehensible abuse of power,” Fuld told BayToday afterward, pointing out the governance implications of allowing some officials in while barring others. The lack of official notice, minutes, or agenda only fueled the sense of procedural opacity.

Mayor Champagne defended the police presence, stating that it was intended to keep the meeting focused on residents and prevent disruptions seen at previous town halls. “Town halls get to be a little crazy. We didn’t want stuff that turned out like it did at City Hall. We want to make sure the residents hear our side of the story,” he said. But for those on the outside, the message felt more like exclusion than protection.

Financial Pressures and Calls for Mediation

Beneath the immediate controversy lies a deeper struggle over Cassellholme’s redevelopment and the financial burden on partner municipalities. North Bay, Mattawa, Calvin, and other regional governments have voiced concerns about escalating costs, with some leaders calling the situation a “nightmare for municipality.” The debate over Castle Arms oversight has only intensified these pressures, with formal complaints, Freedom of Information requests, and legal counsel now part of the landscape.

Mayors have repeatedly called for mediation to resolve the governance dispute, but the Castle Arms Board remains firm: “There is nothing to mediate,” they insist, arguing that their independence is both legal and functional, and that residents are satisfied with the current structure. Still, mediation offers remain on the table, and the mayors have renewed their invitations in the wake of the recent incident.

Amidst claims of “secret meetings” and procedural irregularities, municipal officials maintain that all actions have been above board. Champagne denied any covert gatherings, stating, “There hasn’t been a secret meeting. The mayors were asked to get together, and that’s what we did.” Yet, for many watching from outside, the lines between governance and exclusion appear increasingly blurred.

The Castle Arms saga is more than a local dispute—it’s a microcosm of the challenges facing municipal oversight, nonprofit governance, and public trust in small-town Canada. As the battle over control continues, residents, councillors, and board members alike are left grappling with questions about transparency, accountability, and the future of seniors’ housing in North Bay.

The events at Cassellholme illustrate the fragility of public trust in local governance, especially when transparency is compromised. The use of armed police to bar elected officials and board members from a meeting intended for community dialogue not only heightens tensions but risks alienating those most invested in the facility’s future. Until open, inclusive discussions replace exclusionary tactics, the governance crisis at Castle Arms is likely to persist—and with it, the anxieties of its residents and their advocates.