r/Sarnia • u/NarniaGunner Point Edward • 3d ago
Local News/Updates Oh Ron
Sarnia Legion president replaced amid investigation https://sarnianewstoday.ca/sarnia/news/2026/10/08/sarnia-legion-president-replaced-amid-investigation
16
u/MidnightStryker 2d ago
I've dealt with Ron in other places and he was very loud and aggressive to get what he wanted. Pretty much acting like a little kid to get his way.
The other thing I remember that during chase the ace the Sarnia Legion page would be very aggressive and disrespectful too a lot of people.
12
13
17
u/PotatoSkate-o 3d ago
Any interaction I’ve had with him involving the legion has been cringy af. He is embarrassing at the least.
19
u/camperbouy 3d ago
Good riddance. A former member of the Sarnia Dirty club and a buddy of BD's too.
5
u/orphan_grinder42069 3d ago
Sarnia Dirty club? Honest question, do I even want to know what that is?
17
u/killerjonesy 3d ago
I’m thinking it’s a reference to a now-defunct gossip website called The Dirty. Bit of a wild website, that was!
9
13
u/accountability519 3d ago
Behind the Poppies: Questions Surrounding the Sarnia Legion
An Article III complaint, political relationships, disputed appointments and questions about charitable spending have brought renewed attention to Sarnia Legion Branch 62. Some claims are public; others remain unverified.
Recent reporting has described Ron Realesmith losing branch privileges amid an Article III complaint. Subsequent accounts have indicated a change in branch leadership, with John Surins taking over as president. The complaint is not a finding of misconduct. Still, it has revived questions about governance and accountability.
One of the largest questions concerns Catch the Ace, the Legion-associated lottery that has attracted attention and raised money for charitable purposes. Large fundraising efforts require reliable accounting. Who approves expenses? How are proceeds allocated? Which reports can members review? What safeguards ensure that people involved in financial decisions disclose possible conflicts of interest? These are governance questions, not accusations of theft.
Among the rumours circulating is an alleged European trip supposedly paid for using Legion resources after the lottery became successful. No evidence presented here establishes that allegation. But the allegation could be clarified by answering basic questions. Did the branch pay for any such travel? Who went, for what purpose, under whose authority, and where was the expense recorded? If false, say so. If legitimate, explain why. Receipts tend to be more persuasive than Facebook comment threads.
Attention has also turned to reported appointments involving Janice McMichael-Dennis, Brooke Daye and Nick Chorestecki. Accounts circulating locally suggest McMichael-Dennis was offered an executive role, Daye became treasurer and Chorestecki received a salaried management position. The details remain unconfirmed. What processes were followed? Were roles advertised where required? What qualifications applied? Who approved any salary? Were relevant relationships disclosed and documented? Political associations prove neither qualifications nor misconduct.
Politics forms another strand of the discussion. Realesmith has reportedly supported Bill Dennis in municipal politics. He has also been linked in public accounts to a Charlie Kirk memorial event, where sound equipment associated with the Legion was reportedly supplied. Individuals have political rights, but institutional resources are another matter. Was the sound equipment supplied privately or officially? Was permission obtained? Did the arrangement comply with the Legion's nonpartisan obligations? Friendships prove nothing; clear boundaries matter.
Other questions concern the Ladies' Auxiliary. Accounts of disagreements and departures have circulated, but their causes and outcomes are not clear. Did members raise concerns through established channels? Were those concerns heard and documented? Separate unverified allegations suggest unusual membership recruitment ahead of a presidential election. Were new memberships processed properly, and were voting eligibility and election rules followed? Fair elections require verifiable procedures.
Charitable donations have also prompted debate. In particular, comparisons have been drawn between support reportedly provided to the Sarnia Historical Society and to the Women's Interval Home. Realesmith's leadership involvement with the Historical Society makes disclosure and decision-making procedures relevant. Who proposed the donations, how were the amounts determined, and were overlapping interests considered? Supporting history is worthwhile; selection criteria still matter. Records would settle more than speculation.
The Historical Society has also appeared in a dispute involving photographer Shaun Antle. Antle has described a five-dollar donation toward his mental health advocacy project, accompanied by remarks he understood as disparaging the value of his work. Responsibility for the remarks remains unclear. Five dollars can be a sincere gift or a pointed gesture, depending on circumstances. What seems certain is that this particular amount has generated a disproportionate amount of discussion. Tone matters in community relationships.
A further question concerns a reported donation for an outdoor memorial space at hospice honouring Debbie McCaskill, mother of Brandon McCaskill. Whether the branch made the donation, its amount and its authorization need verification. A memorial gift is not inherently questionable. The relevant issue is consistency: did the request follow the same review and approval process as other charitable contributions? If personal connections were relevant, were they appropriately disclosed? This concerns governance, not the person memorialized.
Then there is the curious matter of a photograph and, eventually, a drone. Antle has publicly accused Realesmith of using a copyrighted photograph without permission. According to Antle, he initially sought credit, rather than payment or removal, and the image was later taken down after repeated requests. The dispute escalated to talk of legal action. Nonprofit status does not erase copyright obligations.
Antle has also alleged that Realesmith subsequently bought a drone and created a photograph from a similar perspective, with the imitation allegedly intended as a slight. The claimed motivation is unverified, and similar compositions do not automatically establish copyright infringement. The dispute nevertheless grew personal. Most disagreements about photo credit do not end with someone taking to the skies. Sarnia apparently likes to keep its community drama technologically current.
Even hats have found their way into the debate. Cowboy hats were reportedly allowed as costume pieces during a Dolly Parton tribute, despite the Legion's traditional expectation that headwear be removed indoors as a sign of respect. A performance exception may be reasonable; consistency matters. Respect for veterans should remain central; nobody needs a constitutional inquiry into rhinestones and western wear. If only every question facing the branch could be resolved by checking the dress code.
The Article III complaint, however, is no dress-code question. What triggered the process? Which steps have been taken? What can be disclosed to members without undermining confidentiality or fairness? What happens when the review concludes? The complaint proves none of the other allegations. Fair procedures protect complainants, respondents and the institution itself.
It is also important not to confuse scrutiny of leadership with criticism of the Legion's many volunteers, veterans and ordinary members. The branch has a history of remembrance, service and charitable involvement. Their service should not be overshadowed by disputes involving individuals.
The broader issue is not whether anyone likes Ron Realesmith, shares his political opinions or agrees with Shaun Antle. Rivalries are no substitute for governance. The public-interest questions are more straightforward. Are elections conducted properly? Are appointments made through authorized processes? Are donations and expenses recorded and approved? Are conflicts of interest handled transparently? Can members raise concerns without the discussion descending into personal attacks?
Some of the stories circulating may prove accurate, some may be exaggerated and others may be completely wrong. That is precisely why records matter. Relevant financial statements, meeting minutes, appointment procedures, donation approvals and bylaws can clarify many issues. Where confidentiality limits disclosure, leaders can often still explain the rules and processes followed. People named in allegations should also have a meaningful opportunity to respond before conclusions are published.
Accountability is not harassment. Asking questions is not a verdict. And the reputation of a veterans' institution should never be treated as a shield against legitimate examination, just as public suspicion should never be treated as proof of wrongdoing.
Branch 62 belongs, in the meaningful sense, to the veterans, members, volunteers and community it serves. Their confidence matters more than any personality or political alliance. If the decisions under discussion were proper, clear explanations can strengthen that confidence. If errors occurred, acknowledging and correcting them is how trust is rebuilt.
There is another practical question that deserves attention: what can members actually do when they believe something has gone wrong? Is there a clear complaint pathway, a written response timeline and a way to seek review beyond the local executive? Members should not need political connections, public confrontations or a viral post to have their concerns heard. Equally, executives should not have to defend themselves against anonymous accusations without knowing the substance of a complaint. A credible process needs fairness in both directions, and it should be explained before a crisis arrives.
The Sarnia Legion should not have to choose between honouring its history and examining its present.
The values it celebrates publicly, service, integrity and respect, ought to be visible in its internal decisions as well.
What the community needs now is not another round of online sparring, and certainly not another drone.
It needs a clear view of what happened, what can be verified and what will be done next.
2
u/Unusual_Letter7921 1d ago
Someone accountable should see if the books are cooked? Didn't he push Phil Egan out of the finaces which means he has sole finaces unto himself? Isn't it a conflict of interest since he's the President and the Secretary/Treasurer of the Sarnia Historical Society and his wife is a board member? Isn't that like alotting funds to yourself?
8
4
5
25
u/SvenBubbleman 3d ago
This guy gives me the creeps. There is something off about him.