Hey Melinda, I just didn't do an audio check. Can you hear us okay in the room? >> I can hear you in Zoom for sure. >> Perfect. Thank you. testing. One, two, three. We're going to get going in two minutes. All right, good morning everyone. Sorry for a bit of a delay there. We'll get underway and welcome to the 66th meeting of the planning and housing committee. Uh first I would like to acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated and never surrendered territory of the Algangquin Anesab nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. May it get a roll call, please. Councelor Brockington. >> Councelor Curry, Councelor Dudas, Councelor Johnson >> here, >> councelor Kavanaaugh >> present. >> Councelor Kelly >> present. >> Councelor Kits >> here. >> Councelor Low >> present. >> Answer Tierney. Councelor Trustster >> here. Vice Chair Gower >> here. >> Chair, you have qu. >> Thank you, Kelly. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 41 and 42 on today's agenda. For the items just mentioned, only those who are specifically identified in the planning act, who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted, may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment to submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on June 10th, 2026. Please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Nope. Um, are the minutes of our meeting May 20th confirmed? >> Thank you. Uh, for the item 41, the zoning bylaw amendment at 558 Edgeworth Avenue. There are now two public delegations, so we'll hold that one and receive a presentation. Item F42 is the zoning bylaw amendment for 8370 Campo Drive. We hadn't been anticipating the presentation. There are no delegations signed up and no correspondents. Did members wish to have this one held? I don't see any um to uh Joy and uh or sorry Connor and Morgan with JL Richards and Associates on behalf of the applicant. If the committee is prepared to carry this, do you still wish to speak? >> No, chair. We don't need to speak on this matter if committee's ready to >> Fantastic. Thank you. Uh so is that item carried? Thank you. Item 43 is the Ontario Land Tribunal Settlement Official Plan Amendment 34. Um staff are prepared to make a presentation if they need to. There are no delegations. We received no presentations. Did members wish to have this one held? No. Uh to Greg and Evan on behalf of the applicant. If the committee is prepared to carry this, do you still wish to speak? Thank you. Uh members, is that item carried? carried. Item 44 is the amendments to site plan control bylaw to coordinate with zoning bylaw 202650 and to comply with legislative changes to the planning act. Um there was uh a presentation if we need one. There are no delegations. There was some correspondence. A letter dated um June 2nd from Jason Bergraph at GOBA. Did members wish to hold this one? No. Um is this item carried? Thank you. Item four, five is the site plan control bylaw update. Again, we can receive a presentation if we need one. We hadn't received any or there are no delegations on the item. We had received correspondence from Jason Bergraph at GOBA. Did members wish to have a presentation on this one? No. Um, is that item carried? Done. from our strategic initiatives department. Item 51 is the housing accelerator fund fourth trunch delegated authority. Uh my understanding is there's a motion on this one. >> Yes, chair I have a motion. >> Okay. Uh so we will hold that one and you can introduce the uh the motion when we get to it. Item six is the status of amendments to the residential tenencies act which is the renovations bylaw. Uh we're going to hold that item as well. We have a number of delegations. There are no in camera. Uh oh. Um and then uh just uh in terms of uh staff's time, um there has been a request to lift um item 83, the submissions to the province on consultations to proposed regulations uh through bill 98. Uh are members okay if we hold that one for discussion? >> Perfect. Thank you. Um are the uh any intent to lift any of the other items uh any of the other IPDs? Amazing. In that case, we will head back to the top of the agenda, which is item 41, the zoning bylaw amendment for 500 and 58 Edgeworth uh Avenue. and we can ask our planners on the file to make a presentation whenever they're ready. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of committee. The application uh before you is a zoning bylaw amendment for a 24story residential building uh with about 260 dwelling units at 5508 Edgeworth. Uh, at this time I'll hand it over to our senior planner, Kim Baldwin, to walk you through the policy context, and site context. >> Yes. Thank you, Sean. Good morning, uh, Mr. Chair and members of committee. My name is Kimberly Baldwin, and I'm here before you today to present the staff recommendation for the zoning bylaw amendment at 558 Edward Avenue. The site is located on the west side of Edgeworth, east of Lincolnfield Station, north of Carlen Avenue, and south of Richmond Road. Next slide, please. The site is more specifically located on the western edge of the Wood Park neighborhood. Lincolnfield Station is approximately 150 meters southwest of the site. And other surrounding land uses include low-rise residential dwelling units to the north and east, a high-rise apartment building to the south, and a low-rise commercial plaza fronting on Carling to the southeast. Abuing the site to the west are lands owned by the National Capital Commission. In the official plan, the site lies within the inner urban transct and is designated neighborhood. The lands are also subject to an evolving neighborhood overlay and lands immediately to the south are within the Lincoln Fields protected major transit station area and our designated hub. The site is also, as previously noted, uh stated um between Carlen Avenue and Richmond Road, two streets which are designated Main Street corridor in the official plan. In the Lincoln Field secondary plan, the subject property is also designated neighborhood with adjacent sites to the west and south designated hub and main street corridor. Uh this map is a height schedule found within the Lincoln Field secondary plan which supports high-rise development up to 24 stories for the subject lands as shown on this schedule as well. Uh budding properties to the south along Carling are permitted a maximum building height of up to 30 stories while properties to the west are permitted a maximum building height of 40 stories. The subject site along with other properties along the west side of Edgeworth Avenue and south of Lawn Avenue were specifically identified through the secondary plan process as having uniquely deep lots nearly twice the depth of a typical residential lot. In recognition of both the significant lot depth and the planned high-rise context for the area, the secondary plan includes sight specific policies to permit high-rise development on this site. Next slide. Next slide, please. This is a concept plan of the proposal showing a 24story building with a four-story podium. The sight specific policies in the secondary plan require high-rise development along Edgeworth to include a low-rise podium, which this site uh this which this proposal provides. The podium is intended to create a gradual transition in height uh in built form between the high-rise development context around the rapid transit station and the low-rise context in Wood Park. The proposal includes 262 dwelling units, 123 underground parking spaces, and 278 bicycle parking spaces. The proposal also includes a new active transportation connections as required by the secondary plan that will help prioritize walking, cycling, and access to transit from the site. More specifically, a new sidewalk is proposed across the Edworth frontage. And a new publicly accessible pathway is proposed across the north end of the site to connect Edworth Avenue with the NCC pathway network uh to the west. In the zoning bylaw 2008-250, the site is designated residential second density zone subzone F and the proposed zoning bylaw amendment seeks to permit a high-rise apartment building as a permitted use to permit a building height of up to 24 stories with sight specific building setbacks and stepbacks and to require a maximum tower floor plate of 760 square meters and a minimum 5% of dwelling units to be at least three bedrooms. The proposal will also be required to provide one bicycle parking space per unit and a maxim and a minimum uh vehicular parking space rate of 0.3 spaces per unit. In the zoning bylaw 202650, the site is currently designated neighborhood zone 3 subzone B. And similarly, the proposed zoning bylaw amendment seeks to permit a high-rise building as a permitted use, to permit a building height of up to 24 stories with sight specific building setbacks, and to require a minimum a maximum tower floor plate of 760 square meters. Uh, of note as well, the proposal does not require any amendments to bicycle or motor vehicle parking within the new zoning bylaw. The planning department recommends approval of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment for 500 and 58 Edworth Avenue. The subject site has been identified through both the official plan and the Lincoln Field secondary plan as an opportunity to provide additional residential dwelling units close to a rapid transit station and within walking distance to two main street corridors. The proposed 24-story building height conforms to the maximum height direction outlined in the Lincoln Fields secondary plan. The proposal will deliver 262 dwelling units and sight specific zone provisions incorporated into the amendments will ensure that the site integrates well into its surrounding context. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for the presentation. Uh members will have an opportunity to talk to um staff with questions after we hear from public delegations of which there are two. Uh so what I would do is ask uh Linda McCormack and then Andrew Rivers to make their presentations. My understanding is Miss McCormack is online. So Miss McCormack will uh get you there. Let me open up my Zoom. Hi, Linda. We can uh see you. I suspect we can hear you as well. Whenever you're ready, you have 5 minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> All right. I will uh I will sprint through um basically reading the comments that I sent in. We may be interrupted by some renovation work in the building. Um in which case I will mute my mic and let you uh read for yourself. Uh basically I would argue that this project is not necessary to achieve the city's intensification and transit supportive development objectives. There are at least 20 approved high-rise developments within close proximity. many of which have yet to be constructed or even started. Collectively, these projects will add thousands of new residents to the area. In addition, the existing population density in War Park is approximately 446 residents per hectare, a level that is more than sufficient to support highcapacity transit service. Given the substantial amount of approved growth already planned in the corridor, I question whether a 24-story tower on this site is required to meet either housing or transit supportive development. Um I also do not feel that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Rather than stepping down in height from Carling Avenue, which is normal, um it actually steps up in height, creating a significant wall on the south side of the community. The building, the proposed building will cast shadows on nearby homes, the beloved crab apple trees on the NCC lands, and the community garden to which I belong. A more modest infill development would be more consistent with the nature of the community and arguably more aligned with the developers demonstrated experience. Um, according to the 2021 census, Wood Park has approximately 2100 residents. This development would add 262 units and potentially 400 or more additional residents, representing roughly a 20% increase in population. Yet, Wood Park is already recognized as underserved when it comes to city services such as community centers, parks, and recreation facilities. Uh the recreation master plan suggests a target of two hectares of parkland per thousand residents. Currently, the neighborhood's only dedicated open space is New Orchard Park, which is approximately 0.14 hectares. This proposal removes land that was at least available to two families or friends and neighbors and replaces it with no publicly accessible open space. Uh it also appears unable to meet the city's minimum urban tree canopy targets without planting trees on the neighbors property, which would be the NCC. Um, I would uh I see nothing that adds amenities in the building that are available to the public. I would encourage the city to consider requiring one or two floors of community space as part of the development maintained by the developer and owned but programmed by the city through a public private partnership. potential uses could include rooms uh meeting rooms which we need a daycare, swimming pool or other facilities that strengthen community connections and build uh provide services needed by a growing population. Um now we'll move quickly hopefully through my major concern which is the emergency access. Um would uh Edgeworth is the only um accessible entrance to the neighborhood from the west along Carling Avenue and it is only 1.2 m wide which is significantly narrow than the typical two 20 to 26 meter right ofways. The closest fire station is located to the west at Richmond and Cudon Avenue and the only alternative uh as access from the west is on Richmond Road near the corner of Woodruff and Richmond. The design does not to appear to include an on-site staging area for construction loading and unloading. Instead, it appears Edgeworth will be used for these activities, potentially blocking at least one lane of traffic. I know some of the counselors on here um had experience with the construction project at on Carling near Kirkwood where the company did the same thing and managed to block two lanes of construction um during rush hour even uh right uh I would promite loading and staging area for all construction deliveries and removals. Um, I'm also concerned about construction vehicles traveling through the streets of the neighborhood which have no sidewalks and also are narrow streets. Um, they also have very limited opportunities to turn and the corners are tight. I would also like clarification as to whether the developer intends to upgrade the neighboring streets to uh ensure that they don't degrade any further. There are also long-term issues both with uh deliveries and people moving in and out of uh high-rise and uh I can confidently say that a two vehicle drop off loop is insufficient for a building. >> You're at your five minutes. Do you have a concluding? >> Um yes. I would like to see this uh whole proposal re vvisited to ensure that both during construction and in long term that loading and unloading um takes place within the footprint of the properties as opposed to making use of a public uh thoroughare. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation. Um sorry, I'll just see if anyone has any questions for you. Councelor Kavanagh. >> Yeah, thank you chair and thank you Lindo for coming out and thank you for um your submission as well as your delegation. Appreciate it and all your community involvement as well with the garden. Um I'm just going to go through some of the points that you've raised and what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask them to staff and to the and to the proponents um in terms of the emergency access and um and about public space um and about what will happen in terms of the construction and uh um well will they they're going to use uh stay on their site and um but I do have one thing I can let you know about um and that is Um, you probably are aware that the sidewalk is proposed within the the proposal. Um, um, I've talked to the city and I'm going to be moving um, a direction to staff about the advancement of a full sidewalk on on Edgeworth Avenue so that uh, the city continues a sidewalk so that we get something out of this so we have a partnership. Um, so so that will be u something that this community will gain. but we'll also talk about the delivery and loading. I don't know if there's anything else you want me to add to uh to ask. >> Uh thank you for the opportunity. Um no, I think I had identified all my concerns. Um >> okay, thank you very much and we'll and we'll put those questions forward. Thank you again. Thank you, councelor Kavanagh. Uh, Miss McCormack, I don't see any further questions for you. Thank you very much for your delegation today, which uh brings us to um Andrew Rivers, who is in person with us today. So, Mr. Rivers, come on down and I'll show you which uh seat to sit in. It's working. >> Fantastic. Welcome and uh whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> All right. Well, good morning. Thank you for seeing me uh today at the committee. My name is Andrew Rivers and I'm a resident of Wood Park. I'm here today to urge the committee to deny the sight specific zoning bylaw amendment for 558 Edgeworth Avenue under application DO22587. I recognize the Lincolnfield secondary plan designates this portion of Edgeworth Avenue for building heights up to 24 stories. However, this maximum height is a discretionary ceiling, not an automatic development right. Section 2.4 policy 1G of the secondary plan establishes a strict mandatory transition rule. Building heights for abuing highrises on the west side of Edgeworth must progressively lower towards Lawn Avenue and they must vary by four stories or more with the tallest buildings closest to Carling Avenue. The existing building immediately to the south closest to Carling is 810 Edgeworth Avenue, an 11story apartment building. Under a mathematical application of the policy, the proposed building further north is legally capped at seven stories. Instead, the developer has proposed 24 stories. This is not a transition. It is a massive 13-story jump upward, moving north, deeper into our stable, low-rise neighborhood. By recommending approval, the planning department is actively violating its own secondary plan transition mandates. Furthermore, on this tight 56 m lot, a building's horizontal transitions are mathematically too abrupt, casting severe morning and midday shadows over the adjacent low-rise properties and yards to our north. Secondly, we must address the critical infrastructure constraints Edgeworth Avenue relies on aging line 9in municipal lateral sewer main and we already suffer from chronic drainage and suffurface runoff issues. The Lincolnfield secondary plan staff explicitly acknowledges that there is limited sewer capacity in this plan area and the capacity is allocated on a speculative first come first- serve basis. If you if you grant this reszoning today without a comprehensive capacity study, the single 262 unit tower will consume 100% of the remaining capacity of a local sewer line. This will effectively freeze all future modest family oriented gentle density projects such as town houses and multiplexes up to 10 units that are permitted as of right under Wood Park's new N3 zoning. Uh, you're allowing a single speculative high-rise to cannibalize the citywide gentle density goals of zoning bylaw 2026-50. I request that the application uh include a legally binding holding symbol H to this zoning. This holding symbol must remain in place until a comprehensive capacity study proves our local grid can safely handle this uh load. Thirdly, public safety on Edgeworth is already a critical concern. Edgeworth is a narrow residential street characterized by complete absence of sidewalks and bordered by open drainage ditches. School children walking to Woodruff High School are forced to walk directly in active traffic lanes. Pushing an active double curb drop off loop for 262 units on this narrow street is a recipe for disaster. Additionally, the developer is proposing an underground parking ratio of less than 0.37 spaces per unit, providing only 80 or 98 residential spaces for 262 apartments. While framed as a car-like design, the reality will be massive parking spillover onto Edgeworth. Vehicles parked on both sides of this narrow street will reduce the active roadway to a de facto single lane, blocking school buses and emergency emergency vehicles and creating an immediate safety hazard. If the developer is confident that the residents will live car-free, we must hold them to that claim. I request that the on-site specific zoning bylaw amendment explicitly exclude all future residents, tenants, and visitors of 500 and 508 Edgeworth Avenue from being eligible to obtain municipal on street parking permits under traffic and parking bylaw 2017-301. This is a successful established planning precedent in Ontario used to protect narrow historic neighborhood streets from highdensity parking spillover. Uh, in conclusion, Wood Park is not opposed in transitoriented density, but density must be safe, compatible, and supported by infrastructure. I urge this committee to deny the application. Uh, if you do choose to approve it, please consider adding the holding symbol mandate to the uh the amendment. Uh, also a 100% developer funded pedestrian sidewalk along Edgeworth Avenue before construction begins. enforce the uh yeah the ineligibility for park municipal on street on street parking permits. Thank you. >> Thank you very much and uh thank you chair for allowing me to speak. Um, no, I appreciate you coming out and um and I realize this is a huge change for uh Wood Park and Wood Park has has tolerated a lot of change with uh two stations being bu built just on their edge. Um this has been tough in terms of the shadows. We'll um I'll be asking those questions to um to the staff um who are looking at all these things. Um and in terms of drainage and water capacity, those questions will be asked as well. Um, and I I just wanted to let you know, I let um, Linda know as well, um, I will be having a direction to staff. You were talking about safety. Um, in the application, they're going to be putting a sidewalk in front of the building. I've asked the city to look at, um, extending that sidewalk and making it for for all of Edgeworth. So, it's a direction I'm going to be giving. So, um, because I I get it. That is a major entrance. I've been asking for this for years. Um, so this will be an opportunity. So, um, so that that will be, uh, something that's going to be a bonus for the >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. And, um, in terms of parking and public safety, um, I am working with the community association because that's a a communitywide, not just for Edgeworth, it's a communitywide issue. Parking will be an issue going forward. We know that. And, um, so we're working together to be very, very consistent for all streets. There's no point making restrictions for one street because it'll push it to others. >> Sorry. I'm The request was just for this particular amendment to be excluded from the Wood Park area to have on-site parking permits. >> Yeah, we we can work with the community. Like I said, we have to work on the the whole community, but we're um will we can have a discussion about parking because parking will not be part of the application. Um if we talk about street parking, it's a different topic. So, um, but I can work with the community on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, but I appreciate it and, um, and public safety and we'll be asking those questions. But thank you for your delegation. Appreciate it very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. I don't see any other hands up. Mr. Rivers, thank you very much for your time today. So, um, colleagues, if you have any questions of staff, now is the time to pose them. Oh, sorry. The applicant. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. You know the drill. >> Miguel Trombble. I'm a partner at Foten Planning and Design. I'm here representing the applicant. I do have a presentation. Maybe you can just go to I think it's slide 12. It's a site plan. Um, I won't revisit staff's uh presentation other than to simply remind the committee that the heights proposed, including the four-story podium height and the 24 stories, is fully in keeping with the policy direction of the secondary plan. Now that that height comes with certain obligations uh that for instance there there is uh a requirement for a four-story podium uh units fronting onto the new uh pathway which will be publicly accessible providing uh access to the transit station for the Wood Park community. Uh there are some obligations for access management. there are uh obligations for tree planting and trying to achieve some of the city's tree canopy. In terms of the heights and how that fits in, there is there are policies related to how Edgeworth, at least the west side of Edgeworth, which is characterized by much deeper lots, is intended to transition. The property to the south, which is an 11story high-rise building right now, um is uh anticipated to be 30 stories. In the secondary plan, this property is 24 stories and the properties to the north are 18 and then gradually seven. Uh those heights were dictated by the secondary plan through an analysis uh by the city uh as to how this property will fit into that that larger uh height structure. Uh in terms of the shadowing, there are some other obligations in the secondary plan and now the zoning that the maximum floor plate would be capped at 760 m. Uh there is an 11 meter setback from the tower to the edge of Edgeworth Avenue. Uh and the building meets all of the required tower separation of 11.5 on all the other three sides uh in an effort to minimize uh shadowing impacts on the abiding community. Uh with with respect to servicing, there was a site servicing study that was submitted, but you can take additional comfort that um although that study was approved by staff, there will be a site plan control application which will deal with issues of storm water uh in particular. Uh with respect to the mobility uh along Edgeworth, there is an obligation for a new municipal sidewalk that ties into the asphalt sidewalk to the south and I understand that the council will be making efforts to extend that network. Um, we are adding a pedestrian connection to um, connect into the NCC network and connect to the transit station. This site is 150 m to the transit station. It's actually the closest property in the secondary plan to that transit station. It's also about 100 meters from Carling Avenue, which is a transit priority corridor. Um, and there's a proposed drop off. The drop off is there to minimize frictions along Edgeworth in terms of deliveries and operations and all of those things. In terms of construction inconvenience, the city manages that pro process very tightly, but I will note that there are abuing properties that are underutilized. There are some existing parking lots including the plaza along Carling and and the lands to the south and even the NCC property that could be well suited for construction staging. Um, in terms of the parking, the developer is making an an educated uh approach to parking and and minimizing parking lower than than some of the other projects that we see in the city uh in this close proximity to transit. But it's because of that mobility on Edgeworth, the access to Carlane, the access to the transit station u that allow the developer to still provide 128 parking spaces as which is well above what the new bylaw would dictate, but it is a an attempt to balance uh the the need for parking in this building, but also foster transit ridership. So, I think I'll leave my comments to that in case there's any questions. >> Thanks, Councelor Kavanagh. Yeah, thank you chair and uh thank you for your delegation and you've heard um some of the public uh concerns as well as uh read some of the uh the submissions. Um in terms of emergency access that was uh uh uh raised um and that's during the construction um as well as uh when the building is built. I don't know if you can address that. Well, the city requires a construction management plan and in that obviously the biggest component of that is likely access and the management of trucks into the site. So, um you know, as as a condition of site plan, there will be measures taken. There's always a site super on on site. If you do close municipal rideofways, you have to make application to do that. There will be some some works within the Edgeworth uh rideofway for service connections and and uh in particular storm water. So all of those will be managed through the site plan process and then the construction management process. >> Okay. One of the suggestions I'll call it um that was raised was about having public space. Is there any opportunity for community space in the building? >> Um I mean we I can take that back to the developer at the time of site plan control. I mean that's a a difficult ask in that that's usually the responsibility of the city. The site will have sufficient amenity space for its residents. There is a large uh atgrade amenity area in the rear of the property uh that will be in proximity to the NCC lands. There are NCC lands here. Um I mean there there will be party rooms and and the typical amenity space. Uh maybe there's an opportunity to overlap with some sort of community access and that's that's not unreasonable and that has occurred in other projects. >> Yeah, I've seen that done. We're um just just for the community, not we're not talking uh major public, but uh >> rooms to rent and those kind of things. >> Yeah, that that that sounds good. Um and uh uh that that would be very helpful. Um shadows um that was a major concern. >> So again um an obvious concern for us as well. Um and you know there are measures they were included in the secondary plan. There were shadow studies submitted as part of this application and and even before that as part of the secondary plan process. The maximum floor plate is capped at 760 square meters here which is somewhat unusual. The zoning doesn't always address that. Um there are uh sufficient setbacks. We're benefiting from a very deep lot which allows us to do that. Otherwise it wouldn't qualify as a high-rise lot. Um there will be shadowing to the north. Uh but recall that the building the lots to the north are also eligible for 18 stories. So most of the west side of the Edgeworth uh street will be characterized by high-rise. There are uh high-rise buildings to the south of us and they are intended to be taller as well. Um the reality is this is a high-rise node because of the proximity to the station. So there will be um there will be some shadow impacts onto abuing communities but steps were taken to minimize those as much as possible. >> Okay, appreciate it. Parking is always a big issue um because of the uh the ratio um people just don't believe people are going to live without cars. Um are you looking at any kind of a car share program to be within the building? >> Yes. Uh most most of the buildings that don't have a 1:1 ratio have some sort of car sharing that's at least explored at the time of site plan. >> Okay. And I'll be working with the community on on general parking. But um do you warn tenants that you know if they don't have a you know if they don't have a parking spot within your building that uh that they're you know they're taking a risk because they'll be ticketed if they just leave parked cars out. >> Yeah. The marketing of these buildings is very sophisticated and it's it's going to be very obvious that there are only certain amount of units that have access to parking spaces. It's a lifestyle choice and and this building again is within 150 meters. It's the closest building to the transit station. So, it's it truly is intended to be that type of building that caters to people that are comfortable living without a car. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I don't have my Zoom. Okay. I don't see any other hands up, but I do have a question. So, Mr. Rivers pointed to uh I'm guessing it's section 431G of the secondary plan that speaks to a variation in building heights between abudding high-rise buildings that are progressively lowered towards Lawn Avenue. Can you help me understand his assertion and why this is not an official plan amendment uh request as opposed to just zoning bylaw? If you know what I if you can um go back to my presentation uh there is a slide now. The slide was generated by the city not us. Um but it was it was really an instrument for the city to get their heads around height distribution and there is in the event that the slide doesn't come up but there is there is a gradual notion. So the OP actually allows um keep going just a little bit. That's the one. So this this slide was actually prepared by the city um in and it's uh it's part of the secondary plan exercise. It was part of the presentation to this committee about a year ago when this plan was approved. Um the OP permits 40 stories along Carling. The secondary plan reduces that to 30 uh along the uh both for the plaza and for the uh current 11story building to the south of us. We are the second building in uh on the top slide which is 24 stories. The next building is 18 stories and then it gradually reduces heights. Uh and now if you remember from the secondary plan slide um that whole west side of Edgeworth is hatched and those policies specifically apply and those policies in indicate a gradual decrease in heights from Carling Avenue as would be normal um all the way down to Lawn Avenue which is I believe an OC property. So, um, this property fits well within that and and this instrument is how the city came to terms with a 24-story building on on this site. >> So, if I >> we fully comply with the secondary plan. >> So, I just want to make sure u if I understand properly, it's not the building that is there that determines how you apply this fourstory formula. It is what is permitted. >> Correct. That's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, I don't have any further questions and I don't see any others from members. So, thank you very much for uh delegating today. So, now members, it's your opportunity to ask questions of uh of staff. Councelor Brochington. Thank you, Chair. Can staff just remind me why this is before this committee today? If the height is permitted within the secondary plan, why is this before us? chair. Um the official plan, the secondary plan policy established the vision for um the future context of Edgeworth. However, uh as Sony B amendment is still required to um bring forward that uh that vision that was established in the secondary plan. >> So just explain that again because I thought secondary plans had as have as much weight as official plans. What's the difference between a vision and an actual approved building height? >> The applicant is still required to submit a zoning bylaw amendment to bring the vision into effect. So to >> Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, the the official plan permits the height up to 24 stories, but the zoning bylaw does not. So the applicant has to amend the zoning to bring it into conform to allow the 24 stories that the official plan permits. So the zoning bylaw versus an official plan. >> Why didn't the comprehensive zoning bylaw tidy that up then? >> I think the zoning bylaw the comprehensive zoning bylaw didn't go around the city and and upzone all all the all the areas. So in this case, applicant driven uh applications have to come forward for this secondary plan uh along Edgeworth. >> Okay. Chair, if I I may, I noticed Carol Rey's at the table and prepared to speak to the zoning bylaw and the the how it relates to the secondary plan. I would also just remind committee that the current situation we're in is where we have a council approved new zoning bylaw that is not yet in full force in effect and we're still dealing with bill. So we are still dealing with uh zoning bylaw 2008250. So the the report that's before you is amending both of those bylaws so that we have to address both of those policy frameworks. But if Carol would like to speak to the the specifics of the zoning bylaw and the secondary plan, I'd invite her to do so. >> Uh thank you through the chair. So the zoning team implemented as of right heights that are provided in secondary plans to the extent possible in the new zoning bylaw. Often policies are written in secondary plans subject they are written in a way that says you can have this height but you must do a zoning bylaw amendment and you must satisfy these criteria in the secondary plan. Um not having read those policies specifically that apply in in the Lincoln Fields area, I'm assuming that there were conditional heights provided in the secondary plan and that they had to comply with criteria in the plan. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation there. Um, the bike to unit ratio and the parking space to unit ratio, was that city mandated or was that determined by the applicant? chair, the the proposed uh motor vehicle parking rate uh was it was established um by the city uh while recognizing that the site immediately south to the to this property is uh within the transit station area and does not require any parking at all. And so the 0.3 um spaces per unit was a recognition of the proximity to the transit station where no parking is required. And the city always uh recommends uh as much bicycle parking as as uh possible particularly in contacts such as this one that are directly uh connected to the cycling network in the city. >> Okay. Very well. The uh I guess the question is about timing. We passed a comprehensive zoning bylaw review that waved the mandatory requirement for parking. But because this application came in before that, is that why they're they've been grandfathered in and the city has the authority to mandate a minimum ratio? >> And Mr. Chair, when the new zone zoning bylaw takes full force in effect, then that zero parking will will be in force. >> Okay. delegate raised a concern about uh whether or not there was an infrastructure review as part of the application which I assume the applicant had to meet a number of reviews and assessments. Can you just talk about infrastructure in particular the demand the increase net increased demand on infrastructure particularly sewer the sewer system. >> Mr. Chair, this was raised through the uh zoning bylaw amendment review by the community and staff did a a review of the infrastructure, sanitary water, storm water. Um and we will do a more comprehensive review at the time of site plan, but the initial review by staff showed that the capacity for all three different um services uh is available and we'll dig deeper uh when the applicant submits their detailed plans for a site plan. Will it be during the site plan process that emergency access by emergency vehicles is also reviewed or has that already been done? >> Mr. Chair, that detail analysis uh would be through site plan when we circulate emergency services and staff at the cursory level would be confident that the the grid of streets, the layby provided uh will will be sufficient to meet uh to meet that. But we'll hear from emergency services during site plan. >> Okay. Finally, thank you. And finally, I just want to seek clarification from uh the planning department. Um given the proximity of this property to the Lincoln Fields LRT transit that we have there, can you just remind the committee our overall strategy and approach when it comes to height and density around these stations, please? >> Um through the chair. Uh so our our official plan and our zoning bylaw both um prioritize um building height and density around our transit stations. Uh and I would say that the uh recently approved official plan amendment um 46 that the minister of municipal affairs and housing at the province had the authority to approve increased even our height and density around uh our transit stations. So uh it is in in keeping with the provincial direction that we um uh maximize the density in these areas. That's why the uh distance from the transit station is an important factor in this planning analysis. >> Okay. And in in the GM's opinion, this property is within a radius that is acceptable to have this height. >> This would be consistent with our official plan and the amendment that the ministry made. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And I don't want to put the chair of transit committee on the spot. councelor. Um, do you recall how much have we spent on LRT phase one to build including the east and west expansions? >> I don't recall and I don't want to guess off the top of my head. >> I I think it's at least 5 billion that taxpayers have contributed to this project and obviously we want to facilitate maximum ridership of the line which includes people living close to the line who don't have to depend on car ownership. So that is part of my the factors that I consider when we have applications such as this one. Thanks chair. >> Thank you very much councelor Brochington. Uh councelor Kavanagh should I just go to councelor Kelly first and then let you wrap up. Councelor Kelly. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Uh both I believe both uh delegates mentioned pedestrian safety and connectivity during the project um and beyond. And and I know the uh the applicant or the uh delegate on behalf of the applicant mentioned something along the lines of a construction plan that was uh mandated by the city. Could uh could staff just expand a little bit on that on how we're uh maintaining connectivity and uh pedestrian safety during the the life of a project like this? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. So first of all from a pedestrian perspective the secondary plan requires a sidewalk along the frontage. So that'll come through on site plan. Uh and also through the secondary plan we'll be implementing a uh multi-use pathway sidewalk uh through the site from Edgeworth to the NCC lands connecting to the NCC pathway network and the transit station. And then uh in terms of construction management um once we receive the site plan, we'll be working with the applicant to understand how they would construct the building and then what needs they would have or not have for the use of Edgeworth um during certain stages of their construction so we could understand safety along Edgeworth for for pedestrians and and have them put a plan in place acceptable to the city uh during the construction phase. >> Thank you. uh I believe it was the the first delegate and I I can't recall the numbers that she used but there was a ratio or a formula she talked about uh in regards to um you know people in an area versus how much available green spaces there and and I believe she indicated that um this particular area seemed to be lacking um in using those particular metrics but I wanted to check with staff on what your understanding of uh available green space in this area is versus the the ratio of people to that space. And uh are we are we missing the mark here? Are we uh are we about to approve a development that that doesn't fit the neighborhood and and does can't accommodate the uh the people who may live there. >> Uh Mr. chair through uh through the development review application process, specifically the site plan uh application process, there's a requirement for cash in le of parkland uh as well as community benefits charges. And those are two fees that um that will be charged to the applicant uh prior to development. And those fees are um partially invested directly back into the community. And then further to that, the secondary plan um envisions new parks and um community benefits as part of other larger developments that are envisioned to um occur within this community uh for the life of u this secondary plan. If >> I could just add to just a reminder that this site isn't in isolation. It was part of the the Lincoln field secondary plan. So a holistic review was done for for that area and that plan in terms of how uh buildings would come forward, public uh lands uh infrastructure and so forth. >> So just to confirm your staff's understanding is that there is more than enough available green space in the area to serve the residents of this community. >> Mr. Chair, that's correct. >> Thank you very much. Uh last question, more of a process question. um that I think we're I'm just following up on councelor Brockington's line of questioning when it came to the official plan and the zoning bylaw not matching and and I was a little confused in that moment cuz I thought we had dealt with that um a little while back. Uh but what happens in a in a situation like this, we've just done a new comprehensive bylaw uh doesn't address this particular situation. So, if if we're to hypothetically if if um committee and council were to say no to this application, but we have a bylaw that doesn't match our OP, where does that put us as a council and a city? Um, if we were to deny this application, would that be an absolute slam dunk at the OOLT because our OP says it's permissible? >> Sorry, can you repeat the question, please? Um, sure. I'll try my best. It was a bit of a rambling long question, but um I'm just wondering what where it leaves us in terms of a council and a city if we were to deny an application that is permissible under our OP but for which there is no bylaw. >> A zoning bylaw amendment would be required to proceed. um if we were not to follow what's in our op um an appeal would likely be forthcoming from the applicant. >> I think uh >> how we do um it's difficult for me to to guess those types of things of course but um the the official plan is it's difficult to go against our own policy in their >> All right. Thank you very much. Thanks, J. >> Thanks, Councelor Kelly. Councelor Kavanagh. >> Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate the questions from my colleagues. Um um many of which I was going to ask. So there So I've got it uh covered for most of it. Um green space is a big issue in in Wood Park because the only park they have in the community is a pocket park. It's literally a lot, one lot that was donated actually by the family who had a house there. so many many years ago. So that's it. Even though we are building up on uh Woodruff Park across the street, it not in the immediate community. And um as well um we're working with the NCC to try and um make the land that they have immediately behind this building available uh because they're not going to be using it. Um and does this will the city be working with the NCC to uh on that arrangement? Mr. Chair, through the through the site plan process, we'll be working with the subject properties 500 and 508 um on the site plan matters. I think that would be a larger discussion with the NCC that uh I don't know if Derek or you have anything else to add to that. chair, if if there's a broader discussion about park development uh and acquisition, that would really be led by our parks and recreation department um parks recreation culture to to look at expanding the overall park use. We do have discussions with parks and recreation as we go through every development application. They're circulated on them and have an opportunity to request parkland dedication where they feel it's warranted. Uh in this case, we are not looking for parkland dedication. We're looking for cash and loo based on those discussions with them. Thank you. I think there's an opportunity for just NCC to look after the land and control it, but uh maybe just to mow the lawn and so we have green space. So that's what I'm hoping for. Um and I actually just talked to Toby this morning. So um just to push that point. I appreciate it. Um, so I think you've covered off the major issues that that were a concern to to people um in terms of uh the uh overall concerns about capacity um for water and uh sewage etc. And I appreciate those answers and um it's it's a big change and I and um I don't know if this is an opportunity for me to do the staff direction um knowing that this is um a major change and that the applicant is obliged to put a sidewalk in front of the building which is you know bare minimum. Um, I have been talking to the transportation folks and uh or active transportation and we were planning to do a sidewalk in Wood Park and Edgeworth was one of the candidates. So, um I'm just going to give the staff direction now to consider the advancement of the Edgeworth Avenue TMP transportation master plan uh sidewalk project as such time that the site plan control application for 500 and 508 Edwards is submitted to take advantage of the coordination opportunity with the development and if that's acceptable for uh for the staff >> we can accept this direction. Yeah. Yeah. Basically, this allows us to uh we would have to do it through the next budget, but we would be um looking at the timing of that TMP project so that when this developer, if this project moves forward, is putting in a sidewalk, it's not a sidewalk to nowhere and we can connect it to the rest of the system. Thank you. I realize this has been very hard on Wood Park. Um they have suffered a great deal with construction on two different sides of their community. massive construction that is just not even close to what's happening in the rest of the city both with the new Orchard Station and Lincoln Field and um they they're not getting much out of it. Well, except they are getting two stations, yes, but the construction has been difficult and um very invasive. And then to hear about this application where a couple of homes are taken down to put in an apartment building, that was that was pretty hard of them. We need to do everything we can to make it as livable as possible. It's a fantastic community immediately behind just uh north of that building. They have a the Wood Park have a garden that they um where they have land from the NCC um that they've uh managed to create into a community garden. We need to keep this a livable community. So, this application has to fit in to the uh overall uh community. And I appreciate the um the applicant u represented by Miguel um cooperation and I'm going to hold them to the idea of of Wood Park uh connecting on uh possibly using like a space from time to time in in the building. They do that already actually. They use that uh used to uh go to Carling View and use the seniors building for space. So it's not unheard of. So, uh, I appreciate all the work that's been done on this file and again, I appreciate the the patience and, uh, I I recognize the frustration of the community. Um, and thank you for your work. >> Thank you very much, councelor Kavanagh. I don't see any other members with their hands up. So, is this item carried? Carried. Thank you very much, Col colleagues. Moving on. That's the submit. We have item 51, the housing accelerator fund, fourth trunch delegated authority, for which uh there was a motion. Um we hadn't anticipated a presentation. Um but I will ask staff to uh just make their way to the table in case there are any questions. Um, but I think we're holding this one because there is a motion, if I understand, from councelor Troster. Councelor Troster. >> Thank you very much, chair. Whereas the staff report recommends expanding the use of 90% of housing accelerator fund advances to include not only capital investments in existing affordable housing pipeline projects, but also affordable housing acquisition and enabling infrastructure. Whereas the Bloomberg development feeasibility analysis discussed at the May 5th joint finance and corporate services in planning and housing committee demonstrates that the high cost of construction has made new housing developments prohibitively expensive for builders and for renters and buyers. Whereas acquiring existing housing stock can enable housing providers to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing by preserving rents at rates that would be impossible to offer in a new building. Whereas housing acquisition funds like the multi-unit rental acquisition fund in Toronto have enabled a variety of nonprofit developers and housing providers to swiftly acquire and develop affordable housing. Therefore, be it resolved that the planning and housing committee recommend that council direct the general manager of strategic initiatives in collaboration with finance and corporate services to report back on the appropriate to the appropriate standing committee of council by Q4 2027 with a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of establishing a housing acquisition fund pilot in the city of Ottawa, including a an update to the previous IPD provided on November 2024 to identify any further changes or program opportunities. B. An assessment of the use of housing accelerator funding and or other available funding sources to support the acquisition of affordable and supportive housing through one or more pilot projects. C. A potential implementation framework for a city of Ottawa housing acquisition fund to be included within the forthcoming refresh of the city's action Ottawa program including financial operational governance and legislative considerations required for implementation. and D analysis of alternative and complimentary funding sources that could support the establishment and long-term sustainability of a housing acquisition fund. So, um it this is just to say I was really pleased to see in this report about the new tranch of housing acceleration uh fund funding that we are that staff are now contemplating acquisition again. Um, I think the statistics we saw um when we were looking at the uh housing acceleration plan that we put together are showing that there's 7 to 9% vacancy in new builds that tend to have higher rents and almost 0% in older builds. So, it goes to show that uh people are wanting those affordable rents. And um we've all referred many times to this study showing that we're losing 31 affordable apartments for everyone that we build. So, um, thank you to staff for collaborating with my office on this motion. This is really just to make explicit what's said in their existing report and to ask them to come back now that they're reconsidering the idea of an acquisition fund and to bring us your best ideas. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Troster. Um, I don't see any hands up on that one. Could I just ask uh David Miss Wallace just to provide a brief flavor of where staff are uh coming from on this one or Debbie? Sorry, Miss Stewart. >> Um thank you chair. Uh so on this one um the councelor brought forward the um we had a previous IPD that we had um assessed whether or not to move forward with an acquisition fund. At the time we were limited um given that the funding coming from the other levels of government was really tied to the achievement of quite aggressive targets for new um affordable housing units and housing units. Um as we come to the end of those funding programs and um looking at the overall state of the housing um markets, we do see opportunity to pursue acquisition as part of a strategy recognizing that we do need to continue to build supply, build new affordable homes, but also look at acquisition as a way um to support uh continued availability affordable housing. And we see that in particular for uh three and fourbedroom homes. So larger homes are very difficult to build at rates that you know families can afford. And so that's an area that we're quite interested in looking at. Um this motion really just commits us to do the work um and to look for additional uh funding sources. The housing housing acceleration fund may be one, but we do have limitations in terms of when that funding needs to be spent. Um so we'll look at other um other sources, but undertake the work and bring that back for council's consideration. Thank you very much. Don't see any hands up. Is that item carried? Carried. Thank you very much. And we will move on to the status of amendments to the residential tenencies act. So this is the uh renovation piece. Um we are we'll receive a presentation from staff on this one. Uh and then uh we have a number of public delegations. Um and then we can move into questions of staff and then vote. Right. Uh we'll uh once the uh staff presentation has been made, we'll be receiving uh uh there will be a motion uh as I think everyone has been anticipating. We are just experiencing a bit of issue getting the presentation up online. So, please bear with us. Apologies. We're good to go whenever you're ready. Thank you. >> Good morning, chair and members of committee. Bonjour, president. My name is Samantha Montro. I'm the interim manager of the public policy development services and I'm here with Matthew Suittac bylaw review specialist who has been leading the rental renovation license bylaw review. We are here today to present an update on recent provincial changes to the residential tenencies act as they relate to the provincial rules for evictions for renovations and repairs and the rental renovation license bylaw review. Staff have submitted an information report and will present an overview of those recent provincial changes as well as an update on the review we were conducting when the provincial changes were proclaimed into force. Staff understand the proclamation of the provincial changes to satisfy council's direction to proceed with a review in the absence of the province taking this action. However, it is council's prerogative to direct staff to bring forward a bylaw should they wish to do so. Before we begin, we want to remind you that provincial legislation does not provision notice to terminate a teny for three reasons. Demolition, a conversion to a non-residential use, or a renovation or repair so extensive that it requires a building permit, and vacant possession. Once the landlord has issued the N13, if the tenant does not agree to leave the unit, the landlord then files the N13 with the landlord and tenant board and applies to evict the tenant. The board holds a hearing where the landlord must demonstrate that the scope of work is so extensive that it requires both a building permit and vacant possession to happen. And then the board decides whether to issue the eviction order. Next slide, please. As you may recall, last January, staff presented a feasibility assessment for a rental renovation license bylaw in Ottawa. At that time, the province had enacted amendments to the Residential Tenencies Act that would strengthen protections for tenants against bad faith no fault evictions. However, those amendments had not yet been proclaimed into force almost 2 years later. staff did not recommend proceeding with a bylaw review at that time because of the pending provincial amendments and because landlord and tenant relations are an area of provincial jurisdiction. Disputes regarding evictions and rent are the sole jurisdiction of the landlord and tenant board and municipalities do not have the authority to stop evictions from happening. In addition, these bylaws are a new area of municipal regulation and the long-term impacts on the municipal rental housing supply are unknown. Based on the uncertainty regarding the status of these provincial amendments, council issued a detailed direction to staff that outlined the next steps in the review process. Next slide, please. Staff were directed to advocate to the province for a timeline on implementing the pending changes to strengthen tenant protections. Council also directed staff to advocate for additional tenant resources and funding. If staff did not receive a response within three months, we were to begin a bylaw review and report back no later than Q2 of 2026. Staff were also directed to report back to council in the interim should there be any changes on the implementation of these provincial changes. If the province were to implement the changes, staff were to assess the response, advise counsel, and seek further direction if required. As we did not receive a response from the province within 3 months, we began a bylaw review in April of 2025. Next slide, please. The review that we've been conducting uh included a jurisdictional review and municipal benchmarking which included ongoing participation in a m Ontario municipal roundt on the development and implementation of renovations bylaws. It also included a review of available N13 data for Ottawa obtained from the province and consultations including a survey on engage Ottawa, participation in town halls and open houses and one-on-one meetings with interest holder groups. We also sought input and feedback from various internal groups and departments that intersect in the rental housing space. In our consultations, supporters of a municipal bylaw said that evictions for renovations or repairs create a lot of anxiety and uncertainty and that bad actors use pressure tactics to get tenants to leave their units. They also said that it's rare for tenants to return to their rental due to the stress of having to move twice in a short period of time. a lack of affordable short-term accommodations and uncertainty around the length of the work. Opponents to a municipal bylaw indicated that this isn't municipal jurisdiction and that a municipal licensing regime would deter landlords from proceeding with necessary repairs or that landlords would seek to recover costs associated with licensing through raising rents. I would now like to invite Matthew to present some more details about the review. Next slide, please. >> Thank you, Samantha, and good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. This graph represents the number of N13 eviction notices filed with the landlord and tenant board within the last 15 years in the city of Ottawa. Although all M13 eviction notice types have increased since 2020 and that's represented by the blue line on the graph, the scope of our review is specifically N13 eviction notices for renovations or repair and that's represented by the red line on the graph. Since 2022, there's been an annual average of 31 N13 notices related to renovations and repairs specifically filed in in Ottawa. We also obtain data on what's called T5 applications filed at the board. So these are applications tenants can make when they believe a landlord's issued a notice in bad faith. Between 2022 and 2024, there were 14 T5s filed for N13s or associated with the denial over the right to return. Uh, finally, through consultations and through a media scan, we also identified approximately 230 rental units across approximately 40 addresses where evictions for renovations or repairs may have or did occur since 2020. And that's without a corresponding filing at the board. So, so in other words, what that means is that the uh number of evictions uh you know are higher than what's necessarily represented by the graph here, which just represents filings um at the board. Most of these reported instances were associated with two buildings in particular, but due to limited available documentation, staff were unable to independently verify each of these reported instances and so they are they are estimates only. Next slide, please. In terms of other jurisdictions, there are currently three cities uh in Ontario with renovations bylaws in force. Those are Toronto, Hamilton, and London. Another three cities have approved bylaws that will be coming into force later this year or next year in Missaga, Kitner, and Waterlue. Based on available data from cities with bylaws in force, there have been a few applications to date. While costs to administer the license have been relatively high, Hamilton released a status update on their bylaw after a year of implementation and noted that N13s filed with the board dropped significantly uh after the first year of the bylaw. However, this accounts for all N13 eviction notice types. The impact to renovation or repair notices specifically is not known, nor of course is it known how the recent provincial changes may impact this in the future. The cost to administer Hamilton's program was roughly uh $950,000 annually. Uh they received seven applications in 2025 and they issued one license. According to its most recent update, London received seven applications for a license as well in 2025 and they've issued all seven. cost to administer their program was estimated at $300,000 annually and they did not know how many N13s were filed uh prior to implementation of the bylaw and so they weren't able to assess the effectiveness uh in in that regard. Uh and finally, Toronto uh has not released a status update on their bylaw. Next slide, please. So, this is an overview of the recent provincial changes that are coming into force uh later this year. So, under Bill 97, the Helping Home Buyers Protecting Tenants Act, landlords who have evicted a tenant for renovations or repairs will be required as of September 21st of this year to provide their tenant with an estimated completion date, uh, revise that estimate as required, notify the tenant when the unit's ready for reoccupancy, and provide the tenant with at least 60 days to reoccupy the unit. These are many of the changes that council had requested the province to make back in January of of last year. Landlords who do not follow this process will automatically have failed to afford the tenant their right to return and tenants can file an application with the board for a remedy. Fines are also doubling as of July 1st for offenses under the act. So up to a maximum of of $100,000 for individuals and a maximum $500,000 for corporations. The provision that would require landlords to obtain a qualified person's report, which is a report from an individual qualified to attest that vacant possession of the unit is required based on the scope of work. That provision has not been proclaimed into force alongside the rest, and there's currently no timeline on when that will occur. Uh there were also some changes made under what's known as the Fighting Delays Building Faster Act. Among other changes, it eliminates a landlord's requirement to compensate tenants for personal use evictions provided they've given at least 120 days notice. And it also limits requests to review a landlord and tenant board decision or order to within 15 days. Next slide, please. This table summarizes the provincial eviction framework, including the new changes and how they compare with the draft bylaw that staff had been developing up until the province announced their changes. Similar to other bylaws in this space, the draft bylaw requires landlords to obtain a license from the city of Ottawa before they begin renovations or repairs that require an eviction. There are areas of overlap between the draft bylaw and the provincial framework, including the specific eviction notice from the province uh will also need to be presented to the city. requiring tenant updates and 60 days to return aims to achieve the same objective as the the offense uh considered under the bylaw for not permitting a tenant to return. Uh maximum penalties for offenses by individuals are the same under both uh both reg sets of regulation and neither approach includes additional compensation beyond the compensation landlords are already required to provide their tenants as part of the provincial framework. There are also some elements of the draft bylaw that are not part of the provincial framework. These include requiring the landlord to obtain a building permit before they issue the eviction notice. Under the provincial process, the building permit is encouraged but not required until later when the board holds a hearing to provide the tenant with an eviction education guide uh when when providing notice of eviction and to obtain a license from the municipality as a tool to demonstrate that these things have been done. Municipal bylaws cannot prohibit evictions. Instead, the goal of the draft bylaw was to direct landlords and tenants towards the provincial process and to provide municipal oversight that the provincial process is being followed. While the draft bylaw does not directly conflict with the strengthened provincial framework, the provincial changes substantially address concerns regarding proper notification and facilitating the right to return, which were also primary goals under the draft bylaw. Next slide, please. Staff believe that the proclamation of the provincial amendments satisfy council's direction to proceed with a bylaw review in the absence of provincial action. As always, council may direct staff to bring forward a bylaw. In the absence of a direction from council, staff will continue to monitor implementation of the provincial changes and notify council should additional gaps or issues emerge. It is our assessment that the strengthened framework substantially addresses is the same policy objectives as a municipal bylaw. It is also important to highlight that the tenant landlord relationship is provincial jurisdiction and that the addition of a bylaw may introduce jurisdictional confusion and administrative complexity to existing processes. Thank you, Mel. And we are pleased to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Um councelor Kelly, we're going to go to public delegations. Uh but first um councelor Troster has a motion which will be substantial. >> Thank you. I'm just waiting for it on the screen because I don't have a paper copy. Thank you. >> Would you like me to speak briefly to it after or wait till after delegations? >> Um actually it wouldn't be a bad idea if we can just introduce it with >> So um as you heard from staff, they are really saying it's within council's perview whether or not they bring forward the drop that they worked on. Um, as staff mentioned this this they've been working and doing public consultation since April 2025. There's a lot of members of the community that provided feedback and we're engaged in this process. They've written a draft and my assertion is that it's really up to council to decide whether we proceed or not. If they want to bring a recommendation that they don't think it's necessary, they're welcome to do so, but it's ultimately council's decision. So, um, I'm really restricting my comments at this point to the process piece because I think this is too important of a public conversation to simply abandon via memo. And I would really like to see that draft language come forward out in the open so people can delegate and both committee and council can have this conversation because we started this conversation in 2023 and I think we should we it deserves our time and our attention. So, here's the motion. Uh whereas motion number 202549-03 directed staff to begin work on bylaw review for the development of renovations bylaw and report back no later than Q2 2026. And whereas the same motion stipulated that if schedule B of bill 97 is not proclaimed into force by Q2 2026, staff will consider the nature of the response and advise council and if required seek additional direction from council whereas provincial order in council 617 uh/2026 is named July 1st, 2026 and September 21st as the days in which several amendments to the residential tendencies act 2006 will come into force and whereas these dates exceed the timeline stipulated in motion number 2025-49-03. three. And whereas the status of amendments to the residential tenencies acts 2006 report released on May 25th, 2026, staff confirmed that the rental renovation um license bylaw review is complete and that a draft bylaw was being prepared to bring to the planning and housing committee on May 20th, 2026. And whereas document two of this report lists multiple elements of the draft bylaw that are not captured by the newly proclaimed provisions of the RTA. And whereas this issue is a high priority for many residents of Ottawa, including organizations whose cons consultative work was integral to the development of the draft bylaw. Therefore, be it resolved that staff bring forward the completed staff report and draft rental renovation license bylaw to the planning and housing committee meeting on July 8th, 2026 in order to allow for wholesome debate and public delegations. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, uh, Councelor Drawster. Uh so I I do appreciate that uh precision with respect to the uh intent of the motion. City staff have uh asserted that uh they fulfilled uh committee and council's direction. Um and they don't need to bring forward a a draft bylaw for us to debate. Councelor Troster's motion, if it uh passes, would require that that draft for uh bylaw come forward for debate. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And I just want to clarify, a vote yes on my motion is not a vote yes for the bylaw. It's just a vote for bringing the bylaw back and allowing us to have the conversation. Thank you. >> So, that's a bit of a clarifying language or um uh just in terms of the public delegations. We have quite a few of them. Um and I I do want to let uh delegates know that I'm going to have a little bit of a short leash on this one. The um uh comments that are in scope uh are not the ones about whether or not we should have a renovations bylaw. the uh comments that we will consider to be in scope are the ones that address whether or not a draft bylaw should come forward for consideration by committee and councel. So with that we have 10 public delegations and I would ask uh Shik uh Abbasi andor Michael Luiki from the Ottawa Real Estate Board to come forward uh or both. And folks, uh, whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Uh, Karen Andrews, followed by Andre Robert, will be next. Glenn Thank you. Good morning, Chair Leaper, members of the committee, city staff, and fellow stakeholders. My name is Michael Aiki, and I'm appearing in behalf the auto real estate board or ORB. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in item 6.1 in your agenda, the report on the status amendment to the residential tenencies act 2006. ORB represents more than 4,000 realtors who work with both tenants and landlords across Ottawa. And at the outset, I want to be very clear. ORB strongly supports robust tenant protections. Where bad faith rent evictions occur, they can have significant consequences for tenants who may struggle to find comparable replacement housing. In today's market, tenants deserve strong protections, clear information about their rights, and access to effective remedies when those rights are violated. The question for the committee today is not whether tenants should be protected. The question is whether a new municipal licensing framework remains necessary now that the province has substantially strengthened the residential tendencies act. And based on the available data, we believe city staff have reached the correct conclusion. The province has now proclaimed significant amendments through bills 97 and bill 60 that strengthen tenant protections, improve transparency requirements, enhance the right of return, and substantially increase penalties for bad faith conduct. These changes directly address many of the concerns that originally motivated discussion of a municipal renovation licensing regime here in the city of Ottawa. Bill 60 has been criticized by some tenant advocates as being landlord leaning due to concerns that faster landlord and tenant board processes and stricter timelines may reduce procedural flexibility for tenants. Though it doesn't remove the core protections such as security of tenure, rent control or the rights to bring disputes before the board. And bill 97 is strengthened renovation protections by tightening the N13 requirements, reinforcing the tenants right of first refusal with a minimum 60-day period to decide whether to return once unit is ready and increasing the penalties under the residential entities act for non-compliance. Proceeding with a municipal licensing system alongside the province's new framework risk creating overlapping regulatory requirements. Additional administrative complexity and uncertainty regarding enforcement responsibilities. A duplicative framework risks reducing the supply and affordability of Ottawa's rental housing market hurting the very tenants is designed to protect. Last month or released a comprehensive policy report entitled toward balance recommendations to protect tenants and prevent bad faith renovations in Ottawa. Our research reached several important conclusions that illustrate why rent renovation bylaw here in the city of Ottawa would be costly and undermine the quality of the city's rental housing stock. First, the available data suggests that a rent eviction related eviction activity represents a very small share of Ottawa's overall rental housing system. A review found that renovations related evictions notices in Ottawa represent an estimated 0.019% 019% of rental dwellings each year or just 28 and 13 notices annually across more than 147,000 rental units. Second, of the 28 and 13 notices issued each year, the data does not tell us which for legitimate renovations, renovations or bad faith conduct. And that distinction matters. A policy framework should be proportionate to the evidence available. creating a broad municipal licensing regime where the scale the problem cannot be clearly identified and qualified at risk of introducing significant costs without guaranteeing better outcomes for tenants. And third, Ottawa faces a very real challenge that often receives less attention. The condition of its aging rental housing stock with more than 47,000 units in Ottawa requiring repairs. There's also including over 11,500 units requiring major repairs. Many of these buildings represent some of the city's most affordable rental housing. Landlords must be able to replace aging building systems, address safety concerns, and maintain properties in good condition. If we make it more difficult and costly to undertake legitimate renovations, we risk undermining the long-term quality, safety, and affordability of Ottawa's rental stock. In other jurisdiction, municipal leing programs have generally experienced low application volumes relative to operating costs. And these experiences also reinforce the conclusions reached by the city staff. Rather than creating a duplicate municipal licensing regime, we encourage the city to continue focusing on measures that could improve outcomes within the existing framework, including improved access to the LTB. In closing, Ottawa has earned a reputation as a thoughtful and evidence-based leader on housing public policy. Rather than follow the lead of the municipalities, Ottawa should continue to protect from bad faith of conduct while also supporting the reinvestment needed to preserve and improve Ottawa's rental housing supply. Thank you for your time. >> Okay, thank you very much. There's a question from Councelor Plant. >> Thank you, Councelor Gower/chair Leaper. Uh thank you for taking over right now. Um hi, thanks thanks for being here, guys. Uh, I just have a question because I'm a renter myself and um when I was talking to councelor Truster about this issue, as you know, most residents in W12 are renters. I was just wondering why the other municipalities have not pulled back that have these rent eviction bylaws. They have not pulled back on them. uh you mentioned something about overlapping jurisdictional you know rules and that would like discourage uh you know or create unnecessary barriers but we haven't seen Hamilton or other municipalities pull back on their bylaws. So just wondering if you could explain that. >> So I unfortunately I can't speak to other city councils or municipalities. What I can speak to is generally um these programs are expected to have been brought about you know quite an uptick in change. They haven't seen that yet and their city staff may be looking at reports and research to answer to that. To our position and reviewing it from the auto real estate board and our clients and members is that the new and updated changes to both bill 16 and the other act is we have answered in the provincial legislation the needs and changes that were proposed with this bylaw. >> Okay. And and your source for that is what? So our source for that is when the city's report and we've also released our own report towards balance which we can make available to council and to other members as they wish. >> No, I would appreciate that. Thank you so much. >> No problem. >> Hi, thanks for being here. Just one question. Do you have a problem coming back in a few weeks if my motion passes to make your presentation either for or against the bylaw? >> Absolutely not. >> And do you have an issue with this coming back to council so council can make the ultimate decision? I I defer to the committee and I defer to them. I'm here in representing the members. If that is something that is seen as as prudent to you, I I would defer back that to the committee on that response. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. I don't see any other hands up. Uh thank you for the presentation. We'll move on to Karen Andrews who will be followed by Andre Robert who will be followed by Sarah Spruel. There's Karen in the room. I think Miss Andrews may be online. Oh, right here. Good morning. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> I'm sorry. Can you get your >> I have to turn it on. Am I there? It's always better to come in person. And I would come back if the motion passed cuz who would not want to come to Ottawa in the spring? Um, I've been a housing advocate since law school in 1993. I was 10 when I started. I've been a staff lawyer at ACTO. Uh, we have a provincial mandate advocacy center for tenants Ontario. Um, and like Matthew Desmond who wrote evicted, evicted on the New York Times bestseller list for two years. Why would a book about poor people being evicted be on the bestseller list? He said, "You have good housing. Everything good in your life comes from good housing." And that's why I do housing. Now, Ottawa and Toronto have most of the provinces tenants. This is an important electoral issue for you. More importantly, it's an issue that captures the moral high ground. CHC says that in Ottawa, your two-bedroom apartment is $1,900 a month. It's $2,500 if you live in a new condo building. Affordability is declining in Ottawa. You have 10,000 people on the social housing waiting list. Affordable units, the vacancy rate is less than 1%. And you have historically very low tenant turnover. This is from CHC. Lest we forget Harrengate, which the UN described as the biggest forced eviction in Canada in recent memory. If you had had an effective renoviction bylaw, Haringate would not have happened. I went to Tim Hortons this morning. Did the person who served me live in Ottawa or did she live in Kempville? Now, the question is, what kind of Ottawa do you want to have? Do you want to have a diverse community of seniors and new Canadians and students and young families? Or do you just want a place for rich people? And I know the kind of place that I want. I want a neighborhood that is rich with diversity and change and excitement and different kinds of people who can live in Ottawa and work in Ottawa. And I think that's what we're talking about now. New Westminster, BC led the charge. a suburb of Vancouver. We knew what happened in Vancouver. They they took the bull by the horns in 2019. They had 230 renovictions. They brought in the bylaw. They had nobody renovicted the year they brought in the bylaw. So when your staff report says the low number of applications may suggest that licensing has limited effect only six in Toronto, seven in Hamilton, I would say you could draw other conclusions like the bylaw is working like the bylaw is working or landlords are not following it when they rent evict and this is my business landlords not following the law. So those are two other conclusions you could draw. Now what is the problem? The problem is that when the landlord gets the vacancy, they do not reinstate the tenant. That is the problem. And I want to be crystal clear that there is nothing in the provincial legislation that addresses this problem of not putting the tenant back in. Nothing in what the province is proposing. The tenant will receive information. the tenant will receive updates. Fines will increase. What if you don't put the tenant back? And as for the fines, the landlord and tenant board has been so anemic about fines. And these fines don't go to the tenant that's out thousands of dollars in lost rent. And they don't go to you. You who have lost a unit of affordable housing. I don't like the fine system. It's going to the wrong people. What is absolutely key is replacement of the accommodation while the renovation is happening or the rent top up. It keeps the nexus between landlord and tenant. The landlord can't reent or you know the person is rehoused. It incentivizes to do the repair quickly because they're paying money to the tenant while it's happening. with respect. I have never seen such a lethargic staff report in my life. We don't want to do any work on it. The province has taken care of it. Well, the province has not taken care of it. They have not. And these bylaws in Hamilton and Toronto have not been subject to legal challenge. And I want to make that point. I had a file at work. They're going to bring it. They're going to say it's ultravirus. They're going to say it's not jurisdictionally possible. Fact is, they're not challenging it because it is jurisdictionally possible. Um, I'm out of time, but I'm glad I came to Ottawa and I'm really glad you're thinking about doing this. You have an important community here nationally and you've got a lot of tenants. Thank you very much, >> Miss Anders. Thank you very much. There is one question for you from councelor Foster. Hi, thank you for coming and I sure hope you come back should my mo my motion pass. Um >> if the CFL is on, I'm coming. >> Okay, deal. My question for you is um are it's a similar question to what councelor Plant asked. Do you see any other jurisdictions that instituted these bylaws pulling them back right now because of the provincial changes? And why or why not do you think so? Um, I think Hamilton and and Toronto are very attentive to the tenant communities they have, the diversity they have, the low-income communities they have, and they think that this is not uh they're not electoral fans of provincial politics. And so, they don't see the province as a big friend to tenants in their communities. So I think um like me they look at the changes that the province has brought in that kind of like window dressing but don't address the real problem. So they are they've looked at what happened in uh in uh New Westminster and they know what's happening in Hamilton and Toronto and they're not pulling back. They're not pulling back and the cost of these offices, you know, we're going to hear about the cost of these programs, but I think my last recollection was you build a unit of affordable housing, it's $400,000. So, if you have an office that's $900,000 and saves a hundred units of affordable housing, this is this is good money after good money. So, um uh it worked in West Van. Uh I recently come back from British Columbia. My colleagues there say renovictions have gone away. The bylaw, the information, the publicity around the bylaw, it's not happening. They're doing landlords own use in British Columbia, but not renovations. So, um I think people want to give it a chance. People want to see improvements. I think Hamilton and Toronto are very committed to the tenants who live there and I hope Ottawa is too. I hope I've answered your question. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Johnson. >> Hi, thank you. I just wanted to ask you to slow down a little bit um on the part where you describe how the provincial regulations fall short of putting the tenant back in. You said that the um that there's education, that there's this, there's that. What is the gap that you see in the provincial legislation? because I do think that's an important distinction for why we need to layer on additional municipal support. So, take your time. >> Well, that that's a great question. Um, I see tenant education as blaming the victim and I don't think tenants need to be educated. I think landlords need to be educated. So, the fundamental problem is that the landlord will get an eviction order. He will go to the landlord and tenant board and say, "Honest, honest, I'm I'm I'm renovating." And they have to go. And they go and as soon as the landlord gets that vacancy, sometimes the landlord does a repair, sometimes they don't. They just put somebody else in. And the big So, I teach at Osgood Hall Law School and they look at the law and they say, "But the law says the tenant gets to go back." And I say, "Yes, it does." And what if the landlord breaks the law? Like what? What? Landlords would break the law. Well, you know, I wouldn't I wouldn't have any work to do if landlords always followed the law. So, they get the vacancy and contrary to the express language of the legislation, they put somebody in and lawyers at the landlord and tenant board tell me, "We don't have the jurisdiction to evict this no fault tenant." And then there's this application that a tenant can bring for bad faith where the tenant gets a,000 bucks, 2,000 bucks, 3,000 bucks. Nobody is giving them the real money that they've lost. The last one I had $1,400 a month. The woman was paying. The landlord wanted $3,100 a month. So it's 16,700 a month. 17,000 a year. Five years they've paid off the fine. So there's no incentive for a landlord really to follow the law. And and part of the problem, and I I understand this, is the landlord gets the vacancy and may put 20, 30, $40,000 into the unit. They are not allowed to raise the rent for the tenant that comes back. That's not good business for them. They don't like it. They don't like what am I putting $40,000 into this unit for? for the same rent. I'm going to put $10,000 in, put a granite countertop, and double my rent. And I am laughing. And that's what they're doing. Left, right, and center. It makes good business for them. It's just contrary to the law. So, it's the vacancy. As soon as the tenant goes, the landlord puts somebody else in. And there are very few legal remedies to get that old tenant back. And the landlord and tenant board will say they can't do it. I believe they can do it. It's that that's my next file. You know, I'll be going to the Ontario Court of Appeal on that. You can evict uh that wrongful tenant that got the tenency. The landlord didn't have a a unit to give them. I see. Okay. All right. So, I understand the gap a little bit better. Thank you. >> Well, thank you very much, Councelor Johnson, Councelor Kavanagh. >> Thank you, Chair. And thank you very much for your delegation. I really appreciate it. Um, I had a renovation, well, I've had a few actually in my ward because I've got older buildings and and they're kind of like very typical. Uh, they're um in good locations. um they've had tenants for decades often and um it's it happens very quickly and I think that's part of the problem where on a Canada Day weekend um they got notices to be out by August, you know, the end of August and they get and they're handed some cash. Um that that's part of the problem. It's just like people are just so stunned and don't know their rights. >> Terrified. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, is there anything that's in the current uh provincial bylaw that helps them and compared to what we could do? Well, you hit landlords sort of in the pocketbook and you say, "Well, if you want to do this, great. Your tenants's going to have to move and give them 600 bucks a month rent topup. The landlord will reconsider renovating." Um, or rehouse the tenant. And I had one like landlords have friends who have units, right? Like they they belong to a community of property owners. So in one case a whole bunch of tenants went to another the landlord's friends building. I mean it's possible to do um and pe and the problem is stay and fight and they these people may stay and fight and they get evicted by the board to say don't worry your landlord will let you back. and they they count on that, but the landlord doesn't let them back. And then they're they're off somewhere paying more rent and sometimes people don't want to fight, you know, because they want to get on with their lives and they they just feel screwed over and it's our job as lawyers and politicians to make sure that the law is followed. >> Yeah. I I think that Well, it's a big problem. Um, can you sort of talk about I know this isn't the topic right now, but we're talking about rent evictions, but there's also demions. >> Yes. >> If I uh Sorry, I'll if I may, I'll cut that off. Um uh do you have any questions about the um renoviction bylaw and whether or not the uh draft bylaw should be brought forward for debate uh by council? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm I I do. Um I just wanted to say there's more we've got more to do. we've got more work to do. But um in terms of just what the provincial government is doing, I I was looking at that situation that I had in my ward and um the the speed of what it happens. What what would change that in terms of uh what we could propose here at this? Well, I I I don't think tenant education does to inform a tenant that you have a right to go back after the eviction does nothing if the landlord says, "You're not coming back, so sue me." And that's what's going on. And landlords are thumbming their nose at policy makers, politicians, and the landlord and tenant board and saying, "There's too much money on the table. You're not coming back." And this is the terror. And some of our advice to tenants is try and make a good cash for keys deal. You know, I've I got $25,000 for a tenant once, but it's only going to cover 2 years of increased rent, but at least she got the money and at least she could re-establish somewhere where the rents won't be more expensive next year. So, it's um you know, for people who rent and low-income people, it is excruciating out there. It is really transforming our communities. I live on a workingass street. There are now Mercedes on my street. I mean, I don't know how this has happened. I drive a very old Civic and I continue to drive a Civic, but but the we know what's happening on the ground with housing in our in our cities. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Kavanaaugh. I don't see any further hands up. Thank you very much for a very compelling presentation. Um, Andre Robert will be our next speaker who will be followed by Sarah Spruel. >> Hello. >> Good morning, Andre. Whenever you're ready, you'll have 5 minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> Yeah. Thank you for giving me the chance to come here and tell my story. Uh, my name is Andre. I'm a tenant who lives in Centertown. I'm a Senator's fan. I'm a cat owner, pet lover. Uh, I try to be a good person as much as I can. Um, and I try to do the right thing. I've been living in this in my home current that I'm currently in since 2015. Staying in this home is really important to me for a few reasons. First of which, I can afford it. Even though I'm on ODSP and I don't have very much money, it's affordable for me at the time since I've been there for so long. Second, my brother Jay, he lives in the same building with me and it helps with my mental health and just other things with groceries, eating, food, things like that. Uh third is it's close to my doctor's office which is important because of my disability and uh I'm able to care for my animals in that house obviously and help with my brother's dog and which is al good for my mental health. So, in the fall of 2024, my building was put up for sale and uh right before it was officially sold, the buyer came to the building and talked to pretty much everybody in the like each unit. Uh he he told me that he was not looking to get rid of anyone or to raise the rent. So, I felt relieved, grateful, kind of, you know, pressures off. within two days of taking ownership of the pl of the building. He gave you N13 notices to everybody in the building uh five units actually. Um shortly after that I attempted suicide and after being given that N3 notice, my brother called 911 and I was taken to the hospital where I stayed for just over a week. I was scared and I felt helpless. I thought I was facing an unwinable battle and that I was going to lose my home. I did not know how I would survive. But while in the hospital, a social worker connected me with a legal clinic and they agreed to help me and my brother fight the N13 eviction. The fight lasted almost a year and a half. In the N13, the landlord said he was going to do minor work to change the flooring, change light fixtures, and install exhaust fans. But over the course of the next year and a half, his story kept changing. He got a permit to change bathtubs and shower stalls, work that was wasn't included in the N13 and did not require a building permit. An electrician's report said that the units needed to be empty because all of the wiring needed to be pulled out of all the walls of all the units. This was also not written in the original N13 and did not require a building permit and was never done. The landlord said that all the units had to be done at the same time and that it would take more than 6 months. But when three of the tenants left their units, he spruced them up. Oh, and one after another and it only took two months. Um, so I lived with a ton of stress and unnecess uncertainty over the course of that year and a half. We had two dates, two hearing dates with the landlord tenant board and both were postponed at the landlord's request. My lawyer and I spent a lot of time trying to get evidence from contractors who would who could act as witnesses to say whether my unit needed to be empty for the N13 renovations around. My landlord also pressured me to leave by threatening to evict me over the use of a in window air conditioner uh in the heat wave. Actually, uh, I I had countless sleepless nights worrying about what would happen at the eventual eviction hearing, how I would afford moving costs and temporary rent if I was evicted, and whether my landlord would ever let me back in. Ultimately, my landlord withdrew the eviction application against my brother and me after a year and a half with no explanation. The cases were both dropped and no renovations were done to any either of our units. Three of the tenants in my building left after getting N13s. They haven't returned and their units have been rented to to new tenants who pay way more. I still live in fear that my landlord will try again. I worry about how I will fight if the legal clinic doesn't help me or assist me this time. I worry that my mental health cannot handle another yearslong fight with stress and uncertainty. I worry that I will become homeless, lose my animals, and struggle with suicidal thoughts again. I know I'm not alone. I know that business guys like my landlord are are buying up buildings with lowpaying tenants across the city and they are giving out N13 notices in hope that it scares tenants into leaving before the landlord tenant board can even weigh in. Vulnerable people are are being renovicted in bad faith, not for apartment repairers, but for new owners to make a lot of money. I am here today because I hope that the city can do something to ensure that permits for N13 cases are only given for genuine N13s. This will stop bad landlords from using N13s as a scare tactic to evict lowpaying tenants and increase profits. Thanks for your time, >> Andrea. Thank you very much for sharing all of that. Councelor Plant has a question for you. >> Yes. Hi. Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. And and when I say that, I mean being here physically uh with us. I know you said you had some struggles about a year and a half ago and um you know, it it's it's quite the long road, especially when you're dealing with stuff like this. And I just want to commend you for your your courage because I know it's not easy. Um and the other thing your post sorry your your your delegation made me think of is um you know it is a ton of work to go to court. Like you sort of outlined everything that we need to know, right? You got to hire lawyers, you got to hire specialists, you got to fill out the forms, you got to show up, it could be cancelled, there could be the judge doesn't show up, there's delays, etc., etc. And so you have to do everything on the prevention end because it's actually way more expensive to be in the LTB side of things. Um so I just wanted to thank you for your very thoughtful delegation because it really made me think about um you know going to the LTB should absolutely be a last resort for people because it is a huge expense on taxpayers and we should be doing everything on the prevention front. Um, and uh, yeah, that sorry I'm not that's not really a question. I just wanted to share that with you. And again, thank you for being here today because your your voice matters. And I'm not going to get into debate about a dog versus cats. I have a schnowzer at home who would have some serious thoughts about that that he would probably want to share with you. But thank you also for being here. And thank you chair for your indulgence. Um, you know, we can debate cats versus dog another time. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Councelor Plant. Uh, Andre, thank you very much for uh for your delegation today. Uh, Sarah Spruel will be followed by Sharon Catz. >> Good morning. Whenever you're ready. >> Okay, good. Good morning, chair and members of committee. Thank you for your audience today. My name is Sarah Spruel and I work at the local legal clinic. Um, and I think this is the third time in three years that my organization has come here to speak to committee about this issue. Um, and to put it bluntly, I I can't believe that we find ourselves back in the same place that we started on this. So, Andre was my client. Um, and I spent a lot of time, a lot of time and public resources helping him fight uh the N13 notice that ultimately proved to be just a pressure tactic to push out a lowpaying long-term tenant for higher rent. And uh I respectfully uh but vehemently disagree with city staff's conclusion that the newly proclaimed parts of Bill 97 will do anything at all to stop what happened to Andre from happening to happening to others. It won't. Uh Bill 97 provides no deterrence or protection. With Bill 97, there are two new things. Number one, a landlord must now provide timelines for repairs after a tenant leaves and says they want to return. And number two, uh it has increased fines for provincial offenses, which are rarely prosecuted by the Ministry of Housing. Um and Bill 97 is about what can happen after the eviction, after the harm has caused to vulnerable tenants like Andre and to our affordable housing stock. None of Bill 97 would have helped Andre or his neighbors. Bill 97 does not do what a municipal bylaw can do. It does not track the N13s that are handed out in our city. It does not require that tenants rights information be provided with an N13. It does not require any proof that vacant possession is required before an N13 notice can be handed out. It does not compel landlords to share permanent information with tenants before things reach an eviction hearing at the LTB. and it does not require landlords to carve out any part of their major renovation budgets to help tenants temporarily relocate. Bill 97 does nothing to help tenants understand and navigate the process, and it does nothing to deter landlords from handing out a few N13s in the hope that higher rents will follow. Licensing and permit regimes have different purposes from litigation and prosecution. Just because a victim of a car crash can sue doesn't mean we shouldn't require drivers to have licenses and insurance. We need both licenses and penalties to prevent the harm that can be caused by negligent driving. Similarly, we need both a municipal bylaw to prevent rent evictions and a provincial regime to find landlords who go through with bad evictions. Andre's landlord was able to serve N13s to his whole building, driving out more than half of the tenants for higher rents because no one is looking at these things at the early stages. Not the LTB, not the rental housing enforcement unit, no one. The provincial law includes a permit requirement, which is a municipal tool in an attempt to prevent abuse at the LTB stage. Why shouldn't our municipal law require a license to prevent abuse at an earlier stage of the process? I've worked in the legal clinic for 15 years, and I can tell you that the number of people coming to us for advice after getting N13s has increased dramatically year-over-year. From 2017 to 2025, we estimate that there were 12 times as many tenants seeking N13 advice from 15 to 183. That's over a 1,000% increase. And our city knows that renovations are a problem. because they're a problem. This committee directed city staff last year to engage in a bylaw review. And during this past year, city staff undertook a comprehensive survey and met with many stakeholders, including my clinic. And it's alarming that the outcome of a public consultation is not a report detailing the survey results or a bylaw recommendation, but rather a memo suggesting that there is no problem to be solved and no role for our city to play. We don't need to keep coming back here year after year to hear from tenants like Andre to know that this is a problem. And while we continue to discuss this, there are other vulnerable tenants all over the city who aren't finding help from legal clinics like Andre did. They're ending up in our shelters and on our streets. We're calling upon committee to ask city staff to release the results of their survey and public consultations and to put forth the bylaw recommendation that they were tasked with creating last year. That way, Andre and I and Karen can come back to committee a final time to speak to the proposed bylaw itself. Thank you. >> Happy to take questions. >> Thank you very much. Mh. Councelor Plant has a question for you. Hi Merca and thank you so much for the work you do at a community legal clinic. I know it's not um always the easiest of jobs and you sometimes uh are not the best paid either. So thank you for all that. Um my question is and I'm kind of going back to what I talked about with Andre. Can you just give everybody around the table what it's like once you hit the LTB sort of process um only because I know it's very timeconuming. it's very um process heavy um and why prevention is just a lot cheaper than the alternative. Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. Thanks so much. So um once an N13 is handed out immediately the same day, the landlord can apply to the landlord and tenant board for an eviction hearing. Um and nothing is required to be given to the tenant until 7 days before the eviction hearing. So no further communication between landlord and tenant. So during that time, a tenant is left evidence gathering, trying to figure out what's written in the N13 versus what they've been told by the landlord, which is often different thing. They're left trying to figure out how to navigate our permit uh department to figure out if a permit has even been applied for, never mind issued. Uh they're left to try and compare whether the permit that has been issued actually has anything to do with the M13 itself or not. because often a landlord will get a permit, but it's not it's not about the work that's alleged in the N13. Uh the landlord and tenant board will eventually schedule a hearing. Uh and the tenant uh has to participate virtually, which you can imagine is a real barrier for anyone who's a senior or has a disability or doesn't have reliable internet or phone access. Um, and then they're part of a hearing block where there's often 10, 20, 30 cases scheduled to be heard at the same time. Uh, and so there's pressure uh, for the tenant to be able to provide evidence to challenge the good faith of the eviction. Um, and quite frankly, I'm not a contractor. It's very difficult for me to be able to assess whether vacant possession is in fact required for for some renovations. But I will tell you uh time and time again uh when I represent individuals like Andre um the landlords aren't actually interested in renovating. They want to push tenants out. Uh they're hoping that the N13 notice will be enough and it often is. Uh and then no work is ultimately done. I hope that answered your question. It's a lot of work. A lot. >> No, I know. I know. How many um just provincial municipal sort of bureaucrats just on the bureaucracy's side in terms of the court, the lawyers, the judge are involved in this whole process about >> if I may, I'll just I I don't want to get too deep into the substance of a of a rent eviction bylaw. The um the question is should staff uh bring forward the draft law that they've prepared or not? >> Thank you. Sorry. Sorry, chair. Thank you so much. We're we're I'm assuming going to have the opportunity to have this discussion in much greater depth um when hopefully council approves bringing it back. Vice Chair. >> Thanks, Chair. Um yeah, thank you for presenting this. I think you've given us a a good explanation of um what a bylaw could do that is different than what the provincial regulations do. And just to clarify, elicit in your delegation a number of things, tracking N13s, um education on tenant rights, providing proof that of of vacant possession, and so on and so on. So, in your opinion, these are all within the legal scope of the municipality to enforce through a bylaw and are not duplicative of the provincial legislation changes. >> 100%. The provincial legislation envisions some involvement of the municipality in these processes. They're only evicting for the kind of renovations that require a permit. The city is involved and the city should be more involved by implementing a licensing regime that uh puts in place some of the requirements that the province really can't. They legislate on the LTB side, the once it gets to the litigation, the adversarial process. The province isn't in the business of deciding what kind of work can be done in the city. That is the m municipality's job. And so, it's incumbent upon us to have a licensing regime that looks at things on the front end. What are you planning on doing here? and what have you done to ensure that affordable housing isn't needlessly lost here in this process? >> Okay, thank you very much. Thanks, chair. >> No, thank you uh vice chair. That was a very clear uh question and answer. I don't see any further questions for you. Um so we'll move on to uh Sharon Catz who would be followed by Eddie R. Good morning, Sharon. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Good morning. My name is Sharon Katz and I'm a member of Ottawa Acorn. ACORN is a local and national organization of and for low to moderate income people dealing with issues that affect low to moderate income people. In recent years, a lot of our attention has been focused on the lack of affordable housing and the lowest of affordable housing when landlords take over a building and threaten existing long-term tenants with rent evictions so that the landlords can massively jack up the rents for new tenants. Other cities in Ontario have brought in bylaws to help protect tenants facing renovation threats from unscrupulous landlords. Specifically, Hamilton, Toronto, Missaga, Pmpton, G, Kitner, London, Sarnia, Aurora, Chattam, Kent, Smithsfalls, Whitby, and Waterlue have already passed or are about to pass municipal protections for tenants that prevent displacement and the loss of affordable housing through renovations. For your re reference, I've provided an email with links to the information pages for the renovation bylaws in Hamilton, Toronto, and Waterlue, which ACORN considers to be good examples of what a renov renovation bylaw should look like. The magnitude of the problem is not just measured in the numbers of people affected by these actions, but also in the severity of the impact on the tenants affected by these actions. By definition, the tenants targeted in these actions have generally been living in the same place for many years and their rent has remained affordable as a result of rent control. This means that they are often relatively elderly and not in good shape to be apartment hunting in today's market. The other question is how many people are affected by these renovations? The answer is we don't know, but there's a lot of them. The city staff report says that a few N13s were filed with the landlord and tenant board, but that as a result of scanning the media and carrying out consultations, they were able to identify approximately 230 units across 40 addresses where evictions for renovations or repairs may have or did occur since uh 2020 without N13s being filed with the landlord tenant board. The ACORN report, which I also uh gave you a link to, entitled Missing Renovictions, gathered information from a number of sources, and on page four listed addresses that ACORN was aware of or involved in where residents had been given N13s by their landlords. 510 N13s were given out, but only 24 went to the landlord tenant board. At an acorn rally, we also heard from the lawyer from the Ottawa Community Legal Service who told us that over the years they had had hundreds of clients that were dealing with renovation threats. As previously mentioned, a number of other municipalities in Ontario have developed renovation bylaws to help protect tenants. Hamilton was the first in Ontario and they published a status report which showed that the number of N13 eviction notices dropped from 119 in 2024 to 23 in 2025, a drop of 80%. And there seems to be even fewer this year. ACORN's perspective is that this indicates that the bylaw is exceed is succeeding in its aim. The Ottawa staff report looked at the numbers and thought that maybe this meant that a bylaw wasn't really needed. The most perverse piece of logic I've heard in a long time. City staff seem to suggest that because the problems has proclaimed that landlords who are renovicting tenants are supposed to tell to the tenants how long the renovations are going to take with no penalties for lying about that duration. That all the problems are solved and we don't need a bylaw. That is ridiculous. I invite you to check out the renovation bylaws of Hamilton, Toronto and Water Waterlue for which I provided the links so that you can see what a serious and effective bylaw looks like that is trying to help tenants and I will quote from part of the Waterlue description of their rationale for having the bylaw. Quote, Council of the Corporation of the City of Wateroo deems such a system of rental housing renovation licenses appropriate to address health and safety, social well-being of the municipality, well-being of persons, nuisance control, and consumer protection. Ottawa should be a city that cares about some of its most vulnerable residents. Thank you, >> Sharon. Thank you very much. I don't see any questions for you from members, so we'll move on to uh Eddie. who will be followed by Sarah Labullet. >> Hello, my name is Eddie. I am a tenant and I'm also a member of the board of Ottawa Acorn. Uh we do have a number of our members here today who will be speaking to you as delegates and they can outline the impacts that renovictions have had on uh their own lives. I would like to take my time to speak directly to the report which is before the committee right now. Uh there are a couple of things in there that that stand out to me that I find highly debatable. Among them is the claim that the recent provincial orders and council quote address the policy objectives that were intended to be advanced through a municipal licensing framework. ACORN is one of the organizations that has been pushing for such frameworks both here in Ottawa and in the many other cities across the province where it has been moving forward. And I can tell you that our policy objectives are much more ambitious than simply obtaining a uh um a timeline for the renovations uh and my and somewhat increasing the fines that are already in many cases not very closely enforced. Uh, our policy objectives are to stop landlords from using spurious renovate renovations as a way to get around our province's rent control legislation. And one part of what that would involve would be ensuring that the uh renovations that the um uh uh that the the eviction is necessary for the renovictions. This is something that the report itself acknowledges has not been acted on by the province. Uh so to my mind this is a very clear example of something where we still need action from the city. I would also quote the uh statement that standalone municipal licensing regimes have seen limited uptake in other municipalities. I can't speak to how staff are defining limited uptake here, but as uh my uh fellow member Sharon has pointed out, a number of cities have moved on this, including just a few uh Toronto, Missaga, and Hamilton, which those alone account for three of the five largest cities in Ontario. And if Ottawa does not move forward, Ottawa will be the largest city in this province that does not have such a framework to get down to really the the the fundamental issue of this. Uh I would say to you that the there is a question of democratic legitimacy here. We at ACORN have been advocating for a uh municipal bylaw on this issue to protect tenants for years. Uh we have been advocating to you, our elected representatives. And in January of last year, council gave a clear direction to draft a bylaw to address uh inaction by the provincial government on these matters. And quite frankly, it is my opinion that the recent orders in council passed by the province are little more than a fig leaf to delay action that threatens the interests of the premier's friends in the landlord class. Now, I'm not here to attack uh staff. I am myself the son of a public servant. I respect the work that they do. But I am appealing to you as the officials of the city government endowed with the legitimacy granted by the democratic process to uphold the direction that was given by sta by uh the council in January of last year and to ensure that this uh bylaw does come to c committee does come to council so that tenants in this city can have the protection that we need and that we deserve. >> Eddie, thank you very much. I don't see any questions for you. Thank you for Oh, >> apologies. Sorry. Hi. Thank you so much for being here. Um, one second. Let me turn my video on. There we go. Uh, I just one of the points that I've been trying to make with the motion is that there was a significant amount of engagement with the community including ACORN. Um, and the expectation was that the report and the language would come back. So, I'm just wondering if you could speak. You mentioned coming back for years, being involved. Um, did staff reach out to you when they were drafting the drop by law that we haven't seen yet. What was your involvement in that process? I'm just trying to get a sense of the scope of time that it's taken for the community to engage in this process and why they might expect to actually see this come back. >> Thank you. Uh well, as I said, we have been advocating around this uh for years leading up to the uh initial vote by uh by council in January of last year. Uh since then, we have had uh as ACORN an opportunity to speak to staff about what we are looking for about the challenges that our members who are tenants are facing from renovations. Uh I thought that what we had was a uh very you know productive meeting uh an opportunity to express our uh concerns and our demands. Um and you know that the the the time and the effort that we put into this I think would be reflected uh in the draft bylaw or I hope at least will be reflected uh if and when it is brought to committee and to council. >> Okay. One more question just cuz you all have a finger on the pulse on what's going on in other cities around this issue. We've asked this to previous delegates. Have you heard anything about any other city that has a rent eviction bylaw about are you hearing any noise about them potentially pulling it back due to provincial changes? I have heard uh no such indication and indeed I would highlight that Hamilton uh there the the report that they have had indicates that not only are they not considering uh moving it back uh you know rolling it back uh that they are to my mind uh achieving quite a policy objectives uh that were at the root of the municipal framework. >> Thank you very much >> Mr. L. Thank you very much. Appreciate the delegation. We'll move on to uh Sarah Lafiolet who will be followed by Rosalinda Clampen. Good morning. Is it still morning? Good morning, council um and staff. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sarah and I am a member of ACORN. You may remember me from my initial plea here in this very room the first time we discussed the renoviction bylaw. I'd like to remind you a little bit about my situation. I stand before you as a single parent of a child with autism and ADHD. Children with autism require structure, routine, and stability in order to thrive. We need predictability in their lives so they can feel safe and so that they can build the skills necessary to succeed. For many years, we had been fighting for the proper supports that we desperately needed. I had been advocating for the resources and accommodations to help my child succeed in school. Thankfully, after years of struggle, we were finally starting to see the benefits of a new alternative school system that understood that not all children fit in the same mold uh and that recognized the individual needs of my child. Unfortunately, our landlord attempted to sell our building for almost a year without any hits and then turned to an N13 when that didn't work. He pulled out all the stops, attempts to trick us into signing incorrect paperwork, insultingly low cash for keys offers, neglected repairs, bullying, and intimidation. When all else failed, our landlord found a loophole through dumb eviction, which we know needs a conversation on another day. My child and I and our neighbors lost our home. The building we lived in was demolished to make way for new construction with more units that are, by the way, now exempt from rent control. The landlord offered no solutions, no comparable units in his other rental properties, and no opportunity for us to return once the new building was complete, despite being plenty more units than were there before. The pickings were slim for apartment uh shopping. Most of the ads online for rentals were scams. They never replied or they requested illegal payments for application processing, payment deposits before you've even seen the space and damage or pet deposits. Finally, we found something that could work. It was on the very upper max of my single parent budget, but it was one of very few feasible options. It's tiny, hot, and smells like cigarette smoke all the time. The living room and both bedrooms were full of mold. There was evidence of pests. The main window, surrounding walls, and frames were rotting out, and the work to replace it was not completed until 10 months after move in. We were living in an active construction zone. Our bedroom floors are still in disrepair, by the way. We've lived here since April 2025. We lost the community that uh had been a lifeline, one that my child and I depended on. The people there, the school, the services, all of them were a part of the structure that helped my child succeed. Losing that stability has been devastating. We are the capital city. We should be trailblazing leaders. Ottawa needs to set the standard. The fact that we don't have an existing bylaw and are even recommending against it has been extremely disheartening and frankly embarrassing. If we had the renoviction bylaw, our lives might be very different now. I had to quit my job and stay home with my child because she was on suicide watch. Um, had our landlord been required to file an application with the city for a renov a renovation license within 7 days of issuing an N13 notice with proper doc documentation, including building permits and engineering reports proving vacant possession was truly required. Perhaps we could have challenged his bad faith eviction. if he had been required to provide us with temporary alternative accommodation comparable to our unit or compensation equal to the difference between our rent and average asking rents. We may not have been forced into this substandard overpriced housing. If there had been support for moving costs and a guaranteed right of return, my child could have m maintained the stability and community connections that are so crucial for someone with autism. To wrap up, instead we lost everything that we fought so hard to build. I stand here today to ask for your understanding, your support, and for your help. We need an anti-un eviction bylaw to help families like mine. families who are fighting to provide the best for their children while facing other challenges that feel insurmountable. We need affordable housing options that take into account the needs of individuals with disabilities, rent control and vacancy control to keep families in their homes. And we need protection of our rights and accountability for shady landlords that take advantage of these loopholes to prevent any more of this city's residents from experiencing the complete and total nightmare of losing one's home and community. >> Thank you very much for that. I don't see any hands up for you, but uh I appreciate your intervention today. Uh we'll move on to Rosalinda Climpmpen who will be followed by our final delegation, Roxan Donovan. And good afternoon, uh, Miss Clinton. Whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. >> There should be a button. Our staff can help you find that. >> Perfect. You're on. Thank you. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding uh the rental innovation license bylaw. My name is uh Rosal Linda and I'm an ACORN member. I want to briefly um address my understanding of the current situation and my own experience. the draft bylaw going into some form of hiatus mode is very troubling to me. Um based on this idea that uh the amendments at the provincial level level are going to address uh the uh problematic issues of renovations. For example, uh they require that um the landlord uh communicate to the t time frame for the renovations. It's incomprehensible to me how this provides any deterrence from bad faith renovation for a profit because it's simply useless to do so. In my own case, the landlord served a bad faith in 13 eviction notice with a letter attached stating the renovation work would take in fact 7 to 8 months. This was just a false concoction estimate. two units vacated because of a previous N11, a tenency buyout being served that included a threat of an N13. In these units, it only took a matter of a few weeks in total to do cosmetic changes, and these did not require a vacant unit. A very high level of tenant support, over 70%, can be found in the data gathered for the requirements that are not in Bill 97 fully. For example, the necessity of a renovation license, report from a professional such as an engineer that vacant possession is required, temporary accommodation, moving costs for tenants, and consequences for landlords such as fines for violations. Tenants desperately need the following protections against greed renovations. Landlords can use N11s, buyout offers, threats of N13s right now to scare tenants out. We need to prevent the easy service of bad faith in 13s with no requirements of a license. They are used to frighten and force tenants to vacate. Less than 5% of all N13s served are filed at LTB. In the ACORN hidden renovations report, my address shows two N13 notices having been served, but these are only the ones ACORN was made directly aware of. There are actually four served and six would have been served. representing all of the occupied units in the building if not for the fact that two units were vacated under threat of an N13. We must solve this problem. We must have incentives for landlords to allow tenants to reoccupy their homes post renovation. The data shows only about 5% get their homes back. And finally, enforcement fines are essential for failure to comply with the regulations. The LTB has uh you know traditionally not enforced their own fines. Tenants are being harassed out of their homes and the LTB is completely ineffectual at stopping this. In my case, I've recently had to file a second harassment case at the LTB because the deterrence of the results of the first case was so sadly in insufficient. The coercive tactics and harassment of my case have involved terrifying illegal entries, threats, and issuing many unnecessary entry notices. Another tactic used by my landlord is failing to maintain the building, not responding to service requests. Very few valid N3s exist, and those that do are likely due to the landlord wrongly neglecting maintenance needs over many years. Yes, there are old buildings. I live in an old building. It's called a heritage building. Maybe someone should keep up the heritage building. This hasn't occurred. I don't believe evidence exists supporting that these predatory landlords are a few bad apples. Many landlords quickly get on the bandwagon of loopholes, mainly to circumvent rent control. For example, in my case, shortly after rent control was instituted, right? I mean way long time ago I refused a large rent increase demanded by my then landlord. This was followed by a bad faith N12 eviction for landlord's own use notice with little ability to fight the eviction due to few legal requirements placed on the landlord to justify the eviction. I moved during residence in my new apartment. I was horrified and disgusted to find out that the previous long-term tenant of my new residence had been wrongly evicted on the then very popular N12 and I was the very next tenant in the unit. Then I was served more in 12elves by my new landlord as retaliation for pursuing my legal rent and reporting bylaw violations. I fought these at huge cost. Now, the next and current landlord has used the increasingly popular. >> You've run out of time. Um, do you want to take 10 seconds? >> Sure. We need this draft bylaw to protect people from the suffering that I have endured. And I would like to strongly recommend that we follow what other cities have done and make sure we have similar municipal laws in place to stop these greed evictions, these forprofit evictions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. Uh, Miss Clump, I don't see any questions for you. Appreciate the intervention today. Uh, our final delegation will be Roxan Donovan. Hi everyone. Thank you for letting me uh say my little story. I was renovicted. I moved to Ottawa in 2018 in an affordable house. Um, I was paying 1,400 for a three-bedroom town home, and that was affordable. A a year and a half ago, uh, the units, 17 town homes were sold and the new company that bought the the the homes, um, I'm sorry, I'm a bit emotional. Um they they gave us in 13th. We didn't even know that the houses were sold. We receive a piece of paper like this. No letter head saying you pay your rent from now on to this personal email address. They didn't even bother to tell us that it was sold and who the company was. And then when we received the entertain, they started harassing. I was working from home. I'm a federal government worker and I was working from home. Their workers would walk into my home, not even knocking. I'm alone in the house. God knows what could have happened. There's so many crime in the city that you you're not even safe. So I had to lock my doors, be a prisoner in my home. Then they started the they started harassing and intimidating. Uh we had one parking per household. They take our parkings for their workers. You leave for a half an hour, come back, your parking's gone, you don't know where you're going. And the representative would say, "I own the place. I can do whatever I want." So we had no security. Then our old superintendent, 78year-old, heart problems. He had a heart attack about two months prior to him being told, "You have one month to live. We don't need you here no more." As a superintendent, you don't do that to old people. But every week the representative would come see me and say, "Did you find some place? Are you moving?" I said, "No, I filed for the first right of refusal. And then I said, you know, I told you before, my credit is not good. I cannot rent somewhere else because the first thing that the landlords do is check your credit. If you don't have a good credit, you're out on the street. there before about I'd say in August or in no April they gave me a check. Time's over. Sorry. >> Oh. Um they gave me a check for 3 months. Apparently it's law. When you get renu evicted they have to pay you 3 months. And then in July, just before the LTB LTB court date, they offered me a unit in the same housing for $700 more. My unit was 1435. Someone saw it on renters.ca at $26.90. This is ridiculous. It's double the rent. So, we were paying below average. They evicted everybody. >> Sorry, just a one minute warning. >> I was wondering. Sorry. Uh, they evicted people for for profit. The the unit they gave me is in the same housing complex and they did the the kitchen floor. They they repolished the wooden floor in the living room and a new bathroom. That's it. That's not cause for rena eviction. There was nothing major there and they evicted those people. So that's why we need a strong bylaw. Engineering reports temporary housing and moving costs. It's so important that this company they bought for 10 years of rena evictions. Do you know how many people are going to be on the streets? Are we going to have to go live in the sewers? Because we can't afford housing anymore. It's like all those sci-fi movies coming to life. You know, you have to take this at heart. We are people. Maybe we don't do a lot of money, but at least we're people. We have to take a stand. Roxan, on on that note, I will say thank you and just let you know that you are out of time. I don't see any questions for you, but thank you very much for sharing all of that with us. Uh I know that was hard. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> colleagues. Um, we don't have any further delegations. Um, there is the motion by councelor Truster on the floor. Does anyone wish to ask any questions of staff or make any comments? >> Councelor Kelly. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's been quite a meeting. Um, that's my questions for staff. I'll I'll just start firing them off. And I think some of them we might have heard uh during uh questions to delegations, but I'd love to get staff's perspective. So, we've heard a lot today about Toronto, Hamilton, and London, and I'd like to hear from staff on, you know, given what the province has announced in the new policy framework. Is there any indication that they are considering a shift or a change based on the province's policy announcement? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh at this time, no. We have no indication from staff in those cities that they're considering a change or a repeal to their bylaws, but uh we'll also note that this is a recent change, relatively speaking, these provincial amendments are not yet in force. And so I think it's also fair to say that um once they're in force and and staff in those cities have a chance to evaluate that, they they might uh think differently or or they might not. I think it's it's uh something that that they'll continue to evaluate. >> Okay. And can you confirm if any of those cities have had their bylaw challenged legally? >> Not not to our knowledge, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Um I was wondering um if you could respond to the claims um by um some who seem very qualified to be speaking on the issue. I think we had a law professor and a couple people who represent people um or tenants during cases like this. uh that Bill 97 does not have the teeth to help tenants in many of these situations and that gaps exist between the provincial policy and the bylaws that do exist elsewhere. So, can you can you respond to that and explain what your what your thoughts are on on what we heard today in terms of the lack of teeth uh in Bill 97? >> Thank you, chair, for the question. Um I guess to take a step back, the the the fact remains that landlord tenant relations um are a matter of provincial jurisdiction. And so, uh, as municipalities have started to consider these bylaws, um, staff, uh, such as our team have looked at municipal tools, um, that would accomplish some of the same goals, but they have essentially introduced, uh, a a municipal relationship with with with landlords. Um, and so the tools look different. Um, but I I I think we're here today because ultimately um the amendments that were recently proclaimed are mostly the amendments that council was asking the province to proclaim when they directed us to do this work. And so, um, again, the the efficacy of of other municipal bylaws remains uncertain, um, as do these these provincial amendments because they have they've not yet come into force. and follow up to that and I believe uh you can answer this question because I'd like a legal uh opinion on what what the city of Ottawa legal department believes the overlaps between the provincial policy and what's considered um as part of this bylaw review like what are those overlaps and and what are the gaps that city legal would be um or or what would your opinion be on on those overlaps and would a bylaw be redundant? based on those overlaps. >> Chair, thank you for the question. Um I I will perhaps start to answer the question and and my colleague uh from legal services can can jump in if she has anything to add. So um when the courts have considered uh the issue of municipal jurisdiction with respect to landlord tenant relationships um again they found the the landlord tenant relationship to to fall within provincial jurisdiction and um have found that uh that municipalities have the jurisdiction to regulate a relationship between landlords and and the municipality through licensing. Um and so that is the the mechanism that these other municipal bylaws have have um have used uh and and what we were looking at. Um and so again uh as you heard from some of the delegates there it's not a perfect circle in terms of what's proposed by the province uh and what our bylaw was was proposing. We were looking at a different set of tools um ultimately again to to direct uh to direct tenants towards the provincial process and direct landlords towards the provincial pro process. Um and one of the mechanisms we were looking at was was through um again this license uh to provide oversight in into that relationship. Um and and certainly uh the province has oversight of that relationship through the landlord and tenant board. Thank you. And then I guess my my final question um for staff would be just given that the province has announced these measures, would your opinion be that we would now be looking at an incomplete review without knowing what the actual effects on the provincial policies would be on renovations? Does this new policy announcement uh render your review incomplete at this time? >> Thank you, chair. Um perhaps to clarify why why we're here, um I I I think it's certainly a risk um that you know, you don't necessarily know the impact of of the the provincial changes that haven't entered into force. Um but what I would say is that um in the course of our our review again we're here today to to clarify um council's direction. So our understanding of the direction from council was to conduct a review in the absence of provincial action and to um and to advocate to the province to enact these provisions. And now they've done that. Uh the the timing is a bit unusual. This is an unusual circumstance. Uh and so because of that and based on council's direction, uh we are here to advise the committee and and and council of of these changes and basically to seek clarification of our direction. >> Thank you for that. And and now if if it's okay with you, chair, if you'll indulge me for a moment, I may just shift into comments unless you want me to get back on the board after. I'm not sure how much time there is, but I'm sure you've got plenty. >> Okay. Um I uh I walked into today not really knowing how I'm going to vote, and I and I think I'm still sitting in that position right now. I I think there are valid concerns about about moving forward with a bylaw and whether or not that would be a pragmatic move at this point given the new direction from the province. But I also fully agree with with councelor Troster that that these sorts of things shouldn't die with a memo. That said, I I think we are having a fairly robust conversation about this today. Um but I also want to say that um well, first I want to thank the delegates for coming out today. There were a few real um I'll be honest, they were tough to listen to and I think those are the best delegations to hear. Uh those those have affected how I think about this. Um, at the end of the day, we represent people and the decisions we make around this table affect people's lives and and hearing some of the stories today, I think it was brave for those people to come and and tell us those stories and I appreciate that and and I want them to know that they have had a big effect on how I see this issue. Um, again, I I don't know how I'm going to vote today. It might change between today and council. I think we've got some time to think about this. Um, but uh, yeah, I I just wanted to add those comments and and and I really appreciate the people who have delegated today. And regardless of of how I decide to vote on this matter, I I want to thank Councelor Troster for for her leadership on this issue. And uh, yeah, I uh I'll continue to listen to the conversation before I decide how I'm going to vote today. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Kelly. Uh, councelor Dudes. Yeah, I just I have a a a matter I would like some clarity on. Um staff in your report or in your your comments. You mentioned that you'll be monitoring the provincial policy and coming back to this committee should additional gaps or issues emerge. What was your intention for that and what was the timing that you were contemplating? Thank you chair for for the question. Um the primary sort of source of of data um for this review continues to be the the N13 um the N13s that are filed with the board as well as the applications filed with the the board uh by tenants alleging that they have been evicted in bad faith. And so that is something that we will continue to monitor. um in in addition to any feedback that that we receive or is communicated to us and uh we would report back uh or we would propose to report back uh to this committee in uh Q4 of of 2027 with with an update on the on the data. So, if if councelor Trusters's motion was not to pass today and you were to come back in the next term of council, having analyzed and provided some input in regards to the province's policy and if there's any gaps and if the city should be filling that in, could a new could a bylaw be contemplated at that time? >> Chair, uh, yes, it could. Thank you. >> Okay. I asked that because you know we are looking at other municipalities who have enacted bylaws. Those were in the absence of the province doing anything. When we first contemplated bringing forward this review, it was again in the absence of the province moving forward on this. They're now moving forward. Now whether they've done enough, we're still we're still debating that. And once again, we may see in action that it doesn't go far enough. To be frank, at this point in time, I think this is too early for us to assess if the province has taken the actions necessary, if this is something that we need to step in on as municipality, and even so, what tools we would want to use to actually target those gaps that we may see. I I have a a ton of respect for councelor Troster. I very much appreciate counselor bringing this to our our conversation and bringing this forward. At this point, I'm going to be supporting the staff's recommendation with the knowledge that in the beginning of of the next term of council, we can reassess this. We can go back. We can fill in the gaps. We can enact a bylaw if we see fit to do so. But at this point in time, I I think it's it's too early. and I would like to see what the province is is going to be enacting and how that's going to impact the situation. So, thank you very much, Chair. That's my comments. That's my question, but I think that's where I'm going to land in terms of this vote. >> Thank you very much. Um, councelor Dudas, uh, just to clarify, um, staff have not made a recommendation. Um, so the um only thing on which we will vote is councelor Troster's motion uh to to require staff to bring forward that bylaw for our consideration. Um but uh if that motion doesn't pass then um there will be no bylaw coming forward to debate. Councelor Brochington. >> Thank you chair. And I too would like to thank um the delegates who uh came down today specifically and in past meetings and written submissions and one-on-one meetings that have been had uh over the years. Uh renovictions do exist. This is not a myth. There are bad faith landlords out there that cause significant grief and harm to people. And as councelor Kelly said, um, you know, housing is a basic human right and some people have not been treated well. And so what I have tried to wrestle with is whether or not what's being called for by a local bylaw is whether that um overlaps already existing mechanisms or authority that exists proincially. whether the city has the authority to proceed, and we've certainly heard examples of other municipalities in Ontario who have done such um or whether it's the default position that grievances already have a body in place to deal with those. And so the question I think we're wrestling with is what would a made in Ottawa bylaw pro additionally provide already mechanisms if we feel gaps exist that are not being addressed through provincial channels and we hear examples repeatedly of people who have been impacted then there would be a role to play for an Ottawa bylaw. But if we believe that we'll just duplicate processes already in place and it won't add any additional value, then we default to what already exists. So that's what I'm trying to wrestle with and I've been very open to this um again because I believe it does happen. I'm not here to dispute the the numbers or or date. I've questioned some data in the past, but really I for me that's not my main uh decision point. It's whether or not there's a gap in the tools that exist now and if we say yes then to me a local bylaw would be necessary to try and fill those holes. So certainly listen to what my colleagues have to say. I have no questions for staff. I think staff have done the work that we asked them to do. So I don't take staff uh I don't have any critical comments for that. I think they've done what they've done. they've analyzed it through that lens and ultimately if it's the will of this committee and ultimately council to proceed further then then we have that authority to do so but again um certainly open to hearing from my colleagues on this matter. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor Brockton councelor Johnson. >> Uh thank you very much chair. Uh so I'm interested in sort of talking through document two uh because that compares the provincial require or the provincial amendments to the current draft bylaw. So, I think this is really an essential piece of decision- making here. So, how I read this, our draft bylaw was going to suggest that a landlord needs to obtain a building permit prior to the issuing of the eviction notice. That's correct, chair. That's correct. And under the provincial amendments, it says that that is not included. So, you do not need to have a building permit prior to issuing the eviction notice, but a building permit is a requirement to obtain eviction from the landlord and tenant board. Can you explain that nuance to me that's described in that chart? >> It is pretty nuanced. Um, chair. Um, so there is a requirement to again in in in in the legislation, one of the reasons you can issue an N13 is because you are proceeding with a renovation that is so extensive that it requires a building permit and vacant possession of the unit. And so, um, in in the form in the N13 form, um, that the landlord is completing, there's a box that says, "I have a building permit." and there's a box that says I am taking steps or I will obtain a building permit. So, it's not it's not required to issue the notice. Um, and so the landlord has some additional time to obtain the building permit prior to getting to the hearing in front of the landlord tenant board. Um, and and usually it will be required at the landlord tenant board. Although there in some instances the board will um will examine it and say um you know you've taken you've taken all reasonable steps to obtain a building permit but you don't have it in hand and and that's okay. Okay. So for me that's quite a compelling little nuance, right? What we're saying in our municipal bylaw or our draft bylaw is that we actually believe that in order to tell someone that they are going to lose their housing or that their housing is going to be interrupted that they already will have done the work to obtain the building permit and have the justification for that building permit. Think about when you're doing renovations in your own home. How desperately you want to stay in your own home and the degree to which you will step over boxes and you know make accommodations and all this sort of stuff because we don't want to do that even to ourselves. Here we're going to do that to someone else who doesn't even own the asset who is in a much more precarious position and still has to deal with that type of interruption and likely would do so willingly. I think that's a very reasonable level of expectation for a municipality who is losing 31 units of affordable housing for every new one being built. We have a very expensive housing crisis on our hands. And I don't believe that having that specific order of events codified is going to be something that will inconvenience small landlords so much. certainly not large large ones inconvenience small landlords so much that they can't do the work. I think that the financial risk on the other end to the city of Ottawa to have to deal with homelessness is a much more severe um penalty for a municipality than this. Um can you help me to understand the difference between So again very compelled by our our um uh delegate today talking about education being really not strong enough to get that tenant back in. Here we have a requirement for landlord to provide updates on progress of renovation or repair and facilitate the right of return. The provincial amendments say that that's in force as of September of this year. Our draft bylaw says there's going to be an offense not to permit the tenant to return. Can you walk me through what those differences are? Chair, thank you for the question. This is this is perhaps a point of overlap between the proposed or the draft bylaw that we were working on and um and the provincial amendments in that it the goal is really again to facilitate that that right to return and and so the province the provincial regulations are a bit more detailed in in that regard. Um but again in in the interest of creating that municipal um relationship, we were creating an offense uh if if a tenant is not allowed to return under the bylaw. Um landlords would inform the city if their if their uh tenants were um decided to exercise their right to return and and then it would be an offense to not permit them to do so. And sorry, what does the provincial one do? When it says facilitate the right of return, I the word facilitate I find fluffy. Tell me more about that. >> Uh m Mr. Chair, so the provincial amendments will require landlords to notify tenants when the work is done and then give them at minimum 60 days to come back. So when we say facilitate the right of return, it's requiring a minimum period of time in which the landlord has to keep the unit vacant in order for the tenant to return if they express the desire to do so. >> Okay. So if you were to go away and complete the the bylaw, the draft bylaw, I assume what you would do is you would look at this chart and go, "Okay, now that's duplicated. I'm going to strip that part maybe out of the municipal one so that we're not adding extra bureaucracy here." and we just focus on the parts that are um relevant now or would you come back and have us debate you know the the what should be required and not duplicated part? >> So I I stand to be corrected by councelor Truster. believe the the the current direction is to bring forward the draft bylaw that we were working on when the legislation was was implemented and then to allow um you know that that conversation to happen at council. Um we're certainly open to consider to continuing those conversations uh if that's council's direction. >> Okay, very good. So certainly I I do believe that's the right thing to do. I mean, I I I would not be here uh deciding that we're going to interrupt a a process for which we have had public consultation and results that would not be made public at this point. I think that's wholly inappropriate. Um we would have the opportunity once that draft bylaw comes back to um strip away those duplications and and tailor this in a way that makes it appropriate. But when we regulate the length of grass on private property as to not offend our neighbors and to make sure that there is a reasonable expectation of enjoyment for all of our neighbors, I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who is exercising direction under a law um behaves lawfully because the um the end result of that is that the city ends up paying for the money that goes into someone else's pocket. Um so and I say this as someone who you know uh believes very much in um small landlords as part of our ecosystem. So I'll definitely be supporting the troster motion and I would encourage all of our uh colleagues to do so and we will be able to exercise our our uh council oversight uh on the draft bylaw as it comes back. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Councelor Johnson. Uh Vice Chair Gower. >> Thanks Chair. I think my questions have been asked and answered um through other colleagues. So, thank you. Um I came in today just looking for evidence and and information that would convince me that there is still a role for a municipal bylaw. Um and I think there is I think a number of delegates uh made a very good case for that. And uh there was also the letter from the alliance to end homelessness that I thought laid out the role of a municipal bylaw very clearly. Um bill 97 is reactive. It adds some good legislation. Uh but it still puts the burden on tenants and they can only challenge an N13 after they receive it. Uh and that has a significant impact on many vulnerable pe vulnerable people. um whereas a municipal bylaw would be preventative and could stop unnecessary displacement before it happens, which is important when we're talking about where someone actually lives. So, I think the next step is to uh see what the bylaw would look like, what a licensing or permit regime would look like, what the provisions would be within that, what the costs would be, and make a decision. And I think the people and groups who've been advocating for this have been more than patient in waiting for our council, waiting for the province. This has been going on again and again and again. And I want to thank councelor Troster for uh bringing this to where we are today and hopefully we can make a decision in July. Thanks, Chair. >> Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Um Councelor Kavanagh. >> Thank you, Chair. And yes, um I will be supporting um uh councelor Trusters's uh uh movement here. Um but um I want to ask a question and I I I was looking at what's being done in the other cities. They they jumped ahead. They have already got something going. The province is now doing something. Does that mean that their bylaws are going to be null and void? like how does that work if they've already got u bylaws in place at a municipal level? Um the province comes in because we're saying that um we shouldn't do anything cuz the province is going to look after it. But what happens to those ones that are in place? Do they just get wiped out? >> Uh chair, uh again the the the provincial amendments aren't aren't in force. Um, but I believe the intention of the bylaws are to be complimentary and and so we're, as I said before, we're not we're not aware of any provincial or sorry, other municipal bylaws um that are are planned to be repealed at this time. >> Okay. Well, it strikes me that we can do more that if there's still bylaws in place in other cities that um will stay in place, that means they're doing more than what the province is doing. And I think that we have to look at that. I've gone doortodoor with in a building where people were getting renovicted with very very short notice and it's quite frightening and people do not have information. They're they're purposely caught off guard and have very little options. Um we're scrambling. In fact, it I had to, you know, learn about renovation 101 very quickly just uh over a Canada Day weekend just to find out what was going on and how this worked. So, I think that we do have to um do more and I I will support uh councelor Troster in um in her efforts. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Kavanagh, Councelor Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh and appreciate the conversation today and the motion that came forward because it's an important debate to be had. Um I think most of what's been discussed um I'm not going to touch on because um that's been run to ground. But I'm interested uh in the second order kind of more macroeconomic impacts of a renovation bylaw like this at the municipal level. So if we were to look to enter into the space for which the province has a jurisdiction, is there any indicators that we've seen in the research process for this that this could have a negative impact on uh landlords uh who would be perhaps otherwise looking to increase their building stock of rentals or potentially even as a result of legislation like this looked to reduce their rental stock or even get out of the market completely. Have we seen any negative indicators from industry uh on you know what the what the downside consequences to looking at a renovification policy like this could be. >> Thank thank you Mr. Chair. Uh certainly uh during our consultations that is uh a risk that was highlighted uh by by landlord groups. Um, but I think ultimately the bylaws that exist in this space are still relatively new and so looking at longerterm impacts uh is is something that would have to be evaluated in in the coming years and I don't believe that information well it wasn't part of the status reports in other cities and I think it's something that would come forward uh over time. Well, thank you for that. And I guess I guess my last question would be, you know, if this is looking to be a municipal bylaw, which would be binding on all landlords across the city, do we have a reasonable understanding of the total number of problematic or bad faith landlords who have over the last several years um been found either guilty at the uh LTB or complicit in uh bad faith renovations. just to give a scale to the actual problem of bad actors to the overall volume of landlords so that we're not essentially affecting collective punishment on a vast majority of good actor good faith landlords. >> Chair, thank you for the question. Um quantifying that number has been uh I would say the main challenge of of the work that we've completed to date. Um, we've provided in our presentation the the number of N13s filed for for renovation or repair with the landlord tenant board. Um, that just just to clarify, issuance of an N13 um is a a factor that indicates that a renoviction could have occurred, but it doesn't mean that that a renovation has occurred or that something has been done in bad faith. And and M13 is a legal process. And so, um, we we looked at of the N13s that are filed with the board and go to a hearing, um, what the outcome is and and and that data wasn't really a available, uh, from the province. Uh, we we heard from one delegate that that he he had confirmed that there there were the board has issued two orders um, confirming bad faith. Um but we we also know that it that there are a lot of possible outcomes at the landlord tenant board including um you know quite often N13s are withdrawn for example um before it gets to a hearing and and different people have different ideas about whether that's because the landlord was acting in in bad faith and essentially seeing how far they could they could push it um or or whether they've simply they were acting in good faith but but decided not to not to pursue it. Um a and so and that's just of the documented instances. I I think another challenge um to quantifying and and something that we've heard from the delegates today is that um a number of proposed um N13 notices end up with tenants signing cash for keys agreements which are entirely illegal under the provincial process. and um are not filed with the board and they are entered into at different points in the process. And so um I I think um again we don't have an exact number. It's been a it's been a very real challenge I would say for this team. Uh we do think that the number of of confirmed renovictions are are very low as as we said in our report. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Hill. Councelor Trustster, >> thank you. My incredible frustration today is people keep referring to a draft bylaw that no one has seen. We do not have text in front of us. This draft bylaw was supposed to come back to committee on May 20th. It was written. The report was written and it's being withheld from council in the public. My I am not here to debate the merits of a renovation bylaw. I'm here just to get it back on the table for us to actually have that conversation. I've never seen a case in my four years on council where we have directed staff to do something and they've come back and said actually we don't think we need to do it. I know what motion we passed in January 2025 cuz I wrote it and I'm looking at the language here. It says if response is received that schedule 7 of bill 97 will be proclaimed in force no later than Q2 2026 which by the way it was not. staff will consider the effect, modify the scope of work if necessary, and report back and if if required, seek additional direction from council. There is nothing in that motion that said that staff has the ability or the authority to withhold the report and the bylaw from council. This is a fundamental issue of democracy. The people who are in the gallery today, including the people who delegated against a renovation bylaw, took part in good faith in a process and they were told they would see a report and that there would be a draft bylaw for them to discuss. What are we scared of here? Bring it forward. Let the public actually have a Democratic say. And to all of the folks around this table that are saying that it's so brave that people came here and told their stories, now we will be asking them, should my motion be passed, for them to come back a fourth time and reveal their trauma. A fourth time. No other municipal jurisdiction put in this many steps to pass a renovation bylaw. Staff, when I originally put the motion forward, they asked for an extra gate. So they came back in 2025 and they said, "We don't want to do this work." and council voted 19 to4 to direct them to do the work. Then they did the work and they sent out a memo saying actually we don't want to show it to you. That is what the conversation is about today. Release the bylaw, put it on the table for democratic debate. If staff wants to come back and say actually we don't think we know that, that's their prerogative, but it's ultimately council's decision. My concern here is a major abrogation of democracy. And frankly, we're taking advantage of these people who have to come and spew out their trauma over and over again to come to us and to appeal and say, "I'm a human being. I deserve your consideration." It is so unfair to them, and it is so unfair to the community. So, I'll ask you to please vote for my motion. Even if you don't know where you stand on a red eviction bylaw, how could you know we haven't seen the bylaw? We are discussing a theoretical bylaw based on early drafts where we saw bits and pieces in a behind-the-scenes staff presentation. This is a public conversation. This should not be a private conversation. So, I hope you can support my motion today. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Truster. Um, I don't see any other members who wish to speak, so I'll just add maybe a comment or two of my own. Um the the question of whether or not this is something worthy of uh committee and council's attention is is not in question. Uh and I I think back to the delegation that was made by I think it was Andre Roberts or Rober. Um it doesn't matter how many of these N13s there are. Uh we have a good sense that they are a significant number. uh but you can see the stress and the harm that it causes in people's lives when they are um uh issued with uh particularly spurious N13s. What committee and council have the opportunity to do is to contemplate the gaps between what the province has proposed and what we might like to do as a city. Um Councelor Johnson's uh line of questioning brought out some of those differences. Um, and I think it's important that we uh that we have the opportunity as a committee and council to decide whether or not we want to step into that breach, to decide whether or not we want to create the rules where the province has failed. Um, and then the opportunity is uh further beyond that is to have the discussion around what councelor Hill was disc um bringing up. What are the pros and cons of stepping into that breach? But we haven't had that opportunity and we don't have anything to discuss in front of us today. I think it's critical that we do that. This is this is our job. This is not staff's job. This is the job for which we were elected is to have these discussions around things that make the meaningful quality of life difference that are very much within the municipal purview. And I don't think that any of us want to be accused of avoiding fulfilling that responsibility and that moral obligation that we have. So, I hope that um members will consider uh supporting councelor Troster's motion so that we can have the discussion about are there gaps we want to address? Should we address them and then pass that bylaw? Um so, yays and nays on the truster motion, please. Oh, I'm sorry, Councelor Curry. Sneak it in there. >> Sorry. I'm sorry that I can't be there in person. I'm actually just in an airport. uh and going through security at the best part of the debate. But I just wanted to ask a question because if this passes and goes to council, I want to just find out if there's a possibility of a different date so that we could learn more about what the province uh what the province has done, the impact of that other than J um July 8th. We still won't know what the impact from the province's uh changes are. So I just was wondering if um anyone wants to comment on whether July 8th is the key date. So, I'm going to leave it up to the the mover or the motion to explain the timing. >> Uh, hi. Thanks, Council Curry. I actually added in a twoe cushion. I'll be completely honest, because I was worried that the final date that this could go to council might be the day of my daughter's grade graduation. So, I actually added two extra weeks to this process. Staff have already done a pretty comprehensive analysis of what's in the bylaw versus what's in the uh provincial law. Um my concern is that if it goes beyond July 8th as a committee date uh we would be on the be beyond the council recess. So we would only be back at the end of August which is right into election season. So I leave that to you but that is why I but I already built in an extra two weeks. >> So the motion is unwilling. Do you want to make uh do you want it is your uh purview >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'll see what happens here today, but I think that I would like to think about that date when it comes to council if it comes to council um for a number of different reasons, but it's hard in the middle of an airport lounge to figure out what the best move is here. But I will see how this goes because it still has to come to council. So, thanks a lot, >> of course. Thank you very much, uh councelor uh councelor Kit. >> Sorry, uh councelor Curry's question prompted a question. Is staff ready for July 8th? chair if if that is council's direction we it's certainly feasible. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you very much uh councelor. So in that case we'll go to uh yays and nays please on the truster motion. >> Councelor Brockington. >> Yes. >> Councelor Curry. >> No coun. Oh okay. Councelor Dudes. >> Yes. Councelor Johnson, >> yes. Councelor Kavanagh, >> yes. >> Councelor Kelly, >> yes. >> Councelor Kits, >> yes. >> Councelor Low, >> no. >> Councelor Tierney, Councelor Trster, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> no. >> Vice Chair Gar, >> yes. and Chair Leaper. >> Yes. >> Nine nays, three nays. >> Thank you very much. So that uh passes and just for clarity that will go to city council as a motion for um ultimate ratification. The Okay. So I think what's left is the IPD. >> Yeah. Has to go to council. an ex official because chair >> sorry yeah he said ex official so if he's present he has a vote just as I have a vote on Eric >> yeah uh okay so we will move on the final substantive item on our agenda is uh number 8.3 the submissions to the province on consultations of proposed regulations through bill 98 um councelor Johnson >> thank Thank you. Um, so I was just hoping that we could have staff comment on a couple of the pieces in Bill 98 because it's not nothing and um I think there are some pieces that are relevant to how um um I'm a little distracted. Can we hold on just a second as Marcia is sitting down? Okay, now I'll just focus on you so I'm not as distracted. >> For those of you in the room, could I just ask that we have have quiet please? Um and I'm just looking. One, two, three, four, five, six. If councelor Okay, councelor Kelly's on. So, we have our uh quorum. Do we have one extra? >> Okay, thank you. I I just wanted to make sure we had a a couple comments on what the um the implications of Bill 98 would be on some pieces that are actually, I think, very important for how residents interact with the planning process. Um so, I was hoping for three comments. So one, can you help me to understand what the implications are for the site planning process? We've we've actually referred to it quite a deal today. We we expect site plan to take care of many of the pieces that residents are interested in. So how is site plan being impacted by bill 98, please? So thank you uh for the question chair and I would just uh preface my comments that uh this report so I think everyone knows they passed the bill 98 yesterday but this report focused on what we submitted in for uh the various um dozens of public consultation uh opportunities we had. We made the decision to focus our comments on the things that were not in the bill that are coming in the next set of legislation that they are talking about for the fall or next spring. So, uh we did not submit for every uh environmental registry opportunity that we had for the ones that were very related to the bill. There was a standing committee process that was ongoing and there was an opportunity for most of those uh were things that we had already commented on last year things like the standardized official plan and things like that. So our comments really focused on the things that are yet to come and not in bill 98. So in terms of the uh question on site plan um the province uh consulted on a very uh broad range of things everything from uh removing site plan entirely to um uh taking some of the tools out of site plan in terms of narrowing the scope to uh new arbitration. It was a quite a broad consultation. Um, our comments were focused on uh, one that site plan was a very important part of the process and should not be removed entirely. that the housing acceleration plan that the city had passed in um October of this year of last year focused on uh considering increasing the exemption for site plan but that we were uh conscious there were a number of on the ground technical issues that still have to get addressed and we were and the other report that was on today's agenda that was passed by consent explained in a little more detail of what we were proposing as it relates to commence work and some other ideas that we'll bring forward um in in the next several months in the new term of council. Um but but generally our comments were focused on the importance of site plan and that we did not think adding extra layers um uh to the process or different ways of adjudicating um conflict or setting timelines or any of that would be uh helpful at all. So we await to see where they would go. I would also say that the um I'm hearing from um others that that was very consistent with the comments they're hearing from other cities and so I think there and even the development sector was not too keen on removing site plan entirely. So uh what that will look like in the end I think is a live debate and um that's why we didn't take a um we still have an exploratory position as it relates to site plan in that report that you um accepted on consent. >> Okay. Thank you for those uh distinctions. So yes, I I I'm very interested to hear what happens with those decisions because obviously we do require a touch point to discuss many of those technical details of an application and I'd be interested to know what the solutions are. Um I was hoping you could also comment on the direction that we're seeing secondary plans go. Um given that you know that was a subject of interest as well with the province and uh you know we have some live secondary plans and some recently completed secondary plans and it was also a conversation earlier today. So, what's going on there? >> Sure. I'll just uh say that that is the subject of a report coming to council and committee. So, it'll be at the planning committee. I forget the date for our end of June um um planning committee, but that is a report we're bringing forward. Um we're we're going So again, that was another recommendation coming from the planning um uh the housing acceleration plan that said uh council directed staff to to do a real reset on the whole approach to secondary plans um with an eye to to making things more efficient uh in light of the new comprehensive zoning bylaw which at that time had not been passed yet. Uh so we are we are bringing a report forward that would look at both the neighborhoods the interior neighborhood secondary plans and the um future neighborhoods where we're talking about green field development and what our approach would be. So that report is coming forward. I would say in terms of the comments we made in this um consultation uh the province has made it clear that is one thing that has to happen in bill 98. the new official plan that we'll be required to bring forward no longer has secondary plans. So they have to they've um given uh some timelines around that which we'll have to look into and see what that means for Ottawa. But we are named um in the bill. So it does um put pressure on large cities like ours to move quickly to moving our our official plan into this new template. It does not have secondary plans. So they are going to have to come back with something relatively soon. I would think that would explain what we're allowed to do with and what we're supposed to do with the existing plans and what we can do with future plans. What we know based on the consultation is that they're very interested in core infrastructure. They recognize from both previous comments the municipalities including Ottawa and the development sector have made that servicing water, wastewater, transportation networks, protection of environmental features, how do you deal with storm water, like these are all essential and so I don't think they want to get rid of that but but I don't think they like where secondary plans are today. So how do we trans how do we move in this space without knowing? We know they're going to change, but we don't know what they're going to get replaced with or how we deal with existing ones. So, that's a live issue. So, um we'll have this conversation again later this month at the next committee. >> Okay. Very good. I'm uh I'm I'll I'll I'll hold my comments then until then. Uh but certainly, you know, secondary plans were the way that we told a story about what development would look like over a number of decades for neighbors that were going to absorb a lot of uh uh new neighbors and uh so I'm interested to see what your solutions are there. And I think in the interest of time I'll leave it there. Thanks chair. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh I don't see any of the questions with respect to this IPD. So thank you very much for that. Councelor Johnson. Uh we don't have any in camera items. I hadn't received any notice as a motion. Does anyone have any? Are there any inquiries? We have no other business. We are adjourned until our next meeting June 17th 2026 at which time I guess we'll take a look at that secondary plan report. Thank you very much colleagues.