Toronto City Council debated setbacks in the province-led Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) program after two Etobicoke Lakeshore projects stalled, leaving promised transit-related improvements in limbo and, staff said, no provincial compensation for affected communities. Council also heard that only 215 of more than 18,000 planned TOC units are currently tied to affordable-housing programs, and discussed confusion in the city’s legal-fee reimbursement rules for councillors facing Integrity Commissioner matters. With attendance dropping, council deferred the rest of its agenda after members warned they were “just a little bit above quorum.”

Topics Discussed

Transit-Oriented Communities Program Failures

Council heard that two TOC projects in Etobicoke Lakeshore have faltered after “one developer [went] into receivership” and “two developers start and stop over the last decade,” as Councillor Moley put it, leaving the community still waiting for “the necessary and promised improvements including accessibility upgrades” at Mimico GO.

Staff told council there is no provincial backstop when projects fail: “There is no provincial compensation or or support for those sorts of things where um private developments then come in.” Moley argued the stakes are high when TOCs don’t proceed, because communities can be left without the infrastructure tied to the deals.

Council also discussed broader concerns about TOC planning and delivery, including cases where areas are included in provincial transit-oriented planning without stations in place. One speaker said, “The province itself has included Parklon for example within their PMTSAs and future transit oriented communities without any station in place and no clear path forward,” and urged “better processes… so that communities are not left for decades without the promised infrastructure.”

Affordable Housing Shortfall in TOC Developments

Council reviewed affordable-housing expectations for TOCs and heard staff describe ongoing negotiations with the province: “We have been pushing in our interactions with the provincial government to achieve 20% affordable housing at their TOCs.”

Staff also emphasized the limits of federal involvement in the program: “The federal targets would not apply because there is no federal money in these TOCs. This is a provincial program with them developing the lands that they have acquired for the purposes of the subway projects and in some cases GO parking lots.”

Legal Fee Reimbursement Policy Confusion

Council debated how and when members can be reimbursed for legal costs connected to Integrity Commissioner matters, including whether approvals are automatic or require a council vote depending on the amount.

During the discussion, Councillor Fletcher said, “You always have to come here to have a legal fee covered. Yes. So there’s no indemnification automatically… 25 and below. No matter what it is, you have to come here.” Another speaker added that the city’s insurance coverage exists for councillors’ acts “within the performance of their duties,” and said, “I don’t think there’s a maximum there.”

Staff also confirmed council has options when deciding whether to reimburse above the standard threshold: “So there is precedent for council in these situations paying the full amount and or paying just a portion of the requested amount or none. So all three options are available.” Council ultimately deferred the specific reimbursement item and asked for a broader policy review.

Congestion Management and Traffic Data Discrepancies

Council debated how to interpret congestion trends and the impact of city tools and fees. Councillor Croissanti cited Board of Trade figures: “In 2023… there were 98 hours stuck in traffic… now fast forward to 2025 we have the same amount of time 98 hours stuck rush hour traffic.”

In a separate exchange about incentives and fees, Councillor Holiday questioned the rationale for discounts, saying, “I just don’t see the logical follow through… I don’t know why we would discount them other than it’s just a way to move money around between city accounts.”

Meeting Ends With Quorum Concerns

As attendance thinned, council flagged it was nearing the minimum needed to continue. One speaker warned, “We are just a little bit above quorum. People are fraying around the edges a little bit. I think we need to catch our breath and get back to work at the next meeting.” Council deferred remaining items.

Motions

Passed: - CC40.7 (110 Sheppard) — Amendment carried
- IE28.1 (Congestion Management Plan) — Carried with amendments
- IE28.3 (Public Electric Vehicle Charging) — Carried
- Community sports equipment sponsorship expansion — Passed after amendments
- EY30.1 (2775 Jane Street Zoning Amendment) — Staff recommendations adopted
- MM 30.4030 — Amended and passed
- Confirmatory bills for City Council Meeting 40 proceedings — Carried

Deferred / Referred: - T3154 (Lakeshore Boulevard East Development) — Referred back to Toronto and East York Community Council
- CC 40.1 (Legal fee reimbursement request) — Deferred to next meeting
- Remaining agenda items — Deferred due to quorum concerns

Attendees

The transcript does not list all members present. Councillors and officials referenced include Councillor Moley, Councillor Myers, Councillor Perks, Councillor Croissanti, Deputy Mayor Malik, Councillor Fletcher, Councillor Holiday, Councillor Cole, Councillor Peruta, and Councillor Morris (who declared a financial interest and recused from the legal-fee item).