Transcript: TOC Program Failures Exposed - City Council - April 23, 2026 - Evening Session | Summary 622

So nobody leave. Okay, this meeting is now resumed. Councelor Moley. Um, Madam Speaker, I have a quick release on behalf of Councelor Chang. our motions ready. I believe clerks have it. And I also have a request to uh deal with the PH. Um Okay, hold on. Do your release first, please. No problem. Thank you. Okay, that's CC 40.7110 Sheepard. Yes. So, we'll put the mo we'll put the motion on the screen. Okay, there it is by councelor Morty on behalf of councelor Chang on the amendment on favor carried. Item is amended. On favor carried. Okay, councelor morning. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm hoping we can deal with item PH29.3. I have a motion on that item and I have to go to a commitment very shortly. Well, the thing is we it's uh we have t I think this is the one that we have TTC here, isn't it? Staff from Dr. Perks, but I need them for the other. I don't need TTC for this. I need them for the members motion. Is everybody okay then just to move up PH 293? Sure. Madam Speaker, if I may. Yes, Councelor Bradford. I'm happy to just quick release. I 28.8 which is the community sports equipment. Somebody else can take the hold if they wanted to not be quick. Apparently apparently Council Bravo and Councelor Pletra said they still want to hold it. That's fine. They can hold it. Okay. All right. Well, I just want to remind members of council we just have quorum here and councelor Morty's going to leave. Once she leaves, we don't have quorum. They've all left. Yeah. So, I'm I'm happy to have that out of my hands and over to keeper. Yeah. So, to amend the order paper for PH 29.3. Okay. Councelor Morty, please be quick because Thanks, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to go quickly as I can. I have some questions of staff on this item. Uh, if I may. Okay, hold on. We have to get the right staff to come down. TTC was at the table. Apologies and thank you. Well, I'm not their keeper. Oh, I know where they are, but you can't stop them. Yeah, maybe we should start deducting their salary, then they won't leave. It's a good idea. We should move a motion on that. Um, thanks. Okay, hold on. Hold on. Can you please put your name on the screen? My system's being slow. Apologies. Okay, councelor Mley, ask your question. Thank you. Um to staff, uh the success of the transit oriented communities program is dependent on partnerships with private developers. What is the risk assessment that the city or infrastructure Ontario undertakes before entering into such partnerships through the speaker? Um the city does not undertake a risk assessment because these are brought to us. The TOC proposals and development ideas are brought to us by the province. Uh in in your ward in particular, there have been two the the Mimico TOC and the uh the Parklon TOC that have run um not materialized in the ways that that were planned. I'm going to get there. Thank you. I'll throw my next question at you. What happens when the developer is unable to fulfill their commitments as part of these agreements? So, uh sorry, I I preempted your question. The um uh in in the case of Mimiko, we had a developer that was uh partnering with Metroinks on that that TOC that then went into receiverhip and so then the TOC just dissolved. There was no uh no follow-up TOC with the subsequent owners of those properties. Uh in the case of Park Lawn, the uh the development partner uh for both um with Metroinks has stepped back for a period because they're saying that the that the development and the Parklon station aren't viable. So in the event that a TOC is canled, are there any resources made available to the impacted communities to implement the lost infrastructure and benefits that were originally promised or uh negotiated? uh through the speaker. There is no provincial compensation or or support for those sorts of things where um private developments then come in. There may be some aspects of the TOC benefits that we could still achieve but not uh likely to the same extent. So thank you for that. And you did allude to some of the um circumstances in my ward of Atobbico Lake Shore. There have been two failed agreements between Metroinks and private developers to deliver housing, additional parking, a refurbished GO station with long overdue accessibility uh upgrades and other community benefits both at the Mimiko GO station since 2013. Uh as well as you mentioned uh we're currently navigating uh challenges related to the Parklon GO station where significant development and density was approved and built uh without the necessary infrastructure. Has the city received any updates as to a future TOC at Mimikoo uh through the speaker? U we are not aware of a follow on um TOC with any of the new land owners there. Um, the last question I have for staff here is related to a submission from housing now to uh they highlight that there's over 18,000 units of housing expected to come to TOC's within the city's jurisdiction. About 215 of those units are subscribed to any kind of affordable housing program. According to the mandate from the federal government and the original TOC framework, 20 to 30% of housing on governmentowned lands within TOC's are meant to be affordable units. Can you confirm if that's approximately accurate in terms of those numbers and why the discrepancy between the mandate um and the original um proposal for 20 to 30% affordable? So through the uh the speaker um we have been pushing in our interactions with the provincial government to achieve 20% affordable housing at their TOC's. Uh the the federal targets would not apply because there is no federal money in these TOC's. 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. So is it fair to say or accurate to say that uh when these partnerships fail ultimately communities are left without infrastructure and we're still not clear on a path to delivery at least in these two instances uh through the speaker in these two instances some of the uh the infrastructure at Mimico will occur. There are some elements of the project that Metro links is taking on, but certainly not all the community benefits that that uh have been agreed and in the case of Parklon that still remains to be determined but but I think that there are some uh significant challenges that present themselves to us. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. Councelor Myers. Thank you, speaker. So my question is about the parking at Shepard and Macauan station. Uh so there was a preliminary analysis done and I'm just wondering what uh initial conclusions or findings that staff find on the need for commuter parking at Shepard and Macauan station which I will remind everyone is a terminus stop. So through the speaker we did some initial analysis as you as you indicate of Shepard Macauan station and see that because it's a terminus uh station there could be some um there there could be a rationale for some parking. We're also suggesting that through the con through the development of a TOC that we're expecting to come there may be an opportunity to include some commuter parking as part of that development. Thank you. And with the approval of the scarbo scarbo east rapid transit line uh which we have just done which would also connect to Shepard and Macawan uh do you think that need for commuter parking is even greater in this area um through the speaker potentially I can't be definitive about that counselor I think that it will have an impact it could have an impact yes or as does staff have staff done the analysis yet to determine what percentage of uh commuters might potentially be coming into the area via vehicle because this is going to serve people in York Region as well as Durham as well as uh scar north scar bro uh where there's very limited rapid transit. So through the speaker we have not done that kind of analysis to to this point. I'm not sure yet what what Metroinks may have in uh been been anticipating. Certainly there will be a lot of buses from both York uh and uh TTC buses coming into that station and providing connections and then the future SRT line. So the staff report also says that it's not only the public that can pro or the the government that can provide sort of parking that private entities could also provide commuter parking. Could you just sort of describe how that would work in a scenario like this? the our expectation for the the TOC that we're likely to see from Infrastructure Ontario would would be some kind of mixeduse development. Uh it will be a private developer that they contract with or that they work out a development arrangement with and there may be in a business case for them depending on the nature of the mixeduse development uh if it's office or commercial um retail for them to have parking that may also be expanded to include [clears throat] the uh the commuter parking for the the TTC station. So, just to clarify, commuter parking could be potentially provided by the city, could be provided by the province, or could be provided by a private uh partner through through the speaker. When I'm talking about the TOC, it's it would be through the through the private partner uh because they would be um uh entering a development deal with the province for that site. But for the site itself, the city, there's nothing prohibiting the city from establishing a commuter parking lot through TPA, for example. uh if if we have land available and TPA sees that there could be a a business case for the provision of parking then then that might be uh might be considered. Thank you. And then I guess the final question is when will staff have a final report or final analysis done on the you business case for commuter parking at Shepard and Macau station? um through the through the speaker we're looking at next year there are a number of different parking motions that we are responding to including some that are now on the the table from from you and councelor Chang that we're going to need to address so into 2027 Q1 Q2 do you have a Q2 Q2 okay thank you very much thank you okay councelor Perfs you held the item Fine. You like to speak? I may speak at the end, but at the end? Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Malik, she here. Yep. Um I'm online. The Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Just be The motion that I have is just um request from staff to clarify the pardon. The motion is just the request from staff to clarify intent. Oh, okay. So, we have the motion on the screen. Yeah. The deputy mayor. Okay. Thank you. Um, councelor Moley. Speaker, I also have a motion. Uh, um, clerks can help me put that up. It reads that city council direct the city manager in consultation with the director transportation planning to request an update from infrastructure Ontario and Metroinks on the status of Mimiko go station, any plans for a future TOC at that location and an outline of the risk assessment practices undertaken before entering into a TOC. Um, as I mentioned, or as I alluded to in my line of questioning to staff, residents have been left with a station first built in 1967 that includes limited customer access and insufficient parking along with a large neighboring hole in the ground where a housing development should have been. We not only had one developer uh go into receiverhip, we actually had two developers start and stop over the last decade. and our community has been waiting all along for the necessary and promised improvements including accessibility upgrades to a very well-used station at Mimiko Go. While communities with successful TOC benefits from public private partnerships, uh the potential loss for communities when they are unsuccessful, which we have repeatedly seen, um is very significant. Future TOC's need to emerge only after a rigorous risk assessment to ensure that communities aren't left with unfulfilled promises and partners are able to deliver on the complete communities that were planned and agreed to. This continues to be a sore point in my community and Mimiko Go uh is just scratching the surface. We're continuing to engage very actively with um the proponents at Parklon Go as well and are really hoping to find a path forward and some momentum on the really important infrastructure and higher order transit that's been promised to be delivered in this community. Uh we've heard from colleagues about and we've chatted and debated at length the waterfront east LRT and the incredibly large and robust community that's going to be coming to that area and needs to be well served by transit in Atobico Lake Share and the Humber Bay Shores community. The community has already arrived. We have significant density and significant development that has all been predicated on a complete community served by higher order transit that does not yet exist. The province itself has included Parklon for example within their PMTSAs uh and future transit oriented communities without any station in place and no clear path forward. So it's really incumbent that we work collaboratively and with thanks to our colleagues who I know are continually engaged in those uh conversations with Metroinks and others. Um but we need to have um better processes in place, better systems in place so that communities are not left for decades without the promised infrastructure and ability to navigate at a high in a high quality uh community that serves their needs. So with thanks to my colleagues and hope that you will support this motion. Um that's all for me. Thanks, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Councelor Perks. Now, do you want to speak or not? You'd like to speak? Okay, go ahead. Yeah. Um, very quickly, members, uh, you should support both of the motions that are in front of you. Um, I just want to take a moment. There seems to be a theme today about the province of Ontario coming and stomping on the city of Toronto without any idea what they're doing. All of us go to community consultation meetings. We have secondary plan consultations. We work with our communities to to try to build the best future. in the province of Ontario passes a law, uh, talks to nobody, holds no meetings, and then just wrecks parts of the city. And that is literally what's happening with these transit oriented communities. Uh, frankly, you know, the very name is just a branding exercise. It should just be, you know, things the province has screwed up. That's what we should call them. Unfortunately, we can't do that. So, please do support the motions and continue to tell your communities that if they're unsatisfied with the services that they have and the land use planning that they're getting that the one person who is responsible for it is Premier Doug Ford. Okay, if we can put the motions on the screen. Motion one, Deputy Mayor Malik on favor carried. Motion number two by councelor Mley on favor post if any carried. Item is amended. All favor carried. Thank you. Our next item is IE28.1 the congestion management plan. If we have questions to staff, please put your name on the screen. And I also want to say that there is a supplementary report on IE28.8 uh with the confidential attachment. And I also want to say that there will be no new members motions to uh this evening. We're done for the day. Okay. On the congestion plan, councelor Holiday, you have your name up, correct? Okay. Go ahead. I did want to ask there's [clears throat] a recommendation in the plan that the city would um not charge application fees and I think they would discount the roads road fees what does that mean in practical sense those are the fees that developers pay to occupy lanes right uh through the speaker so what's proposed is um any of the projects that are deemed as affordable housing depending on the percentage of affordable housing. What's proposed is that they would receive a discount with respect to the ROAR's fees rel direct correlation. So if it's a 20% affordable housing then 20% reduction in terms of the road fees that would be charged. Why do we have ROAR's fees? Uh the ROAR fees are basically to recover the cost for traffic management um as a result of a particular road closure on the street. Do they create an incentive to be economical in closing lanes? Do we care uh through the speaker? So the intent is really to recover our costs associated with traffic management first and foremost although yeah admittedly there is a side benefit of uh of people sort of tightening up the window of their word occupation time here. Did staff recommend discounting them? through the speaker. The intent was to basically um align ourselves with city priorities and goals in terms of um supporting affordable housing initiatives within the city and hence uh the nature of the the recommendation. Well, does that make congestion better or worse? uh through the speaker again, you know, we anytime there's any particular road closure on the street, we're always trying to figure out what's the best way to sort of mitigate the impacts of congestion around closures, whether it's signal timing or support through traffic agents. So, um we put forward efforts to try and mitigate the impacts, but the intent of this was to basically try to uh encourage more affordable housing within the city. Did anybody look at doing a fee rebate based on whether or not the project was delivered on time uh through the speaker? No, we have not looked at that. Would it be possible to do that? Could you could you look at it, I guess, as a reward if uh if they got their project done on time, then they could achieve a discount on the fees? I mean, that would help with congestion, wouldn't it? What I'm getting at is with the reduction of fees, is it not logical that there's a reduction in pressure to deliver the projects on time to the speaker. Uh, one of the things about the the the discount is we're not stopping all of the measures that we put in place when we are deploying resources such as traffic agents or signal timing or the like associated with a construction project. So the services and the supports that are put in place by the city in order to keep the congestion manageable around a construction project are still going ahead. It's simply the fee in this case that's uh being discounted in proportion to the amount of affordable housing. So the road's fees are meant to recoup the costs. In other words, there's not a net pressure on the city. So does this mean that there's a net pressure on the city? Uh through the speaker. So to be clear um just to draw a little bit of a distinction because there's also still the permit fee that applies. Okay. And this is independent of the permit fee. So the sort of lane rental occupancy fee is still applied. This is really with respect to the traffic mitigation costs associated with development sites and trying to recover those costs. So those fees still apply but then independent of that um with the roads program we've been basically trying to recover some of our traffic management costs as well. Are the roads fees one time or are they uh temporal based on time? It's a combination of both. So there's an administration fee up front and then there's a daily charge depending on the road classification because it all ties back to how much we actually have to u invest in terms of managing traffic around road closure. So back to my question though roads fees I think you said was intended to recoup costs from the city. So then are we under a net pressure if we offer discounts on the fees? So through the speaker um I suppose a simple answer councelor is yes. Um that net pressure because of the way that this uh fee has been targeted in terms of the discount has been targeted. We anticipate that that would be fairly small each year. So I think the report anticipates about $750,000 a year would be the impact on the transportation services fee revenue. Okay. 750,000 per year. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, I need quorum in the council chambers. Please, members of council, please come back to your seats. Let's do a quorum call. Uh, we have we don't we have bare quorum. We We can't leave the council chambers. [music] Councelor Fletcher [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Speaker, you have 15 members in the in the chamber and online. Okay, we just have 15. All right, go back to the questions. Counselor Croissanti. Thank you, speaker. I'm so I'm just looking at measurable outcomes when it comes to uh uh congestion in the city. Uh maybe in terms of uh the number of hours spent in rush hour traffic today versus u number of years back. Do do we have some numbers on that? And is are we moving the needle on this? to the speaker. Uh yes, the city uses the travel time index as uh one of its measures to assess uh the level of congestion in the city. uh just in the past year uh through the travel time index which measures congestion relative to free low flowing traffic we did see a 12% reduction between 2024 and 25 in the peak construction season uh in the downtown uh in terms of improvement in our uh traffic flow. Okay. So although thank you for that but a stat that I have and I just want to know if I've got the correct information in um according in 2023 speaker I I think we have a meeting going on here speaker and we have another meeting going on with the speaker can can we get some speaker could you hold my time okay count uh Hello councelor Peruta Pastnac at the party go please somebody's trying to ask questions and you're yapping there okay go ahead okay thank you so in 2023 according to the board of trade uh there were 98 hour sorry 98 hours stuck in traffic now if [clears throat] I got the correct information fast forward to 2025 we have the same amount of time 98 hours uh stuck rush hour traffic. Can you just clarify that for me? Do I have the correct information or is this the case to the speaker? I'm not [clears throat] uh familiar with those board of trade figures, so I can't uh speak to them. Okay. uh that that's what what I have and I was just concerned that maybe we're not moving the needle uh quickly enough and if that's the case and um so in terms of the initiatives that we've implemented um you indicated that we saved over the last year 12% less time in rush hour only or is this all the to the speaker. The 12% figure was a a measure of uh congestion relative to free flow traffic in the downtown C I'm sorry in the in the uh uh construction season peak. Okay. Um so it was uh uh it's a measure uh not specific to rush hour. It's specific to the months of time uh when we have construction season at its highest just during that season. Uh for that figure, yes, for that figure. All right. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Malik, questions. And if we can try to get through this agenda because I'm losing members of council. Deputy Mayor Malik, go ahead. Questions. Thank you very much. Um in the report it was very encouraging to see that um there was a reduction in travel times by 12% in the downtown and um also reduction citywide. Um as has uh as you're well aware um the waterfront east transit um has been committed to uh by all levels of government. They've joined the city and that um that work um uh will be moving forward. Um and I wanted to understand a little bit more about um how uh this uh waterfront east transit coming online will enhance our work on congestion management and on if there are specific lessons from the opening of other lines that we will be applying to managing congestion with this as we anticipate this new transit to the speaker. Uh the one of the important things that needs to happen in order to manage congestion in the city uh we're looking at all modes of travel in order for people to be able to move in and about the city. Uh we have uh a growing city. We have uh pressures on our transportation network and investments in transit and active transportation provide an opportunity to open up ways for people to move about the city and an alternative to single vehicle uh travel which uh will help move uh uh help move those people throughout the city as well as create more space on our roads for everybody. So, uh, new transit lines such as Waterfront East will play a big role in contributing to helping everybody move around the city. Uh, in terms of your question about lessons learned, uh, certainly uh, through the experience of working on uh, transit over the past years, we see it can be a very uh, challenging environment in the short term for people to be able to get around. And we're taking lessons from that in terms of how we coordinate our construction activities, how we work with our partners and uh um work actively to mitigate uh the the impacts of congestion when we're doing construction. Okay. So to that point, one of our key pillars when it comes to congestion management is shifting how people travel, making sure they have more and better options. Co. So, can you share specifically how you're tracking this and what evidence we have so far about how well we're doing on uh inviting people to ship their travel patterns? Um, thank you for the question. Um, through the speaker, we're working with the city. One of the things we've highlighted in terms of our efforts is recognizing that people will shift those travel patterns if transit is more uh reliable and quicker. And so, a lot of the effort has been put on initially on lines five and six. introducing um new transit signal priority at intersections, increasing the speed of transit on those lines. From the lessons we've learned there, we've already started to apply those same interventions to downtown uh street car lines, especially in advance of the World Cup in in wards like yours. And so with that, we've seen um and with transit priority in other areas like on Ba'aths and Duffren, we've seen shifts in ridership already on Ba and Duffren. And there's a continuing increase in ridership on lines five and six. And that follows uh in with those terms of those prioritization and those investments. And so if transit is faster, more reliable, we're seeing the shift. That's helpful. And how specifically is that being tracked? because what was shared with us um it wasn't apparent how that how that um pillar of the congestion management plan is being uh is being monitored and tracked uh through the speaker. So there's a couple of different KPIs that we're looking at in terms of um how the measures we're implementing are basically benefiting transit um with the the system itself. They have the ability of detecting where the trains are and the speed of the trains and how long how long it is in terms of run time through the area. We also have the ability to measure the dwell time, how much time does it spend. This is for surface street uh transit locations um to see that as well too. But as we speak, it is something that is uh within development to come up with a new toolkit of KPIs that we'll be putting forward through dashboard and and obviously in subsequent versions of the report. Great. Thank you. Um, councelor Fletcher is not speaking, right? No. Okay. Councelor Councelor Myers to speak. Thank you, speaker. I'm just introducing the amendments on behalf of our colleague, Councelor Chang. Uh, I believe she worked on them with uh Roger Brown. uh at the transportation uh department and she's pre-irculated the motion. Thank you. That's it for me. [sighs] What happened? You finished? Yeah, I'm just introducing the motion. Great. Okay. Sorry. Councelor M. Councelor Matlo. Yes. I have a motion. Okay. And uh this motion is identical to the one that I moved at the TDC. Uh at the TTC it was about the TDC working with transportation services here at council. It's asking transportation services to work with the TTC and together as a team I'm asking them to uh work together to ensure that we don't have um uh ongoing issues at terminus stations with uh with transit vehicles that are unable to easily get in and out of those stations. Okay. West there's a number councelor Holiday. Uh yeah. Um thank you. Just briefly, uh speaker, I'd like to request a vote on 2A separately. that has to do with the um fee concessions that are being granted. I think that that stands on its own and then four and five separately. You can do all three of them at once uh because those have to do with the the transit signal priorities. Um I just want to go back to the the questions. I thanks for the chance to ask them. Sometimes I see conflicting things in these these recommendations and they puzzle me. So here you have a good initiative to uh charge RODAR's fees that helps pay for mitigation measures to deal with road closures and then right we turn around and all of a sudden discount them. And I understand the point that the staff were trying to make in the the questions and answers that this is to now subsidize subsidized housing. Uh but somebody has to pay for all that. And so I just don't see the logical follow through that if we're dealing with congestion and these fees help incentivize people to be economical with their use of city streets because there's a recurring fee for every time they occupy the road. I don't know why we would discount them other than it's just a way to move money around between city accounts. So I can't support that. We should recover the cost. Thanks. Thank you. So, um, councelor Holidayiday has asked for separate votes. We have those. Okay. Um, councelor councelor Fletcher is not here. Um, um, count councelor Bravo, can you move the supplementary report? I move the supplementary report. Okay. Councelor Bravo will move it on behalf of councelor Fletcher. Correct. Okay. So motion by councelor Bravo. It's on the screen. On favor show of hands carried. Okay. We'll vote on the other motions. Motion one by councelor Meyers on favor carried. Motion by councelor Matlo recorded [music] [music] [music] Councelor [music] [music] Fletcher, are you able to vote? [music] Councelor Pruter, are you able to vote, please? I'm voting yes and I can't get in. Councelor Perusa, how do you vote, please? Councelor Fletcher, how do you vote, please? And councelor Cannaval, how do you vote? Affirmative. The motion carries. The vote is 16 to one. Council Holiday, what were the the ones that you wanted separately? 2-way from remember and and which which other ones? Um you can take them as a package but it's the items on the transit signal priority. So that would be four and five. Four and five. So two 2 A and four and five separate. Correct. Okay. So let's put 2 A up on the screen. All three of them at the same time. Okay. So we do 2 A and four and five as a package and recorded vote. [music] Yes. strong child. Mayor in the affirmative. Councelor Prussa, how do you vote? In favor. Councelor Canaval in favor. Councelor Fletcher, how do you vote? How do you vote? Councelor Fletcher. Thank you. Parts 2A, four and five of the item as amended carry. The vote is 15 to2. Okay. Balance of the item on favor carried. So our next item is IIE 28.3 approach to public electric vehicle charging. Um do we have questions on that? Do we have any questions on that item? Councelor Fletcher, did you want to speak on this for such a great job and put some chargers in where there's permit parking? Thank you very much. So, councelor Fletcher is moving IE 28.3 on favor carried. Our next our next item is the community sports equipment sponsorship. So, if we can bring staff down here if there's questions. I don't have a question. Do you have a question, Stephen, or are you speaking? Mike, you have a motion, but it's not your turn. Put your name on. Okay. If anybody has questions, can they play please put their name on the screen? We're at community sports equipment sponsorship. Nobody. All right. So, let's go to speakers then. Councelor Fletcher, you we had quite a debate in this uh at count at the committee. I have a motion which illuminates the one-year pilot a bit more. And there it is. There we have an confidential attachment. We've got sponsorship, usage, impact, operational considerations. Based on the original plan, it was going to be in 40 downtown parks at 50 locations after the meeting that we had at infrastructure and the environment. It was increased to every ward has a location and that's 25 locations. and then jumpst start equip will cluster the other 25 where they would like to have them. So that's the motion that's in front of everybody today. We'll see how that works. I know there's a lot of upset because people in other areas than downtown feel that they should have had access to these locations right away. You didn't have access to these locations right away. It came from your committee to get you that access. That's what you're voting on here. And then councelor Chang has a motion to look at getting the report back on how that's going and how to distribute these locations more evenly throughout the entire city. Thank you. Thank you councelor Holiday to speak. Uh thank you speaker. I just really want to say thank you for the people that were involved in making this happen. I last council bait debate wasn't so appreciative, but I am. And I know some counselors had misgivings and didn't really want to see it go ahead and my response is if they don't want it in parks in their community, I'd be happy to take those units and put them into a Tobokco center. Um, I am going to just I am just going to make a suggestion which I hope is constructive. I'm not going to move a motion. The units are little boxes and you can see from the pictures that they fit, you know, like a soccer ball or a football or whatever. Um, I I hope they look at the program for a couple of other sports. Um, I'm really thrilled and proud to tell people that there's a 12court pickle ball complex opening in Atobico Centennial Park and like what a great place to be able to put a couple of rackets and pickle balls for people to try to play. Um, we also have a disc golf course in Atobico Sentennial Park and you know that's one of those things that you're not likely to go out and buy a disc golf set to just go and try the game for the first time. So, here's another chance where you could put something like that if it was appropriate into the box and introduce people to G to disc golf. And finally, again, in Centennial Park, one of the largest parks in the city with a large concentration of people, there's beach volleyball courts, and not everybody has a volleyball. So, I thought that was a really neat place that, you know, maybe would make a lot of sense for one of these units. So, I I just wanted to say thank you and hope that we think creatively about how to use them and maybe expand the horizon on what sports they might apply for because they produce a way to remove the barrier to entry to try those sports. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Cole. Yeah, just uh following up on councelor Fletcher, councelor Holly, this is a uh program that uh I think uh is very worthwhile. Let's get it started. We'll work out some of the kinks. We'll try to spread it across the city. You can't include all sports and all equipment, but it's a great start and we'll see uh how we can get feedback from people and uh make this equipment available. Councelor Cole, uh I believe do you have a motion? Put up my motion. Okay. [laughter] Where is Andy when I need it? [laughter] I you know this this font here. Will somebody fix the font for Pete's sakes? Fix the font. [cough] [clears throat] There we go. God d visually uh challenged here. Yes. City council direct the city manager by to report back following program on options for equitable distribution of community sports and direct the recreation to report back on infrastructure. So it's a great start. We're going to report back. We'll fix some of the little curve works and uh let's proceed. Good job. Good job. So councelor Cole, you should do what I do. Get paper, have it in front of you. Okay. So on the motions if we put put the motions on the screen motion by councelor Fletcher motion one on favor post of any carried. Motion two by councelor Cole. All favor carried. Item is amended. recorded vote. [music] [music] Council CR your vote please. Yes. for a child. They are in the affirmative. [music] Councelor Cannaval, how do you vote? Please in favor. [music] Councelor Peruta, how are you voting? Please in favor. Thank you. Item is amended is adopted. The vote is 16 to one. Okay. Our next item is EY30.1 2775 Jane Street zoning by zoning bylaw amendment. We can have staff come forward on this one. It's here without a recommendation. We'll open it up for questions. Questions to staff. Can you please put your name on the list? Questions to staff. Councilor Pruss. You don't. Okay. You held the item down. Okay. Does anybody have any questions to staff? No. Okay. We'll go to speakers then. Councelor Peruta. Councelor Pruda, go ahead. Uh, yes, Speaker. So, so speaker, this is u this is a a development that's uh in in my ward in the uh Jane Finch uh neighborhood on Jane Street and uh uh and and speaker, I don't know when you get bad development. I understand that everybody today has talked about the province and all of the changes that the provincial government made and and how we've how they've limited our ability to actually do city building and city planning and and uh build uh and plan for complete communities and so on. and how we are just now really uh uh mostly, you know, we uh we basically review uh development applications and and then send them on uh because uh we're really no longer uh a city building authority. But uh but I believe that as a city council uh we we need to take a stand on this when you see bad development. So Jane and Finch. So the you know the the you know planners have been looking at Jane and Finch uh for forever and what have they what have they you know what went wrong in in this neighborhood from a planning perspective uh that uh has caused us uh you know so much um uh uh difficulty. And what have we been trying to correct? And one of those things is the notion of a complete community access to services. All right? And I think that most um planners would look at this and say, you know what, yeah, you you need complete communities. You need access to services. Otherwise, you know, you there there's a you there's a void. And uh and then when you create that void uh it creates it creates conflicts and gives rise to social tension and social unrest. So then along comes uh you know a landowner uh and uh I guess under the new rules all over the place uh says well you know what I'm going to just infill you know uh and the podium you know basically towers over the building next door. the building they're building and and then a even a bigger tower on there and how does that then uh you know how does that represent good planning? It's not it's not good planning and at some point we have to make a stand. Uh I understand oh well you know what counselor if we don't do this then it's just going to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal and it's going to get stamped and it's going to get done. But then we if we say if we don't like it and we recognize it's bad planning and we are complicit in it then aren't we, you know, adding to that. So at what point do we stand back and say I I understand our staff. I understand, you know, they they they've got a report and I understand, you know, uh the the duress and and the rules under which they are, you know, required to operate. I get all of that. But then, so why is it here in front of us? Well, I'll tell you why it's here in front of us. Because we also get to have a say. We should have a say. We're going to have a say. All right. And and I say no. I say we No. Don't approve it. Exactly that. Don't approve it. Say no. We can and we should say no. Well, I'll tell you I'll tell you what it does. It sends a very clear message that says this that the City Council recognizes when we have a poor pl po poorly planned development in front of us that leads to poor planning across the city that leads to more and more problems across the city. Problems that is going to take that will take millions and millions and millions of dollars to correct if you can ever fix them going forward. And we shouldn't be complicit in that. We should just simply say no, we're not going to do that. And yeah, we we may not win on this one and we may not win on the next one, but we will eventually win. Okay, well, you know what, Council Peruta, your time's up. We need to get back. We need to get Councelor Cop, why are you interrupting? What? Oh, councelor Perks, go ahead. Uh, speaker, the item is here without recommendations. So, I'm going to move the original staff recommendations that were presented uh at uh East York Community Council or sorry, Atobbico tobokco at it's late. Um councelor Peruta makes a very passionate and exciting set of comments, but we all know that it's more than just handing over authority to the OOLT. Since our staff have recommend made recommendations on this, if there's a hearing, they can't go represent the city. So, we would have to hire outside planners and and there's the chance of a denovo hearing and and and and everything councelor Peruta said is correct except one which is we actually have to take a position here. So, I'm just moving the staff recommendations. Thanks. Okay. So on the motion by councelor Perks moving the staff recorded vote. This is the staff recommendation recorded vote. [music] [music] Councelor Cole please. [music] Councelor [music] Matlo, please. [music] Councelor Pruda, please vote. [music] Councelor Cannaval, please. [music] negative. Okay, the uh motion carries. So, the vote is 9 to six. All right. Our next item is T3154 Lakeshore Boulevard East. Councelor Fletcher, it's here without a recommendation. Micro. Thank you so much, speaker. I'm just going to apologize to the staff because I've been unable to get this quick released to say it's all going back to Toronto and East York Community Council. That's it because it's not really supposed to be here, including the large improperly installed sign on Lake Shore. Thank you. Okay. So, you're referring it back to community council. That's correct. Okay. Motion's on the screen by councelor Fletcher. All in favor? Carrie. Next item is CC 40.1, payment of legal expenses by the integrity commissioner. Do we have questions to staff? Councelor Councelor Fletcher. Councelor Morris, you're declaring I don't know where I put it now, but I do have to declare an interest on this item. Um, yeah, thank you. Item CC 40.1, payment of legal expenses related to IC. I have a financial interest in this matter, so I'll have to step out. Okay, thank you. Okay, questions to staff. Councelor Fletcher, I don't have any. Councelor Holiday has them all. Well, your name was up there. It was up to Oh, no. It's up to staff. It's okay. We'll we'll correct it. Councelor Holiday. Uh, thank you to the city clerk or deputy city clerk. Um, in the report, it refers to some policies Thank you. Thank you, Council Fletcher. Could you uh start my time again? So, the report talks about a couple of policies. Can you tell me what year the first policy was created? The two policies question. the is the code of conduct complaint protocol which was adopted in 2008 although it was replaced in 2019 and then the members of council operation policy which has a long history but is the current form was recently readopted in 2023 so the if do I understand the total expense bill is 28,10593 that's correct how much has been paid by the city thus far or is it reimbured I guess is the correct term or is it paid directly $5,000 which includes HSC was paid to the the law firm and that's because the clerk uh followed the policy. That's correct. And can you explain why there's two numbers? I think there was another one that said $20,000 in the policy. What's the difference in the protocol? It contemplates uh two limits. one being $5,000, the other being $20,000 if the integrity commissioner uses his public inquiry's power. As part of the process, I consult with the integrity commissioner to find out if he's using his powers. And if he says yes, then the limit would be $20,000 that we could do an advanced payment. In this instance, he indicated he was not using those powers. And so the ability was lift limited to $5,000 to pay. So the this policy has always been been in place. There's an opportunity to obtain $5,000 in reimbursement, but I guess do I understand correctly that the counselor would have gone through a process, may have hired a lawyer, and may or may not have known about what the final outcome would be, and thus would not know what they would be eligible for to recover. When a counselor contacts me with respect to a situation like this, I would explain what would be available to be paid in advance and what might be available subject to what the report ultimately says and what council ultimately does with it. Okay. But that wouldn't be certain at that time. It's a whole bunch of ifs. That's correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Those were all my questions. Pardon? Oh, are you councelor Holiday, are you finished? Yes. Oh, okay. Okay, council pro your name's there now. Go ahead. Go ahead. Uh, yeah. So, the same same question. Um, when did it change? It was always my understanding that when this um when when when we dealt with this, it was it's my understanding that it was always $20,000 that if you had to incur legal fees for whatever reason. Uh, and there was no u there initially there was no uh I don't know this you're saying the integrity commissioner has to has to approve a portion of it. Well, I think I think what's should be clear is that there's actually there's a number of legal policies related to indemnification and legal fees with respect to integrity commissioner investigations. The the member of council operations policy uh sets that could be an eligible expense in certain circumstances. We have been using this code of cond old code of conduct protocol that council approved in 2008 but that was removed in 2019 as a guide to help uh work through the situations when integrity commissioner investigation happens and in that protocol there was the two limits of 5,000 and 20,000. Okay. So so there so you're saying there's there's let's say it's one pot but there's two routes you get to it, right? So, so if for example I I get into a an issue where I have to incur legal expenses, but it's not an integrity commissioner um u issue, um then I then I have up to $20,000 that I that I come to you for that you will cover me without my having to come to council. Correct. I I I don't think it's that simple to say like it would depend on the circumstances and whether it would fall with under within the indemnification policy which is different and that may still require council to approve depending on the ultimate value of the of the expenses. Well, I'll tell you what I'm recalling. I'm recalling uh I remember uh uh Rob Rob Ford when he was mayor and uh and I think even before that he there there there were two separate issues where uh he there there there were some legal things that he went through and I believe that he had to fund up to $20,000 without having to come to council for and then there was an integrity commissioner issue which which was very similar to that. So you're saying in 2008 we approved the policy that then that you now use as a guide but in 2018 it was updated. What I in 2019 the way the code of conduct protocol uh was set up changed. There was legislation that changed the powers of the integrity commissioner such that they could set the protocol themselves and in that after 2019 they revised the protocol which didn't include the indemned the legal fee payment process anymore. Okay. So so so so I'm not understanding it again. Right. like I I I don't I don't know why we can't get to a simple language on here that I understand. So So we had this policy that said that if if you got into trouble, you could go up to $20,000 uh and be reimbursed for $20,000 without having to come to council. You could hire a lawyer and so on. And you're saying that in 2018 or 2019 there was a change and then the integrity commissioner changed the the the the the compensation uh formula for us. for the speaker. No. The member of council of operate operations policy listed as eligible expenses integ fees legal fees related to integrity commissioner investigations. Okay. Let let me ask you a question. Who has the power to either change or not change that particular uh protocol? Do we have the ability to say today, you know what, make a 20,000 if you have to incur legal fees, uh, you know, whether it's an integrity commissioner investigation or or or an or an integrity commissioner issue or a legal issue, uh, it's 20,000. Um, make it 20,000. Who has the power to do that? Because I remember us very clearly. Perhaps I can assist the integrity commissioner responsible for their own process. So the protocol is within the jurisdiction of the integrity commissioner. Reimbursement for legal fees is within the jurisdiction of council. That's the decision. So we have the ability to say make a 20,000 bucks uh if uh without it having to come to council or up to the upper limit uh up upset limit of 20,000. We have the ability to do that. So I remember we did that. When did it change? I don't remember ever changing it. Okay. That was your last question. Okay. C councelor Fletcher. Councelor Fletcher. Question. I'm sorry. I now need to understand this. The integrity commissioner. City council has the right to set a limit and say any expenditures up to 20,000 on legal fees would be covered. That is the right of council. Question. Yes. Yes or no? Yes. Yes. automatic coverage if that's if that was council direction. Yeah. What is council's current policy? So council in the member of coun council operations policy there's it doesn't describe a limit with respect to the legal fees from a code of conduct investigation. Any legal fees I'm talking about any legal fees. What's the upset number in the indemnification policy? It's 25,000. 25,000 for legal fee coverage without coming to council to beg for coverage. Is that correct or not? 25. Hold my time, speaker. You're not even in the chair. Can you just hold that because they're searching for that policy? speaker that Anthony the the indemnification policy help me talks about ex legal expenses other than the integrity commission that would fall under the indemnification policy can be approved is a maximum of 25,000 upon the you speak a little closer to that microphone the indemnification policy talks about a $25,000 limit that that council can approve. Executive and council can approve. That's the policy would be a report to council for that. Sorry, unclear again. You have to report to council to get the legal fees. Yes or no? Wait a second. There are different policies related to different legal fees. Yeah, I'm just talking about legal fees in general. I know, but legal fees under the indemnification policy, which speaks to uh if a member is charged with an offense, for example, under the criminal code, they can seek legal fees, correct? From council to a maximum of 25,000 unless council approves something further. But what's the automatic coverage in in the integrity commissioner? Not not integrity commissioner. What's the automatic coverage for legal fee without coming here? Is there one? No. No. You always have to come here to have a legal fee covered. Yes. So there's no indemnification automatically. So for $10,000, no, he said no. No. He said no. 25 and below. No matter what it is, you have to come here. Let's be really clear. He is Mr. Pachelock is telling us that you have to come here. I'm waiting for the legal counsel. Whether it's the integrity commissioner or justice of the All right. Wait a second. It's all my time's getting eaten up while you've got it help. No, I I reset your time, Councilor Fletcher. I reset your time from before. So, you actually got an extra minute. Well, I think it's a problem because I'm now waiting for answers, speaker. Okay. All right. I got your time. I got your I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh so, Madam Speaker, perhaps I can help clarify a couple of things. The city has an insurance policy that covers uh that covers claims against counselors for acts that are deemed to be within the performance of their duties. So that's that's one type of reimbursement of legal fees. Up to how much? I don't think there's a maximum there, but CFO can probably help me out there. Um, and then secondly, there are there's also an indemnification policy that dictates situations where counselors will be reimbursed for legal fees for certain things. For example, a regulatory charge where they're found not to have violated the rules. And that's a policy that is set up by council. our policy and I will say because that's not what you I understand that. I'm asking if that council policy is made up by council which can be changed. Yes, it is. Number one. Number two, the integrity commissioner has his own policy. That was changed in 2019 that said we can't come to council and get coverage. Did I hear that correctly? Yes. That's what you told us. I will let Mr. Patchlock answer that. That's not quite right. the clarity clarity the that protocol said there was two thresholds. One was you can get an advanced payment up to $5,000 or $20,000 if the integrity commissioner used his powers. That could be yes if the integrity commissioner says yes without coming to council. If the integrity commissioner says yes then that gets done. If the integrity commissioner says no then you come to council. Correct. That's why this is here. So the so to be clear, the advance an advanced payment when the integrity commissioner doesn't use his powers is $5,000. Anything further would be would require council approval subject to how they dealt with the the report. I see. But council policy can override the integrity commissioner policy should we wish. Yes. Correct. Yes. But why haven't we said that? That this is a policy. Council can say that everything is covered. The integrity commissioner can say don't pay it. We don't want that. You shouldn't do that. But council still has its indemnification policy which can also include that should. Madam Speaker, correct or not? I can assist with this. There is another section and it's in the members of council operations policy. Who wrote it? Uh it's a council adopted policy. We adopted it. Yes, it's a council adopted policy and it lists legal fees which are eligible expenses. It includes legal fees related to code of conduct investigations if the integrity commissioner finds that a member has inadvertently violated the code or violated the code in good faith or if the integrity commissioner has found the member violating the code and city council received the integrity commissioner's report for information and that is automatic or coming to council up to a certain amount like obviously councelor Matt does not include an amount. What it does is indicate that it's council policy that in some instance that some of those fees can be paid, but it doesn't include an amount, which is why this matter is before you today. Well, if it doesn't include an amount, that just seems you've told me there's no maximum. So, if it's not an amount, either we need to amend it for a maximum or it should be simply payable by you. My understanding is that staff have been guided in the city clerk's office and rightly so by the decision in 2008 by council to adopt certain maximums. So staff require authorization to pay to reimburse for legal fees and they're coming here to see councelor Fletcher that was your last question. I want to know the maximum. Okay but that was your last question because I set your time twice. Twice the last question. Just want to know what the maximum is without coming here. $5,000. That's what council said. Okay. Councelor Fletcher. Yes. That is correct. Councelor Croanti, questions. Um, Councelor Croanti, questions. Please show please show respect to the staff. Okay. Councelor Croanti. Mr. Mr. Speaker, I just need some clarity around um um we'll try not to ask the same questions here, but just around the the portion of the report that speaks to the comments and on legal fees related to code of conduct, then it says u that if the integrity commissioner has found the member violating the code and city council received, does this indicate that the member did violate the code? What what's the status of that? Can you explain what the statement means? The statement means that if in an integrity commissioner report they find the the member in violation of the code but council chooses to receive the report for information then that would mean the policy could apply and they could request reimbursement. Okay. But in the integrity commissioner's report I believe he was found to violate the code of conduct. Correct. That was that's one one condition. If he finds the member in violation and council that decides to receive the report for information, if council decided to adopt the findings of the integrity commissioner and the person that have been found vi in violation, we would not it would be an exception to the policy to to seek reimbursement. Clear as mud. I'm not sure. Well, it wouldn't be an like it would not be an automatic that that those legal fees could be reimbursed. Council could choose to wave the policy, pay it anyway. Okay. Thank you. Okay, come on. Quiet now. Councelor Fletcher, Council Peruta, please. Councelor Bravo, questions. Councelor Bravo. Yeah, thank you. uh through you speaker uh I I'm going to be asking questions of both so please let me allow me to do that the automat the the the uh amount that would not require to come to council is 5,000 correct in this situation it was 5,000 yeah that was reimbursed and it would have been 20,000 if the integrity commissioner had used his public inquiry powers correct correct did the integrity commissioner use his in public inquir inquiry powers. No. And those public inquiry powers include uh calling testimony, subpoena, uh holding hearings. Correct. Yes. So because the the integrity commissioner did not use his public inquiry powers, we are here and we must approve the excess above 5,000. You must decide whether you wish to approve the excess above 5,000. And the finding of the integrity commissioner was that while there was a violation of the code of conduct, there was mitigating circumstances and therefore he did not recommend a reprimand, but it still was a fi finding of a v violation of the code of conduct. Correct. That's correct. But then council received the report for information. And what did that do in terms of reimbursement? That opened up the possibility for this report to come forward. Right. So the reason that this report was properly brought forward is that we voted to receive based on the finding of a violation of code of conduct but extenduating circumstances recommending no reprimand and that is why we are considering this. But the automatic reimbursement was 5,000 and it would have been 20,000 if there had been use by the integrity commissioner of his um public inquiry powers. that he did not use them unlike previous cases in this term and therefore we have to vote on the amount above 5,000 the delta between 5,000 and 28,000 and some correct. Thank you. Thank you councelor Myers. Thank you. So just to clarify, what does the current council policy say in this specific situation? Is there is there a policy? The members of council operation policy does say that this is could be an eligible legal expense. Is there a limit? The policy does not say a limit and we have been using the protocol as a guide which was originally adopted by council in 2008 to guide us in these decisions of how to handle the situation of integrity commissioner investigations. And what does the protocol say? The protocol says that the maximum is 5,000 or 20,000 if the integrity commissioner used his powers and then subject to how the integrity commissioner found uh concluded his investigation. So if the integrity commissioner had concluded that there was no violation or that the violation was done uh with no where the member wasn't blamew worthy then that would be eligible or alternatively when there's a violation but council chooses to receive the report for information. Okay. Is there precedent for council compensating above the 5,000 when the integrity the integrity commissioner has found that there was a violation? Uh there is uh precedent that they've been above the limit uh back in back in the 2014 to 2018 term. Okay. And what did council decide to do? Uh that was actually a very complicated case um in which at some points it was a continuous case there at some points council agreed to pay a portion of what was being requested and then council also in some cases agreed or decided not to pay anything. So there is count there is precedent for council in these situations uh paying the full amount and or paying just a portion of the requested amount or not or none. So all three options are available. And then regarding the $28,000 in legal fees, has anyone reviewed those to see if those are reasonable legal fees? Yes, I have. Uh the policy requires that I review the fees for reasonleness. So, what I look at are the lawyer's dockets, which are an itemized list of the tasks performed and the amount of time spent on each task. And I I also look at the lawyer's hourly rates. And what was the hourly rate here? I don't remember off the top of my head, but I did I did determine it to be reasonable. There was more than one lawyer who worked on the file. There was a senior lawyer who was retained, and then it appears that there was a junior lawyer who did some of the work, which is a cost-saving measure that's common. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank Thank you, Councelor Pastron. Questions? [snorts] Uh, yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Threw you to staff. If someone under investigation by the integrity commissioner uh immediately says, "Look, I made a mistake. I was wrong. I'm going to apologize and counsel. Will this settle the matter?" Is that is that a um sort of a mitigating issue regarding the retaining of a lawyer? Does that end the case and therefore legal counsel is no longer required or the investigation continues and and there's there's evidence building uh to to bring a report to council that that would be up to the integrity commissioner. So theoretically, someone under investigation could say could admit to the allegations, agree to some kind of mitigation in the council chamber. I've seen many apologies over the years and and the retaining of legal counsel would not be necessary at all. I suppose that's possible. The question is when do they retain like did they retain the lawyer and pay some amount or not retain a lawyer at all? like it would depend on the circumstances and the facts. I'm not sure why a lawyer would be needed. It I guess it would depend on when during the process the member decides to um agree to the allegations and apologize. So I'm assuming a lawyer's retained when you're disputing the the allegations. In it's common practice that a lawyer would be retained shortly after they've been notified of the investigation. So is that normal course of action where where I mean I've seen many times here where no or counselors under investigation by the integrity hired no lawyer at all uh worked out a solution which was normally apology and that was the end of it. A c it's up to the counselor. They can choose to retain a lawyer at any point in the in the investigation or or not choose to have one at all. Is is there any warning to to the person under investigation that they could be personally liable for the legal fees that they're incurring? When a counselor reaches out to me with respect to whether legal fees can be reimbursed, I do explain the different circumstances and that it's possible that they may be required to pay. Do we vet uh the the law firms or the lawyers that are being retained by those under under investigation by the integrity commissioner or is it the sole choice of the person under investigation? It is the choice of the person under investigation. Although um in keeping with the practice put in place by my predecessor. I will if asked suggest names of a few people who I know practice in this area. I do not communicate with the lawyers myself at all though. Would you describe it as a unique area of law that you just can't, you know, grab grab a lawyer off a park bench? you you need someone who's who has a specialty in municipal law or or I would only recommend someone who I I thought was familiar with municipal law because this is a unique framework. Yes. So there's a chance that you could hire someone who would just spin out the dollars and and and not get you the outcome you want. I think it's fair to say not not every lawyer would be sufficiently familiar with this area to do an adequate job of representing someone who is subject to a complaint. So last question and I think it was partially answered in the past uh councilor sit on all kinds of agency boards and commissions um a tragedy occurs uh at one of our theaters let's say uh a litigation is commenced. Those counselors are protected, aren't they, against against lawsuits for industrial accidents, fires, personal injury. So, those are what we refer to as insured claims and they would be covered by the city's insurance. And this is this is not Yes, that's correct. It's both not covered by the insurance and also it's an area where my staff can't provide the legal advice because it's a a personal matter for the uh counselor. One other question. Does our employee benefits plan cover any legal fees to protect your employment? I'm actually not aware of that. There might be someone else who is better able to respond to that question. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll go to speakers. Councelor Holiday. Oh, you're you're different. Councelor Holiday to speak. Uh thank you speaker. Um I have a motion. It's rather brief. Uh the first line of the motion is that uh we rece it's the same motion that councelor Fletcher moved the first time that this matter came before council. So it's to receive the report for information. And then the second part is I think a lot of us understand that um work is needed on the policy. Uh I thought about this when council first considered the matter we received the report for information that means that council didn't take a position. One of the results of that is that council, if you recognize that there is a story before the incident, the incident and after the incident, there is ongoing back and forth between the resident and the counselor. By not taking a position, council did not put itself in the middle of that. Um I'm suggesting that we do the same thing here is once again this matter is now back before us. Council is now back in the middle of this matter and I'm suggesting that we receive the report the same way that we did the first time and not take a position on it. And you can agree or disagree but I think that the policy needs to be reviewed. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Fletcher. Thank you, uh, speaker. I'm just going to move to defer this to the following. Oh, and councelor Croanti has a question to councelor Holiday. He did. So why did you call me? Well, because he just put his name on. No, it was having problems. So counselor, um yes, I'm just trying to I believe I I understand what what this is. Can you explain this simply what it means for um staff's request? So this essentially is not approving the funds. So can you just explain that number one deletes the recommendation number one that's in front of us which is to approve the reimbursement of 20,8761. Okay. It replaces it with the action of receiving the report. And the third is an ask of the staff to come back and report later on a review of the policy if they think there's changes needed and update the policy because it's a 20-year-old policy. Well, as you can see from the questions today, there was lots of concern over it, but correct. That's um that's additional. Okay. Thank you. Someone else that wants to ask questions. So, councelor Fletcher. Thank you, speaker. I'm moving to defer this to next council meeting. Okay, we have a deferral motion. So, we can speak on the deferral motion for two minutes. Anybody want to speak on the deferral? Two minutes on the deferral? Nobody. Okay. So, the deferral motion comes first. Recorded vote. [music] [music] Yeah. [music] [music] Councelor Canaval, how do you vote, please? In favor, councelor Bradford, how do you vote, please? I'm voting negative. I'm against the deferral. Thank you. The motion to defer the item carries. The vote is 11 to 4. Uh thank you, speaker. Um I'd like to move a motion to uh defer consideration of the remaining items until the next meeting. We are just a little bit above quorum. Uh people are fraying around the edges a little bit. I think we need to catch our breath and and get back to work at the next meeting. Motion before us that council Yeah. But councelor Perks is asking that hold on hold on that we're asking to defer the remainder of the agenda because we have bare quorum. So did you want to speak on that? Yes I do. Okay go ahead. Go ahead. Speak. Uh yeah I'd like to um uh so so councelor Holiday has given me u has put has held in my name uh motion. and I believe it's MM 30 uh whatever it's called 4030 U. So I have a minor amendment uh to to just change a couple of words in that and I'd like to release it. So we can vote on that right now. We have to deal with councelor Perks's motion first to defer I'm sorry councelor Perks I didn't hear you. I'll withdraw my motion to defer the rest of the business until we deal with this one quick release and then I'm going to move it. Does the staff have his uh his amendment to his Okay. Can you put his amendment please on the screen for council and councelor Pussa? Don't talk. Let's just move amendment. No. And and this is just an amendment suggested by the mayor on Okay, that's fine. So just let's just move it and there's no speeches. I'm moving it and releasing it. Okay. So councelor Pruz is moving that amendment. All in favor? Oppose if any carried. Item is amended. All in favor carried. All right. So that we've dealt with that one. Um point of order. Councelor Perks. Yes. I'd like to remove uh move to defer the remainder of the business until next meeting. Okay. Motion by councelor Perks. Move the remainder of the agenda to the next council meeting. On favor carried because we have bear quarman here and people it's hard to have counselors. Hold on. We need to do the the May I have a motion regarding absentees? Okay. Somebody move that. Councelor Pastnac, can you read it? Okay. Is it councelor Carol? The city council excuse the absence of councelor Shelley Carroll from the April 22nd 23rd 2026 meeting of city council. All those in favor opposed if any carried. Members, before I ask for motion to enact the general bills, may I have a motion regarding the consideration of submissions on zoning bylaw, official plan amendments. Councelor Perks, would you like to move that one? Okay, go ahead. Speaker, I move that committee and council considered submissions in making a decision on zoning bylaw and official plan amendments. Favor post if any carried. May I have a motion to introduce the general bills? Councelor Croanti, would you like to do that one? Can I see it on the screen? S. Thank you. Uh, that leave be granted to introduce bills uh 3332 343 and you took it off the screen. Sorry. And 3462410. Shall leave be granted to introduce these bills on favor. Show fans oppose if any carried. Shall these bills be declared as bylaws and be passed subject to section 226.9 of the city of Toronto Act 2006? All in favor if any carried. I guess nobody's listening or nobody's voting here. May I have a motion to introduce the confirm confirmatory bills? Councelor Fletcher, you can do that one. Thank you so much. that Lee be granted to introduce bills to confirm to the point of the introduction of this motion the proceedings of city council meeting 40 on April 22nd and 23rd 2006. Shall we be granted to introduce these bills? On favor carry. Shall these bills be declared as bylaws and be passed subject to section 226.9 of city of Toronto act 2006? All favor carried. This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you to staff and thank you to members of council.

Full Transcript