text:
Explainer: Why Hamilton City Council's Niagara-on-The-Lake Resort and Spa Meeting Was IIlegal Under The Municipal Act – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 13, 2019
Hamilton City Councillors met at a five-star four-diamond resort in Niagara-on-the-Lake on Saturday, this post explains the law surrounding municipal meetings in Ontario, and why Hamilton City Council’s Resort and Spa meeting violated the Municipal Act.
Municipal governments, such as the Corporation of the City of Hamilton, are often referred to as “creatures of the province“. This is because municipalities are not in the British North America Act (the law which created Canada in 1867), and exist only by provincial legislation to carry out provincial responsibilities under the BNA at a local level.
In Ontario, there are 444 municipalities. The municipalities are created, and governed by, the Municipal Act as well as their incorporating act. For Hamilton, this is the City of Hamilton Act 1999.
[The City of Toronto is one of the 444 municipalities, but is governed by the City of Toronto Act, not the Municipal Act.]
All meetings of Hamilton City Council must comply with these Acts, other Acts, and their related regulations.
On Saturday, February 9, 2019, Mayor Fred Eisenberger invoked special powers to hold a meeting of his City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee at the White Oaks Resort and Spa in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
This meeting was illegal.
The Municipal Act requires all meetings held by Hamilton City Council to be open to the public, Section 239 (1).
(1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public.  2001, c. 25, s. 239 (1).
There are a limited number of exceptions in Section 239 (2) of The Municipal Act, including “(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;”. This is why portions of the public meeting on February 9, 2019 were permitted to be in closed session.
What constitutes a meeting? Section 238 of The Act provides the definition:
(1) In this section and in sections 239 to 239.2,
“committee” means any advisory or other committee, subcommittee or similar entity of which at least 50 per cent of the members are also members of one or more councils or local boards; (“comité”)
“local board” does not include police services boards or public library boards; (“conseil local”)
“meeting” means any regular, special or other meeting of a council, of a local board or of a committee of either of them, where,
(a) a quorum of members is present, and
(b) members discuss or otherwise deal with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee. (“réunion”) 2001, c. 25, s. 238 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 102 (1, 2); 2017, c. 10, Sched. 1, s. 25 (1).
The City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee is a committee, its entire membership being Council members. The Resort and Spa meeting materially advanced the decision making of Council.
The meeting was required to be open to the public.
All Municipal Act meetings must begin with declarations of Conflict of Interest, under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. This is done in public, and is one of the most important aspects of any public meeting.
[For conflict related to an in-camera item, the Councillor only states they have a conflict, but are not required to disclose the general nature of the conflict]
As the Resort and Spa meeting had no open session, the meeting failed to include proper declarations of conflict of interest. This is a violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
The Municipal Act states:
(1) The council of a municipality shall hold its meetings and keep its public offices within the municipality or an adjacent municipality at a place set out in the municipality’s procedure by-law; however, in the case of an emergency, it may hold its meetings and keep its public offices at any convenient location within or outside the municipality.  2001, c. 25, s. 236 (1).
The key statement regarding the Resort and Spa meeting is “or an adjacent municipality at a place set out in the municipality’s procedure by-law”.
What does adjacent municipality mean?
John Mascarin, who has been practising municipal law for 30 years and is one of Ontario’s foremost experts on the Municipal Act’s open meeting provisions, explained on CHCH news Sunday night that Niagara-on-the-Lake is not an adjacent municipality.
The adjacent municipalities to Hamilton are (counter-clockwise): Burlington, Milton, Puslinch, North Dumfries, the County of Brant (not Brantford which is a single-tier surrounded by Brant and does not border Hamilton), Haldimand County, West Lincoln, and Grimsby.
Niagara-on-the-Lake is not an adjacent municipality.
Even if Niagara-on-the-Lake were an adjacent municipality, the Municipal Act requires meetings be held “at a place set out in the municipality’s procedure by-law”.
This is very specific language. There are only a handful of by-laws which the Municipal Act explicitly states a municipality must have, the Procedural By-Law is one.
The purpose of the adjacent municipality in the Act is to enable small municipalities to access adequate public meetings facilities when a matter of public interest requires a large facility that is not available within their town, township, or village.
It is not intended for a large municipality such as Hamilton with numerous adequate public meeting facilities. [When I worked for Maclean’s, I covered Oshawa City Council meetings which were moved from Oshawa City Hall to a veteran’s club hall to provide for adequate public seating]
The Procedural By-Law must set out the place for the meeting, the White Oaks Resort and Spa is not named as a location within the City of Hamilton Procedural Bylaw.
The passing of Procedural By-law requires a public notice period, and upon passing the By-law may be appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or Ontario Superior Court.
A citizen could petition to find a Procedural By-Law allowing for Hamilton City Council to hold meetings outside of Hamilton is unreasonable on the grounds that all possible necessary facilities for public meetings exist within the boundaries of the City of Hamilton.
Acting City of Hamilton Clerk Janet Pilon says the City’s special powers allow for the Resort and Spa meeting, claiming that Section 5.5(2) of the City of Hamilton Procedural By-Law authorized the meeting.
(2) In addition to regular meetings, a special meeting of a Standing Committee
may be scheduled, when required, at locations and times to permit
convenient access for members of the public most affected by such a matter.
Putting aside that a desire to hold a meeting at a White Oaks Resort and Spa is not a municipal emergency justifying the invoking of special provisions, let’s unpack Section 5.5(2) as cited.
Section 3.3 of the Procedural By-Law states:
3.3 Location of Meetings
Meetings of Council shall be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall in the
City of Hamilton or at such other place within the City of Hamilton as Council
may from time to time determine.
5.5(2) does not state that it is overriding 3.3. In fact, 5.5(2) is nested under the heading of Section 5.5 which is “Regular Meeting Times of Standing Committees”.
5.5(1) is a list of the regular meeting times of the Standing Committees.
(1) Unless otherwise decided by Council, regular meetings of the Standing
Committees shall be as follows:
(a)(i) General Issues Committee shall meet on the first and third Wednesday
of every month commencing at 9:30 a.m.; (13-319)
(ii) Board of Health shall meet on the third Monday of every month
commencing at 1:30 p.m.; (13-319)
(iii) Public Works Committee shall meet on the first and third Monday of
every month commencing at 9:30 a.m.;
5.5 pertains only to the meetings of Standing Committees, and the City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee is not a Standing Committee.
Therefore, Section 3.3 requiring meetings be held within Hamilton applies.
The exception cited by Acting City Clerk Janet Pilon states that the location and time must be chosen for the convenience of the public. The Niagara-on-the-Lake Spa and Resort meeting was the opposite of convenient.

created: February 13, 2019


text:
Hamilton EcDev Director: Among Developers “Nobody is believing that the LRT is coming” – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 20, 2019
The City of Hamilton’s Director of Economic Development says developers who came to Hamilton in anticipation of the Hamilton B-Line Light Rail Transit project no longer believe the LRT will be constructed, and have stopped their projects.
“Until this Council has a final decision and the Provincial government is proceeding to fund again, nobody is believing that the LRT is coming”, Glen Norton told City Council’s Development Charges Stakeholders Committee on Wednesday night. (3:07:00 of the video replay)
“So those started to, have pretty much stopped. You know, projects that we started talking to people and said I’m coming here because of the LRT, they’ve pretty much stopped because they’re not convinced that it will happen.” Norton said.
Continuing, he closed by saying “Will it happen?, that’s up to you folks [Council] and the Premier of Ontario.”
Norton’s comments were made at Wednesday’s meeting of the Development Charges Stakeholders Sub-Committee in response to a question by Ward 14 City Councillor Terry Whitehead as to why Norton’s department was recommending a continuation of development charge exceptions in Downtown Hamilton.
Whitehead referred to the LRT as a “1-Billion Dollar incentive” for new development in Hamilton’s Downtown.
This morning, Norton told City Council’s General Issues Committee – who asked about his comments of last night – that some projects have “slowed down” as they await a final decision on the LRT.
During a media scrum following the Council meeting, Norton stated that he is not aware of any projects that have been cancelled, that while “some developers have stopped”, none have left Hamilton or cancelled their planned projects.
“They have stopped until they get certainty” that the LRT will be built. Norton explained that projects are still proceeding “For instance, you are seeing projects now being developed between Queen [Street] and Walnut [Street], along King”.
“Those, primarily, are not LRT dependent”, Norton stated.
“If you look beyond that, you look to the east and west end of the LRT, you are not seeing much of any development right now that is LRT created”.
Norton says there is an economic impact of LRT delays.
“However long it is delayed, that’s the amount of time we’ve lost in terms of at the far end, the economic uplift we would’ve had”, Norton stated. “Construction jobs on the front-end are not happening”.
Norton stated that the uncertainty could be resolved for developers if Ontario Premier Doug Ford “would the buying program back on track, that would assure a lot of people that it is going forward”.
Metrolinx stopped purchasing properties needed for LRT construction along the route in August 2018 after the new Ontario Progressive Conservative government frozen non-essential spending by Metrolinx.
Norton noted that the new Council has not yet voted on LRT, which is another uncertainty for developers.
Council is not presently scheduled to vote on LRT, and no anticipated date for the next vote is currently known.
Norton’s statement at Council Development Charges Sub-Committee on February 19, 2019:
At this point in time, the LRT issue, as far as anybody who is looking at investing tens of millions is far from settled. Until this Council has a final decision and the Provincial government is proceeding to fund again, nobody is believing that the LRT is coming. So those started to, have pretty much stopped. You know, projects that we started talking to people and said I’m coming here because of the LRT, they’ve pretty much stopped because they’re not convinced that it will happen.
Will it happen?, that’s up to you folks [Council] and the Premier of Ontario.
Full Audio of today’s media scrum with Norton.
[if lt IE 9]><script>document.createElement('audio');</script><![endif]

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: February 20, 2019

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
InstaStories: McMaster CityLab Students Present Sustainability Engagement Project to CityHousing Board – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 27, 2019
A group of McMaster University undergraduate students presented to the CityHousing Hamilton Board of Directors yesterday on their term work project to engage CityHousing residents in sustainability projects. Their work produced impressive results in energy efficiency improvements in the CHH properties they engaged residents.
The students completed their projects as students at CityLab.
CityLab is a jointly funded project of McMaster University, Mohawk College, Redeemer University College, and the City of Hamilton.
For more photo stories, follow Joey Coleman on Instagram

created: February 27, 2019


text:
Ontario Court of Appeal Ruling Insightful for Future of LaSalle Park – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 25, 2019
Burlington’s LaSalle Park is fully owned by the City of Hamilton, and the lease between the City of Burlington and Hamilton expires in 2022.
This is not dissimilar to the situation in Northern Ontario’s Timiskaming District where the Town of Cobalt owns a 114.67 acre tract of land in the nearby Township of Coleman which was previously a municipal park used by the residents of Coleman.
Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling which decided that the Township of Coleman’s zoning by-laws apply to the former park, and that the Town of Cobalt cannot conduct a large-scale aggregate extraction operation in violation of those by-laws.
In short, even if the City of Hamilton were to end the lease of the LaSalle Park property to the City of Burlington, the City of Burlington will retain land use planning control of the land.
LaSalle Park is presently zoned as parkland, and Burlington would have to either agree, or more likely the City of Hamilton would have to engage in litigation, to change the zoning.

created: February 25, 2019


text:
Speed Cushions? Meet the New City Hall Speak for Speed Bumps – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 26, 2019
I thought Matthew Van Dongen was joking when he used the term “speed cushions” to refer to speed humps. There was no way bureaucrat-speak had decided to spin speed humps as speed cushions.
Well, it turns out that yes, the City of Hamilton is calling speed humps “speed cushions”.
Van Dongen covers the transition from rubber speed humps to permanent concrete speed humps as the rapid proliferation of the traffic calming features means the City can’t remove them prior to each winter – and winter plows lift up and destroy the rubber humps.
Bonus points to TheSpec for embedding a map using the City’s open data showing the location and type of speed humps across Hamilton.

created: February 26, 2019


text:
BRIEF: Storytelling Anti-Graffiti Wraps Coming to 173 Downtown and Commercial Area Utility Boxes – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 20, 2019
In the minutes of the January meeting of the Keep Hamilton Clean and Green Advisory Committee, it states that the City is looking to improve anti-graffiti wraps on utility boxes Downtown and in commercial areas.
“The wraps will feature the works of local artists or tell heritage stories (depending on the wrap location and specific funding source).”
This statement is attributed to the City’s Manager of Placemaking, Public Art and Projects Ken Coit. Coit is minuted as stating there are approximately 173 utility boxes in these areas.
April 16 update
The City has posted details of the project on its website, including that they will be issuing “two separate Call to Artists, to be issued this summer”. Details here: https://www.hamilton.ca/attractions/culture/utility-box-wraps-public-art-project


text:
CHCH Coverage of Hamilton's Opioid Crisis – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 2, 2019
Almost lost in the shuffle of City Hall scandals is that Hamilton’s opioid crisis worsened in February, CHCH ran a two-and-a-half minute report on Friday in which they reveal:
In the first few weeks of February, Hamilton had 61 opioid-related emergencies, more than any month since September 2017.
Dr. Elizabeth Richardson tells CHCH that Hamilton needs a second supervised injection site. This comes at a time in which Hamilton’s only injection site is facing an uncertain future and possible closure.
Watch the full story on the CHCH website:
https://www.chch.com/spike-in-the-number-of-opioid-overdoses-in-hamilton/


text:
City Wants Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan Brought into Force and Affect – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 7, 2019
City of Hamilton planning lawyer Joanne Wise verbally informed the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that the City of Hamilton will be seeking an order from the Tribunal to put into effect the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan (DTSP) with the exception of the portions under appeal.
There are three appeals, one of which the City is seeking to strike. The other two appeals are site specific appeals. One related to prohibitions on any new shadows onto Prince’s Square park in front of the Old Wentworth County Courthouse, and the other is a site specific appeal against the height limit.
Even if the City is successful at severing the appeals form the entirely of the plan, this would mean that even if the site specific height limit appeal were successful, the height limit would remain for the rest of the DTSP area.
Concurrent with the motion to place the DTSP into effect, the City will be moving to have the appeal of the late Victor Veri dismissed.
The Tribunal stated in a teleconference case management hearing today that Veri’s Estate contacted the Tribunal stating the Estate plans to carry forth with his appeal. The motion to dismiss the Veri appeal will be dealt with as a written hearing. The Public Record is requesting copies of the written arguments.
The Fengate appeal is solely to remove the restriction on new shadows shading Prince’s Square.
The DTSP incorporated best practices from urban planning around the world, which includes ensuring that urban parks have sufficient sunlight to ensure healthy vegetation, and to maximize sunlight for the enjoyable of urban residents.
Fengate is objecting to Section 6.1.4.37 of the plan:
6.1.4.37
Downtown Hamilton contains a number of primary gathering spaces where civic life occurs. The quality, image, and amenity of these spaces strongly affect how people perceive the Downtown. Notwithstanding Policy B.6.1.4.35 and Policy B.6.1.4.36, development shall not cast any net new shadow between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. as measured from March 21st to September 21st on the following parks, squares, plazas and open spaces areas that serve as Downtown’s key civic gathering spaces:
a)Gore Park;
b)Prince’s Square (50 Main Street East);
c)Hamilton City Hall Forecourt (71 Main Street West);
d)Whitehern Museum (41 Jackson Street West); and,
e)Ferguson Station (244, 248 King Street East).
Fengate is considering a future redevelopment of the large block bound by Main Street, Hughson Street, Jackson Street, and James Street. The block contains a large parking lot, two heritage buildings, and two other commercial structures. In the past, there were serious talks with McMaster University to build a graduate residence. (McMaster has entered into a public-private partnership to build a graduate residence elsewhere downtown)
City of Hamilton lawyer Joanne Wice asked for the Tribunal to put off a pre-hearing decision on how to proceed with the Fengate appeal at a hearing, stating that the City and Fengate are having progress in private mediation discussions. The lawyer for Fengate concurred, and the Tribunal decided to grant a future Case Management Conference if the two sides do not reach an agreement.
Brown Wharf is listed on City documents has owning a series of properties along Main Street West between Queen Street and Hess Street. The LPAT documents do not state if the site-specific appeal is for this site.
The Brown Wharf appeal is solely against the height restriction. If the Main West site is the subject of the appeal, due to the elevation of the site on top of the Iroquois Sandbar, the escarpment height restriction is more pronounced.
The Tribunal asked if the City and Brown Wharf could benefit from Tribunal assisted mediation. City lawyer Wice declined medication, stated that the City and Brown Wharf are far apart on the issue of height, and that she expects “the matter will proceed to a contested hearing”.
The lawyer for Brown Wharf requested mediation, and the Tribunal directed both parties to provide scheduled to the Tribunal to schedule a discussion on if mediation is appropriate.
The Tribunal will set a date for a future Case Management Conference. The Public Record will attend.
The Public Record has requested the City of Hamilton to comment on the date they plan to file their motion to dismiss the Veri appeal. As of this publication, the City has not responded.


text:
Coleman's Notes: The People Lose Their Only Planning Appeal Support With Premier Ford's Closing of the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 4, 2019
The Ontario Progressive Conservative government is eliminating the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre (LPASC), less than a year after the agency was created to support neighbourhoods and communities in representing their concerns within Ontario’s new planning appeal framework.
The National Observer does a great job covering the cancellation, and speaking to key players who were involved in the creation of the LPASC including former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ted McMeekin and McMeekin’s former key advisor Mark Cripps. Read their coverage here.
My note will provide some commentary and thoughts from a journalist who regularly covers planning appeals and their hearings.
The LPASC closure comes at a time that Ontario’s planning appeal framework is in a state of flux, with the new Local Appeal Planning Tribunal (LPAT) which replaced the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) unsure of its own authorities, requesting the Ontario Superior Court’s Divisional Court rule on a legal interpretation of LPAT’s governing legislation.
Nobody is sure if the new LPAT framework will give more power to developers, or more power to municipal councils.
Meanwhile, community stakeholders such as neighbourhood associations are attempting to figure out how they effectively present their interests within the new process.
Under the former OMB, a savvy community would have neighbourhood members sit in during the oral hearing, and craft their oral participant statements to reinforce points supportive of the neighbourhood position, and introduce information that would guide the OMB’s decision towards their favour.
Under the new LPAT, the role of a participant is severely diminished.
Nearly all arguments to the LPAT are in written format. The LPAT is not sharing those written arguments in electronic format, the power of a participant is reduced to a written statement without the advantage of the information available under the former OMB process.
[The LPAT only allows viewing of public documents in print format at it’s Downtown Toronto offices during business hours.]
This is why the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre mattered to ensuring the new LPAT system was not to the exclusion of grassroots neighbourhood associations, non-wealthy individual participants, and other public interest oriented groups.
The LPASC was designed to provide the organization resources, institutional memory and experts, and ability to hire planning experts these community interests who need to be able to effectively engage in the LPAT process.
With LPASC removed, there is significant risk that the LPAT process will be unbalanced against individuals, neighbourhoods, and community interest groups.
Mary Lee, Executive Director of the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre visited Hamilton in February as the speaker at a PEDTalk organized by the City of Hamilton’s General Manager of Planning and Economic Development Jason Thorne.
Lee described the LPASC as a new arms-length Ontario government agency which assists individuals and community groups to effectively engage with the new LPAT process.
Lee stated LPASC was providing basic advice and consultation within two days of being contacted by a member of the public. Often, the LPASC was providing advice on interacting with and referrals to municipal planning departments from individuals contacting them in the early stages of the planning process prior to Council decisions or non-decision appeals.
LPASC had entered into service agreements to provide funding to individuals and community associations obtaining party status in LPAT hearings.
The LPAT places significant weight upon “expert” testimony, often Registered Professional Planners who are compensated for their services in preparing their evidence.
This provided individual and community interests with the resources they needed to effectively engaged in the appeal process. Often, individuals and communities are faced with the daunting task of competing against well financed corporate developer interests, or the nearly unlimited resources of municipal councils.
The removal of LPASC kicks out on of the key legs to the new Ontario planning appeal system; and risks completely unbalancing the process.
I write risks, because it’s widely expected that the Progressive Conservative government will enable another complete reform of the planning appeal system.
I don’t expect new changes will address the problem of legal decisions often reflecting the interests which can financially afford to seek “justice”, but it’s not entirely clear that with it’s limited budget and staffing that LPASC was a solution either. Better than nothing, yes.
Those of us on the outside often think of the “developers” as a monolithic interest group. They are not, well the big greenfield developers will unite against policies such as the Greenbelt; individual development firms often work against the interests of others.
Often, the most profitable developments go to the developer who claims the public realm first.
As an example, under Hamilton’s new Downtown Secondary Plan, there are shadow, parking, and impact regulations which mean that while a property may be zoned for a tall building, if other developers build first then other developers will find their ability to reach higher densities and profits limited.
This brings us back to one of the concerns which developers have with the new process, the secrecy compared to oral hearings of the previous OMB.
Developers like the speed with which the new LPAT works. Privately, a few tell me they don’t mind that the new LPAT is designed to be deferential to municipal Council approved Official Plans and decisions – developers place a value on predictability that will result.
Developers like to know what other developers are getting, what they are doing, and the same processes of the OMB that individuals were using to advance their neighbourhood interests were being used by developers to their own advantage against other developers.
Expect to see more changes to the planning appeal process; and expect them to be haphazardly announced by Ontario’s “Government for the People”.


text:
Coleman's Notes: Watching the LPAT at Divisional Court to Figure Out How The LPAT Will Work – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 4, 2019
Nobody knows how the new Ontario land use planning and municipal decision making appeal framework works, not even the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
On April 24 and 25th, in a courtroom at Osgoode Hall, the Ontario Divisional Court will rule on how LPAT will operate, if the LPAT can independently call evidence, if cross-examination of witnesses and experts will be allowed at LPAT hearings, and if  allowed, how they will be conducted.
The City of Hamilton’s well-respected in-house planning lawyer Joanna Wice will be among the lawyers who will make arguments in front of the Divisional Court.
The previous Ontario Government, a majority government of the Liberal Party of Ontario, made significant changes to the province’s planning appeal tribunal shortly before the end of their tenure.
They ended the Ontario Municipal Board, created the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal as its replacement, and significantly overhauled the rules and procedures governing land use planning appeals in Ontario.
Now, a little over a year after the LPAT came into effect, the first substantial cases are winding their way through the new process.
One of them has caused the LPAT to pause proceedings, and request the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s Divisional Court rule with an interpretation of the LPAT Act.
In Canadian National Railway Company v. Toronto (City), the LPAT will need to rule on Toronto’s proposed Rail Deck Park – an urban park which the City wants to build above the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) rail tracks in Downtown Toronto between Bathurst Street and Blue Jays Way.
CN entered into an agreement with a developer to build eight office and condo towers above Canada’s busiest passenger rails, described by The Toronto Star as “eight towers ranging in height from 13 to 45 storeys, including 2,750 condos, 79,800 square metres of office space, parking for 1,225 cars below the deck, a potential connection to a future GO station and “up to” 60,700 square metres of retail space.”
On December 5, 2017, Toronto City Council formally adopted the Rail Deck Park plan as an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 395).
Both CN (with Toronto Terminals Railway Co. Ltd – a wholly owned subsidiary of CN and Canadian Pacific Railway responsible for the Union Station Railway Corridor) and the condo developers CRAFT Acquisitions Corp. and P.I.T.S. Development Inc. appealed the City of Toronto decision.
The LPAT began hearing the appeal sitting with a rare three member panel, reflecting the significance of the matter. In October, the LPAT decided that the complexity of the matters before it required that it request the Divisional Court to answer three questions:
1.   Since the terms “examine” and “cross-examine” have different meanings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, does the term “examine” as used in subsection 42(3)(b) of the LPAT Act and section 3 of O.Reg. 102/18 preclude the ability of a party to cross-examine a witness?
2.   With respect to a hearing pursuant to subsections 38(1) and 38(2) of the LPAT Act, do the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness allow the parties an opportunity to ask questions of a witness called and examined by the Tribunal?
2.a.   If the answer to Question 2 is “yes,” are their questions limited to matters arising from the questions asked by the Tribunal?
3.   With respect to a hearing pursuant to subsections 38(1) and 38(2) of the LPAT Act and where the Tribunal directs production of affidavits pursuant to subsection 33(2)(c) therein, does the limitation in subsection 42(3)(b) of the LPAT Act and in section 3 of O.Reg. 102/18 prevent the cross-examination of an affiant before a hearing and the introduction of a cross-examination transcript in a hearing?
At the Divisional Court case management hearing on February 13, 2019, the City of Toronto added a fourth question to the Divisional Court’s review:
Does the LPAT have jurisdiction to require the parties to provide additional evidence to the Tribunal?  (The City cites s. 33(2) of the LPAT Act, for an appeal under s. 38(1), given the more restricted nature of appeals under ss. 38(1) and (2), as set out in Rule 26 of the LPAT’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and O. Reg. 102/18).[1]
The Divisional Court added the City of Hamilton as a Party to the court hearing, writing:
[29]           The City of Hamilton (“Hamilton”) seeks to deliver a factum and make short oral submissions.
[30]           Hamilton has nine active LPAT appeals which will be directly affected by the outcome of this Stated Case.  In those cases, Hamilton has taken the position that LPAT’s Rules requiring parties to file fresh affidavit evidence is contrary to the Act and Regulations.
[31]           Hamilton’s primary interest is in advocating for the increased level of deference granted to municipalities by the legislative changes enacted in Bill 138, which Hamilton says, envisage a true appellate review of Council’s initial decision in official plan and zoning matters, not a hearing de novo.
[32]           Hamilton’s submissions will focus on the rights of direct examination and cross-examination in the context of the two-stage appeal process set out in sections 38–42 of the Act, the standard of review in the Planning Act, and reference to Hansard.
[33]           Hamilton points out that since there has been no argument or decision on the issues raised by the Stated Case, it is not clear where there are common approaches to the interests, priorities or issues amongst the proposed intervenors.
UPDATE APRIL 26
Due to unexpected meetings at Hamilton City Hall, and recent provincial funding cut announcements which caused those meetings, I was unable to attend the hearing.


text:
Hamilton City Council takes Advantage of Change to Municipal Act Allowing Secret Email Meetings – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 3, 2019
One of the last Acts of the previous Ontario Liberal government was granting Ontario’s municipal councils the power to hold secret email meetings by changing the definition of meeting in the Ontario Municipal Act.
The new definition says a meeting for the purposes of the Municipal Act is only when a quorum of Council members comes together in the same physical space.
Previously, conducting meetings and debates via email or other electronic means was illegal under the Act. Secret email and electronic meetings are now legal.
On June 13, 2017, Mayor Fred Eisenberger convened an email meeting of Council stating that he wanted a former old City of Hamilton Alderman Terry Anderson to be appointed to the seat.
Two minutes later, the Ontario Ombudsman’s report into the meeting states “one member of council responded to the group that he felt the individual would be a good choice”.
With that the deal was done.
Due to the new definition of meeting, the Ontario Ombudsman was required to find the email meeting did not contravene the Ontario Municipal Act.
The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting.
Former City of Hamilton Alderman Terry Anderson was appointed to the Ward 7 seat on August 17, 2018 by City Council.
Ward 1 Councillor Aidan Johnson and Ward 3 Councillor Matthew Green both voted against the appointment in protest of the process, including the email meeting.


text:
Hamilton City Hall Wins Legal Battle to Charge Full Development Charges Against Laneway Housing – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 10, 2019
Hamilton City Hall won a long fought legal battle against the owners of Hamilton’s first laneway house.
In a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal written hearing, the City of Hamilton successfully argued to dismiss an appeal by the building of Hamilton’s first laneway house who sought to have a lower rate of development charges compared to the fees charged to new houses on empty lots.
The owner of the first laneway house in Hamilton submitted in their appeal that “the form of housing created on the Property offered a new approach to the provision of affordable housing with intensification by way of a second detached single dwelling unit on a single lot. The Appellant takes the position that this form of intensification should be recognized with a reduction in, or exemption from, the amount of development charges to be paid.”
The City of Hamilton objected to these arguments, submitting to the Tribunal that laneway housing is not connected to affordable housing, and that laneway housing should be handled similar to other single detached housing development. The City is also charging full parkland development fees.
Ultimately, the City was successful in getting the appeal dismissed for being filed late. The owner thought the 40 day appeal timeline referred to business days.
The City’s legal position directly contradicts the statements of Mayor Fred Eisenberger and General Manager of Planning and Economic Development Jason Thorne who’ve both promoted laneway housing as a means of expanding rental housing stock in Hamilton and increasing rental affordability.
With the new Council term, Development Charges are being reviewed, and at the February 19 Development Charges Stakeholders Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee voted to change Hamilton’s development charge regulations to provide a partial exemption to laneway housing.
The new by-law is in public consultation, and is expected to be passed and in effect for July 6, 2019.


text:
INSTA-Story: Lighting in Westdale – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 26, 2019
Joey regularly posts photographs with short stories on his Instagram account, follow him on Instagram to read the stories as they are posted.
Lighting in West Hamilton, surrounding the McMaster University campus, not one of the issues that I’ve ever really thought about.
Last January, when current MSU President Ikram Farah was running for McMaster Students Union President, one of her platform planks was installing of LED lighting in the neighbourhoods surrounding Mac.
This caught the attention of those of us who hang out at City Hall. I recall my first conversation with then Ward 1 Councillor Aidan Johnson, both of us were unsure when LED lighting would occur in Ward 1. Turns out it was already scheduled for the summer. City Hall started installing LED street lighting in 2016 with Ward 2, then went east before looping around the wards, with Ward 1 last. From this, many at City Hall took away that in the future, Ward 1 needs to be thought of with the same pedestrian focus as Downtown is.
Aidan Johnson told me he planned to have the street lighting audited after LED installation.
In December, I walked around Westdale to enjoy the Advent windows. As I was walking I took notice of where lighting was poor; trying to determine for myself the extent of this issue the MSU was lobbying City Hall to address. With so many beautiful mature trees in Westdale, there are many spots where street lighting is blocked. In particular, Bond Street just south of Marion was a spot which was noticeably dark to me.
In many communities which have installed LED lighting, it has been necessary to add separate street lights for sidewalks. LED lighting is much focused, whereas older lights were not, and those old lights “bleed” more onto sidewalks. Downtown Hamilton already has pedestrian sidewalk lighting in locations, such as in front of City Hall.
It will be interesting to see how lighting is improved in Westdale in the coming years.
Now, some of you may be wondering why I’ve devoted a note to this topic? I used to cover post-secondary education, and oft-criticized student politics for not focused on issues they could effect change, and not focusing on local details. It’s been great to watch how engaged Mac students have become in recent years.
Plus, I had this great photo of Westdale Village in December I wanted to post.


text:
Joey's Scrapbook for March 27, 2019 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 27, 2019
Today’s photo: the new City Manager is giving a press conference during tonight’s Council meeting. The podium and backdrop are set-up.


text:
New Hamilton City Manager to Be Announced on March 20 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 2, 2019
Hamilton’s new City Manager will be announced on March 20th at a Special City Council meeting, says Mayor Fred Eisenberger.
This special Council meeting will also see Council decided if they’ll call an judicial inquiry to find out the truth about Red Hill Valley Parkway unsafe asphalt report cover-up.
In an email sent by Mayor Eisenberger’s Office, the Mayor’s spokesperson says the five Old Guard Councillors who are on the City Manager hiring committee have agreed to their choice of candidate.
Dear media partners,
On behalf of the City Manager’s Recruitment Steering Committee, Mayor Eisenberger is pleased to share that the Committee has completed the interview phase of the process and will be bringing forward a recommendation to Council for consideration.
Please mark your calendars for the Special Council meeting taking place Wednesday, March 20, 2019, immediately following GIC.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly.
Thank you,
Michelle
Michelle Shantz
Communications and Media Relations Advisor
Office of Mayor Fred Eisenberger
City of Hamilton
The five Old Guard Councillors on the hiring committee are: Mayor Eisenberger, Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla, Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins, Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson, and Ward 12 Councillor Lloyd Ferguson.
The hiring committee membership was decided in the previous 2014 – 2018 Council term, and excluded any newly elected members of Council.
The hiring committee held two illegal meetings, in contravention of the Municipal Act, on February 9 and February 23rd to decide their pick.
The full of Council must ratify the pick, and it’s not clear how many of the four Councillors who are consistently voting for transparency, accountability, and reform will support the pick.
The name may also leak in advance of the meeting.


text:
Public Comments Open for First Legal Cannabis Application in Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 9, 2019
Hamilton’s first legal cannabis application is open for public comments until March 23rd with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
Canna Cabana is planning to open their location, one of seven stores authorized for all of the “West Region” of Southern Ontario, at the Centre on Barton near to the intersection of Barton Street East and Kenilworth Avenue North.
Canna Cabana already operates many legal cannabis stores in Alberta.
The AGCO’s public submission guidelines state:
Only the following matters are matters of public interest, and will be considered by the Registrar:
Protecting public health and safety.
Protecting youth and restricting their access to cannabis.
Preventing illicit activities in relation to cannabis.
Hamilton City Council is limited to submitting comments to the AGCO. The City cannot regulate cannabis any differently than other commercial businesses. As Centre Mall is zoned for commercial, including businesses which generate much traffic, the City cannot block the opening of the proposed cannabis business.
Thus far, six of the seven “West Region” operators who won the right to open legal cannabis stores have announced their locations. This is the first for Hamilton.
The Province has not declared when they plan to issue more legal cannabis retail licenses.


text:
Suggested Reading: Chicago's Two-Flats (Duplexes) Are Threatened, from Block Club Chicago – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 9, 2019
An interesting read from Block Club Chicago discussing the city’s unique style of multi-family housing known as “two-flats” which serve a similar function to Hamilton’s duplexes. Unlike Hamilton’s duplexes, the Two-Flats were built to have an owner occupied section and a separate rental apartment.
Much like Hamilton’s duplexes, Chicago’s Two-Flats are increasingly being converted into single family housing, creating problems for affordable housing in Chicago.
Full Story on Block Club Chicago:
Wait, Are Two-Flats Only A Chicago Thing? Why These Uniquely Chicago Homes Have Thrived For A CenturyDespite their history as affordable options for working families, two-flats are “in distress” as people convert them into single-family homes.


text:
Victor Veri's Estate Formally Withdraws Appeal of Downtown Secondary Plan – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 27, 2019
The Estate of the late Victor Veri has withdrawn its appeal of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan (DTSP), paving the way for the City of Hamilton to file a motion to bring the DTSP into partial force and effect.
Elbert van Donkersgoed, Trustee of the Estate wrote the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on March 19, 2019 stating “I have negotiated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the primary property in the Victor Veri estate to which his proposed amendments apply.”
“The deal has not closed but the proposed amendments are not a condition of the deal.”
“Therefore, on behalf of the Estate of Victor J Veri, I withdraw his appeal of the zoning by-law.”
As reported by TPR on March 7th, the City is planning to request the LPAT bring the DTSP into force and effect with the exception of two site special appeals of the plan.
The LPAT informed TPR this morning at 11:19am of the Veri appeal.
Joanna Wice, internal planning lawyer for the City of Hamilton, says the City’s motion requesting the partial implementation of the DTSP was served on the Tribunal and appellants yesterday.


text:
VIDEO: Ontario Transport Minister Jeff Yurek on Hamilton LRT: Project is a go with $1-Billion Budget – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

March 28, 2019
Ontario’s Minister of Transportation Jeff Yurek says Hamilton’s LRT project is a go within its existing $1-billion dollar Provincial funding commitment.
“We are lifting the land freeze, and we will be extending the RPF period for another six months”, said Yurek to assembled media in the foyer outside the Mayor’s Office.
“Premier Ford has committed a billion dollars to this project, and it’s going to be wonderful for the City of Hamilton.”
The committee was made by the previous Premier Kathleen Wynne of the Liberal Party.
Yurek made the statements following a 15 minute meeting with Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger at Hamilton City Hall.
Matt Van Dongen of The Hamilton Spectator citing internal MTO documents TheSpec obtained using Freedom of Information legislation, asked Minister Yurek if the Ministry still believes the project is “perhaps” overbudget, and who will fund costs beyond the $1-billion commitment.
The Minister said bidders will confirm costs, but “the federal government has yet to involve itself in this project, and they do so throughout the entire province”, stated Yurek. “I don’t know why they haven’t come into the City of Hamilton.
“I’m sure the Mayor will be reaching out to them, if it goes over budget”.
Yurek added “There’s also private interests who I’m sure would love to have some investment in this.”
Yurek stated the Province will expect the Mayor and Council to work on those additional/alternative sources of funding.
Mayor Eisenberger says that the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna expressed interest in hearing from the City on LRT if the project requires additional budget. McKenna visited Hamilton City Hall two weeks ago on March 14, 2019.
The three shortlisted bidders are all expected to submit final bids.
Mayor Eisenberger says the City provided the Minister with a briefing note on other local transportation issues they are seeking the Minister’s assistance with. Those issues are:
The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce quickly issued a media release praising the Minister’s statement.
“I want to applaud the Ford Government for going forward with the Hamilton LRT project,” the statement attributes Keanin Loomis, President and CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce as saying. “This is a government that listens to business, and they’ve done an incredible job of thoroughly evaluating the business case for Hamilton LRT. They’ve concluded that this project will be transformative for Hamilton and produce jobs and economic development. We all believe the LRT’s impact is going to positively impact the long term fiscal outlook of the Province.”
Bids are expected to close in September.


text:
City Moving Forward With Public Art Utility Box Wrapping – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 16, 2019
The City will be issuing “two separate Call to Artists, to be issued this summer” for its plan to wrap utility and electrical boxes with public art in the Downtown and Business Improvement Areas across Hamilton.
This according to a webpage posted to the City of Hamilton website on Tuesday.
From TPR’s earlier brief on this proposal:
In the minutes of the January meeting of the Keep Hamilton Clean and Green Advisory Committee, it states that the City is looking to improve anti-graffiti wraps on utility boxes Downtown and in commercial areas.
“The wraps will feature the works of local artists or tell heritage stories (depending on the wrap location and specific funding source).”
This statement is attributed to the City’s Manager of Placemaking, Public Art and Projects Ken Coit. Coit is minuted as stating there are approximately 173 utility boxes in these areas.
The City posted the summary of a focus group they held for the project on April 3.
Details on the City website here: https://www.hamilton.ca/attractions/culture/utility-box-wraps-public-art-project


text:
Coleman's Note: Naming or Not Naming Civic Managers – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 16, 2019
Viv Saunders of the Lakewood Beach Community Council is one of Hamilton’s most engaged citizens; a citizen who I regularly learn from in her commentary and analysis of civic issues.
Today, in front of Council representing LBCC, Saunders stated to Council that she does not know who the Manager of Development Planning is.
That Saunders does not know this causes me pause, have I failed to properly inform the public?
Her comment was in the context of explaining to Council their options in controlling the proposed three tall buildings development at 310 Frances Avenue in Stoney Creek.
Specifically, Saunders was providing an excellent explanation of the Planning Act’s regulations on Site Plan approval, and that Council retains ultimate authority on Site Plan approval.
Council has delegated that authority to the General Manager of Planning and Economic Development, who has sub-delegated the authority to the Manager of Development Planning.
I did not realize this, having assumed that the authority was with the Director of Planning Steve Robichaud, more commonly known by the second half of their title – the Chief Planner. The Manager of Development Planning reports to the Chief Planner.
In government, the civil service is generally nameless. They serve the public interest by advising the government, and the practice of not naming individual civil servants is reflective that they represent an entity and not themselves.
My general practice is to only name staff in the top-three layers of City Hall management: the City Manager, General Managers, and Directors.
The naming of managers is only when a position holds significant responsibilities of authority, is a spokesperson or in a public facing role, or is acting in a manner that the public should be aware of – both good and not so good.
With this delegated authority, the Manager of Development Planning is someone who should be named in my reporting.
This brings us to who is the Manager of Development Planning. The full title of the position is Manager of Development Planning, Heritage and Design.
Anita Fabac is the holder of this position. A Registered Professional Planner, Fabac is a career civil servant who has worked for Halton and Hamilton as a planner, progressively advancing in responsibility.
Fabac is a very competent manager, a good planner, well respected by both developers and community members who interact with her. She was a key architect of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan.
Fabac does her job well, and never seeks the limelight.
As many of you know, I was on the executive of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association from 2015 to 2018, and in this role I represented the BNA in some planning matters. Prior to being on the executive, I was at times requested to assist with files.
One of these files was a Site Plan meeting where a developer requested the Beasley Neighbourhood Association be present to address demands from the Public Works department for road widening, and major sewer studies.
(Aside rant: the City continued to dream of making Wilson Street six lanes, sigh, the amount of time we in the community have to consume on these silly things)
Fabac was staff chair of that meeting, Site Plan meetings are not open to the public, and managed the meeting very well. Public Works staff objected to the BNA being present at the meeting, Fabac thoughtfully explained why she as Chair would allow me to be present on behalf of the BNA.
I left that meeting impressed with her abilities.
Since this time, I’m regularly observed Fabac’s professionalism, honestly, and integrity.
As for why she’s never been named in my coverage, despite having such a key role in Planning?
All of us media covering City Hall generally quote the City’s Chief Planner or General Manager of Economic Planning and Development. Searching using Google finds only 22 mentions of Fabac between myself, TheSpec, Hamilton Community News, and CBC.
I went further into checking my coverage, to see if I had given different coverage to the now Chief Planner when he was the Manager of Development Planning. I did not mention him when he was manager.
Moving forward, I will make note of Fabac when she is engaged in managing files or issues, alongside the Chief Planner.


text:
Coleman's Notes: HSR Shortening the 34-Upper Paradise Routing Downtown – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 12, 2019
The Hamilton Street Railway is shortening the 34-Upper Paradise route to address serious problems of scheduling on the increasingly busy bus route.
The Upper Paradise is experiencing increasing passenger loads from the Rolston neighbourhood, new development on the South Mountain, and an increase in the number of Redeemer University students living downtown.
The Upper Paradise bus only operates once per hour to Rymal Road during weekdays, with every 30 minute service only during rush hour. The bus route splits at Stone Church, with the only every other bus operating to Upper Horning Loop.
HSR communications manager Amanda Kinnard says the reason for the re-routing is lower speed limits along residential streets the bus route operates on.
“This route has been impacted by a number of speed calming initiatives over recent years and buses are no longer able to remain on schedule,” Kinnard wrote in a April 9 statement.
To maintain the present routing, the HSR would have to add a bus to the route.
Instead, the HSR is shortening the route by removing service from King Street, and having the bus turn south from Main Street at James Street.
This will cut around five minutes from the drive time of the route.
This is not a rider-centric change, quite the opposite. Many riders will be inconvenienced, and will need to leave earlier to connect to the Upper Paradise bus.
Take, as our example, a Redeemer University student living in West Hamilton. Prior to the route shortening, they could quickly transfer at Queen Street South and Main Street West.
Now, Kinnard writes “Connections from east-bound buses on Main to southbound buses going up the Mountain will now be made at Main/MacNab”.
This adds 15 to 20 minutes to these students’ commute.
The Upper Paradise bus should be servicing Redeemer University College, but due to the veto of Ward 12 City Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, it does not.
In March, Mayor Fred Eisenberger decided to withdraw his motion to end the Transit Area Rating policy which allows ward councillors to veto transit service in their areas. Thus, another year in which Redeemer University remains serviced only once every thirty minutes by a single bus route, the 44-Rymal, and travel from Downtown to Redeemer remains inconvenient for HSR riders.
Had the Upper Paradise route been redesigned with a passengers’ first lenses, all Upper Paradise buses would go to Redeemer University College, the service would every 30 minutes, there would be at least three buses assigned to the route, and the routing downtown would remain the same.
The fault for the HSR once again failing to meet the expectations it set with its slogan “HSR, Your First Choice” is entirely at the feet of Mayor Fred Eisenberger, and his continuing failure to lead on transit.


text:
Hamilton Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning Appeal Negotiations Continue: Postponement of April 10th Prehearing Date Likely – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 1, 2019
The City of Hamilton has formally requested the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to adjourn a planned prehearing on the appeals of Hamilton’s new Commercial Mixed Use Zoning until at least July as appellants continue to negotiation with each other and the City.
On March 25, 2019, there were 21 appellants remaining, with 18 of them standing on their own, and three “sheltered” under the issues of one of the 18 standalone parties.
With many of the 21 appellants sharing similar grounds of appeal, and a fair number of the appellants having filed appeals to protect their interests, the lawyers involved are attempted to organizing into groups based upon the issues.
Lawyer for the City of Hamilton, Joanna Wice, wrote to the Tribunal on Wednesday stating “a number of appellants have engaged with the City on a without prejudice basis, and there are varying degrees of discussions that are underway to determine whether resolutions are possible.  Recently, a further series of meetings with other appellants has been scheduled in June to discuss those appeals and whether negotiation or mediation is warranted.”
The Tribunal emailed all appellants on Friday, stating to them the Tribunal is considering the City’s adjournment request, and they have until close of business on April 2 to comment. Following this, the Tribunal will rule on the adjournment request.
As of Monday April 1, 10am, ten of the appellants have submitted support for the adjournment.


text:
AMO Email: Hamilton Paramedic Service to be Disbanded, Merged into a Super-Sized Paramedic Service – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 16, 2019
Ontario’s Paramedic Chiefs are holding an “emergency meeting” in response to news that the Progressive Conservative provincial government is planning to merge local paramedic services together to create 10 paramedic services across Ontario.
The following email has been circulated among paramedics during the past 12 hours, it was posted publicly for a brief period of time on the website of the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs.
URGENT – Municipal Land Ambulance Services to be Restructured Municipal CAOs and Chiefs of Paramedic Services:
Today, we were told that it was MOHLTC’s [Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care] intent to move 52 ambulance services to 10 through restructuring. This is apparently what the phrase “by integrating emergency health services into Ontario’s health care system” means in the budget document.
AMO [Association of Municipalities of Ontario] is shocked with today’s news and deeply concerned. There is no ready information on the government’s plan to do this restructuring, how it was determined, let alone what happens to cost sharing and say for pay among other governance and funding matters. Municipal governments contribute about $720 million and the province about $580 million to what has been a cost-shared service, although not at a true 50-50 one.
Previous news that the province was improving dispatch and improving hospital capacity to receive patients was welcomed as both are the main contributors to ambulance service challenges. MOHLTC is contacting various stakeholder groups with an interest and we have advised MOHLTC that letters to each of the 52 service managers must go out urgently.
You will no doubt have many questions – as does AMO. We will work to get additional information from the ministry on its decision and approach and what our own next steps might be. Please have a bit of patience as we pursue this with the province.
For some, you already know the provincial budget was very clear on their intent to restructure public health – to move from 32 service managers to 10 by 2020/21 and that it will also phase-in an adjustment to the provincial-municipal cost-sharing arrangement for public health. This and some other matters will impact municipal governments in a substantive manner. More in the coming days.
Pat Vanini
Executive Director [Association of Municipalities of Ontario]
The provincial government stated in the 2019 Ontario Budget that it would merge public health units into 10 agencies from the present 35. The Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs state there are presently 52 paramedic services in Ontario.
The 52 paramedic services are provincially regulated, and have cooperative dispatch agreements. As an example, the Hamilton Paramedic Service is responsible for responding to calls within the boundaries of the City of Hamilton. Many calls are dispatched to the neighbouring paramedic services when those services have the closest ambulance to a medical call.
Niagara Region paramedics regularly respond to calls in east Stoney Creek. During Hamilton’s Code Zero events, when the Hamilton Paramedic Service has no available ambulances, Niagara paramedics have positioned response units in Hamilton. Similarly, Hamilton paramedics are dispatched to major highway collisions in Niagara. For Hamiltonians who live near Cambridge, Waterloo Region paramedics are often the first responders.
Hamilton’s paramedics are dispatched by a provincial dispatch centre. The Hamilton Paramedic Service is presently studying local control of dispatch. Niagara Region controls its paramedic dispatch, and recently implemented a new triage system with an Emergency Communication Nurse who will provide medical advice and support over the phone for 911 calls which do not require an urgent paramedic response. Hamilton’s Paramedic Chief is watching this program.
It is not known what would become of these type of local programs within the new model of 10 services across the province.
Updates


text:
"It was a surprise" Hamilton's Medical Officer of Health Responds to Provincial Cuts – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 16, 2019
Hamilton’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elizabeth Richardson told Hamilton City Council today that the 2019 Provincial Budget plan to cut the number of public health units in Ontario from 35 to 10 was a “surprise” to local Medical Officers of Health.
Dr. Richardson says the local officers want to understand what the changes mean, and are concerned about “the magnitude of the cuts … it is quite significant”
The provincial government is planning to cut around $200-million in public health funding by 2021-22.
“Public Health doesn’t look the same across the province because the needs are different across the province”, Dr. Richardson stated.
General Manager of Emergency and Community Services Paul Johnson echoed Dr. Richardson’s comments that the announcement came as a surprise.
Johnson said City staff are trying to get details on the plan from the province. “We are trying to figure out on the finance side for this year” citing that the City’s 2019 budget is already approved, and based upon an expectation of stable provincial funding.
Councillors expressed their concerns about the plan, and the loss of local control.
Over at Hamilton Community News, Kevin Werner’s report includes some good background on abandoned previous attempts by provincial governments to cut the number of health units.


text:
Joey's NotePad for April 16, 2019: Council GIC, Cycling Committee, and More – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 8, 2019
A listing of links and articles of interest
Planning Committee is underway.


text:
Joey's NotePad for April 3, 2019: Council GIC, Cycling Committee, and More – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 3, 2019
Good morning, another busy day ahead at City Hall.
Two City Hall meetings today: Council General Issues Committee starting at 9:30am, and the volunteer Hamilton Cycling Committee at 5:30pm this afternoon.
Agenda is not yet public.


text:
Joey's Scrapbook for April 1, 2019: I'm Not Fooling Around – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 1, 2019
Last week’s strong reaffirming of the Provincial funding commitment to Hamilton’s LRT has calmed the waters here at City Hall. Combined with the end of the budget process, this decreases the odds of marathon meetings this month.
Today there are three meetings or hearings of note occurring:


text:
Joey's NotePad for April 2, 2019: Planning, LPAT, and More – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 2, 2019
Good morning, a busy day ahead at City Hall and potentially interesting at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. I’m starting the day at City Hall for the start of Planning Committee at 9:30am, then going to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal for 10am.
The LPAT is hearing the oral arguments in the Harbour West Neighbours Inc. and Herman Turkstra appeal of Hamilton’s Pier 8 development plan. A motion ruling is expected at 10am regarding a key issue advanced by the appellants against the City. The motion is complex, and I’m still working to fully understand it. I do know that if the Tribunal rules in favour of the appellants, it will significantly setback the City’s case.
This evening is the flag raising at City Hall for the 2019 Sikh Heritage Month in Hamilton. I’ll be attending.
At Planning Committee today, two developments are up for a Council vote:


text:
Lime Brings Scooters to City Hall – Will Hamilton See Electric Scooters in 2020? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 14, 2019
Last week a sharing service representative arrived at City Hall on two wheels, but it wasn’t a Sobi Bike he was riding. They brought a Lime electric scooter. The representative of Lime (Canada) brought the electric scooter for City staff to test ride.
While Hamilton was the first city in Canada to have dockless bike share when SobiHamilton launched in 2015, Waterloo was the first to have E-Scooters with the launch of Lime E-Scooters there in Fall 2018.
City staff took the scooter for test rides, and a staff report will be presented to Council in the near future with options to consider regarding regulations of E-Scooter sharing companies.
On Sunday, Ward 1 City Councillor Maureen Wilson retweeted an article from the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on the success of a now six-month old pilot in the California city. San Fran public transportation agency staff are quoted as stating that “Scooters induce transit trips at roughly four times the rate that they replace transit trips, indicating that they could complement transit by serving as a valuable last-mile connection”.
Editor’s Note: I wasn’t carrying my camera when I spotted the E-Scooter.


text:
LPAT Makes Unexpected Decision This Morning on Pier 8 Plans: Triggering New Talks Between City, Harbour West Neighbours, and Herman Turkstra – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 2, 2019
In a 12-minute oral decision delivered at the start of Day Two of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing of the Harbour West Neighbours Inc. and Herman Turkstra appeal of Hamilton’s Pier 8 development plan, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal member Blair Taylor changed everything.
In tense arguments yesterday, the City and Herman Turkstra argued over an Issue advanced by Turkstra that the 2012 Ontario Municipal Board decision implementing the West Harbour Secondary Plan (commonly known as “Setting Sail”) bounds the current LPAT hearing into Pier 8 as it relates to the number of units allowed to be developed as part of the City’s Pier 8 development plan.
The ruling is complex, was delivered orally, and cites documents not available to The Public Record. As such, this summary of the oral decision is limited in its ability to dive deeply into the complex legal arguments engaged.
In his decision, LPAT Member Taylor focused on the North End Transportation Master Plan, predicated upon a forecast of 750 to 1000 new units combined between Piers 7 & 8.
The City is planning up to 1645 units on Pier 8 alone.
Turkstra, acting as a self-represented appellant, asked the Tribunal to limit the City’s submissions to only the number of units contemplated in Setting Sail, citing passages in the past OMB rulings regarding the existing streets of the North End being designed to only handle the previously contemplated densities.
The City countered that the Tribunal is bound to the Provincial Policy Statement on land use issued in 2014, and the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Places To Grow 2017.
The City submitted these changes since the 2012 Setting Sail OMB approval mean the current Tribunal is not bound to the 2012 densities in the transportation plan. The City stated it was prejudiced by Turkstra’s motion coming at the beginning of the hearing, and not earlier, and that it was not on the issues list.
The City added that Waterfront Shores – the successful bidder to build the Pier 8 development – was not a party to the 2011/12 Setting Sail OMB hearing, density was not an issue in that hearing, and the citations Turkstra provided from that hearing was “passing references” and not substantive to the present matter.
LPAT Member Taylor outlined the arguments submitted by all parties, then prepared to provide his ruling.
Before the ruling, Taylor stated that upon concluding his oral remarks, he would recess the Tribunal hearing to allow the City to consider if it would move to adjourn and launch a request for review of his decision.
Then Taylor started delivering his ruling.
He stated that he found the arguments of Turkstra to be potentially relevant, that the issues advanced by Turkstra may have relevance to the hearing, that he would not be dismissing them as requested by the City, and the “Tribunal will defer consideration of Issue #3 until after evidence is heard”.
Acknowledging that his decision changed the dynamics of the hearing, he suggested the parties take the recess to conference.
Taylor recessed the hearing, and left the hearing room.
Lawyers for the City and Waterfront Shores quickly left to a City of Hamilton conference room in the same building. Turkstra and lawyers for Harbour West Neighbours Inc. asked this reporter for the use of the hearing room for their conference, and I left the hearing room.
Around 20 minutes later, all parties entered the public waiting room for the Provincial Offences Court, where I went to wait out the recess. They requested privacy, and spent around 15 minutes speaking.
All parties entered the hearing room, and after around 40 minutes, the LPAT returned to session. The lawyers stated they needed to speak without the discussion being recorded by the court reporter present. LPAT Member Taylor ordered the LPAT into closed session.
After an eight-minute closed session, the lawyers requested the LPAT to adjourn the hearing to allow for “without prejudice” discussions to occur between the parties.
Taylor granted the request. He ordered the parties to return to the hearing room at 50 Main Street East on Wednesday, April 10, at 10 am to report to him their results. Taylor stated that he is prepared to conduct a settlement hearing if they reach an agreement. Otherwise, the full hearing will resume.
Taylor firmly told the lawyers they would be expected to keep their arguments short and concise if the hearing resumes; that if they are unable to complete arguments in the three days scheduled next week, the matter will be put over until October when the appeal of Parrish & Heimbecker (with Bunge “sheltered” under P & H) of the Pier 8 plan will be heard over 18 scheduled dates.
Upon adjournment, the lawyers all quickly left the hearing room to begin their negotiations. The planners and witnesses scheduled to appear today all left 50 Main Street East to carry on with their various business matters, not part of the meetings that began between the lawyers.
COMMENTARY
What I cannot capture in a traditional news format is that today’s ruling may appear to be a setback for the City’s case; however, it has merely created better conditions for a negotiated settlement between these parties. The City can no longer be confident of the outcome being in their favour, nor can the appellants.
Both sides have risks they wish to avoid in a hearing; this is why there is a good chance of a settlement being presented next Wednesday. As a keen observer of the Tribunal, I see the Member’s ruling as being designed to spur a settlement.
I’ll be in the hearing room next Wednesday to report on the outcome.


text:
Resident Pier 8 Appeals Scheduled for Contested Hearing in October – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 15, 2019
The City of Hamilton and Waterfront Shores – the developer who won the bid to build out the City’s planned Pier 8 redevelopment – have not reached a settlement with resident appellants Herman Turkstra and Harbour West Neighbours Inc.
All parties stood in front of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on April 10, 2019, to report on their progress toward an agreement following an unexpected decision of the Tribunal the week prior which pushed all the parties into a week of intensive settlement talks.
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal member Blair Taylor, presiding over the appeal hearing, asked the parties for updates on their progress in finding an agreement.
All sides reported progress. Due to the talks being “without prejudice”, none of the parties provided any details, stating that time would be needed to find agreement on outstanding issues.
Member Taylor asked if the parties would find LPAT mediation assistance helpful. A lengthy discussion followed, with parties stating they would need time to determine this.
Mediation was not ordered. Member Taylor stated that he could assist the parties to secure mediation if requested.
The parties had reached an agreement on a key point of contention – the role of Herman Turkstra in the hearing.
At dispute, could Herman Turkstra self-represent as an independent party, not as legal counsel, in light of many factors, including that Turkstra is a planning lawyer by trade.
Member Taylor stated he wanted to know from other parties’ lawyers why he should accept their agreement on Turkstra’s role.
Adding to the complexities, Harbour West Neighbours Inc. is independent of Turkstra at the hearing. However, HWN is represented by lawyer Scott Snider of Turkstra Mazza – the same law firm in which Turkstra is a partner. Turkstra is also Vice-President of HWN.
Member Taylor, the lawyers, and Turkstra exchanged detailed legal arguments regarding Turkstra self-representing – could he be a witness on the stand, advocate on his own behalf, call evidence, and cross-examine all within the same hearing?
Member Taylor stated he would make a ruling after an hour’s recess.
He returned after 45 minutes and made his ruling.
He started by stating that he took “no view of the law in this matter,” seeming to reference Turkstra’s arguments about natural justice and case law submissions.
“The Tribunal master of its own house”, Taylor declared firmly, seeming to remind the parties that he, and he alone, had the power to decide whether or not to accept their agreement.
He stated, “I, with reluctance, will allow [the settlement] … on a one-off basis”.
Member Taylor made clear that his ruling was not to be cited in future cases, that he was not ruling on the underlining points of law, and that he was merely accepting that the parties had reached an agreement.
He reserved the right to reconsider during the hearing.
With that, the hearing was complete. The Member set September 30th to begin this hearing phase, and remained seized of the matter.
The Member stated he would be available to assist the parties with arranging mediation, and encouraged them to continue work towards a settlement.
The appeals by the two industrial Hamilton Port Authority tenants remain outstanding. Parrish & Heimbecker, with Bunge Canada sheltering under their appeal, continue to negotiate with the City and Waterfront Shores. Their LPAT hearing is scheduled for 15 days starting September 30.
The Tribunal has been informed by all parties in the industrial appellants phase that the planned 15 days will not be necessary. Hence, the Tribunal is placing the residential appeals into this timeslot.


text:
Province Plans to Cut Public Health Funding, and Number of Health Units – Hamilton's Health Unit on the Block – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

April 14, 2019
The first budget of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Government lead by Premier Doug Ford states that Ontario’s 35 existing Public Health Units will be decreased to 10.
The provincial government says these cuts will lead “to annual savings of $200 million by 2021–22.” This represents a 27% cut to public health unit funding. [Page 277 of the 2019 Ontario Budget]
Global News provides the best report on the proposed changes.
Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Vera Etches, expressed concern about the cuts in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen.
Dr. Chris Mackie, Medical Officer of Health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit (who was Associate MoH in Hamilton prior to being MoH in Middlesex-London) told CBC the cuts “will put real pressure on administrative costs but also front-line services”.
In both stories, Medical Officers of Health state there could be benefits from consolidation, as many smaller health units lack resources, and larger units could produce better coordination of services.
Hamilton’s public health unit geographical area of responsibility, matching the municipal boundary, is
Presently, the City of Hamilton’s public health unit’s boundary is just the City of Hamilton. The public health unit is fully controlled by Hamilton City Council, a model unique in Ontario.
There are two other public health units in Ontario which have boundaries matching single-tier municipal borders. Both Ottawa and Toronto have Boards of Health that include medicial experts on the Board. Hamilton’s Board of Health membership is the 16 members of Council, with Mayor Fred Eisenberger as Chair.
“Establish 10 regional public health entities and 10 new regional boards of health with one common governance model by 2020–21”, is on page 119 of the budget.
Hamilton’s Board of Health meets Monday afternoon, we should expect the first public statement from Hamilton’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elizabeth Richardson at this meeting.


text:
Another Citizen Resignation from Dysfunctional Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 6, 2019
The first Chair of the Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors, Marisa Di Censo, has resigned in frustration at the behaviour of market vendor members on the Board.
Her resignation comes less than a month after another citizen member, Stu Laurie, resigned in frustration “with the aggressive posturing of some of my fellow board members and the toxic environment that often inhabits our meetings and can no longer be a party to this in good conscience”.
Di Censo’s resignation letter is stronger than Laurie’s.
The full text of the letter is below:
Dear Mr. Hertel,
Is it with deep regret that I submit my resignation from the Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors. Over the past 4 years, I have contributed my energy, time, and enthusiasm to initiating the Board and supporting the Market as a community hub and cultural centrepiece for all. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to continue as a Board member.
As much as I am committed to the Hamilton Farmers’ Market I can no longer, as a matter of personal integrity, be part of the Board, whose focus has shifted to the demands of one stakeholder group at the expense of the wishes and needs of other stakeholders.
Furthermore, I am no longer able to shop at the Market very often due to the inconsistencies of its hours of operation. Not operating during the posted hours has, on numerous occasions, caused me great inconvenience. While having tried to address this during my tenure as a Director, I was unable to influence this needed change. I, therefore, cannot represent my community well as a regular Market shopper.
When the Board first began, and I was selected as Chair for two and a half years, I strove to create cohesion as a Board and to set our direction in a forward trajectory, looking at the present and the future, and glancing in the rearview mirror occasionally to inform decisions. This is essential if the Market is to grow and realize its potential. I hope that the Board can set its sights on a Market that meets the present and future needs of all.
I wish the Board and the Market well.
Sincerely,
Marisa Di Censo


text:
Coleman's Notes: Hamilton LGBTQ Youth Tired of Being Ignored – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 27, 2019
The young members of Hamilton’s LGBTQ communities at the City of Hamilton’s LGBTQ Advisory Committee last week had a clear message to City Hall: Stop ignoring us, stop patronizing us, stop excluding us, and start living up to your commitments.
They want City Hall to listen, they want City Hall to improve, and they are fed up with being patronized by those who are older than they are.
They want a seat at the table. City Council conducted a closed door no consultation process to appoint nine people to the LGBTQ Advisory Committee, and Councildecided to not appoint any of the youth applicants.
They are tired to being ignored, and this is one of the key factors which lead to the unprecedented motion from the LGBTQ Advisory Committee stating to City Council and City Hall they no longer have the privilege of flying the Pride Flag.
Our young people have more knowledge, and more ability to follow, of politics at their fingertips than any generation prior to them. They are well read, thoughtful, and strategic.
They attempt to follow the paths of engagement available to them – email writing campaigns, meeting with politicians, attending Advisory Committee meetings, applying to sit on Advisory Committees – and have been ignored.
Hence, they stood in front of the older people who make up the LGBTQ Advisory Committee, explained why they should have a place at the table, not beside or behind the table.
At the same time, the older members of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee share similar concerns about being ignored by City Council and City Hall.
Together, they reached unanimous agreement, and passed the motion.
Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla, who sat on the LGBTQ Advisory Committee as the Council champion of LGBTQ issues, once again didn’t attend the meeting.
Jodi Koch, the City Manager’s Director of Talent and Diversity, similarly a no-show. A junior staff member is sent to monitor instead.
In the days leading up to the meeting, it’s revealed that the last known leader of the white supremacist Heritage Front Marc Lemire in a senior information technology security position with access to sensitive information systems.
This is the first meeting of the 2019-2023 LGBTQ Advisory Committee. All nine appointed members are aware of the shortcomings of the appointment process by Council. There were no interviews, nobody from the actual LGBTQ community was consulted; Council choose nine people in secret, for reasons unknown.
Sean Cullen, James Diemert, Autumn Getty, Freja Gray, Cameron Kroetsch, Violetta Nikolskaya, Mitch Ray-Borsc, Kristeen Sprague, and Kyle Weitz all do something that is rare in politics – they denounced a flawed political process which happened to benefit them by leading to their appointment.
The next day, the junior staffer at the meeting reports the events, likely to Jodi Koch. (It’s likely that Lora Fontana, the City’s Executive Director of Human Resources who had a key role in the Lemire scandal, was briefed as well).
Someone on staff informs Merulla of what happened at LGBTQ Advisory Committee. Merulla promptly announces he’s no longer on the LGBTQ Committee. Ward 1 Councillor Maureen Wilson steps into the void, and quickly begins consulting members of the Committee.
Merulla isn’t finished, he states that the LGBTQ Advisory Committee’s motion is out of order as it has no authority to pass motions regarding these issues.
Well known LGBTQ activist Deirdre Pike writes a column in TheSpec disagreeing with the Committee’s motion. The column itself is reasoned and thoughtful.
The accompanying tweet by Pike, not so much:
“My @thespec column: why I disagree w #HamOnt 2SLGBTQ+ Advisory Committee on boycotting rainbow flag-raising at City Hall. We need more [image of rainbow] and trans flags as a backdrop for our peaceful and proud protests! Coordinate and co-opt to get our demands heard!”
The youth are coordinated, and they have tried to use the existing processes. They have been ignored.
Which brings us to today, only four days until the older generation and Old Guard of City Hall plan to raise the flags; only four days until what is expected to be a protest by the very members of the community whose flag is being raised.
Only four days in which to find a solution that serves the various constituent groups within the LGBTQ community.
Councillor Wilson has been meeting with many people in the community. New City Manager Janette Smith has personally engaged on these matters.
Tomorrow night, Tuesday night, at 6:00pm, there will be a special meeting of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee. Wilson will be in attendance. (I’ve emailed the City Manager’s Office asking if Smith will be in attendance)
The question, that I can’t predict the answer to, is can their listening be enough to assure the new generation of LGBTQ leaders that the City is committed to living up to the principles that are espoused in the numerous policies passed but not implemented?
As for the rest of us, we must ask ourselves how to do better? I was surprised by the events of two weeks ago. It’s clear that many other community leaders were surprised as well. This is about more than the events cited in the motion, this is about a culture at City Hall that must change, it’s about ensuring all Hamiltonians have a place at the tables of discussion in our community.
It’s simply about living us to our common ideals.
Note: the publication of agendas for this Advisory Committee is the responsibility of the City Manager’s Office, and the Director of Talent and Diversity does not make agendas public on the City website. Thus, the agenda of Tuesday’s public meeting is not known at this time.


text:
Get Ready for a Content Battle in Hamilton as QuickBite News Moves In – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 29, 2019
Hamilton’s online content producers are about to face more competition as Mississauga headquartered QuickBite News prepares to launch in Hamilton with “five to 10 articles per day”.
QuickBite produces online content sites insauga.com, inbrampton.com, and inhalton.com. The registration information for the domain inhamont.com is the same as those sites.
A job posting for a Hamilton editor was widely circulated in journalism networks earlier this spring.
QuickBite’s website content is a mix of summaries from press releases, restaurant reviews packaged into Top 5 lists, and upcoming events. On social media, QuickBite is a mixture of photos and news videos. The photos are evenly balanced between original photos (taken by QuickBite) and photos “reposted” from others. Their news videos are stock video images with text overlays on hot local news topics.
QuickBite’s will be able to establish themselves in a niche between traditional news coverage, and online local entertainment/lifestyle coverage. A good mix of summarized City Hall content, alongside press release summaries, combined with viral content, will give QuiteBite an audience in Hamilton.
This will cause other sites, both mainstream media and online content providers, to increase the amount of short online content they produce in response.
The question will be which of these sites end up surviving in the long term. As for Hamiltonians, they can expect to see more city lifestyle and event content in the coming months.


text:
Hamilton LGBTQ Committee Votes to Revoke City Hall's Privilege to Raise Pride Flag in Protest of City Discrimination – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 16, 2019
Hamilton’s citizen Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Advisory Committee unanimously voted on Wednesday to not raise the Rainbow Flag (LGBTQ flag) and Transgender Flag at City Hall for pride month in June.
The Committee says it will not participate in City Hall Pride Month activities, and that any activities conducted by City Hall this year will happen over their objections.
The Committee says the City has failed to live up to its words of support for marginalized residents by employing the last known leader of the white supremacist Heritage Front Marc Lemire in a senior information technology security position with access to sensitive information systems.
They say the apparent measures taken by the City Manager’s Office to hide Lemire’s employment make the matter all the more concerning.
VICE News reported last week on the City Manager’s Offices employment of Marc Lemire.
Members of the LGBTQ state that Lemire’s “employment at the City of Hamilton continues to threaten the safety of all marginalized City staff and volunteers and citizens whose private information is stored using the City’s IT systems” citing that those systems contain private information of citizens who engage with the City of Hamilton.
There is no evidence Lemire used his access inappropriately, and the City has not disclosed what access Lemire has as a senior IT security analysis.
The Committee says Council has failed to support marginalized communities with the appointment of Fred Bennink – a former auxiliary police officer – to the Hamilton Police Service Board, the City’s failure to meet all of the criteria of the 2017 Trans Protocol, and the arbitrary nature of the City’s volunteer committee selection process.
They say City Council failed to conduct a fulsome appointment process for appointing members to the LGBTQ Committee. Specifically, Council capped membership at nine members, did not conduct any interviews of candidates, none of the Councillors who made the decision are members of the LGBTQ community, the Council did not consult “the previous committee of the wider Two Spirit and LGBTQIA+ community about the process”, and none of the members appointed are youth.
The motion states that “should any event that ceremonially celebrates Pride Month with the intention of signalling the City of Hamilton’s solidarity with the Two Spirit and LGBTQIA+ citizens occur in 2019, that it will be understood to be occurring without the support of, and in direct opposition of the expressed wishes of the City of Hamilton’s LGBTQ Advisory Committee.”
Committee members will attend the planned City Hall Pride flag raising on May 31st from 6:00pm to 8:00pm to replace the event with a open community discussion of the issues facing their communities and how to end discrimination.
Committee members expressed concerns for their safety in passing the motion; they believe that other former members of the Heritage Front who now live in Hamilton will seek to disrupt and threaten their May 31st community forum.
City of Hamilton City Manager Janette Smith, who started in her position on May 6, says she’ll be reviewing the LGBTQ Committee motion, and will work to address the concerns expressed.
Smith says she has hired an external investigation company with expertise in information systems security to conduct a review of Lemire’s employment with the City of Hamilton.
“We wanted to make sure we got someone externally who had the qualifications to do the type of thorough investigation we need to do”, says Smith. “We want to more forward as quickly as possible, but thorough as well”.
“We made sure as soon as this was flagged to us that there was no risk to IT security”
Smith says the external investigators have independence and they are reporting directly to her as the new City Manager. “The report will not be vetted … it will come to me right from them”.


text:
Ontario Court of Appeal Grants Rare Leave to Appeal to Christian Heritage Party in Hamilton Bus Ad Case – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

May 16, 2019
UPDATE: the appeal was dropped before being heard by the ONCA
The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted the Christian Heritage Party leave [permission] to appeal a October 2018 Ontario Divisional Court decision which was in the CHP’s favour.
In October 2018, a three-judge panel “quashed” an August 2016 City of Hamilton decision to remove bus shelter ads which caused offence to many in Hamilton’s transgender community and that community’s supporters.
The Divisional Court provided no remedy for the Christian Heritage Party and provided no direction to the City of Hamilton on how to proceed if the CHP resubmitted the advertisements for posting.
The Court carefully weaved their ruling to avoid weighting in upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues the CHP attempted to advance, and to avoid setting any precedent for other judges to cite in the future.
The decision, written by Justice Michael N. Varpio, is summed up in its fifth paragraph: “we find that both the Decision and the City’s subsequent Motion must be quashed.  The parties agree that both the Decision and the Motion are subject to the Charter.  As a result, the City was required to balance the competing Charter interests.  The City failed to consider the applicants’ right to political speech at all.  For that reason, the Decision cannot stand. In light of this finding, we do not need to discuss the parties’ other arguments.”
Hamilton City Council decided in December to not appeal the Divisional Court ruling against it.
The Christian Heritage Party, despite being victorious, sought permission from the Ontario Court of Appeal to file appeal.
A date for the appeal oral arguments has not been set.
For background on the legal issues, here’s my coverage of the oral arguments from the June 2018 hearing: Divisional Court Hears Arguments in CHP v City of Hamilton: Must Decide if City’s Actions Were Reasonable or Correct


text:
Coleman's Notes: Chris Parkinson 1965-2019 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

June 1, 2019
Unless you live in Ward 3, you probably never heard much about Ward 3 Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board Trustee Chris Parkinson, he didn’t draw attention to himself. Parkinson focused his attention, and that of others, upon his volunteer endeavours in the community.
If you live in Ward 3, you know Chris.
It was with terrible sadness that I learned of Chris’ death yesterday morning. As an engaged Hamiltonian, I mourn that we won’t benefit as a community from all he was to contribute as a public school trustee. I mourn that our public school board no longer enjoys his wisdom, knowledge, and humility in public service.
I find comfort knowing that Chris’ contributions will continue in the legacy of all those he’s inspired to community engagement, all those he mentored, the agencies whose board of directors he volunteered upon, and the legacy of Erich’s Cupboard which he co-founded.
Chris, and his spouse Catherine Johnston, experienced the death of their son Erich in 2013. From that tragedy, they found solace in helping others. Erich’s Cupboard provides mental health supports – especially in our local schools –, food, and clothing. It’s impact in the Lower City is significant. That’s how Chris operated, getting the job done for the sake of benefitting the community.
He worked to secure the future of our environment as one of the founders, and tireless volunteer, of Hamilton’s Blue Dot movement.
I enjoyed the few times I was lucky enough to chat with Chris, these were rare because Chris was always working at community events. Most recently, we chatted at the Ward 3 City Councillors debate last fall, I greatly enjoyed the conversation and his insights. Him, Catherine, and their friends Larry Pattison and Tara Aronson were entertaining, and together they could take the most weary person and help them have a great day.
When I interviewed Chris for The 155 Podcast, he showed up with coffee for me. He wasn’t looking to gain favour, or for anything in return – he was just being his kind self. He knew that I had a full day of interviews.
As a Public School Board Trustee, Chris was principled, thoughtful, and hard-working. Only one reporter in Hamilton, from the Hamilton Community News, covers the School Board. Thus, we didn’t hear much about Chris’ all too short time on the School Board. I’m sure we would’ve, had his life not been cut so unfairly short.
This is the great tragedy of his premature death – while his contributions and legacy are greater than most of us could have hope for ourselves in a lifetime – there were many more to come, as School Board Trustee, he was sure to have an ever more widespread positive impact on our community – and likely beyond.
I mourn both this, and that I’ll never enjoy conversation with him again.
To Catherine, his amazing spouse, I’m deeply saddened by your loss. I know you’ll find the strength – with the support of so many of us – to continue the contributions that both Chris and you have been making to our community. Take the time you need, the rest of us will carry your torch.
To all of us, I encourage you to support Chris’ legacy with a donation to a cause when his family publishes his obituary.