text:
LPAT Appeal at 600 James Street North to Be Held in Feb 2021 with Three Parties, Twelve Participants – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 11, 2020
In September 2019, Hamilton City Council denied a planning application for a nine-storey mixed used development on the northeast corner of James Street North and Burlington Street. As proposed, the mid-rise building would have 60 residential units, 134 square metres of retail, and 33 parking spaces. Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr strongly opposes the development, stating that nine-storeys is too great a density for this particular location as it represent “an over intensification of the site and does not conform to the West Harbour (Setting Sail) Secondary Plan”.
Hamilton’s Chief Planner Steve Robichaud recommended approval of the proposal, writing “the proposed mixed use building maintains the intended retail function of the James Street North corridor and represents an appropriate level of intensification at this location that respects the scale and character of adjacent development”.
Council voted 11-4 against the proposal. With the City’s planning staff on the record supporting the development, Farr moved to authorizing the hiring of outside planners to defend Council’s denial at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
As expected, the developer appealed the decision to LPAT.
The first case management conference for the appeal was held by video on September 11, 2020. The Tribunal approved Harbour West Neighbours Inc. as a Party, alongside the developer and the City of Hamilton. Council is represented by Brian Duxbury of Duxbury Law at the hearing. The developer, J & B Developments LP, is represented by Denise Baker of WeirFoulds. Harbour West Neighbours Inc is represented by Herman Turkstra.
Nearby resident Elizabeth Poynter applied for Party status in the hearing, the Tribunal declined to grant her Party status, and named her as a Participant. Poynter did not intend to present evidence or call witnesses, thus her request was better suited to Participant status.
Participants in the hearing will be Elizabeth Poynter, Tracy Geddes, Carlos and Amelia Catarino, Susan Tesluk, Barbara Johnston, Amy Rolfe, Joanne St. Amand, Kevin Abbott, Wade and Cheryl Hicken, Tony Blanken, Joanne Lederer, and John Price. Participants are limited to written statements to the Tribunal.
The hearing will occur beginning on Monday, February 8, 2021 and run until Wednesday, February 17. The public can listen to the hearing by teleconference, information on how to do so is included in the LPAT decision setting the dates.
The parties are directed to spend the months prior to the hearing in negotiations regarding witnesses, materials, and to attempt to settlement some matters in the appeal prior to hearing.

created: October 11, 2020


text:
Merulla tells TheSpec Integrity Commissioners Dismissed Latest Complaint Involving Him Threatening People – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 4, 2020
Ward 4 Hamilton City Councillor Sam Merulla tells The Hamilton Spectator that  Integrity Commissioners Jeffrey Abrams and Janice Atwood-Petkovski have dismissed a complaint by a Kitchener woman regarding the latest threats made by Merulla.
Atwood-Petkovski retired as Hamilton City Solicitor in 2017. The City Solicitor is part of Council’s inner-circle of advisors, and Atwood-Petkovski served in the position for four years.
In the latest incident, Merulla denied he threatened anyone, and warned CHCH journalist Matt Ingram that if his reporting “if that goes to air, this is not going to end well” and “I have never seen brutal in my, let me talk to your boss”.
Merulla’s latest threats come 14-months after he threatened a CHCH journalist for airing footage of his behaviour during a Council meeting. (The Public Record also reported the behaviour and I was similarly threatened)
Twitter suspended Merulla’s accounts for the tweets. Merulla has not returned to the platform following the suspension, and claims he left Twitter voluntarily.
Abrams and Atwood-Petkovski have not stated if they investigated this matter,merely stating in their annual report it was “resolved” and not serious enough to warrant a public report.
In their 2018/19 annual public report, Abrams and Atwood-Petkovski declared Hamilton City Council to be well behaved.
Integrity Commissioners Jeffrey Abrams and Janice Atwood-Petkovski were recently signed by Council to a new six-and-a-half year contract, including its extension option. This is the longest contract granted to municipal integrity commissioner in Hamilton. The details of the contract are not public information.
Integrity Commissioners serve at the pleasure of Council. Richmond Hill Council, for example, got rid of their IC shortly after she made a ruling contrary to what the majority of Council wanted.
Abrams and Atwood-Petkovski were hired by Hamilton City Council in 2018 in an non-competitive process, and had four short-term contracts over 20 months prior to being awarded the long-term contract.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: October 4, 2020

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


text:
Milinda C. Athulathmudali of Dundas Named to Hamilton Police Services Board – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 18, 2020
The provincial government appointed Dundas resident Milinda “Mel” C. Athulathmudali to the Hamilton Police Services Board for a three year term beginning on September 10, 2020.
On the Police Board website, Mr. Athulathmudali’s biography states he worked for 25 years at Air Transit, presently operates a catering company, and “recently has worked as an educator at Strata Montessori School”.
“He has been actively involved with many local non-profit organizations, including St Joseph’s Villa, Centre3 and the Well, Hamilton’s LGTBQ Wellness Centre.
He currently lives in Hamilton with his partner, Philip and Stuart the Airedale”.

created: October 18, 2020


text:
On Integrity Commissioners: Guelph Podcast With Robert Swayze – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 1, 2020
Robert Swayze is one of, if not the best, municipal integrity commissioners. He is known for his detailed investigative reports and for upholding democratic norms.
He sat down in early 2019 with Adam Donaldson for his Guelph Politico podcast, it is an insightful interview on the role of the Integrity Commissioner and the boundaries of the position.
Live here: https://guelphpolitico.ca/2019/05/29/guelph-politicast-173-robert-swayze-integrity-commissioner/

created: October 1, 2020


text:
Ontario's Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Not Informed of Alleged Hamilton Privacy Violation – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 2, 2020
Hamilton City Clerk Andrea Holland did not contact Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner about the claimed breach of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act she reported City Council, which resulted in a Hamilton Integrity Commissioner investigation.
On Thursday, following Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s public declaration that a breach of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act had occurred, The Public Record sought the decision with findings of the breach.
City Clerk Holland, despite the requirement of the Act to release reasons, has refused to respond to questions from numerous individuals for the decision.
Ontario’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario was not notified of the breach.
“From our records, we have not yet received any breach report from the City of Hamilton related to this matter”, wrote a IPC spokesperson in response to TPR‘s request for the status or outcome of any IPC investigation into the matter.
“We will be reaching out to the City of Hamilton to determine the details of the incident the Mayor referenced in his statement”.
The City of Hamilton declared the City’s volunteer citizen LGBTQ Advisory Committee to be a Local Board to enable the Integrity Commissioner to launch a quasi-judicial investigation into the Chair of the LGBTQ Advisory Committee Cameron Kroetsch.
The investigation involved the alleged breach and comments Kroetsch made critical of Council and City Hall cover-ups.
On Wednesday, Council voted 12-2 to declare the privacy violation and to reprimand Kroetsch. The allegation made by Holland is Kroetsch violated MFIPPA by republishing public information involving the job title of a City position, and comments critical of a public official.
The alleged serious violation of the Municipal Freedom of Information Act is show in the graphic below produced by a Hamilton resident.

created: October 2, 2020


text:
Public Health: Hamilton's Racialized Population, Health-Care Workers, and Low-Income People Most Impacted by COVID – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 14, 2020
Hamilton’s Public Health Unit (PHU) says initial socio-economic data collected during COVID-19 “suggests that racialized populations, health care workers and people living with low-income are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in Hamilton”.
The data is based upon 992 reported COVID-19 cases in Hamilton between March 1 and August 31, 2020. Of the 992 cases, 630 of the individuals responded with at least one answer to a social determinant questionnaire provided by the PHU.
Dr. Richardson’s staff state the results should be interpreted “with caution due to limitations: data is based on
those who were tested and low response from some groups.
50.9% of the respondents to the questionnaire identify as a member of a visible minority. The 2016 Census found visibly minorities are only 19% of Hamilton’s population, thus visible minorities are significantly and disproportionately acquiring the COVID-19 virus infection.
Hamilton’s Black community is most impacted, with 14% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 identifying as Black.
Of the COVID positive cases, 27.1% identified as being low income. The 2016 Census states 18.9% of Hamiltonians are low income.
43.1% of COVID cases experienced by visible minorities occurred in low income households. 14.6% of cases experienced by white individuals occurred in low income households.
20% of reported COVID-19 cases occurred in healthcare workers, the PHU report states.
“There are more female COVID-19 cases than male cases in Hamilton, largely driven by gender differences in the healthcare worker occupation”, the report states.
“Male cases were more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die when infected with COVID-19”, the report continues.
“COVID-19 has highlighted pre-existing inequities: racialized
populations, health care workers and people living in low-income have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 in Hamilton”, the report states in its key findings.
Dr. Richardson and Public Health staff will make a full presentation of the findings during the Monday, October 21 Hamilton Board of Health meeting which begins at 1:30pm that day.
The report is available as Item 9.2 of the Hamilton Board of Health Agenda.

created: October 14, 2020


text:
Upcoming IMFG Talks on Municipal Finance – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 11, 2020
The Institute for Municipal Finance and Governance in the Munk School at the University of Toronto is offering two online talks regarding COVID’s impacts upon municipal finances.
This Wednesday, October 14, IMFG will discuss financial impacts in Canada, with speakers from both Toronto and British Columbia. The Executive Directors of both the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario (MFOA) and Government Finance Officers Association of British Columbia (GFOABC) are on the panel. The event runs from 4:30 to 5:30pm Eastern Time. Register online to watch via Zoom webinar.
In two weeks, on Monday, October 26, IMFG will discuss the financial impact of COVID on municipalities around the world with a panel of experts a range of global agencies and think tanks. This talk runs from 11am to 12noon Eastern Time. Register online to watch via Zoom webinar.
Both will be posted for viewing on the IMFG website afterwards.


text:
'WoodGate' Selected for King William Art Beacon and Gateway – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 18, 2020
The City of Hamilton announced the selection of “WoodGate” as the winning submission for the King William Street gateway. The structure, which will be placed at the James Street North, will serve both as an art beacon and as a traffic control device to close the street to motor vehicles during street patios and other events.
City Hall appointed a jury to review six shortlisted submissions, and the jury selected WoodGate by Team Make.
“Given its size and dramatic lighting, the proposed work will be impactful both day and night and can easily become a local landmark. The proposed seating adds an interactive component not present in some other proposals”, the jury report states.
Other elements the jury state made this proposal stand out is the use of engineered wood to create a “welcome connection to nature”. This proposal was also the most popular during the public feedback phase.
“Installation is anticipated for the summer of 2021.”


text:
BRIEF – For Sale: Farmers Market Stall "Great Sales. Very Low Rent. High Profits" – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 15, 2020
OPINION
Without a doubt, the small business owners operating in the Hamilton Farmers Market need COVID supports available to all businesses. That they pay rent to a municipality, and thus do not qualify for the federal commercial rent assistance programs, should not mean they do not get reduced rent. Council passed a rent reduction program for Market vendors for the summer, and will need to extend it for the fall and early winter.
Outside of COVID, the Market is one of the best deals in commercial space anywhere. Central to the downtown, all the administrative work and overhead (maintenance, cleaning, utilities, etc) taken care of, and low rent.
Or, as the Real Estate agent for a Market vendor whose listed their business for sale “Great Sales. Very Low Rent. High Profits”.
Of course, as is a real estate listing, there is puffery involved.

created: November 15, 2020


text:
BRIEF- HSR Resuming Pre-COVID Levels of Service in New Year – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 24, 2020
Hamilton’s public transit agency, the Hamilton Street Railway, states they will resume pre-COVID levels of service on many routes beginning on Sunday, December 27, 2020.
Other routes will return to pre-COVID service off-peak service levels, and operating at off peak service frequencies during rush hour.
Routes 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 43, 44, 52A will return to regular service levels. Routes 1-King, 2-Barton, 4-Bayfront, 5-Deleware, 11-Parkdale, 20-A Line, 43-Stone Church, and 44-Rymal are busier routes which service many places of employment. Unschedule buses have been servicing these routes at times this fall, but there have remained crowding issues at times.
For other routes resuming pre-COVID off-peak schedules, the service level should be adequate with supplemental non-scheduled service. As an example, the HSR has placed extra buses at Lime Ridge Mall after closing hours for mall employees.
The “Upper” buses which service Hamilton Mountain are operating with buses every 20 minutes, pre-COVID they would peak at every 15 minutes. The 33-Sanatorium is operating every 30 minutes. The 34-Upper Paradise is operating hourly service to each of its terminus points, every 30 minute service north of Stone Church Road.
Route 51-University service remains suspended as McMaster continues to operate the vast majority of its classes online.
The HSR will continue operating extra buses for secondary schools to manage overcrowding from peak demand at bell times.
The federal government provided the City of Hamilton with $17-million to support transit during COVID.

created: November 24, 2020


text:
City Posts Outdoor and Virtual Christmas Events to Its Calendar – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 12, 2020
A couple of Christmas events just posted to the City of Hamilton website yesterday. Here is a list.
November 13 & 14 – Tomorrow and Saturday
Flamborough Toy and Food Drive at the Rockton Fairgrounds, 812 Old Hwy 8 . Friday 5 to 8pm, Saturday 12 noon to 8pm. Website.
November 14 – Saturday
Rockton Pop-Up Christmas Market, outdoors at the Rockton Fairgrounds 812 Old Hwy 8, 12noon to 4pm. Website.
November 21 & 22
Hamilton Food Share drive-thru food drive at Lime Ridge Mall parking lot.
Sat Nov 21 & Sun Nov 22 – 10am to 2pm both days.
Most needed items include:
Peanut Butter, Canned Soup, Canned Vegetables, Whole Grain Pasta & Cereal, Pasta Sauce, Tuna.
Website
December (month-long Dec 1 to Dec 19)
Made in Dundas Holiday Special
The Dundas Museum is running a series of at-home activities lead by video conference during the month of December with FREE activity kits. Register to pick up a kit online, pick up begins December 1st. The first event, with special guest Santa Claus, is December 5th.
Details and Registration on their website
December 3
Drive-Thru with Santa at the Ancaster Fairgrounds
Organizers ask you to bring cash or gift cards to donate to Ancaster Community Services.
Dec 3 – 6 to 8pm.
More information
December 5
Made by Hand for You Christmas Market in Waterdown
Dec 5, 11am to 5pm, 23 Main Street South at the The Creative Hub.

created: November 12, 2020


text:
CityHousing Hamilton Facing Multi-Million deficit in 2021 due to COVID and Rent Freeze – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 3, 2020
The City of Hamilton’s social and affordable housing agency, CityHousing Hamilton (CHH), is projecting that it may need up to $4.6 million in financial support from Council due to increase costs and lost revenues due to the provincial governments rent freeze.
CHH head Tom Hunter told the CHH Board of Directors this week that increased security, cleaning, and staffing costs due to the COVID pandemic are expected to reach $3.5-million by the end of 2020, and some of the costs will continue into 2021.
Hamilton City Council instructed all city boards and agencies to freeze their budgets for 2020. It is not clear if the City can claim CHH’s costs to federal and provincial funding for COVID costs and response.
The provincial Progressive Conservative government announced a province-wide rent freeze for 2021 as part of its COVID economic relief package.
Hunter says this will decrease CHH’s revenues by $1.1 million in 2021 and will be an ongoing revenue loss in future years. The rent freeze for 2021 will result in decreased revenue in 2022 and beyond as yearly increases are compounded year-over-year.
“I don’t think anyone is critical of the province for trying to assist people during the pandemic as relates to freezing rents”, stated Ward 5 City Councillor Chad Collins.
“Certainly, it has an impact on social housing providers, especially when it is applied to the affordable component beyond just the market rent piece”.
Hunter says CHH will continue to face inflationary costs for compensation, benefits, supplies, and other costs.
City Councillors on the CHH Board (Ward 1 Maureen Wilson, Ward 2 Jason Farr, Ward 3 Nrinder Nann, and Ward 5 Chad Collins) state they will ask the provincial government to fund the CHH deficit resulting from the rent freeze.
Some of the provincial and federal COVID funding to the City of Hamilton can be applied to the CHH budget in 2020. The City of Hamilton is expecting a small budget surplus for 2020 due to funding from other levels of government.
Last Friday, October 30, Council instructed all City agencies, boards, and commissions to freeze their 2021 budget at 2020 funding levels. The City is projecting a 4.0% property tax increase for Hamiltonians in a current best-case scenario that the provincial and federal government continue to provide significant one-time funding grants to municipalities as part of COVID financial supports.

created: November 3, 2020


text:
Hamilton Development Charges Appeals Head to Mediation, with Exception of McMaster Appeal – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 3, 2020
Appeals against provisions of Hamilton’s new Development Charges Bylaw continue to proceed at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
Today was the second Case Management Conference hearing in the appeals. The various parties continue to negotiate with the City to settle their concerns, and the remaining issues are being narrowed in the event that a fully full hearing is required in the future.
Michael Kovacevic, a lawyer for the City of Hamilton says he is “very hopeful” that the appeals can be settled in mediation without a full Tribunal hearing.
“In my years, no DC [development charge] appeal has gone to a hearing”, he stated to the Tribunal this morning.
The exact details of the appeals are not yet available to The Public Record, a request has been made to the Tribunal for the submissions of the parties.
The appellants in today’s hearing were 2362302 Ontario Inc., the West End Home Builders Association (formerly known as the Hamilton-Halton Home Builders’ Association), Mohawk College, and McMaster University.
The McMaster appeal is the most complex. The underlying question is if McMaster can de facto grant tax exemptions to private companies as part of the university’s for-profit private-public partnership student residence developments.
There were two primary issues discussed this morning: the feasibility of mediation between the parties, and a motion by the City of Hamilton to dismiss McMaster’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The City of Hamilton filed 197 pages of arguments to support its request for the Tribunal to dismiss McMaster application. McMaster’s lawyers responded with over 700 pages of counter arguments. [The documents are not yet available from the Tribunal]
Due to how McMaster’s original charter is written, McMaster is not a Crown agency, and therefore subject to 50% development charges on its student residence buildings and the full transit component of development changes for all projects.
As part of a COVID omnibus bill, the Ontario Progressive Conservative government is giving McMaster (and all other universities which are not already Crown agencies) full exemption from development charges (Schedule 11, Bill 213).
[The same COVID omnibus bill forbids ranked balloting in municipal elections and will make the controversial Canada Christian College a full university]
While this change in legislation will make moot the issue of development fees for McMaster University’s own projects, the debate regarding if McMaster can grant tax exemptions as part of its ancillary revenue operations will remain.
McMaster University is hoping to leverage its tax-exempt status in partnership with private developers to increase the number of student housing spaces it operates. The partnerships include profit-sharing between the university and the private corporations partnering with it. An example of this will be the proposed building at 1190 Main Street West.
During Hamilton’s recent Development Charges Review, which resulted in the Bylaw under appeal, McMaster asked to have the existing 50 per cent DC exemption for its projecct extended to itsfor-profit private partnershipss. One of the two currently proposed projects is on land owned by McMaster, the other is one land McMaster will lease.
During this April 2019 meeting, Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark asked about the partnerships and the financial details.
“If an individual developer comes in to build student residences then they pay development charges. But if McMaster does it, you are exempt from them”, Clark started his question. “We’re trying to understand how an independent developer can get an exemption through McMaster University to build residences when they cannot do that on their own”.
McMaster did not answer the question, you can view the non-answer on YouTube.
At today’s LPAT CMC hearing, McMaster asked the Tribunal to deny the City’s application to dismiss its appeal, and stated that the university is concerned about delays resulting from the City’s motions in the LPAT proceedings. A lawyer for McMaster says delays could cost the university millions of dollars.
Mohawk College is challenging the City of Hamilton’s applying of any potential development fees upon its projects. Mohawk College is a Provincial Crown Agency and argues that it therefore is constitutionally exempt from taxation.
Lawyers for 2362302 Ontario Inc state their client and the City are working towards a settlement and they are optimistic a settlement will be reached in their appeal. The lawyers for Mohawk College and West End Home Builders Association state they are interested in pursuing mediation with the City to reach a settlement.
LPAT Member presiding over today’s Case Management Conference Blair Taylor stated he will take time to make a decision on the matters discussed today, that the Tribunal will provide mediation assistance to the parties, and that he will impose a strict timeline for actions required by the various parties in the coming months.
The next date for the appeal will be set in the CMC order to be issued.


text:
McMaster and City Close to Deal on Land Use and Zoning Bylaw for 1190 Main West Student Resident – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 4, 2020
The deal is close, but not quite complete.
This is the message lawyers for both sides in the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal appeal by McMaster University and its private partner Knightstone Capital Management regarding 1190 Main Street West in Hamilton delivered to the LPAT early this morning.
The City of Hamilton and the McMaster group were scheduled to appear before the LPAT for a video hearing tomorrow morning.
“I think tomorrow will be a short attendance”, wrote lawyer David Bronskill of Goodmans LLP representing Knightstone to the LPAT.
“Subject to some final matters, the parties have worked to a settlement but, given those final matters, we would not be in a position to present the settlement to the Tribunal tomorrow”, the email continues.
Bronskill writes “Our client is hopeful that such a settlement hearing could be scheduled by TCC in 2020 to ensure that certain implementation timelines for the project can be met”.
The Tribunal approved the request for cancellation of tomorrow’s hearing, and states “notice of a future hearing date will follow soon”.
This appeal is only dealing with the land use and zoning, it does not involve the taxation issue between the City and McMaster.
Council gave direction for a settlement in this hearing during a closed session meeting on August 18, 2020.
There was a separate appeal hearing yesterday regarding McMaster’s challenge of the City’s new development charges bylaw. In that appeal, McMaster is attempting to gain a full development charge exemption for its planned private partnership for-profit student housing projects.
McMaster is hoping to extend its property tax exception as a provincially chartered public university to its proposed contracts with private corporations to build the proposed new student housing.

created: November 4, 2020


text:
McMaster University Launches New LPAT Appeal Against City of Hamilton Over 1190 Main Street West – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 27, 2020
McMaster University is taking the City of Hamilton to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) claiming the City is failing to approve a Site Plan for its proposed for-profit student housing project at 1190 Main Street West.
The rare appeal claiming a failure by the City to approve a site plan within 30 days will likely be rendered moot in the coming months once McMaster’s zoning appeal is settled.
McMaster alleges the City is wrongly withholding Site Plan approval, and should have acted this summer as if the zoning for the development had been settled. The City is following its routine process of not processing a Site Plan application that is not in compliance with the present zoning.
The root of the issue is the ongoing LPAT appeal which McMaster filed in early 2018 prior to changing to Ontario’s Planning Act which transitioned the Ontario Municipal Board into the LPAT. McMaster, and its private sector partner Knightstone Capital Management II Inc., filed their 2018 zoning non-approval appeal to have it heard under the old OMB rules which are more advantageous for developers.
Thousands of similar appeals to lock in OMB rules were filed across the province, causing a massive backlog at LPAT.
The City and McMaster have negotiated the past two-and-a-half years, and reached a settlement regarding the zoning for the property. The settlement is scheduled for consideration at a LPAT hearing on December 9th.
In its appeal letter, dated July 29, 2020, McMaster’s lawyer alleges the City should process its Site Plan application because “As discussions regarding those appeals progress, our client would like to move forward with the Application and the detailed planning more appropriate for a site plan control application”.
The appeal grounds are explained in the next paragraph.
“Although there is no such mechanism under the Planning Act, by letter dated June 25, 2020, the City of Hamilton declared the Application complete and indicated the Application would be considered and reviewed by various city departments. However, by letter dated July 10, 2020, the City purported to deny the Application because the Application is allegedly premature pending resolution of the Rezoning Appeal, although the City’s letter did not indicate the Planning Act subsection under which it purported to deny the Application. In our view, there is no statutory or planning basis for the purported decision of the City.”
No hearing dates have been set in the appeal. Site Plan non-decision appeals are rare, and are often a negotiating tactic by the developer.
The City is expected to process the Site Plan application once the zoning appeal is settled and approved by the LPAT.

created: November 27, 2020


text:
Notes from Tonight's City of Hamilton Pier 8 Tall Building Public Consultation – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 5, 2020
The City of Hamilton held an online public consultation tonight on the proposal for a tall building on Pier 8’s “Block 16”.
The proposal, a 45-storey tower announced in May, was dead on arrival.In May, Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr stated he had no idea that City staff had agreed to a LPAT settlement which facilitated the concept of a tall building. Mayor Fred Eisenberger similarly stated he was not briefed.
There was little public excitement, and vocal opposition.
Tonight’s public meeting was hosted on the Cisco WebEx platform. City staff taking answers from the public included two City planning staff members responsible for the file, City waterfront development czar Chris Phillips, and Calvin Brook of Brook McIlroy who is the urban design consultant.
The format was a quick staff presentation, followed by a moderator reading questions people wrote into a “Q&A” box in WebEx. Many of the questions were critical of the proposal, city staff, the process, and many questions about parking.
A few questions related to how a tall building would block the view of the water, or overpower the area.
Parking is a significant concern for residents of Hamilton’s North End neighbourhood were Pier 8 is located. Questions regarding if there will be enough parking, where it will be, and if it will be paid.
The City says it believes it is building enough parking between all the west harbour developments to meet demand.
Will there be good transit service to Pier 8? City staff state the HSR will review service as people move into the new developments.
There were many comments stating frustration or concern that the City spent years planning Pier 8, there had been a lengthy series of public consultations, and the tall building suddenly changed this. These comments drew a strong response from Chris Phillips who forcefully stated the LPAT settlement was between the resident group Harbour West Neighbours and developer Waterfront Shores.
There were a couple of comments positive of how City staff are handling the waterfront development file.
It was clarified numerous times that City staff are only required, by the terms of the settlement, to complete a report with a draft zoning by-law amendment for a possible tall building. City Council can reject the report.  [The settlement predated the significant changes to the real estate market resulting from COVID]
Notes Regarding Online Engagement
Tonight’s online meeting flowed very well. There is no indication that any questions were not asked.
There were a few questions which could not be answered tonight, due to the online format, the City has email addresses to follow-up. This follow-up could be a benefit from online meetings compared to the traditional in-person format.
Many public meetings are taking off comment by posturing or conflict. That cannot happen during online meetings. (This is not to say we should no return to in person meetings, they have many benefits for people to connect, organize, and ask questions after the formal event)
Overall, this engagement was useful for most involved.

created: November 5, 2020


text:
Protest, Police, Pandemic, and Rights: Camping in Front of City Hall – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 26, 2020
Hamilton’s movement to defund police are camped in front of City Hall on the forecourt. It is a well organized camp, with provisions and sanitation.
The protesters state they will remain until encamped until “money is divested from municipal, provincial, and federal police, and invested into free permanent housing“.
The City of Hamilton is seeking the removal of the protest camp.
During the City Council meeting on Wednesday, Hamilton City Manager Janette Smith stated additional tickets and charges have been issued for the ongoing protest which includes people camping overnights in tents. The City states it is considering further charges.
On Monday, one of the protest organizers was charged under Ontario’s emergency COVID regulations.
I wrote why the charge against Sarah Jama is a good test case for determining the balance between the right to protest and the government’s ability to enact regulations to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19: Protest, Police, Pandemic, and Rights: Why the City Fining Sarah Jama Makes for an Interesting Court Case.
The ongoing protest camp raise different considerations, and the legal distinctions between a short protest and protest camp are significant. Hence each is a separate article.
Case law regarding protest camps is that government can remove protest camps. Generally speaking, governments quickly issue ticket and then wait to take the enforcement action of removal.
The most instructive case is a 1994 Federal Court of Appeal decision Weisfeld v. Canada, (1994), 171 N.R. 28 (FCA).
This case involved a peace camp on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in protest of cruise missile testing. The protest began in 1983 and lasted until April 1985 when the Federal Cabinet ordered the removal of the camp. The group attempted to form a new camp in the fall of 1988, which started the litigation.
The Federal Court of Appeal held that while the protest camp was protected expression as per Section 2(b) of the Charter, the actions of removing the camp were justifiable under Section 1 of the Charter.
For the purposes of this article, I’ll use Batty v. Toronto (City) 2011 ONSC 6862 as the example case as it is an Ontario application of the case law involving protest camps and more recent. This involved a Occupy protest camp at St. James Park in downtown Toronto. The camp was removed by the City of Toronto under the Trespass to Property Act and the Toronto’s Parks By-law.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened as a friend of the court.
The case is instructive, as the City of Hamilton is following similar processes in responding to the protest camp.
In Batty, Superior Court Justice David M. Brown (as he was then) wrote:
“The Charter does not permit the Protesters to take over public space without asking, exclude the rest of the public from enjoying their traditional use of that space and then contend that they are under no obligation to leave. By taking that position and by occupying the Park, the Protesters are breaking the law. Such civil disobedience attracts consequences. In this case, the civic authority which represents the Toronto community now seeks to enforce the law  …  I conclude that the Trespass Notice is constitutionally valid. The City may enforce it.”
In this case, the Court accepted the submission of the City of Toronto that “the number of people at the occupation site varies during the day: typically low in the early morning (20 or so), rising during the day to around 70, and occasionally up to larger crowds in the hundreds”.
The Court noted the organization of the Occupy camp, including provisions for health and safety. Nonetheless, Justice Brown upheld the City’s issue of trespass and allowed the City to remove the Occupy protest camp.
City Hall managers are advancing an argument that the protest camp is a risk to the heritage features of Hamilton City Hall. The building and forecourt are designated heritage features.
“There can be no question that the area in front of a Town Hall is a place where free expression not only has traditionally occurred, but can be expected to occur in a free and democratic society. The literal town square is paradigmatically the place for expression of public dissent”, wrote Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Bradley Miller in Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668.
The heritage designation of the City Hall forecourt is a cultural one due to its historical significance to Hamilton’s as a place of civic gathering for celebrations, commemoration, and protest.
As for the City’s newfound concern for the heritage features of City Hall. In 2012, City Hall installed planters on this forecourt in violation of its heritage status. During the City Hall renovations in 2009/2010, City Council removed the heritage white Cherokee marble from the sides of the building and replaced with cement. The marble was sold at a discount, grind by the new owner, and now line a drainage ditch in Ancaster.
The heritage claims are without merit.
COVID changes everything, and that includes that a protest camp results in a different measure of the potential spread of COVID.
Thus balancing between the right of protest and public health measures will differ.
Camping also engages a different sections of Provincial pandemic bylaws.
Hamilton is subject to Ontario Regulation 263/20 as we are a “Red Zone” under the Province’s COVID-19 public health framework. “Social bubbles” no longer exist as an exemption to public health guidance to maintain physical separation.
While the protest camp is not a campground, it is worth noting that campgrounds “are closed to the public” unless they comply with conditions which the protest camp is not meeting. [Schedule 2 Section 27 O. Reg 263/20]
As a result of COVID, Hamilton’s Medicial Officer of Health can issue a Section 22 Order under the  Health Protection and Promotion Act directing the protesters to disband their camp.
Considering that courts have consistently ruled that protest camps can be disbanded, a Court is likely to grant injunctions to enforce any public health orders issued against the protesters.
The protest camp includes sound amplification and video projection equipment use for performances and film screening.
The performances are a form of protest expression. Outside of COVID, they are clearly protected expression, with minimal restriction.
Ontario Regulation 263/20 prohibits outdoor performances except at a drive-in, and the key distinction of a drive-in is that households are contained within their vehicle.  Schedule 2 Section 18 of the regulations states “Each person in attendance at the drive-in cinema or the drive-in or drive-through concert … must remain within a motor vehicle designed to be closed to the elements”.
Similarly, Reg 263/20 prohibits outdoor film screenings.
Hamilton Police have notified City Hall that the protest camp is subject to enforcement of Ontario’s COVID emergency regulations. Police have not stated what action they plan to take. Police have noted the organizers continue to encourage people to gather at the protest camp.
The organizers of the protest camp state they intend to remain, and that they are taking appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of COVID.
Mayor Fred Eisenberger said Thursday morning that the City will be issuing more notices today regarding the protest camp. He states the City will respect the right to protest on the forecourt provided the gathering remains under 25 people and no structures are erected.

created: November 26, 2020


text:
Protest, Police, Pandemic, and Rights: Why the City Fining Sarah Jama Makes for a Charter Test Case – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 26, 2020
Hamilton Police and the City of Hamilton’s municipal bylaw enforcement acted against one of the organizers of a Defund Police protest in front of City Hall Monday, the first day of the ongoing protest.
Sarah Jama is charged with “Fail to comply with a continued section 7.0.2 order as per Ontario Regulation 364/20, of the Reopening Ontario Act, 2020, section 10.1(1)” which carries a minimum fine of $10,000.
Jama is expected to challenge the ticket, and this case contains all the necessary elements for the Courts to give us an answer on where the line between health orders during a pandemic and the Charter of Rights and Freedom’s fundamental guarantees is drawn.
The question to be answered by the courts? Can the government impose a public health limit on the number of people involved in an outdoor protest which follows all other public health regulations?
For the past eight months, there have been various large protests. At the same time, there are pandemic laws which restrict the size of gatherings. This is a case of competing interests and rights.
At some point, these competing interests will be litigated.
For those who are concerned about the infringement of political speech by COVID regulations, today’s arrest provides a strong case to pursue to seek a ruling favourable to their interests.
The litigant, Sarah Jama, is sophisticated and took many public health precautions in organizing the event. The speech is clearly a matter of public interest, and her sincerity in the expression of her beliefs is impeccable.
Before we continue, it must be noted that Hamilton authorities are citing the incorrect Ontario Regulation for laying the charge.
Ontario Regulation 364/20 are the Stage 3 rules, which permit gatherings of up to 100 people outdoors for a meeting or event. (A protest is an organized event, and arguably a meeting as well).  Hamilton Police state “during the course of the day, the number of participants in attendance ranged between 80-100 people in the forecourt at City Hall”, thus the gathering did not violate the limits of Reg 364/20.
Ontario Regulation 263/20 is the Stage 2 rules which apply to Hamilton. [Ontario Regulation 363/20 states which COVID state a region is in based upon its health unit]
The limit set in O Reg 263/20 for outdoor gatherings is 25 people.
There are numerous options for City Hall to correct the provincial offences ticket, and they can issue a new charge citing the proper regulation.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression (Section 2(b)) “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Section 1).
The test used by the Courts is referred to as The Oakes Test. The burden is upon the state (in this case the City of Hamilton and the Province of Ontario) to prove that the limitations serve a ‘pressing and substantial objective’ with ‘minimal impairment’ to rights. The impairment must be tied to the objective.
Where is the line of impairment for public health objectives? This is the question which the judiciary will have to answer when Jama argues against the ticket.
The burden is upon the City and Province to prove the necessity of prohibit the kind of protest Jama led.
Both sides will submit evidence to advance their arguments.
There is not yet any Ontario decisions challenging tickets issued which I could find in CanLII’s database.
The large protests in the United States following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, have been studied by academics trying to determine if they contributed to increases in COVID-19 in the weeks which followed.
Due to the complexities of how the virus spreads, poor contact tracing, and numerous other factors; there is not yet conclusive literature regarding the spread of COVID (or lack thereof) during protests.
Many medical professionals, and some Ontario Medical Officers of Health, stated support for protests which took public health precautions during the anti-racism protests in late May and June in Canada.
At the time, Hamilton’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Elisabeth Richardson stated that her medical advice remained the same, people should not have gatherings, that the advice was difficult, nonetheless, that was her medical advice.
Monday’s event at Hamilton City Hall was physically distanced, with face masks, and other COVID precautions.
The COVID public health violation is the number of people who gathered, greater than 25.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has repeatedly expressed concern about government using COVID regulations to preclude public dissent.
Court rulings are precedent, and consistency in decision-making is valued by judges. A group such as the CCLA is very careful to avoid advancing a bad case in front of the courts as the “test case” – the first litigation involving a law.
This case has many of the elements of a good case. As noted earlier, Jama is sophisticated and took all public health advice in organizing the protest. The protest is clearly on a matter of public interest.
This makes it a greater burden for the state (in this case the City and the Province if it intervenes) to prove that the impairment of the Charter Right to protest in this instance is minimal to achieve the objective of preventing the spread of COVID.
The fine of $10000 is substantial, especially for someone of modest or lower income as is common for younger people, especially those with mobility impairment such as Jama.
An additional bonus for those who wish to argue against the fine is that the City of Hamilton has a terrible track record of obeying the requirements of the Charter, and a lack of attention to details that matter in legal proceedings. (As evidenced in this case by citing an incorrect regulation)
The tickets, charges, and potential ligitation resulting from the ongoing protest camp in front of City Hall will significantly differ from Monday’s ticket.
The ongoing protest camp raise different considerations than a short protest, and the legal distinctions between a short protest and encampment mean they require separate analysis.
I’ve written a separate post on the law regarding protest camps here: Protest, Police, Pandemic, and Rights: Camping in Front of City Hall


text:
City Hires GM BluePlan, Jemma Consultants and Wood Canada Ltd. to Look at Chedoke Watershed – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 3, 2020
Following the leak of 24-billions of wastewater over four years into Chedoke Creek – a leak which City Council covered up for over a year including during the 2018 municipal election -, the City is looking at how to improve the Chedoke Creek watershed.
In a report, City Director of Water Andrew Grice says the City hired GM BluePlan, Jemma Consultants and Wood
Canada Ltd. to “Develop a series of short to longer term solutions for improving water quality in
Chedoke Creek, Engage internal and external stakeholders and facilitate solution development, Technically evaluate solutions to determine feasibility and implementation strategies”.
(The previous Director of Water, Dan McKinnon, who was in charge during the waterwater fiasco was promoted by City Council to General Manager of Public Works)
Grice says work began in September 2020.
The consultants are holding meetings with various stakeholder groups, conducting research, and will be provide a report with both short term and long term project recommendations to improve the Chedoke Creek watershed.
“The anticipated completion of the remaining scope for this project is expected for February 2021”, Grice writes.
Separate from this work, the Ministry of Environment is ordering Hamilton City Council to remediate damage done to the Creek by the waterwater leak and the City Council coverup which followed. City Hall is appealing the order.

created: December 3, 2020


text:
City Staff "Seriously" Considering Removal of Macdonald Statue from Downtown Hamilton – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 4, 2020
City staff are “seriously” considering recommending the removal of a statue of Canada’s first Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald from its present perch downtown in Gore Park.
This statue of Macdonald was the first erected in the Dominion of Canada (as it was commonly called at the time), only two years after Macdonald’s death.
The Hamilton Public Library’s local history department details the history of the statute.
Hamilton’s Board of Trade purchased the bronze statue of Macdonald shortly after his death in 1891. Measuring eight feet and three inches in height, the statue arrived in Hamilton on October 30, 1893 from London, England.
“The statue was immediately placed upon a pedestal of gray New Brunswick granite that stood eleven feet high and was located in the intersection of King and Hughson streets, facing west”, states the HPL’s history.
“The statue was then covered by bunting in preparation for the official dedication which was scheduled for November 1, 1893”.
Canada’s Prime Minister Sir John Thompson attended the dedication ceremony with “over twenty thousand onlookers were in attendance for the unveiling”.
The removal of the statue “is our high priority item” says the City of Hamilton’s Project Manager for Indigenous Initiatives Nicole Jones.
City Manager Janette Smith will bring forth a report to Council early in 2021 seeking Council’s decision on the future of the statue.
Jones says many members of Hamilton’s Indigenous communities have expressed to the City the pain the statue causes them as a reminder of Canada’s racist and colonial policies against Indigenous peoples.
During consultations, Jones says people shared they “feel angry constantly seeing these colonial structures and statues that enforced assimilation upon our people”.
“It is disheartening”, says Hamilton Aboriginal Advisory Committee member Laura Workman that it has taken this long to have the discussion of removing the statue.
“At least for future generations of our people they, hopefully, if this statue does get removed … will not have to walk Downtown and not see that constant reminder all the time”.
“There is still hope that the little faces coming through now will not have to bear that burden”, Workman adds.
“When the TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report] came out, that was the time for them [City Council] to do something”, says committee member Cat Cayuga. “It needs to come down, it definitely needs to come down”, Cayuga says.
“I’m not just angry at that statue, I’m angry at how slow the City has been in terms of dealing with issues related to us”, Cayuga continues. “It needs to come down, it definitely needs to come down”.
Cayuga says carding and racism impacts Indigenous communities and the City needs to do more to address issues. “The City should not have waited this long”.
“The Sir John A. Macdonald statue remains a significant part of Hamilton history and culture and is appreciated by the citizens and city council of Hamilton”, states the Hamilton Public Library’s local history department.
Hamilton’s “Sir John A. Macdonald Society holds a celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald each year on his birthday, by placing a wreath of flowers at his statue to commemorate his accomplishments” the page continues.
The yearly gathering of Hamilton’s Sir John A. MacDonald at the statue to celebrate the birthday of MacDonald was raised as a concern during consultations with Hamilton’s Indigenous communities, Jones says.
The statue has become a place of protest in recent years.
In 2015, the members of the Indigenous communities and supporters held a protest of the statue on the 200th anniversary of MacDonald’s birth. More recently, on October 9, Land Back supporters held an information picket at the statue.
On November 9, the statue was covered in red paint.
The City’s Indigenous strategy office says planning is underway to help Hamiltonians better understand the complex legacy of MacDonald and Canada’s past.
Other local landmarks are being reviewed, with a focus upon including Hamilton’s Indigenous history in contemporary places and commemorations.
Further public consultations on this part of Hamilton’s response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will occur in 2021.
“This is our first beginning initial step”, says Jones. “We are looking for consultation on not just Sir John A MacDonald but other Indigenous landmarks as well”.

created: December 4, 2020


text:
Hamilton Council to Vote on E-Scooter Regulations – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 2, 2020
Hamilton City Council may legalize kick-style electric scooters next week. City staff are recommending the legalization of the smaller style e-scooters and electric assistance bicycles with maximum speeds of 24 kilometres/hour.
If adopted, e-scooters will be permitted on local roads, on-street bike lanes, multi-use trails adjacent to road ways, and some “key trails that provide a community connection benefit, are sufficiently wide and routinely maintained (and signed for use)”.
E-Scooters will be forbidden from us in parks, unless the City signs a route for use. The fine for operating in a park will be $100.
The City is proposing fines of between $75 to $100 for violations of e-scooter regulations.
A separate staff report will come forth in early 2021 regarding commercial e-scooter operations, such as e-scooter sharing services. A temporary by-law prohibiting commercial e-scooter operations is recommended to Council. (The temporary by-law includes stiff fines of $246.01 per e-scooter to discourage commercial operators from violating it)
If passed by Council, the new regulations will come into effect on December 16, 2020. If Council decides to not pass the proposed regulations, e-scooters will remain forbidden in Hamilton.

created: December 2, 2020


text:
No Speed Radar Cameras for Four of Hamilton Six Most Risky Stretches of Road – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 4, 2020
Despite scoring as the most dangerous stretch of road surveyed, Hamilton City Hall says it will not install a automated speed enforcement photo radar device on John Street North near Barton Street because of “roadway geometrics and on-street parking”.
The City’s Transportation Operations division reviewed 57 locations for possible installation of the cameras as part of the expansion of the City’s photo radar program.
Of the 57 locations, John Street North near Barton Street had the highest score for public safety concern, exceeding the second worst location by a noteworthy gap.
Of the top 10 locations with the most concerning scores, only half qualify for speed cameras.
Sanford Avenue North alongside Cathy Weaver Elementary School was the fourth highest ranking location reviewed, City staff state the presence of a school zone flasher means a speed camera cannot be installed at this location.
Cameras cannot be installed on Mohawk Road in front of Our Lady of Lourdes Elementary School, nor on Highway No. 8 in front of St. Francis Xavier Elementary School as the roadways are five lanes.
The use of automated cameras to enforce speed limits in Community Safety Zones began in January 2020 as a one-year pilot with data to be collected during 2020 to inform decision making.
The City’s Transportation Operations division is continuing to review traffic and speed data to determine more locations where the cameras may be installed. The cameras are rotated between locations on a two-week schedule.
In this round of expansion, staff are recommending six new locations:
Council will discuss the report during the Monday, December 7, 2020 Public Works Committee meeting starting at 1:30pm. It is Item 10.4 on the agenda. The meeting will livestream on YouTube.


text:
Proposed HSR Transit Capital Spending for 2021 Indicates Transit Will Restore Post-COVID – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 3, 2020
Hamilton’s General Manager of Public Works Dan McKinnon is moving forward with submitting planned HSR capital spending for 2021, most of which will be funded by the provincial and federal governments.
The proposed 2021 capital spend for Hamilton’s public transit agency, the Hamilton Street Railway, is $192,892,000. Of this, around 75 percent, $140,208,000 is being funded by other levels of government.
The big item is a new Transit Maintenance and Storage Facility, more commonly referred to as the “bus barn” to house the new buses and other vehicles the HSR will purchase for planning future transit expansions. This is $140,000,000.
The HSR will conduct routine replacement of existing buses, and the capital budgets proposes to purchase buses for service expansion which will occur in September 2021.
Other capital spending is for real-time operations management and information infrastructure at $4,250,000, and $2,000,000 for transit priority changes to Upper James Street as part of larger work on the major Mountain arterial road.
The HSR’s proposed operating budget for 2021 has not yet been released by City Hall.


text:
Regularly Review DARTS Clients for Eligibility: City Auditor – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 3, 2020
After years of rising costs for para-transit, in Fall 2019, Hamilton City Council asked the City’s internal auditor to review the City’s Alternative Transportation Services division to find ways of containing costs.
The auditors review ATS, hired external consultants, found administrative deficiencies, and are making recommendations which Council will consider next week.
In pre-COVID times, the politics that seniors vote would weigh heavily upon Council as one of the key recommendations is to regularly review the eligibility of present alternative transportation clients and to end the grandfathering rules which give more services to individuals who qualified for para-transit services prior to rule changes in 2012.
With years of deferred spending prior to COVID, critical infrastructure deficits, and ballooning legal expenses following City Council coverups, the budgetary pressures leading into the 2022 municipal election means Council may change its posture towards DARTS eligibility.
The City’s para-transit service, which the municipality is required to operate by provincial legislation, provided 844,007 trips in 2019 at an average cost of $26.71 per trip.
DARTS, short for Disable and Aged Regional Transit Service, has seen rides increase by 78 per cent since 2013.
Provincial regulations state the fare for DARTS must be the same as for regular transit.
Hamilton’s public transit agency, the Hamilton Street Railway (HSR), does not charge fare for passengers with mobility devices or over the age of 80. As a result, a majority of DARTS trips do not involve a passenger fare.
The City is forbidden from limiting the number of trips eligible DARTS riders take and must provide door-to-door services for DARTS users under the City’s present framework.
DARTS is officially an arms-length non-profit agency. However, all major decisions involving DARTS are made by City Council.
As part of the review, the internal auditor hired Lifemark – a company which conducts assessment reviews for other municipalities – to review 150 applications which Hamilton city staff approved as eligible for para-transit.
Of the 150, “Lifemark reached the same eligibility decision for only 49% of the applications” the auditors report states.
Two city staff review applications. The internal auditor express concern the job description and requires do not reflect the works and skills need for the position.
There two qualifications for the job “• Experience in and/or knowledge of accessibility and transit is an asset; and • Strong empathy for, and understanding of the needs of, persons with disabilities and older adults.
The internal auditor writes “these two qualifications do not encompass the technical or medical/healthcare expertise that one would expect for medical-related eligibility determinations”.
These staff approve nearly all applications “From 2017 to 2019, we found there were only seven applications denied out of 8,598 applications received and assessed”.
For decades, Hamilton City Councillors have ensured that nearly all applications for paratransit were approved.
Seniors vote in significant numbers, and this helps explain one of the reasons Council grandfathered all pre-2012 riders when eligibility was changed following the HSR operating accessible buses on a trips starting in 2009.
The internal auditor notes this grandfathering many times.
They further note that “Approximately 64% of HSR bus stops are accessible (e.g. shelter, benches and larger platform areas and entrance openings) and plans are in place to achieve 100% AODA compliance by 2025.”
The City offers a taxi subsidy program for eligible DARTS clients. For $24, DARTS clients can purchase $40 worth of taxi fare. People are limited to three books per month.
“ATS may want to explore more ways to expand the Taxi Scrip Program to take advantageof the lower cost Taxi Scrip option for clients who choose to use it”, the auditors write.
The auditors suggest the City look at allow more books to be purchased each month.
Another cost saving suggestion is to have DARTS connect riders to HSR routes for part of their trips.
“ATS may want to explore whether an integrated service model may reduce costs. The more people streamed to conventional public transit, even for part of their trip, reduces the overall cost of transit for the City”, the auditors write.
Hamilton’s Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities has expressed significant concerns with this type of plan in the past, with special concern for reliability issues such as missed connections or HSR buses lacking capacity for individuals with mobility
devices.
Council will discuss the report during the Monday, December 7, 2020 Public Works committee meeting starting at 1:30pm. It is Item 9.1 on the agenda. The meeting will livestream on YouTube.


text:
Cameron Kroetsch launches The Downtown Sparrow – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 12, 2021
The very active and involved Cameron Kroetsch launched the Downtown Sparrow today, a new site focused upon informing the neighbourhoods of Downtown Hamilton with information and data about local news, events, developments, and meetings.
Kroetsch says the name is inspired by the sparrows which nest behind Hamilton City Hall which see all the comings and goings at 71 Main Street West.
Kroetsch, who lives in Ward 2 and ran for City Councillor in 2018, says the site will track developments in the Ward and provide a platform for civic engagement. The site aspires to regularly file freedom of information requests suggested by its readers.
In the near future, with volunteer coordinators and moderators, the site hopes to expand to include Wards 1 and 3.
Visit DowntownSparrow.ca to learn more.

created: January 12, 2021


text:
City Council Offers Development Charge Settlement to Mac on For Profit Housing Development – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 30, 2021
McMaster University successfully lobbied the Ontario Progressive Conservative government for legislative changes to facilitate its new for-profit private partnership student residence.
As part of COVID pandemic omnibus legislation, the government’s Bill 213 exempted land intended to be used by McMaster University from development charges.
Last week, City Council met in closed session following this and offered a settlement to McMaster. The details are not public.
This does not resolve the most important issue regarding McMaster licensing its brand to for profit student housing – can McMaster extend its property tax exemption to this for-profit initiatives?
With the change in legislation, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal proceedings regarding McMaster’s appeal of development charges is paused.
The LPAT will hear from the City, McMaster, and Mohawk College on March 5th.

created: January 30, 2021


text:
City Council to Market Vendors: No to COVID Assistance, Pay Up or Leave – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 6, 2021
Pay up in full for 2020, or be evicted, this is the message Hamilton City Council is delivering to vendors in the Hamilton Farmers’ Market who are struggling due to COVID.
Hamilton City Council, in a closed session meeting, voted to not use federal and provincial COVID funds to offer a rent support program to vendors in the Market.
Council did not announce the decision, merely stating they have made a decision and it would remain confidential. Hamilton City Council holds more closed meetings than any other municipality in Ontario.
Vendors in the market do not qualify for the federal commercial rent support programs because the City of Hamilton is their landlord, and the federal government is already providing COVID funding to the City.
The City is expecting a surplus to end 2020, thanks to significant financial support from other levels of government. The Province announced an additional $6.4-million in COVID funding to the City of Hamilton just prior to Christmas.
All market vendors are required to pay rent, even if they had to close due to COVID restrictions. City Council is not reducing rent, despite decreasing the hours of operation at the Market.
Like many businesses in downtown commercial areas across North America, the Hamilton Farmers Market is experiencing significant decreases in business as the thousands of office workers who usually work downtown are now working from Hamilton.
Restaurants in the Farmers Market were not allowed seating due to COVID restrictions, and could not offer curbside pickup during the pandemic. The majority of restaurants were closed during the early months of the pandemic as a result.
With offices downtown closed, and no indoor dining permitted, many market vendors continue to struggle. Nonetheless, City Council is demanding full rent.
On December 16, 2020, Mayor Fred Eisenberger celebrated the release of final report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Economic Recovery.
The Mayor’s report states the commercial landlords not giving their tenants rent relief programs is a significant challenge for Hamilton’s economy. On page 12 of the report, it states there should be a “moratorium on commercial tenant evictions” and call for an expansion of government relief programs.
On November 23, 2020, Council held a closed session discussion of the rent situation at the Market. Council did not provide any details of their closed session or reasoning. On November 25, in a 13 to 1 vote, Council voted to require all vendors to agree to pay full 2020 rent and to agree to pay any arrears by October 2021 to remain in the market.
Only Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls, who sits on the Farmers Market Board of Director, voted no. Pauls continues to support providing rent relief to Market vendors.
Ward 2 City Councillor Jason Farr has issued no statements on his website, social media, or newsletter regarding the situation at the Market.
Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls, during the Hamilton Farmers Market Board of Directors meeting on Monday, revealed part of the information which Council discussed behind closed doors and is refusing to share with the public.
Pauls says she is lobbying local Progressive Conservative MPP Donna Skelly (Flamborough—Glanbrook) to change the Ontario Municipal Act.
Pauls says the City Manager’s Office told Council they cannot provide any COVID rent relief as the Municipal Act prohibits it as “bonusing”.
Pauls was quickly reminded that Council voted to not share its reasoning with the public, and did not say anything further.
The City of Cambridge and City of London both provided some rent relief at their municipally run markets.
The City of Oshawa publicly debated the matter of rent assistance for tenants in municipal buildings. Oshawa staff explained that the bonusing provisions of the Municipal Act forbid the municipality from giving a benefit to some businesses not available to all.
Mississauga voted to support 100% rent forgiveness to municipal tenants. (GC-0158-2020) Mississauga Council received legal advice in closed session prior to the decision. Mississauga follows proper protocol and limits their in-camera to advise, making decisions in public after the in-camera.
Mississauga City staff confirm they “granted rent forgiveness notwithstanding the City’s (and our tenants’) inability to access financial support through CECRA (Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance) [program]”.
City Council directed the City Manager’s Office to require all vendors to agree to pay full back rent for 2020 as part of annual lease renewals. Council is deferring interest on late rent until October 2021 when all arrears are expected to be settled.
Vendors have until January 21, the day the Market reopens after a renovation closure, to agree to payment plans for 2020 rent or they will not be allowed to continue operating at the Market.
Council expects flower, textile, and pet food vendors to continue paying rent, despite not being allowed to open under the current provincial COVID regulations.
City Council did not release the number of vendors who are behind on rent due.

created: January 6, 2021


text:
City Council Wants to Ban Letters Critical of Their Behaviour: An Analysis Why That is Illegal – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 30, 2021
Hamilton City Clerk Andrea Holland and City Solicitor Nicole Auty say it is time for Council ban the public from submitting letters regarding the behaviour of councillors from being included in the public record of meetings.
Solicitor Nicole Auty states the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not infringed by the ban.
“If we were having an outright ban then certainly there be grounds human rights”, states Auty. “There is an opportunity for those communications to come forward at the will of Council. We are not concerned that it is a limitation [on Charter Rights].”
Auty did not explain why she believes human rights legislation is involved.
“There are balancing, there are necessary balancing in terms of Charter Rights”, Auty continued. She says the proposed ban on letters to Council is not outright because City staff plan to force people to file complaints with the Integrity Commissioner which is an alternative option.
The City charges $100 to file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner, which is the firm of former City Solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski.
Atwood-Petkovski and her business partner Jeffrey Abrams have shown an extreme deference towards Council misbehaviour including tolerating multiple threats made by Councillors towards residents.
In response to the proposed ban on letter, I have submitted a letter to City Council explaining the ban is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The letter, which is 10 pages long, can be read in PDF format by clicking this link.
The letter cites legislation and case law to explain to Hamilton City Council why the proposed bylaw is illegal as a violation of the Charter and also violates the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act which governs the activities of Council.
I begin with Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, par. 51 to confirm that the Charter applies to decisions of Council and that Council cannot ‘simply avoid the application of the Charter by devolving powers to the City Clerk’.
Gammie v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula, 2014 ONSC 6209, explains that public engagement with their elected municipal governments is expressive activity afforded great protection under the Charter.
Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295, explains that government cannot unjustly regulate speech to only that which it prefers.
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 provides a practical example of the application of the Oakes Test.
No case of a municipality violating the Charter is complete without Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668.
I briefly note that the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act require that all decisions be made in public, and that Council cannot consider public correspondence regarding concerns about their behaviour in closed session. It follows that this correspondence ban is beyond the authorities granted to Council and violates provincial legislation – thus ultra vires.
Full letter below.
Joey Coleman
Ward 2 Resident
Hamilton, ON
joey@joeycoleman.ca
January 30, 2021
ATTN:
Council of the Corporation of the City of Hamilton
via email: clerk@hamilton.ca
This letter serves as my official submission to the Corporation of the City of Hamilton regarding a proposed bylaw banning letters critical of Council behaviour from being submitted as public correspondence.
In what has become an annual exercise for Hamilton City Council, Deputy City Clerk Janet Pilon, City Clerk Andrea Holland, and City Solicitor Nicole Auty have brought forth recommendations to this Council which will violate the Charter Rights of Hamiltonians to express themselves regarding matters of public interest.
In a democracy, citizens have the right to express displeasure with their elected government.
The proposal to forbid correspondence to Council is anti-democratic and violates the oath of office sworn by members of Council. (Suggested reading: Grade 10 civics curriculum)
It is quite unfortunate that it is both being proposed and being considered. In a responsibly managed municipal government, this kind of proposal would not even be contemplated, let alone made a priority during a public health emergency.
It is even more unfortunate that I must submit this correspondence with the expectation this matter will end up in Superior Court of Justice.
Legislation
Decisions of Council Subject to the Charter
In this letter, I provide Council with basic arguments against the proposed provisions of the Procedural By-Law. One can cite the Grade 10 Ontario Curriculum for civics classes to explain how the proposed Bylaw is illegal.
The City of Hamilton is a municipality incorporated under the City of Hamilton Act, 1999.  Decisions of the municipalities are bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms[1].
In a 1994 decision, Supreme Court Justice McLachlin (as she was then) wrote “It is important that municipalities not assume powers which have not been conferred on them, that they not violate civil liberties … and that abuses of power are checked.”[2]
In banning correspondence critical of Council behaviour, the City of Hamilton assumes powers to regulate speech not conferred upon it and violates civil liberties for the purpose of preventing citizens from speaking against abuses of power.
City of Hamilton v. Hamilton Distillery Co (1907) 38 S.C.R. 239 is also informative regarding the need for the Courts to intervene when municipalities seek to confer powers upon themselves which are not granted in law.
Expressive Activities, Municipal Government, and the Charter
Gammie v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula[3] is informative regarding how the Charter protects the expressive activities of residents in seeking redress with their elected municipal governments.
In the decision, the Ontario Superior Court Justice Price explains the importance of public expressive activities to the ability of residents to exercise their rights in our democracy.
Put simply, municipalities cannot regulate expression because they do not like it.
Hamilton City Council has expressed, in a 13-2 vote on February 25, 2015, the position that members of Council should be allowed to assault individuals without any consequence. The current proposed by-law bans residents from expressing disagreement with this decision in the form of written correspondence on Council agendas.
Without a doubt, written correspondence in Council agendas is expressive activity protected by the Charter. Unless a letter takes an unprotected form, “such as violence or threats of violence”, a municipality cannot ban the expression.
While Hamilton City Council may not like it when residents express the opinion that elected officials should behave themselves in a manner befitting their office, it does not have the power to prohibit residents from expressing this view to Council.
Written correspondence to Council is at the centre of municipal political life in Hamilton. During COVID, these letters take greater importance as the opportunities to engage in political life are curtailed by necessary public health measures.
Council responds to issues when it receives many letters upon matters of importance to residents of Hamilton. Debates resulting from correspondence are lengthier and more substantive as the number of letters increase. For example, the recent debates regarding the police budget are reflective of this in practice.
Similarly, while a single letter regarding traffic safety in a particular location is ignored by Council, a series of letters regarding a particular location will usually result in debate by Council. Usually, Council acts in response to letters.
This proves the effectiveness and importance of correspondence to the expressive activities of the citizens of Hamilton.
Residents who submit letters to Hamilton City Council regarding the behaviour of Councillors do so for purposes protected by guarantee of Free Expression provided in Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights.
Clearly in this instance it must be explained that “the purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment”.[4]
Political violence, intimidation, threats, and other improper behaviours engaged in by some members of Hamilton City Council discourage political and social participation.
Letters regarding Council behaviour serve to advance the goal of promoting political and social participation.
Citizens are discouraged from expressing themselves when met with hostility, intimidation, and disparaging remarks by elected officials.
Redressing this behaviour is critically important to our democracy.
Letters regarding this topic are important to the health of our democracy inviting the strongest possible protection under the Charter.
Council’s can no more prohibit these letters, than Council’s can prohibit individuals from bringing signs into Council Chambers.
As Superior Court Justice Price wrote in Gammie, Council can only regulate “the forms of signs that could be brought into Council Chambers to paper or cardboard without solid handles”.[5]
The Charter protections for written correspondence to Council are the same as attending a Council meeting. The legal principles espoused in Gammie apply to written correspondence.
It is true the Municipal Act does not implicitly require correspondence to be included in public agendas. However, when read in its entirety, the only means of meeting the requirements of open meeting rules[6] is for correspondence to be published as part of the Council agenda.
Thus, while ending all correspondence would remove the Charter violation in this instance, it would create a separate violation of law.
Once a government creates a platform for expression, that platform is subject to the Charter[7].
In Greater Vancouver, the transportation authority forbade political ads. The ads in question in this case were encouraging people to vote.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that government cannot forbid speech for political reasons.
“The policies allow for commercial speech but prohibit all political advertising … In sum, the policies amount to a blanket exclusion of a highly valued form of expression in a public location that serves as an important place for public discourse.  They therefore do not constitute a minimal impairment of freedom of expression.[8]”
Council cannot choose to only accept correspondence which it likes.
“It is clear from this Court’s s. 1 jurisprudence on freedom of expression that location matters, as does the audience”[9], Supreme Court Justice Deschamps wrote in the unanimous decision.
In the matter presently in front of Council, the location of the expression is the [virtual] City Council Chamber. The audience is the City Council.
These factors further contribute to both the appropriateness of the public addressing concerns about Council behaviour by means of written correspondence, and to the strong Charter protections afforded to this expression.
“Since the Canadian Charter clearly applies to the provincial legislatures and governments, it must, in my view, also apply to entities upon which they confer governmental powers within their authority.  Otherwise, provinces could (in the manner outlined earlier) simply avoid the application of the Charter by devolving powers on municipal bodies”[10], wrote Supreme Court Justice Major in Godbout explaining why the Charter applies to municipalities.
It follows that Council cannot remove Charter protections from correspondence by devolving an authority to the City Clerk.
Simply put, the City Clerk cannot exercise the authority to decide when a letter is, or is not, critical of Council.
Irwin Toy[11] provides an effective reference explaining how the Superior Court will strike down this Bylaw.
The Court will determine that correspondence regarding Council behaviour is within the scope of protections afforded by the Charter.
The Court will find that the purpose of this government action is to restrict that freedom of expression. An Oakes Test will be applied, and this bylaw will not be saved by Section 1 of the Charter.
I will briefly address Bracken v. Fort Erie[12] before providing an Oakes Test for Council’s consideration.
The facts of Bracken need not be exhaustively detailed in this letter. Much like the basics of civics taught in Grade 10, the facts of this case should already be well known to members of Hamilton City Council
Writing for a unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice Miller provides some key insights relevant to the matter before Council in the proposed bylaw.
In paragraph 54:
“Freedom of expression has received broad protection in Canadian law, not only through the Charter, but also through legislation and the common law. As Rand J. noted in Saumur v. City of Quebec, 1953 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, at p. 329: “Strictly speaking, civil rights arise from positive law; but freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of self-expression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.” Section 2(b) further entrenches the limits on government action in order to safeguard the ability of persons to express themselves to others. As expressed in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, at pp. 968-969:
Freedom of expression was entrenched in our Constitution and is guaranteed … so as to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream. Such protection is, in the words of both the Canadian and Quebec Charters, “fundamental” because in a free, pluralistic and democratic society we prize a diversity of ideas and opinions for their inherent value both to the community and to the individual. Free expression was for Cardozo J. of the United States Supreme Court “the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom” (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), at p. 327); for Rand J. of the Supreme Court of Canada, it was “little less vital to man’s mind and spirit than breathing is to his physical existence” (Switzman v. Elbling,  1957 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1957] S.C.R. 285, at p. 306). And as the European Court stated in the Handyside case, Eur. Court H. R., decision of 29 April 1976, Series A No. 24, at p. 23, freedom of expression:
. . . is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.” (par. 25)
“There can be no question that the area in front of a Town Hall is a place where free expression not only has traditionally occurred, but can be expected to occur in a free and democratic society. The literal town square is paradigmatically the place for expression of public dissent.”
Continuing, Justice Miller writes in paragraphs 57 and 58:
I acknowledge that several of the affiants attested that Mr. Bracken’s speech was incomprehensible, and that the application judge made that finding. But again, the finding was unsupportable. Some affiants, up on the balcony or elsewhere on the second floor, might not have heard him distinctly. Others, who distinctly heard him saying “kill the bill” might not have had sufficient context to understand the message. That did not make his speech “incomprehensible”, with the insinuation – made in various places in the Town’s affidavits – that Mr. Bracken was raving. To the contrary, Mr. Brady, watching from the atrium and well-acquainted with Mr. Bracken’s grievances, heard Mr. Bracken and clearly understood what he was saying. He didn’t like it.
Mr. Bracken’s speech, that day, was directed towards protesting the expected adoption of a by-law that he understood to be promoting the interests of a marijuana facility across from his home. He wanted the by-law defeated. He also criticized the members of Town Council. No doubt, they did not like being called liars and communists. Mr. Brady did not like Mr. Bracken calling for him to be fired. On cross-examination, he stated that Mr. Bracken had no right to say so. He viewed it as a threat to his livelihood. The language was neither polite nor restrained. But as this Court pointed out in Cusson v. Quan, 2007 ONCA 771, 87 O.R. (3d) 241, rev’d 2009 SCC 62, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 712, at para 125: “(d)emocracy depends upon the free and open debate of public issues and the freedom to criticize the rich, the powerful and those … who exercise power and authority in our society… Debate on matters of public interest will often be heated and criticism will often carry a sting and yet open discussion is the lifeblood of our democracy.”
The Oakes Test
The Oakes Test[13] is the burden which Hamilton City Council must meet to prove to the Superior Court that this ban is a reasonable limit on free expression that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Firstly, is the objective of the bylaw both “pressing and substantial”?
The objective of the bylaw is to stifle public discourse regarding the behaviour of elected officials. This is not a pressing government objective.
It is not even a government objective. It is a personal political desire of some members of Hamilton City Council.
This bylaw fails this first test.
Most laws subjected to Charter challenge meet this hurdle, that this bylaw will not speaks to just how far outside the range of reasonableness it is.
For the sake of legal argument, let’s assume a Court decided to allow the Bylaw to pass the first test.
The propose of this assumption is purely to demonstrate how the bylaw will fail on the second stage proportionality analysis.
The infringement is rationally connected to “the law’s purpose” which is to stifle expression critical of Council. There is no other means to achieve this purpose. Therefore, it will meet this part of the analysis.
The infringement is not a minimal impairment. It is a blanket ban on all discourse regarding Council behaviour. It fails on minimal impairment.
The proportionate effects are much too grave for any Court to entertain allowing this bylaw to stand. Beyond stifling debate regarding Council behaviour, the bylaw will allow behaviours which intimidate residents and prevent them from engaging in democratic processes.
Ultra Vires
Ontario Regulation 55/18 requires municipal councillors to codify a Code of Conduct which includes a section regarding “respectful conduct, including conduct toward officers and employees of the municipality or the local board, as the case may be.”
The proposed ban on critical letters regarding the conduct of members of council not only violates the Charter. It is ultra vires.
Council is required by regulation to consider submissions from the public regarding Council behaviour. The Council cannot consider the letters in closed session as per the open meeting requirements.
The Council cannot pass bylaws beyond the powers granted to it, or restricted by, the Province of Ontario.
Conclusion
The proposed ban on correspondence critical of Council behaviour fails all legal tests.
If Council wishes to proceed to pass this illegal bylaw, I will take the necessary steps to challenge at the Superior Court of Justice to uphold the fundamental foundations of our democracy.
Submitted by:
Joey Coleman
Resident, City of Hamilton
[1] Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, par. 51.
[2] Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231.
[3] Gammie v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula, 2014 ONSC 6209
[4] R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731
[5] Gammie v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula, 2014 ONSC 6209 at par. 92
[6] Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, s 239
[7] Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295
[8] Ibid at par. 77
[9] Ibid at par. 78
[10] Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, par. 51
[11] Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927
[12] Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668
[13] R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103