text:
Hamilton’s Mayoral Candidates Agree There’s a Housing Crisis – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 6, 2022
Hamilton’s three front-runner mayoral candidates discussed the affordable housing crisis last night at a forum organized by the Hamilton is Home.
Hamilton is Home is a coalition formed by our city’s non-profit and charitable housing providers.
Keanin Loomis, Bob Bratina, and Andrea Horwath all agree there is a housing crisis.
They all want to see more affordable housing built – with a spectrum of affordability – across Hamilton.
The most significant difference between them came in response to a question if they support inclusionary zoning along the B-Line LRT line and if they will end exclusionary zoning.
The three agree on implementing inclusionary zoning.
Horwath and Loomis both say they will end exclusionary zoning. Doing so will enable “missing middle” housing in neighbourhoods.
Bratina did not answer the exclusionary zoning portion of the question.
The City can require a percentage of new builds along the LRT corridor to be affordable using the inclusionary zoning provisions of the Planning Act.
They all agree that Hamilton City Council’s definition of “affordable” as 125% of the average market rate is wrong.
The 125% definition was passed by Council in 2016.
In 2017, Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr attempted to get affordable housing incentive funding for a new above-market-rate development at 210 Main Street East.
His attempt was unsuccessful. In a face-saving vote, the rest of Council amended Farr’s motion to instead have staff return with a report. The report was never brought back.
The mayoral candidates all stated they would lobby the provincial government to give Metrolinx-owned land along the LRT corridor over to affordable housing providers once construction is complete. Metrolinx purchased over 60 full properties along the route, with further expropriations underway.
Many of these properties were rental housing, at below-average rates. The displacement of hundreds of tenants sparked opposition to the project. Neither the province nor Metrolinx has committed to affordable housing along the route.
Horwath’s answers focused on her shared goals with affordable housing providers and those in the room. She cited her experiences working on tenant issues in local government and continuous advocacy on housing.
Loomis’ answers focused on how he would govern, including a promise to dedicate a staffer in his office to affordable housing and have a city staff member appointed as a “housing czar.”
Bratina shared his experiences as Ward 2 city councillor from 2004 to 2010 responding to NIMBYism, citing “missing middle” projects he voted in favour of during that time despite community opposition.
Loomis and Horwath both committed to decreasing city fees and charges for affordable housing projects.
Bratina said that doing so means those costs will still have to get paid for. Waivers would have to be charged to the property tax levy. He committed to addressing processes which delay affordable housing.
Civility prevailed as candidates answered questions. There were critical comments about each other’s platforms. The candidates focused on their own positions.
Around 150 people attended the event. For many of them, this was the first time hearing directly from the candidates.
There were no open questions from the floor.
The three mayoral candidates were given tables at the back of the room to distribute campaign literature.
Bratina did not have pamphlets or materials on his table.
Loomis’s table included pamphlets.
Horwath’s table had printed copies of her full platform along with pamphlets.
Ultimately, the forum served to put the candidates’ commitments to affordable housing on the record with their promises. Promises they will be expected to fulfil if elected mayor.
Hamiltonians vote on October 24th. Advance polls open on Friday.

created: October 6, 2022


text:
Joey’s TPR Election Blog: City of Hamilton Advance Voting By Ward – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 17, 2022
Hamilton’s municipal candidates were sent a ward-by-ward breakdown of Hamilton’s advance voting by the City Clerk earlier today. A few candidates forwarded the email to TPR.
Ward One          1883
Ward Two          1517
Ward Three       2104
Ward Four         1811
Ward Five          2340
Ward Six            2439
Ward Seven       2635
Ward Eight        1807
Ward Nine         1558
Ward Ten           2911
Ward Eleven      1745
Ward Twelve      2912
Ward Thirteen   2489
Ward Fourteen  1803
Ward Fifteen      1765
Total:                   31719
This represents an increase of approximately 80 percent compared to the 2018 election when 17,052 voters cast advance ballots.
The City Clerk’s memo further states that 632 vote by mail envelopes have been returned to City Hall.
The total number of ballots officially cast as of Monday at 8:00 am is 32,351.
The City Clerk has not publicly released the number of eligible voters for next Monday’s vote.
There were 361,212 voters registered on the 2018 election list.
Hamilton’s population grew by 6 percent between the 2016 and 2021 censuses.
For ease of calculation, let’s presume an increase in the number of eligible voters of 5 percent during the past four years.
Voter turnout, thus far, likely stands at approximately 8.5 percent.
Hamilton’s elections since amalgamation have seen an average turnout of 38 percent.
As I noted in a separate blog post yesterday, recent federal and provincial elections experienced record high advance voting, but record low overall turnout.
Vancouver’s municipal election on Saturday reported a similar trend.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: October 17, 2022

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


text:
Joey’s TPR Election Blog: Even If Advance Voting Is Up, Overall It May Go Down – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 16, 2022
Update: CHCH reporting the City of Hamilton tells them 31,719 advance votes were cast
The City of Hamilton will likely release advance voter turnout numbers on Monday or Tuesday.
The turnout may be a new record high number of advance ballots cast.
There were 17,052 advance ballots cast in 2018, an all-time high, and keeps with Hamilton’s trend of increasing advance voting during the past decade.
Record advance voter turnout is not a predictor, nor an indicator, for overall voter turnout.
There has been no correlation between advance voting and overall turnout in Hamilton since 2000.
If the recent federal and provincial elections are any indicators, we should expect record-low voter turnout.
There were approximately 1.07-million advance ballots cast in the Ontario provincial election earlier this year, up from 700,000 in 2018.
However, overall voter turnout plummed to 43.5%, setting a new all-time low.
Similarly, in 2021, a record number of advance ballots were cast in the federal election. Overall turnout dropped “near historic lows.”
Voters in Vancouver voted for their mayor, councillors, and other municipal officials yesterday.
Before election day, there was a significant increase in the number of advance ballots cast compared to recent elections.
“A municipal election that brought sweeping change to B.C.’s two largest cities saw lower turnout than the 2018 contest,” writes Ian Holliday of CTV Vancouver in a story today.
The City of Toronto, which also completed its advance voting days yesterday, is reporting a decrease in the number of advance ballots cast this year.
If you asked me a few months ago, I would have predicted record voter turnout this October.
After all, this is a change election for Hamilton.
There is always a percentage of the population which is content and does vote when their municipal government is fulfilling the basics.
There are variations of sayings that so long as the garbage is picked up, snow is removed from roads, and clean water comes out of the tap, the local politician will keep their job.
Frustration motivates people to vote, and when frustrated people show up to vote, incumbents lose.
This happened in London (Ontario) 2014, Winnipeg 2014, and Burlington 2018 – all elections which saw incumbents swept out of office by frustrated and disappointed voters.
Voter turnout in London increased nearly four percentage points in 2014, reaching 43.24 percent, ‘the best turnout since 1994 and a significant jump from 39.91 percent in 2010.’
(Turnout decreased to 39.46 percent in 2018, London’s average from 2000 to 2010 was 37.9 percent. [i])
Winnipeg’s 2014 voter turnout increased to 50.23 percent from 47.1 percent.
Last election (2018), our neighbours in Burlington booted three of the four incumbents seeking reelection on their seven-person council.
Voter turnout increased to “nearly 40 percent” from 34.1 percent.
Ask me now what my prediction for Hamilton’s voter turnout is and I will respond that I have no idea.
If you say to me that I must place a bet, I will gamble that voter turnout is going to decrease – even if there are a record number of advance votes cast.
In 2014, the number of advance ballots cast in Hamilton increased slightly compared to 2010.
Voter turnout dropped to 34.0 percent from 2010’s record high of 40.5 percent.
2014’s 34.0 percent is the lowest turnout since amalgamation in 2000.
We’ll find out next week what happens.
Footnotes
[i] Anderson, Cameron D, and Laura B Stephenson. “London.” Big City Elections in Canada, by Jack Lucas and R. Michael McGregor, University of Toronto Press, 2021, pp. 127–145.

created: October 16, 2022


text:
Joey’s TPR Election Blog: Some Ward Race Possibilities – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

October 18, 2022
Last Wednesday, October 12, I spoke about the dynamics of City Council races in Wards 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, and 14 yesterday on the Cable 14 show QCC hosted by Tara Crugnale.
Evelyn Myrie was the other guest in the discussion. It was quite nice to see Evelyn again, it has been a long time.
We chatted about a few of the ward-level races.
The following is a summarization of my on-air comments
I noted that I’ve begun drafting possible election night stories.
My goal for election night is to provide readers with an insightful summary and analysis of outcomes.
I am motivated by reading the excellent work that Fred Vallance-Jones did for TheSpec in the 90s and the 2000 municipal election in quickly publishing insightful analysis.
One of those possible outcomes I’m writing a draft for is Walter Furlan winning in Ward 3.
I explained my reasoning on-air.
Myrie stated my “prediction” was surprising, considering Nann’s record of achieving what she said she would do on Council.
I emphasized that this is not a prediction; it is a possibility. This is an important distinction.
Trying to predict any outcomes in this municipal election is like trying to read tea leaves that are mixed in coffee grinds.
My usual methods of finding indicators do not presently exist.
A vast majority of people who used to express themselves on Twitter now remain silent. [They read, they DM, and they do not publicly engage]
Neighbourhood associations and community organizations are still rebuilding from COVID shutdowns.
I encounter fewer people in my travels than I used to, both because people are busier than ever [catching up with people and events post-COVID] and because I maintain my own COVID precautions.
Turning to possible outcomes.
Municipal elections are decided by homeowners and homeowner issues.
Homeowners directly receive their property tax bills, whereas renters [who pay a higher mill rate] do not directly see their property taxes.
This dynamic must be weighted while considering the range of reasonably possible outcomes.
I am drafting for the possibility that Walter Furlan wins in Ward 3.
Why am I drafting this possibility?
Firstly, there is plenty of chatter within politicial circles that predictive models are showing a possible upset. There are various campaigns and people who do private modelling.
Secondly, the number of Furlan signs on lawns across the northern and western portions of the ward indicate voter support for him as a candidate.
There are other signals of a challenge for incumbent councillor Nrinder Nann.
Social services are moving from Ward 2 to Ward 3. The Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre and Mission Services are the two highest-profile moves.
Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr is including the planned move of Mission Services among his listed achievements in his campaign literature.
Jason Farr is a resident of Ward 3 and is endorsing Walter Furlan.
Concerns regarding the number of social services in the Stinson neighbourhood are being expressed by some unexpected groups.
St. Patrick’s Church, which provides street outreach in the community, went public with its concerns.
There are concerns about supervised consumption sites (injection sites) planned for opening in Ward 3.
Petty property crime is a concern.
Historically, in local elections across North America, petty property crime concerns lead to the election of traditionally expressive “law and order” candidates.
Walter Furlan and Nrinder Nann are both standard bearers for their political worldview.
Nann has delivered on her promises from 2018. She has one of the best attendance records on Council.
Her voters should be showing up to support her. She has good campaign team and a Get Out The Vote operation.
Asked my thoughts on Ward 4, I was very careful not to mention candidate names as I could not possibly give each their due.
I have absolutely no idea what will occur on election night in this ward with 11 candidates.
I took the time to note we are blessed by the choices, these are good people with good ideas, and I really hope each of them becomes further engaged in civic governance regardless of the outcome.
Myrie noted a few candidates by name, and I shared how those individuals have impressed me.
See Ward 4 commentary above.
I noted my personal disappointment in the number of Ward 5 candidates stating they will oppose all development, intensification, and in-fill.
They do not have this power.
Yes, they can oppose all applications, and send them off to the Ontario Land Tribunal for approval.
This approach only leads to the worse possible outcomes.
Developers do not engage in the give-and-take of community consultation because they know their application is going to the Tribunal.
Development costs are increased, developers cut corners, and the final product is more costly for the purchaser or renter.
So much for housing affordability!
No intensification means no new tax revenues.
So much for controlling tax increases!
I will lower your taxes and stop development is a lie.
Seniors in Downtown Stoney Creek want a coffee shop again.
I want Downtown Stoney Creek to have a coffee shop once again!
Parkermanns is gone, and the Tim Hortons is closed.
While the Legion does a fine enough coffee, it is not a coffee shop where people can easily and casually gather at all hours of the day and evening.
The demographics of the present Downtown Stoney Creek make it difficult to operate a viable coffee shop. The many seniors who live in Downtown Stoney Creek do so on fixed incomes.
It is cliché to say, the seniors are not buying lattes which are most profitable for cafes.
Downtown needs people, it needs a mix of demographics. This means mid-rise buildings along King Street outside of the heritage district.
Candidates claiming they will ensure Downtown Stoney Creek gets a coffee shop [spoiler alert: municipalities cannot dictate specific use] while stopping any development along the King Street arterial corridor are lying in every single regard.
I noted there are some good candidates in this race, and I quite enjoyed interviewing them.
Esther Pauls versus Scott Duvall.
I expect Pauls to win this race because of her high level of energy – she is canvassing the ward multiple times and her likeability.
People really like Esther Pauls. She does not have a malicious bone in her body. Yes, she’s had embarrassing moments on Council, and she’s taken controversial stances.
There are no defining issues in the ward.
This may explain why Pauls and Duvall spent most of their debate arguing over a pothole on Duvall’s street.
This is another one-on-one race.
Crugnale noted that incumbent Arlene Vanderbeek was re-elected in 2018.
The lowest vote percentage of any incumbent.
She asked me, does this mean in a two person race that she is going to be defeated?
Firstly, I noted that I’ve been impressed by Alex Wilson for many years. I am very happy to see Wilson running and contributing to our civic life.
I first met Wilson in 2017/18 when another McMaster undergraduate student introduced us. The first impression was great, Wilson is very smart and very insightful.
In the Ward 13 race, Wilson is at the disadvantage of not having a lot of runaway due to beginning the campaign later than a typical challenger campaign.
Wilson has stepped into the void left behind when Ted McMeekin changed his plays to run in Ward 13 and moved over to Ward 15 after incumbent Judi Partridge announced her retirement.
It was widely known that McMeekin planned to challenge Vanderbeek. This is why other potential candidates decided not to run.
With 65 percent of voters in 2018 voting against her, does this mean Vanderbeek is likely to be defeated this time?
I responded by noting the 2018 third-place finisher John Mykytyshyn is a big C Conservative.
Will the 18 percent of voters who chose him now vote for an NDPer?
Wilson is a member of the NDP and is employed by NDP MPP Sandy Shaw.
I noted Ward 14’s voting patterns are traditionally centre-right. A few months ago I predicted a centre-right candidate to win the ward.
Today, there is a good possibilty Kojo Damptey will win the ward for the following reasons I stated on air.
Damptey registered on May 2, and immediately went to work campaigning. He has canvassed the entire ward multiple times.
He quickly pivoted his talking points to include, and often focuses upon, homeowner issues.
His campaign is fully funded. He is able to spend the maximum.
Myrie gave a good analysis of this ward as well. (Her words escape me now and I do not wish to risk an inaccurate recollection of them.)
Myrie quickly noted that Don Ross, a former City of Hamilton alderman, is among the candidates.
I noted that Ross is a good person, and I really hope he gets involved in citizen committees this term of office.
[I think he be a good member of the Committee of Adjustment if Bob Charters is replaced. It is good to have one former city council member on the CoA.]
Michael Spadafora is the other possibility to win this Ward, and his politics is more of a fit for the centre-right nature of this area.
I noted that provincially and federally, most of the polls located within Ward 14 vote more Conservative than the rest of Hamilton Centre and Hamilton-West Ancaster Dundas.
In the 2000 Hamilton municipal election mayoral race between Hamilton Mayor Bob Morrow and Ancaster Mayor Bob Wade, the polls of what is now Ward 14 had more in common with the suburbs than the rest of the old City.
It is clique and true to say getting out the vote matters here.
I framed the question to be answered on election day as:
Who has the better voters list, Damptey who is creating his list or Spadafora who benefits from the existing Conservative voters list which he is adding to while going door-to-door?
After the airing of the show, I realized I missed the opportunity to note how close the 2016 Ward 7 by-election was between John-Paul Danko and Conservative Donna Skelly.
Similar to Danko, Damptey is an upstart facing off against a well-tuned political machine.
Danko nearly won the 2016 by-election. Hamilton’s media ignored and dismissed Danko. Damptey is receiving fair coverage.
We did not discuss the other wards.
Obviously, I am preparing drafts and outlines for various scenarios across Hamilton.
I will return to Cable 14 for this week’s QCC panel tomorrow.
It airs at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, livestreaming on Cable14Now.com

created: October 18, 2022


text:
BRIEF: Ancaster Village Heritage Advocates Say Premier Ford’s Zoning “Will Destroy Ancaster Village” – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 7, 2022
Bob Maton of the Ancaster Village Heritage Committee, a resident organization, issued a statement this afternoon on behalf of the group responding to the Ontario Progressive Conservative government’s decision Friday to overturn the Ancaster low-density limit in Hamilton’s new Official Plan amendments.
In its decision posted Friday, the Province removed Ancaster’s exception from Hamilton’s city-wide community nodes planning policy.
Ancaster was exempted from the density requirements expected of nodes.
The city-wide policy for lands designated Mixed Use Medium
Density in Community Nodes is also amended to have a maximum permitted as-of-right height of six storeys.
New developments can build to eight stories if they meet height and design criteria. The City can impose standards such as an angular plane requirement.
Page 7 of the Province’s ruling [Provincial additions in Bold, removed portions in strikethough]:
32. Policy E.2.3.3.12 in Section 4.1.4 of Official Plan Amendment No. 167, Appendix D – Volume 1: Chapter E – Urban Systems and Designations is deleted and replaced so that it reads:
Notwithstanding any secondary plans, and notwithstanding policy B.1.2 of Volume 2, Chapter B of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, lands designated Mixed Use Medium Density in Community Nodes shall contain a range of densities and buildings heights to a maximum of six storeys. Additional density above 150 units per hectare and additional height up to a total of eight storeys may be permitted without an amendment to this Plan, provided the applicant demonstrates:
a) there are no adverse shadow impacts created on existing residential uses within adjacent lands designated Neighbourhoods;
b) buildings are progressively stepped back from adjacent areas designated Neighbourhoods. The Zoning by-law may include an angular plane requirement to set out an appropriate transition and stepping back of heights; and,
c) buildings are stepped back from the street to minimize the height appearance from
the street, where necessary.”
Page 13 of the Province’s ruling:
74. [New] Policy 2.8.6.1 g) is deleted from the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Volume 2: Chapter B-2 –
Ancaster Secondary Plans as shown below:
The effect of the decisions is to allow mid-density development with as-of-right zoning permissions. The decision does not restrict nor constrain the ability of the City of Hamilton to enforce heritage protections, design requirements, and other local zoning standards which follow the intent of provincial planning policy.
The following is the statement issued by Bob Maton on behalf of the AVHC:
“These are AVHC’s thoughts about the Ford government Ministerial Order which permits, as of right, development of up to 6 storeys and density of 150 units/hectare in Ancaster Village – or in some cases 8 storeys subject to a couple of conditions.
The Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan design guidelines are still in place it appears, but how do you dress up 6 or 8 storeys to fit in to the Village heritage context?
Bottom Line: The Order to allow 6-8 storeys encourages the demolition of all structures in the Village Core, and ensures there can be no public process to try to stop that. If it proceeds, Ancaster Village, within a decade, will be 6- to 8- storey buildings. Period. And the Ministerial Order does not affect the rest of the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan, only the Village. Say what?
We can safely say that the Provincial Order is tailored to force through, against City policy, the 8-storey Manchia/Spallaci development at the corner of Academy and Wilson Streets, and secondarily the 7-storey development at Rousseaux and Wilson Streets. It now seems certain that the 1840 Marr-Phillipo House at that corner will be demolished.
These changes to the Ancaster Wilson Street Secondary Plan by Doug Ford ensure the destruction of every building in the Village Core. Ancaster history is being erased.
Over the next couple of weeks we will be working to confront this Order. ”

created: November 7, 2022


text:
BRIEF: City of Hamilton Planning Division Reorgs and Expands – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 10, 2022
The City’s Planning Department is reorganizing with an expansion in managers as the City works to meet new strict Planning Act deadlines which come into effect on January 1, 2023.
Beginning in January, the City must make decisions on Site Plan applications within 60 days and Council must vote upon Zoning By-law Amendment applications within 90 days. Municipal Councils will have 120 days to decide on ZBAs that seek Official Plan Amendment as well.
Municipalities must refund fees if they fail to meet the deadlines.
The new Planning Division plan adds a management layer with two new Directors to oversee Planning’s two main sections. Each of the sections will add a Manager as well.
Presently, the Development Planning section – which receives, processes, and makes recommendations on all planning applications – has a single “manager” who oversees three “senior project managers”. The SPMs are actually managers, who each oversee a geographical area: Urban, Suburban, and Rural.
Turnover in planning is high. Having two managers will enable the City to pay a wage which will hopefully lead to management stability, resulting in better workflow management. The constant turnover (private sector jobs are more attractive for junior and mid-career planners), including at the SPM level, has caused delays in processing applications.
The new positions were posted earlier this fall. The hiring process is underway.
City Hall is expected to reveal its present Planning Division staffing levels at the November 29 Council Planning Committee Meeting.
The City revamped nearly all policies regarding planning submissions and required studies.
ZBAs and OPAs must conduct a pre-submission process before the City will deem an application complete.
Expectations for supporting documentation are more rigid, with the City indicating in recent Development Industry Liaison Committee meetings that failure to meet requirements will result in a recommendation for denial to City Council.
Before the Planning Act changes, most application processes would involve significant back-and-forth between City staff and developers to reach agreement before being sent to Council will a recommendation for approval.
The new City of Hamilton website no longer lists all the policies in a single place.

created: November 10, 2022


text:
BRIEF: City Updates With Costs Thus Far Fixing 26-Year Sewage Leak – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 24, 2022
In an email at 1:13 pm today, the City of Hamilton disclosed costs thus far in responding to an improperly designed sewage line that flowed into a stormwater trunk for 26 years.
The trunk discharged directly into Hamilton Harbour.
The email reads:
Good afternoon, [we] wanted to provide the following update on the Burlington Street sewage spill:
– Please be advised the repair work and realignment of the sewer was completed last night; combined sewage is now flowing into the Western Sewer Interceptor and all appropriate blocking of the combined sewer has been completed
– City Staff also notified the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Spills Actions Centre that the repairs are complete (Wednesday night at 9:32pm)
– City Staff are still doing the calculations to estimate the volume of sewage that was released and we will report publicly on that when the work is completed.
– Estimated costs
— Excavation and repair/realignment of the sewer- $17,000
— Onsite vacuuming of combined sewer wastewater to stop the spill – $9,830
— Permanent restoration of the road (future work) $3,000
CHCH’s Queen’s Park Producer Randy Rath reports “Ontario’s Environment Ministry is requiring Hamilton to audit its entire sewage infrastructure and come up with a remediation plan to clean up the mess.”
CHCH is the only Hamilton media outlet with a staff member at Queen’s Park.
The City sent a follow-up email at 2:10 pm, which states the City has not yet received an order from the Ministry of the Environment.
The email reads:
– The repair has stopped the flow of sewage to the harbor and the vacuum trucks have left the site
– Additional clarification below in red that notification was provided to the MECP of the repairs being complete last night at 9:32 p.m.; per the release sent on Tuesday, MECP was notified of the spill on Tuesday, November 23
– Here is the link to the media release on Tuesday and Mayor Horwath’s statement
– The City has not received an order from the MECP at this time, but in the event that the City does receive an order, will be happy to speak about it at that time

created: November 24, 2022


text:
BRIEF: Hamilton-Wentworth Public Trustees Set Their 2023 Pay Honorarium – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 7, 2022
Hamilton’s outgoing public school trustees, seven of whom were re-elected last month, passed their 2023 honorarium at $13,757 plus a bonus of $50 per meeting for attending standing committees.
The Board Vice-Chair’s honorarium will be $17,492 and the Chair will be paid $21,227.


text:
BRIEF: Mississauga Loses Court Appeal Against Election Record Transparency – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 26, 2022
Ontario’s Divisional Court, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the determination of Ontario’s Privacy Commission to order the release of 2018 election records in Mississauga, dismissing an appeal by Mississauga’s City Clerk against a ruling of Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) that determined where the MEA states all election records are public documents.
The Act states they are public documents.
This case has some interesting quirks to this case.
Firstly, the request for a 2018 ward-level voter spreadsheet was made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. By dealing with it under MFIPPA, the case went to Ontario’s Privacy Commission.
Secondly, the City of Mississauga did not avail itself of the ability of a Municipal Clerk to seal the list of who voted inside of ballot boxes.
Once sealed inside the ballot box, Section 86(6.1) states that s. 88(5) “does not entitle a person to inspect the contents of a ballot box.
Hamilton’s City Clerk is availing themselves of this provision to permanently block 2022 candidates from verifying voter lists after the City’s elections portal crashed on election day.
[The City of Hamilton had to declare an emergency due to the gross errors at numerous polling stations throughout the day, including the City turning away voters at times.]
Judicial reviews by the Divisional Court presume deference to specialized decision-makers such as the IPC. In dismissing Mississauga’s appeal, the Court noted that Mississauga failed to advance its stronger arguments at the IPC, instead attempting to enter them for the first time in Court. The Court declined to consider new arguments.
The dissenting Justice wrote they would’ve returned the matter to the IPC for reconsideration in light of new evidence, and also for a determination if an electronic version of a record that paper version would be exempt from disclosure within a ballot box should also be exempt.
Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs conducts a review following each municipal election cycle.
It will be interesting to see if the MEA is changed in light of the 2018 events in Mississauga and the similar situation that unfolded in Hamilton last month.

created: November 26, 2022


text:
City of Hamilton’s 2022 Deficit Over $25-Million with Higher Than Previous Years Tax Increases Forecast for 2023 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 27, 2022
The City of Hamilton’s 2023 budget meetings are now well underway.
Hamiltonians should expect higher-than-usual tax and rate increases this year due to inflation and the costs of years of deferred costs, and deferred infrastructure maintenance.
Water rates are forecast to increase by 6.49 percent, the City property tax rate is forecast to increase by 6.9 percent while dipping into the City’s remaining reserve funds, and the City’s tax-supported capital is forecast to increase by 0.92 percent while increasing the City’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit.
Additionally, Council will need to cover a forecast $16.4-million deficit for 2022. The City’s budget office states “financial pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic response” and “$76.4 M in pressures related to COVID-19 response and recovery efforts for 2022” are the primary causes of the deficit.
The City is forecasting to spend $23.0 million on COVID “response and recovery” in 2023.
The meeting was not live-streamed. The City Manager’s Office has not released any records or further records to the public.
The slides from City management state COVID recovery efforts will be a major budget pressure in 2023.
Hamiltonians should expect a 6.49 percent increase in their water rates in 2023, according to another slide.
The 2023 increase will bring the cost of 200 cubic metres of annual water use to approximately $877.48.
The City’s draft 2023 operating budget is not yet public. A slide was shown to Council during a November 9, 2022, orientation session indicating staff believe an 8.1 percent operating budget is necessary for 2023.
The slide shows a 4.3 percent budget increase for 2024, and 3.9 percent for 2025.
The new members of Hamilton’s City Council state they wish to address the City’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure. They need to increase annual infrastructure spending to decrease the deficit’s growth. With decades of neglect, it will take more than a single council term to close the gap.
The draft Capital Levy increase is 0.92 percent, but it comes with a reduced number of projects due to ‘staffing constraints’ and inflation.
During Friday’s initial capital budget meeting, many members of Council probed if this is the best value for money considering the extent of the City’s infrastructure deficit.
Members of Council questioned only increasing the asset management levy by 0.5 percent for 2023.
Council will further debate the capital budget on Friday December 2, with approval expected at the December 7 Council ratification meeting.

created: November 27, 2022


text:
COLEMAN: Shit Happens – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 24, 2022
Shit happens.
Hamilton’s 26-year wastewater leak into Hamilton Harbour from approximately 50 homes is best summarized as shit happens.
Director of Hamilton Water Nick Winters says a preliminary investigation, looking at construction documents, indicates a consultant intentionally drilled a hole from a wastewater line to a stormwater main which flows directly into Hamilton Harbour.
The City discovered the issue Tuesday morning during preparation for upcoming maintenance work. The Mayor was informed that afternoon, a hastily called press conference followed, and then Council was informed.
The response from the Mayor, as the head of the new Council, was exactly what they promised – immediate transparency.
Transparency was easy for the new Council. This is not their mess. It did not happen under their watch.
One person made a stupid mistake in 1996. Nobody caught it at the time.
26 years later, when the sewer pipes came up for maintenance work, today’s staff noticed something amiss while reviewing a 2013 CCTV video.
They immediately investigated and began corrective action.
In 1996, the consultant apparently thought the wastewater line was supposed to be connected to the Harbour stormwater outfall, or something like that.
Winters took over as Acting Director in late September last year. He was only recently made permanent director.
One of his first actions last year was acknowledging the 24 billion litres sewage leak into Cootes Paradise as “significant” and “frankly inexcusable”.
He’s been transparent since taking over, and I truly believe his accounting on this latest leak.
There are over 225,000 dwelling units in Hamilton. There are tens of thousands of commercial, industrial, and institutional sewer connections.
A minor sewage line running from 50 of those is not going to be inspected unless one of the houses reports a problem.
As far as the 50 homes and businesses were concerned, everything was working fine. They flushed the toilet, and their shit disappeared.
The outfall is submerged. It is not easy to inspect. Winters stated that a large vessel was docked above it.
Even if the outfall was inspected, the flow volume from 50 homes is small relative to the stormwater trunk flow.
E. Coli from 50 homes would not noticeably elevate levels.
This is truly a case of once the mistake was made in 1996; it would not be detected until the City conducted an inspection. The City had no reason to inspect.
The real issue for the public is not this pipe, it is a pattern of fiascos in Public Works, and the fact Hamilton Water did not find this issue during recent reviews.
The CCTV footage showing the problem was recorded in 2013. Why wasn’t the problem noticed then?
Why wasn’t this problem found in 2018 when the City was secretly inspecting outfalls falling the 24-billion litre Chedoke Creek sewage spill?
Truly shit happens. In Hamilton, it just seems to happen more often.
New Mayor Andrea Horwath flushed this scandal down the proper pipe of transparency.
City staff are fixing the literal pipe, so it flushes to the water treatment plant.
Let’s hope proper hygiene continues in the future when it is this Council’s hands that are dirty.


text:
COLEMAN: The Integrity Commissioner Cannot Investigate the Spadafora Election Controversy – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 16, 2022
The Hamilton Spectator reports that people can file a complaint to Hamilton’s municipal Integrity Commissioner regarding newly elected Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora’s conduct during the election.
TheSpec report does not include a citation or expert comment regarding this interpretation of the Acts.
The Ontario Municipal Act section 223.3(1) states municipal integrity commissioners are only to investigate the “application of the code of conduct for members of council and the code of conduct for members of local boards.”
The Act does not grant Integrity Commissioners any powers to investigate alleged acts by municipal election candidates, unless the candidate is already a member of City Council and the alleged violation is directly tied to the municipal council’s code of conduct.
A search of legal databases CanLII and Westlaw finds only one Integrity Commissioner report directly relating to alleged election acts.
[Other reports include complaints about the use of municipal resources by incumbents, not electoral conduct itself.]
In Ainslie v. Ford, 2014 ONMIC 1, then Toronto Integrity Commissioner Janet Leiper did not investigate campaign finance allegations. She wrote “The issue of campaign financing is addressed by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 which is not under the jurisdiction of this office.”
Candidate Spadafora’s robocalls stated he was endorsed by then Mayor Fred Eisenberger. Eisenberger states he was willing to consider an endorsement, but did not give an endorsement.
Spadafora won by a narrow margin of 79 votes.
Did Spadafora’s claim of an Eisenberger endorsement cause 40 voters who planned to cast their ballots for runner-up Kojo Damptey to vote for him? Or did it cause enough votes to switch from other right-of-centre candidates to Spadafora for him to win?
The ethical cloud surrounding Spadafora will never be cleared up, and there is no mechanism available in the Municipal Elections Act to address concerns regarding this endorsement controversy.

created: November 16, 2022


text:
NOTED: Fairness Matters in Municipal Council Licensing Hearings – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 26, 2022
In a ruling entirely in keeping with obvious case law, Ontario’s Divisional Court is making the Municipality of Leamington redo its appeal hearing after the municipality’s Appeal Committee failed to conduct a procedurally fair hearing regarding a tavern.
Similar to Hamilton, Leamington’s Appeal Committee is composed of elected councillors.
Municipal license appeal proceedings are quasi-judicial affairs. Councillors are sitting in judgment and are expected to be independent arbitrators reviewing staff decisions.
The City’s case is made to the council panel by a lawyer, nearly always a staff lawyer. Naturally, the council members are familiar with the internal lawyer. In the Leamington case, the Councillor chairing the meeting introduced the City’s legal counsel as “our lawyer.” The Divisional Court noted this as a problem.
Adding, “It is also concerning that the Chair referred to Mr. Pritiko by his first name during the hearing, creating an impression that Mr. Pritiko had an advantage with the Appeal Committee. While these matters may seem insignificant or innocent, they could reasonably cause the Applicant to conclude that the Appeal Committee was aligned with the Municipality and would not decide the issues fairly.”
There’s much more to the ruling; Leamington’s Council violated key fairness principles.
I note this case for the benefit of the four councillors who now make up Hamilton’s License Appeal Tribunal: Ward 5’s Matt Francis, Ward 9’s Brad Clark, Ward 11’s Mark Tadeson, and Ward 13’s Alex Wilson.


text:
Hamilton Councillors All Affirmed to the King, But I Had A Story Ready If One Had Not – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 16, 2022
Editor’s Note: There were rumblings that some members of the new Hamilton City Council might object to the required oath to the King. In preparation, I wrote the following story. All members of Hamilton City Council affirmed their oath of allegiance to the King.
The Queen is dead. God save the King!
The words pronounced upon the death of the sovereign caught some by surprise when Queen Elizabeth II died.
Another tradition of our constitutional monarchy which surprises people is Canadian oaths of allegiance are sworn (or affirmed) to the reigning monarch.
Past Hamilton politicians have protested swearing allegiance to the then-Queen.
In 1992, Hamilton MP Stan Keyes sponsored a Bill in the House of Commons to amend Canada’s Constitution and change the oath sworn by Members of Parliament. Keyes’ sought to add “I will faithfully observe the laws and the Constitution of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen and as a duly elected member of the House of Commons of Canada” to the oath.
Keyes stood in the House on February 3rd and stated he was inspired by a call-in segment on CHML’s Roy Green Show. “As we are revisiting our constitution, I believe it is high time that members also swear an oath to Canada as well as the Queen.”
Shortly after, in late April 1994, Ward 5 Alderman Dominic Agostino wanted to change the councillors’ oath to swear to Canada. “We are no longer a colony of England,” Agostino was quoted as saying by TheSpec.
“We are a mature country. I still believe we should keep the oath to the Queen in there, but I would like to see us add a pledge to Canada.”
Agostino stated he was motivated by patriotism. His colleague, Ward 4 Alderman Dave Wilson, is quoted stating, “I have five children and I recognize a plea for attention.”
The proposal was not well received by City Council. No change was made.
Agostino would try to add “and to Canada” at the end of his oath a year later, on June 29, 1995, after being elected as Member of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton East.
He informed the media in advance and added the words as the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly administered the oath.
The Clerk refused to swear him in, in what was reported as the first instance of an MPP refusing to take the assigned oath. The Clerk informed Agostino he could not enter the Legislative Chamber until he took the oath without any additions or subtractions.
The Reuters news service headline in American newspapers read, “Ontario legislator barred for putting Canada in oath.”
“It is a sad day when an elected official in this country cannot sit in the Legislature that he’s been elected to because he wants to swear allegiance to Canada,” Agostino stated to the assembled media.
“Subtlety was hardly what rookie Ontario MPP Dominic Agostino had in mind yesterday when he insisted on swearing allegiance to Canada and the Queen. It’s just not done, and to add Canada to the oath would involve a messy constitutional change,” is how Hamilton-born CTV National News report Paula Newton described the news on-air the next day.
Among the onlookers at Queen’s Park that day was Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps, the Member of Parliament for Hamilton East.
The Canadian Press quotes Copps stating, “I think he’s expressing the view of a lot of Canadians that, on the eve of Canada Day we should be proud of the fact that we are Canadians.”
On July 20, Agostino swore the required oath, then read his own oath to Canada.
Jim Coyle, then a columnist at the Ottawa Citizen, described Agostino as bound for the “Hall of Egos” with him being a “walking media event” who could turn “pedestrian event into front-page news by insisting on pledging allegiance to Canada as well as the Queen.”
Agostino moved a private members bill to compel MPPs to swear a second oath to Canada (the Constitution sets the required oath of allegiance). It near made it to the final third reading.
Fast-forward to 2000 when newly elected Dundas public school trustee Ian Thompson wrote Ontario’s Minister of Education seeking amendment after swearing the required oath as a newly elected public school board trustee. He swore the required oath.
Nothing more has become of this issue in Hamilton during the past 22 years.
Tonight, the new Hamilton City Council affirmed their oaths of allegiance to King Charles III – the first time Hamilton politicians swore allegiance to a King since the death of George VI in early 1952.


text:
Hamilton Water Pipe Flowing Directly into Hamilton Harbour since 1996 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 23, 2022
A Hamilton sewage pipe has been draining directly into Hamilton Harbour since 1996.
The leak was not discovered until this morning, the City of Hamilton revealed today in a hastily called press conference.
“This morning while staff were reviewing CCTV files, closed circuit TV files, they saw something that didn’t quite make sense,” says General Manager of Public Works Carlyle Khan.  The CCTV files were from 2013.
Staff were reviewing records in preparation for upcoming work in the area.
Khan says Hamilton Water staff went out to the site in the area of Burlington Street and Wentworth Avenue North to inspect.
“What they observed there once they popped the manhole was that there was a combined sewer spilling into a storm sewer,” Khan says.
Hamilton Water Director Nick Winters says the wastewater from approximately 50 homes in the area flowed directly into Hamilton Harbour during the past 26 years.
The City is working on calculating an estimated range for the amount of wastewater that flowed directly into the harbour.
“I would expect that it’s going to be significantly less than the Chedoke Creek spill,” Winters says, adding it will be a “big number” because it is a 26-year spill.
Winters says a preliminary investigation indicates the pipe was incorrectly designed by a consultant when it was installed in 1996. “It appears that the consultant involved in that work was under the impression that all of the sewers in that area were storm sewers, and they designed a direct connection to a box culvert that leads up to Hamilton harbour.”
City crews are on site investigating, and a vacuum truck is capturing all wastewater to stop the leak.
“Residents in the area can expect to see a high level activity in that location over the next few days with trucks and other vehicles that staff work to mitigate the current leak and begin work to make the necessary repairs.”
Winters says the outflow pipe drains directly into the Harbour, it is always submerged underwater, and the amount of wastewater meant it was not detectable at the site.
“The situation that we’re describing to you today is something that shouldn’t have happened,” Winters says. “It’s my sincere hope that a situation like this is an anomaly.”
The City Manager’s Office Director of Communications and Strategic Initiatives, Matthew Grant did not make City Manager Janette Smith, former Interim City Manager Mike Zegarac, nor City Auditor Charlies Brown available for comment.  City Manager Smith was in her office, unwilling to answer any questions.
Khan began working for the City of Hamilton on May 30, 2022. Winters became Acting Director of Water in late September 2021.
Asked how many times the City’s auditors have conducted reviews of wastewater pipe processes and related files during the past 26 years, the CMO declined to provide an answer.
Asked how this was missed in 2018 when then Interim City Manager Mike Zegarac began secret reviews during the Cootes leak coverup, an answer was not provided.
City Manager Janette Smith was in City Hall. She is unwilling to answer questions regarding her review of wastewater management in 2019. Smith committed to reviewing the system after a whistleblower revealed the Cootes coverup. A cover-up she continued as City Manager.
Winters and Khan briefed Mayor Andrea Horwath around 3:30 pm today. Following this briefing, the Mayor began planning a press conference, with City staff doing their press conference first.
“Like all Hamiltonians, I’m very concerned about the news that was provided today,” the Mayor stated in a separate press conference following the City Manager’s Office briefing.
“What I want to see, what we need to see as Hamiltonians, is some evidence as to how this occurred, and was able to go undetected for this length of time.”
Horwath says her response today is part of the change she promised during the campaign.
“I think that what happened today is, is evidence of the fact that if these kinds of situations occur, we are going to be as quickly as possible, informing the public and being committed to that transparency.”
Horwath says she will ensure the public is informed as the City responds to the leak and the City’s internal auditor investigations, with “any findings made being made public as soon as possible.”
Mayor Horwath says she will, as much as possible, limit the use of in-camera sessions as Council discusses this matter to only that needed for legal advice and personnel matters. It is not just “legal risk,” Horwath says Council should be concerned about.
“It’s also the risk of losing the confidence of the people in the city of Hamilton.”
City Manager’s Office press conference, that began around 4:40 pm.
Mayor Andrea Horwath’s press conference, that began around 5:15 pm.
Note: The City only gave 22 minutes notice of the press conference. The audio is recorded on a smartphone in the room.

created: November 23, 2022


text:
Horwath’s Inaugural Speech Promises a Better City Government – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 20, 2022
There were no new shiny things promised in Mayor Andrea Horwath’s Inaugural speech.
She committed to keeping her campaign promises, to building a better Hamilton, and to improving City Hall.
Mayor Horwath’s speech outlines a four-year vision to build a deep strong fountain for the future prosperity of Hamilton, led by an efficient and effective municipal government capable of addressing the challenges facing us in housing affordability, supporting housing, health care, climate change, poverty, and education.
Horwath’s speech opened with thanks and gratitude to “the people of Hamilton who voted entrusted me with the sacred trust that is the mayoralty.” She thanked Keanin Loomis, Bob Bratina, and all candidates who ran in the municipal election. She thanked outgoing Mayor Fred Eisenberger, the outgoing Council, and stated expressed excitement for a “new era with a largely renewed Council.”
“I feel humbled because I realize the challenges our city faces – they are serious and they are profound. Some are systemic. All will require serious investment of time and thoughtful planning to be addressed in a sustainable, open, transparent, and compassionate fashion,” Horwath opened the substantive portion of her twenty-minute address.
“My term as mayor will be guided by these principles as I approach our city’s policy, governance, planning and development.”
Horwath does not just promise transparency. She is fulfiling a promise to strike her promised diverse Public Advisory Committee within her first 90 days, “tasked with recommending improvements to access, transparency and accountability at City Hall.”
Housing held the primary focus of Horwath’s speech.
“As we move forward to address our housing affordability challenges, we will recognize that safe, healthy, affordable housing is a basic human right,” Horwath stated.
She promises an approach that will provide supportive housing, accessible housing, and safe housing for those who need it.
She says, “we pressingly need to address the housing shortage our city is experiencing,” and she will work with “not-for-profit housing organizations, private market developers and the provincial and federal governments” to get housing projects “started fast” to “eliminate the affordable housing waitlist.”
There were 5,716 “active households” on the City’s affordable housing waitlist at the end of 2021.
She sent a strong message to the City Manager and the City Manager’s Office that change will happen.
Horwath will reinstate the publication of key performance indicators and open data.
“One thing I heard loud and clear during the campaign is that the residents of Hamilton want greater openness, transparency, and accountability,” Horwath stated.
“That means a City Hall that proactively maintains and publishes key performance indicators on how its operations are making Hamilton a better place for its residents.”
City Manager Janette Smith removed the City’s “Citizen Dashboard” shortly after becoming City Manager in 2019.
The dashboard pilot began in November 2018 and included near real-time data on city operations, spending, and climate change initiatives.
The City no longer publishes the key performance data in a dashboard. Some data is posted annually in reports, none of it with the breath of the removed dashboard.
The City Manager’s Office refuses to make key COVID information available as open data during the pandemic.
Horwath says the City of Hamilton needs “to develop a more streamlined and effective approach to how we use our website and our other digital channels such as social media, audio and video.”
The City Manager’s Office launched a new website in late September, removing thousands of pages of public information.
The new website does not even list bus schedules on a single page, nor even in order of route number. [It also launched without municipal election information, in the middle of the municipal election.]
Horwath promises to “consider accelerating and expanding our Hamilton Cycling Master Plan to create a city where residents can safely and more surely travel via public transit, bicycle and by foot,” “renew Hamilton’s transit plan to take us beyond 2025,” “expedite the implementation of the BLAST network,” and ensure the LRT is kept “on track” to completion.
The rise in hate incidents in Hamilton needs to be addressed. Horwath said she will work to tackle “hate, systemic racism and discrimination in all their forms by working with communities and leaders.”
“We will continue to strive toward implementing the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and the 231 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-Spirited People calls to action that are in our purview,” she stated.
City Council “will undertake an annual assessment of how we are doing in reaching our goals and publicly report on progress.”
Horwath addressed labour rights and issues, economics, and attracting talent to Hamilton in her speech.
She closed by stating “We will work to build the Hamilton of our dreams and aspirations. We will build a city that is again a leader in Canada.
We will do this important work together, inviting everyone to participate, to innovate and to thrive. Let’s get started!”
You can read the official version of the Mayor’s Inaugural address here. Horwath slightly varied from it in the address.

created: November 20, 2022


text:
Joey’s Notepad: Brampton Bans Political Lawn Signs on Private Property – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 27, 2022
Brampton’s City Council is planning banning all political lawn signs, reports Torstar Metroland.
The City is reportedly doing so to prevent ‘sign tampering, illegal placement, visual clutter, driver distraction, strain on city resources and public safety issues.’
The bylaw was passed in committee of the whole on November 23, and will go to an upcoming Council ratification meeting.
All bylaws passed by municipalities must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Shurman v. Vaughan (City) (2007), Ontario’s Superior Court quashed a portion of a municipal bylaw restricting the posting of election signs to a maximum of 21 days within a 30- day election period.
The Court ruled the municipality’s application of the bylaw to private property was unconstitutional.
Courts have upheld the ability of municipalities to ban signs on public property. Brampton is now seeking to ban them on private property.
Brampton is arguing they are not banning expressive activity because people are still free to display signs inside their windows.
Miller Thomas LLP, a law firm with a good slate of municipal law lawyers, published a paper “Freedom of Expression and Sign By-Laws in Canada- Where are we now?” in October 2002.
It includes analysis of Beaumier v. Brampton (City) (Ontario Court of Justice 1998, appeal dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal), a case involved municipal election signs on public property.
In a 1998 Municipal and Planning Law Reports article, Keep off the Grass: By-law Prohibits Federal Election Signs on Public Property — Case Comment: Beaumier v. Brampton (City), lawyer Brigida I. Colangelo noted in cases pre-dating the Charter of Rights, courts ” were concerned that the [municipal election sign] by-laws attempted to take away the common law right of subjects to place signs on private property.”
The Brampton bylaw is not yet in force.


text:
Joey’s Notepad on Villeneuve v. North Stormont (Township) – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 25, 2022
The Ontario Divisional Court upheld as reasonable the findings of North Stormont’s Integrity Commissioner Tony Fleming that Councillor Roxanne Villeneuve’s behaviour towards the Township CAO was unacceptable.
The Court panel divided 2-1 on the decision. The dissenting judge wrote they would quash the IC finding and Council decision.
What does it mean for Hamilton City Councillor Terry Whitehead’s Divisional Court challenge to findings he harassed staff here in Hamilton?
Firstly, please let me stress this Villeneuve incident involves relatively minor behaviour. Whitehead’s behaviour was extremely egregious.
We’re discussing the same legislative and legal frameworks, not the behaviour itself.
In Villeneuve, the Court ruled that municipal CAOs can file complaints to Integrity Commissioners. CAOs are included as “members of the public.”. Whitehead complained that staff should not be able to file complaints.
Integrity Commissioners can investigate and recommend sanctions for behaviour which occurs during meetings. Whitehead suggested he would attempt to argue qualified privilege in his pending judicial review case. The argument would be that comments made during a council meeting should be given some privilege due to their political nature and context.
In Villeneuve, the dissenting judge opined they would quash the findings regarding the “secrecy” accusation directed at the COA during a Council meeting.
They did not question the jurisdiction of the IC to investigate the comment.
There are two incidents in this case.
[Villeneuve was  a frequent flyer for integrity complaints, I’m not addressing the other incidents.]
On June 9, 2020, Villeneuve used “intemperate language” when she accused the CAO of “secrecy” when the CAO did not answer a question.
The IC ruled this to be a public beratement of staff.
September 2020 emails in which she wrote to the CAO it was “irresponsible and completely unacceptable” and “completely irresponsible and unacceptable” that Council had not been made aware of the Township’s Fire Prevention Officer’s resignation.
Whitehead’s behaviour was extremely egregious. Years of harassment, years of bullying, confronting staff in their offices, and a complete refusal to accept responsibility.
Whitehead was docked 45 days’ pay for the most recent campaign of harassment against three staff members. Villeneuve was docked 45 days’ pay for her two incidents.
No Divisional Court panel is going to overturn the Whitehead Integrity decisions.
North Stormont IC Fleming recommended a 45-day pay suspension [this was not the first adverse finding] and prohibited from directly communicating to the CAO for nine months.
Council modified the communications prohibition to cover all staff and extended it to the remaining 14.5 months of the Council turn.
The Divisional Court overturned this change, upholding the ICs original recommendations.
Councils can take “other actions” beyond pay suspension “so long as those other actions are remedial in nature and are not being used for a punitive purpose.” [See Magder v Ford, 2013 ONSC 263]
The Court found that extending the email prohibition to all staff was “overbroad, and not connected to the conduct under consideration by Township Council on this occasion.”
The Court was split 2-1 in making its decision.
The standard for judicial review is reasonableness, not correctness.
The Supreme Court of Canada directs lower courts to give deference to decision makers and not to substitute the courts’ decision in place of the original decision maker unless an outcome is inevitable.
Dissenting Justice James A. Ramsay argued the Integrity Commissioners’ finding impedes the rights of politicians to engage with CAOs, and to be critical of staff. “Councillors owe a duty to the electors to concern themselves with the due administration of the municipality,” Justice Ramsey wrote.
Justice Ramsay opined that Villeneuve asked “legitimate questions,” “the remark about secrecy was made when no answer was given to a legitimate question about finances,” and “there was nothing abusive about this.”
There is little consistency among Ontario’s municipal integrity commissioners. The Villeneuve case is on the low end of misbehaviour. Many, if not most, ICs would not involve themselves in such matters.
How Codes of Conduct are applied and why is for another post.
Justice Ramsay’s dissent includes a warning, “to characterize the Applicant’s comments as abusive or disrespectful is to apply an impossibly sensitive standard.”
We’ll see if similar cases appear during the 2022-25 Ontario municipal term.

created: November 25, 2022


text:
Joey’s Notepad: Richmond Hill’s Karen Cilevitz Should Be the Poster for Electoral Reform – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 26, 2022
Ward 5 Richmond Hill Councillor Karen Cilevitz has a list of Integrity Commissioner adverse findings against her, she’s a bully towards citizens, and she was criminally charged with fraud. She was convicted of fraud under $5,000 in a plea deal which saw more serious charges dropped.
She was re-elected last month due to vote splitting.
Yes, one of Ontario’s worst municipal councillors is back with only 23.34% of the vote in a ten-person race.
When people talk about the merits of ranked ballots in municipal elections, they should use Karen Cilevitz as the example of the terrible outcomes which can occur in our first-past-the-post system.
Ontario municipalities were allowed to adopt ranked balloting during the 2018 election. Only 1 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities did.
London’s ranked ballot election was successful.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford banned ranked balloting in 2019.
The 2014-18 London City Council was exceptional. 11 of the 15 members were rookies. They were elected on anti-corruption platforms to replace a scandal-plagued Council.
Thus, for them, ranked ballots were a solution to the problem of entrenchment at the municipal level.
Richmond Hill is one of Ontario’s most dysfunctional municipal councils. The current councillors there will never adopt ranked ballots.


text:
Mayor Horwath Wants To Open Hamilton’s Advisory Committees to All Residents – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 19, 2022
Hamilton’s permanent residents – those new Canadians who are on the pathway to citizenship – may soon be able to join the City’s advisory committees and local boards.
2019 changes to the Ontario Libraries Act require the City of Hamilton to allow permanent residents to apply to join the Hamilton Public Library Board.
Hamilton’s Procedural Bylaw [Section 1.1 and Appendix H(c)] states the citizenship requirement applies to all advisory committees and local boards.
Municipal bylaws cannot contravene provincial legislation.
Therefore, Hamilton City Council must either add an explicit exception for the Library Board or revoke the citizenship requirement.
TPR asked Mayor Andrea Horwath “what are your thoughts on permanent residents being on committees?”
“I think that opening up everything that we do at City Hall to all of the voices of Hamilton is the right way to go. And so if there are procedural pieces that need to be amended to create that opportunity for open dialogue with all residents of Hamilton, I would be very interested in making that happen,” Mayor Horwath stated.
“We’re all part of Hamilton, we all live here, we all have a stake in our community … let’s give everybody the opportunity to be part of the process.”
During her election campaign, Mayor Horwath promised to “strike a diverse Public Advisory Committee in the first 90 days, tasked with recommending improvements to access, transparency and accountability at City Hall.”
She says the citizenship requirement will be part of the review.
In 2019, the Ontario Progressive Conservative government amended the Public Libraries Act to allow permanent residents to sit on Library Boards. [Schedule 12 of the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019.]
The change was enacted in December 2019.
Before this, the Libraries Act was unique in having a citizenship requirement.
No other Act or Regulation governing the City of Hamilton’s local boards imposes a citizenship requirement. It is entirely a creation of Hamilton City Council.
As written, Hamilton’s Procedural Bylaw prohibits permanent residents from joining all advisory committees, including the Immigrant and Refugee Advisory Committee.
The Police Services Act states Council must appoint one person “who is neither a member of the council nor an employee of the municipality.” It is silent on citizenship.
It is not known why the City Clerk did not bring the 2019 Libraries Act changes to Council’s attention. The City Clerk is responsible for reading legislative notices and ensuring their implementation.
Hamilton’s City Hall was unaware of the issue before TPR brought attention to the issue.
Ontario’s Human Rights Code Section 16 states:
“16 (1) A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship is a requirement, qualification or consideration imposed or authorized by law.”
“A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of citizenship is not infringed where Canadian citizenship or lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence is a requirement, qualification or consideration adopted for the purpose of fostering and developing participation in cultural, educational, trade union or athletic activities by Canadian citizens or persons lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.” [Emphasis added]
Before 2019, the Public Libraries Act required members to be Canadian citizens.
The Municipal Act imposes a citizenship requirement to vote, but Hamilton’s procedural bylaw does cite the Act’s “eligible electors” language as the basis of the criteria.
Absent this, and absent reasoning, the present Procedural Bylaw is vulnerable to a human rights challenge.
More so now that the Legislative Assembly has explicitly included permanent residents in Library Board governance.
Independent of City Hall, The Library Board has already amended their internal bylaws to clarify permanent residents can be members of the Board.
Except for the Libraries Act, there are no obvious legislative roadblocks to Hamilton City Council opening its advisory committees and local boards to any resident, regardless of status.
The City of Hamilton seeks to encourage international students to remain after graduation. Providing them with opportunities to be more engaged at City Hall can further that goal.
Mayor Horwath’s Public Advisory Committee motion is forthcoming.

created: November 19, 2022


text:
OLT Denies Developer Near Hamilton Airport – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 8, 2022
A developer lost at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The owners of 8475 English Church Road East in Glanbrook appealed City Council’s October 2020 denial of their application to convert some of the lands to residential lots under the present Rural Hamilton Official Plan.
City of Hamilton professional planning staff recommended Council deny the application because the conversion is contrary to the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and residential uses are incompatible in the noise corridor along the runway approach to Hamilton’s airport.
Hamilton’s Airport formally opposed the proposal.
Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the province’s overriding planning law, states in section 1.6.9 that “Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP [Noise Exposure Forecast].”
OLT Vice-Chair Steven Cooke opined that while the proposal had some merit, “from an agricultural stance, the consolidation of Lots 1, 2 & 3 with CLI Class 1 soil in exchange for two smaller Lots 5 & 6 with poor soil conditions located on a smaller rural road makes sense,” ultimately, the PPS’s rules regarding noise meant the Tribunal must deny the application.
“The Tribunal finds that the employment and economic importance of the John C. Munroe International Airport and the related Airport Employment Growth District lands is in the greater public interest than allowance of the proposed applications.  For these reasons, the appeals are dismissed.”

created: November 8, 2022


text:
Ontario Government to Order City of Hamilton to Conduct Sewer Audit – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 24, 2022
The fallout from Hamilton’s latest sewage leak continues.
Ontario’s Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks David Piccini says his Ministry will issue an order “to audit its entire sewage infrastructure.”
Piccini was responding to a statement by Flamborough-Glanbrook MPP Donna Skelly during the Legislative Assembly Question Period today. [YouTube Link]
“It appears that the system of due diligence and oversight was lacking for an extended period of time, the people of Hamilton deserve better regarding their critical water infrastructure system,” Skelly says.
Minister Piccini says he “had a very good conversation with the new mayor of Hamilton” and he “commends” Andrea Horwath for “being transparent with the people of Hamilton.”
He and the mayor “agree” on the need for transparency and action.
The Minister says the order will require Hamilton to “come up with a remediation plan to clean this mess up.”
“We’re going to work closely with the new mayor and the city of Hamilton to address this so that this never happens again.”
In a 2:10 pm email, the City of Hamilton says it has not yet received the order. The Minister stated in the Legislative Assembly that Ministry staff are preparing the order.


text:
Superior Court Declines to Rule on City’s “Suspended” Vaccination Policy – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 18, 2022
Ontario’s Superior Court says the suspension of the City of Hamilton’s mandatory staff vaccination means the application by 11 non-unionized employees is moot.
The 11 employees sought a declaration the vaccination policy violated their human rights, privacy rights, right to bodily integrity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Justice Joseph R. Henderson ruled the suspension of the policy means the alleged harms of the policy are now “hypothetical.”
“The applicants may be worried or concerned that the City may do something in the future that would be harmful to them. However, the future is uncertain. The courts do not offer opinions based upon speculation as to what one party might do in the future,” the ruling reads.
One of the eleven applicants was Zorka Milovanov, the executive assistant to Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls. Milovanov was forced to take unpaid leave while the policy was in effect.
The full ruling can be read on CanLII.
The City of Toronto is ending its mandatory COVID vaccination policy on December 1. Toronto is also hiring back approximately 350 employees who did not comply with the policy.
The City of Hamilton continues to require new staff to be vaccinated as a condition of employment.
The City of Toronto’s decision to remove all requirements could influence Hamilton’s unions to demand the same revocation here.

created: November 18, 2022


text:
Three Residents and Lakewood Beach Community Council Gain Status to Oppose LIUNA Gardens Development at OLT – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 19, 2022
The Ontario Land Tribunal granted three nearby residents and one community group party status in the Fengate LIUNA non-decision appeal for its proposed redevelopment of the Winona LIUNA Gardens on Lake Ontario.
Fengate LIUNA filed non-decision appeals shortly after the 120 day deadline for Council to make a decision for this property and 186 Hunter Street in Downtown Hamilton.
The filing of the non-decision appeal meant there was no public hearing at Council’s Planning Committee for the public to submit comments or delegate.
Fengate LIUNA is seeking zoning and official plan amendments to build two 24-storey buildings and two 15-storey buildings connected by a two-storey podium; two 4-storey stacked townhouse blocks; and five 2-storey townhouse blocks. The as-of-right permissions for the site allow up to 9 storeys.
The residential density of the redevelopment will be up to 425 units per hectare. The existing zoning allows between 50 to 99 units per hectare.
One of the three residents granted party status, Robert Morash, was represented by lawyer Meredith Baker of Turkstra Mazza. This law firm is one of the best planning practices in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. (Turkstra Mazza partner Nancy Smith is listed as counsel in absentia.)
Fourteen other area residents requested and were granted participant status.
Parties can call witnesses, enter evidence, and cross-examine witnesses in OLT hearings. Participants are limited to filing a written statement.
OLT Member Shannon Braun directed the parties to negotiate the issues list and create a draft procedural order for the Tribunal. This is to be completed no later than March 1, 2023.
A second Case Management Conference [formerly called pre-hearing] will be held on Friday, March 3, 2023 to confirm the issues list and procedure order.
The OLT is setting aside ten days for the contested hearing on the development beginning on September 18, 2023. The Tribunal will sit on each weekday for two weeks. The dates may be modified at the CMC in March.
The full OLT summary of the Case Management Conference is available online.


text:
Titan Recycling Allowed to Operate Salvage Yard for Another Six Months – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 8, 2022
Titan Recycling’s Freelton scrapyard can continue operating for another six months.
Hamilton City Council’s Licensing Tribunal committee voted Monday to approve an agreement between city staff and the company to grant a new six-month conditional license pending the outcome of Titan’s legal fight against the City in Ontario’s Superior Court.
Titan “is in front of the Superior Court of Justice and a decision is expected from that in due course,” stated municipal by-law prosecutor Janet Rutherford.
Rutherford recommended granting a new six-month license, the same as Council did in February of this year.
The conditions of the license include that Titan only operates the yard on weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., that Titan implements “a commercially reasonable fugitive dust management plan to mitigate the emissions from the property as a result of its operation”, and that it implements a “commercially reasonable traffic management plan to minimize disruption, congestion and delays to all users as a result of Titans operations at the property.”
Titan is challenging the decision of Hamilton’s Director of Licensing to deny their application to operate a salvage yard.
The Director determined the site has not been continuously operating as a scrapyard, and the previous zoning is no longer grandfathered.
The lawyer for Titan told councillors his client is arguing the previous trailer operation included salvage activities.
“There’s some good evidence that there was a continued continuation of the salvage yard use during the trailer operation. They were taking old trailers off of sites selling their new trailers and then dismantling the trailers on site. So that’s the key issue before the court,” he stated.
As the City and Titan came to Licensing Tribunal with a six-month agreement, the councillors were not provided with evidence packages for the hearing.
Councillor Brenda Johnson noted “with all due respect, we have not been privy to any of the evidence as far as site plan is concerned” before asking if a visual barrier could be added to the license requirements.
A lengthy discussion ensued, with questions of what form a condition could take, what cost would be involved, and if a larger visual barrier would violate Hamilton’s zoning and property bylaws.
After a recess, City staff stated there were no complaints requiring visual issues.
A concern was noted that imposing a condition regarding a matter not previously an issue could violate procedural fairness.
The City and Titan are conducting examinations of witnesses in the Superior Court case. They hope to be in front of a Superior Court judge in February.
If no decision is rendered by the Superior Court before the six-month license expires, the matter will return to Licensing Tribunal in April.


text:
With Hamilton Expected to Have a Strong Mayor in 2023, Province Expands Strong Mayor Powers Further – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

November 16, 2022
With Hamilton expected to be brought into the “Strong Mayor” powers framework of the new Ontario Municipal Act in 2023, today’s announced new Municipal Act changes will be noted locally.
Hamilton is Ontario’s third largest single-tier municipality by population, behind Toronto and Ottawa. Both the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa were granted strong mayor powers.
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs can grant strong mayor powers in other municipalities by regulation.
The chatter in municipal affairs circles is that Hamilton will be the next municipality to be brought into the framework.
Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark tabled legislation today which will change the strong mayor veto into the ability to override the majority of a municipal council if the mayor can secure a one-third minority of votes on “certain municipal by-laws related to provincial priorities.”
Presently, the provincial priorities include building higher-density housing near higher-order transit stations and stops. In Hamilton, this means along the planned B-Line LRT line and near the three GO train stations.
The government press release announcing today’s amendments includes endorsements by the mayors of Mississauga and Brampton of a plan to dissolve some regional governments.
Both cities are lower-tier cities within Peel Region and each wishes to become a single-tier municipality.
The Minister announced he will appoint facilitators to review municipal governance in Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York.
If the eventual result is removing Brampton and Mississauga from Peel Region, each will be a larger municipality by population than Hamilton.
The Bill passed first reading in the Ontario Legislative Assembly today.
The Progressive Conservative Government did not state if there will be public hearings before the Bill returns for second and third readings.


text:
BRIEF: Ottawa Will Update Local Board Definition Following Hamilton Divisional Court Ruling – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 29, 2022
The City of Ottawa will be one of the first municipalities in Ontario to update its definition of Local Board following the 2021 decision of Ontario’s Divisional Court in Kroetsch v. Integrity Commissioner for the City of Hamilton, 2021 ONSC 7982.
The Divisional Court upheld Hamilton’s interpretation that advisory committees serve a purpose related to the City’s affairs and purposes.
In a report to Ottawa City Council on December 7, 2022, Ottawa City Clerk Rick O’Connor outlines changes to Ottawa’s by-laws and procedures to reflect the ruling.
Advisory Committees do not possess decision-making authority. On this basis, staff have previously determined that the City’s Advisory Committees do not fall under the category of “local board” pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001,” writes O’Connor. O’Connor holds a law degree.
“However, on December 15, 2021, a Divisional Court ruling found that the City of Hamilton’s LGBTQ Advisory Committee is a local board under the Municipal Act, 2001. Specifically, the Court found that, consistent with the definition of “local board” in the Municipal Act, 2001, the City of Hamilton had established the LGBTQ Advisory Committee utilizing Council’s powers under the Municipal Act, 2001 for a purpose that relates to the City’s affairs and purposes. The decision further notes that the LGBTQ Advisory Committee was not an “ad hoc informal committee.” Specifically, the Committee is established in accordance with Hamilton’s Council Procedure By-law which formalizes the criteria, function, operations and reporting for advisory committees, and requires advisory committee members to abide by a code of conduct. The Court found that the LGBTQ Advisory Committee has ‘a measure of independence, but it is integral to the day-to-day business of the City.”
O’Connor states he will present a report in Q2 2023 with “a further review” of Ottawa’s Advisory Committees to determine if they now qualify as “Local Boards” under the Municipal Act.

created: December 29, 2022


text:
Church Political Action Group Takes City of Hamilton Over Abortion Ad Denial – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 5, 2022
A third-party intervener will participate in the latest court challenge of the City of Hamilton’s decision-making regarding political ads on HSR public transit buses.
The Ontario Divisional Court granted intervenor status in a ruling issued on November 30.
Hamilton has a reputation for failing to engage in good Charter reviews in the past, making it a choice destination for pro-life / anti-abortion groups seeking favourable court rulings.
The latest ad is from The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada.
They sought to purchase an ad which refers to a sonogram image of a late-term fetus in the womb as a person. ARPA states the ad was part of a campaign supporting federal private members’ Bill C-233 introduced by a Conservative MP.  The Bill would’ve made it a criminal offence to perform “sex-selective abortion.”
[The ARPA website includes an image of their proposed ad “We’re for women’s rights” here.]
Ontario’s Divisional Court summarizes the City’s decision as follows:
“The City rejected the advertisement stating that the phrase ‘And Hers.’ would ‘need to be revised so as not to reflect personhood in relation to’ the last image. The Decision referenced the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, Clause 1 (Accuracy and Clarity), which forms part of the City’s advertising policy, and the Criminal Code.”
The Divisional Court will hear ARPA’s appeal with the assistance of arguments from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). The Court ruled ARCC could be an intervenor in the case.
ARCC’s proposed submissions are in para 11 of the ruling granting them status.
“ARCC has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the issues at stake. ARCC also has an important perspective that is distinct from that of the parties. The City’s submissions on the application will be made from the perspective of a municipal government and neutral decision-maker. ARPA’s submissions will be based on the advocacy interests of its membership and their ability to exercise their freedom of expression. ARCC would be able to provide additional perspectives that would assist the court in understanding the broader potential impact of the court’s decision on those not before the court,” ruled Justice Sandra Nishikawa.
No dates have been set for the exchange of materials. This means oral arguments are at least months away.
The Divisional Court sits in Hamilton during the week of June 5, 2023, and the week of October 30, 2023.
The Court sits year-round in Toronto.
The case can be conducted by video conferencing.
ARPA was successful last year in a court challenge against the City of Guelph with different anti-abortion ads.
[Paras 52 to 61 summarize previous case law regarding these types of political bus ads.]

created: December 5, 2022


text:
City Clerk Ordered to Follow Freedom of Information Laws, Again – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 9, 2022
The Office of Hamilton’s City Clerk claims they do not keep records of how they process freedom of information requests.
In the latest in a series of you can’t make this up rulings from Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commission involving the City of Hamilton, the IPC is ordering the City’s Clerks Manager of Records to search again for records they are supposed to keep but claim not to have.
The order also directs the Clerks to comply with the requirements of the Act and explain redactions of documents they’ve partially released.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
Today’s case involves a 2018 request for records related to parking enforcement issues in Stoney Creek.
The person had to appeal after the City refused to process the request properly.
In a 2019 ruling, the IPC stated the Clerks “did not provide representations in response, despite being granted multiple extensions to do so.”
Hamilton is the only municipality with multiple incidents of failing to comply with the freedom of information act by refusing to respond to the IPC.
In MO-3771, an IPC Adjudicator took the rare step of publicly chastising the City Clerks by writing:
“I feel it necessary to point out that the city … did not participate in the inquiry of the appeal. I remind the city of its obligations as an institution under the Act” after the City Clerks “did not respond to the letter or to the mediator’s voice message.”
Returning to the 2019 ruling. The IPC ordered the City to conduct a proper search for records in the case.
Only upon being ordered did the Clerks comply with the law and properly process the request.
In January 2021, the same person filed a new FOI request for records related to how the City processed the 2018 request.
An FOI about the FOI Office. [This is fairly standard, journalists file FOIs about FOIs often]
This is now at IPC after the City Clerks claimed they do not keep records regarding how they process FOI files.
The requester sought records regarding why the City did not meet statutory deadlines and did not obey the Act. The City claims it does not have records regardign how it processed the file.
At IPC, the City Clerk’s Manager of Corporate Records and Freedom of Information Lisa Barroso, stated, “the reason for delays were due to the limited resources within the FOI team in combination with the volume of requests received” adding the City does not have records associated with this.
The IPC says the City did not provide sufficient evidence that it has no records and orders Clerks to conduct a further search.
The requestor asked for the number of staff hours budgeted for the office and productivity goals in the City’s policy manuals.
The City claimed it does not have to share this information. The IPC orders Clerks to properly search for the records and respond as required by the Act.
The requestor asked for the organization chart of the Freedom of Information Section.
Barroso released a redacted version of the section’s organizational chart. She did not explain the reason for redaction as required by the Act.
The IPC is ordering her to explain the redaction.
It is worth noting the City’s full organization chart was public information until 2012.
The City declared the chart confidential as part of the cover-up by City Hall to hide the ongoing employment of a former leader of the neo-Nazi organization Heritage Front as a senior IT analyst.
The IPC set a deadline of January 6, 2023, for the City Clerks to comply with the directions.

created: December 9, 2022


text:
Court Orders No Costs on City Vaccine Mandate Challenge – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson says both sides in the challenge against the City’s COVID vaccination policy for non-unionized employees shall pay their own costs.
In a costs decision released on Tuesday (published on CanLII Thursday), the court notes both sides split their victories in the case.
This follows an earlier decision to dismiss the employees’ challenge for mootness after the City suspended its COVID vaccination policy.
“I find that the applicants achieved some success with their application. The applicants had criticized the vaccination policy as being unlawful. They retained counsel, entered into negotiations, and commenced litigation. The net result of the applicants’ effort was that the City, as of August 12, 2022, amended its policy to suspend the alleged unlawful portion of the policy. I recognize that the applicants did not have complete success on their application as the policy was suspended, not revoked, but the applicants certainly achieved significant success,” he ruled.
The Justice ruled the applicants were entitled to cost up to August 12, with the City entitled to cost after that date.
He ruled that cost awards between the two sides are “in rough terms, a set-off” and each side shall bare its own costs.
The Justice did not the City’s costs were higher than necessary.
“The City’s costs outline shows that two senior lawyers were involved in this case at almost every stage of the motion. In my opinion, two senior lawyers were not necessary for this motion. The use of two counsel created a duplication of services and increased the overall costs. I accept that the City may choose to have two lawyers involved at each stage, and the City has the right to make that decision for itself, but the losing party should not reasonably be expected to pay for two lawyers at every stage.”

created: December 15, 2022


text:
Courts and Tribunals Chastise City of Hamilton Lawyers – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
Ontario’s courts and tribunals are directly criticizing the City of Hamilton’s lawyers in recent rulings for wasting time and increasing costs in legal hearings.
In a Human Rights Tribunal ruling, Vice-Chair Karen Dawson wrote the City made submissions “not directly on point” in a motion the City made attempting to argue Pride Hamilton did not have the standing to represent the LGBTQ community due to Pride Hamilton being incorporated.
“Not directly on point” is legalese for wasting the time of the Tribunal.
At the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry this week, Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel, noted that if the City’s lawyers wanted to introduce new evidence and have new experts testify, the City bares responsibility for the “cost and possible delay in the Inquiry’s process.”
In a costs decision following the Superior Court’s dismissal of a civil suit against the City by non-unionized employees regarding the mandatory COVID vaccination policy, Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson wrote:
“The City’s costs outline shows that two senior lawyers were involved in this case at almost every stage of the motion. In my opinion, two senior lawyers were not necessary for this motion. The use of two counsel created a duplication of services and increased the overall costs. I accept that the City may choose to have two lawyers involved at each stage, and the City has the right to make that decision for itself, but the losing party should not reasonably be expected to pay for two lawyers at every stage. Therefore, the partial indemnity costs of the City should be reduced by approximately one-third.”
Ultimately, the costs in all these cases are borne by taxpayers.


text:
Hamilton Police Request 6.71% Budget Increase for 2023 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 13, 2022
The Hamilton Police Service says it needs a 6.71 percent increase to its budget for 2023 to provide “adequate and effective police services.”
HPS’ overbudget will be $195,851,008. The approved 2022 budget was $183,542,539.
City of Hamilton budget projections for 2023, which predict an overall property tax increase of 6.9 percent, assumed a 2.1 percent increase to the police budget.
Hamilton Police’s 2022 spending is on track to be close to budget.
At end of September, 72.83% of the annual budget was spent. Hamilton Chief of Police Frank Bergen’s November budget variance report states, “Net Budget is within target for the period.”
2023’s budget proposal is split between $190,020,482 for operating (up from $180,133,354 in 2022) and $5,830,526 (up from $3,409,185).
13 new police officer positions are proposed in the budget, along with 18 new civilian employees.
Salary and benefit increases account for $5.12M of the operating budget increase.
Other employee costs, including hiring new police officers and civilian employees, account for $3.31M. Overall, employee costs are $8.43M of the requested $9.89M operating budget increase request.
Hamilton Police state the service needs to hire 13 new officers each year until 2030 to match population growth and maintain “the current Cop-to-Pop (population) ratio of 146 Officers per 100,000 population”. This average is 176 across Ontario and 183 nationally.
Capital projects to be funded in this budget include roof replacement for the downtown police status, parking lot replacement at the East Hamilton station, and annual vehicle replacement.
The police budget does not include the next-generation 9-1-1 call centre project. Funding for the police portion of the upgrade project is included in the City of Hamilton capital budget.
Ward 2 City Councillor Cameron Kroestch voted against the proposed budget according to the minutes of the November 29 Police Board budget committee meeting.
The meeting was held with no public notice.
The seven-member police board will vote on the budget proposal during their meeting this Thursday.
Mayor Andrea Horwath, Kroestch, and Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls are council members on the Board. Fred Bennink is the Council civilian member appointee. The other three members, appointed by the provincial government, are Patrica Mandy, Mel Athulathmudali, and Robert George Elms.
The 2023 police budget can be read as part of the Police Board agenda package here. Item 8.2.

created: December 13, 2022


text:
Hamilton Police Board Passes 6.71% Increase Budget for 2023 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 15, 2022
The Hamilton Police Services 2023 budget, at an increase of 6.71 percent over 2022’s budget, passed the Police Board today in a split vote after at times testy debate.
Police Board Member and Ward 2 city councillor Cameron Kroetsch verbally stated he opposed the budget. The Police Board did not disclose the overall vote.
Kroestch came to the meeting with prepared questions.
The first testy exchange came as Police Board Chair, a provincial appointee, Patricia Mandy tried to pre-empt the questions by suggesting Kroestch should meet with the Police Chief in private after the meeting.
“I’m going to suggest … for the Chief or somebody to meet with you in more detail about the budget or the technical pieces of it … that maybe we can move to the debate,” stated Mandy.
“I just want to continue to ask my questions, if I can. I want them to be asked in public. I don’t want to have a private meeting about it,” Kroetsch responded.
Mandy stated, “You didn’t have opportunity to ask them at the committee? I just want to move us on. If they are technical questions, I’m sure the Chief would be glad to have somebody sit down with you.”
Kroetsch followed with four questions:
First: With the City of Hamilton having projected a 2.1 percent increase for the police budget and the service seeking 6.71 percent, what are the reasons for the police budget request?
Chair Mandy responded this the amount the police “need to keep the citizens of Hamilton safe” and respond to crime. “In fact, I think it’s probably less than would be ideal.”
Second: Kroetsch asked how many HPS members are on leave due to occupational health injuries. The answer was 82 as of December 14.
Third: How many police officers are transferring out of the Hamilton Police Service and how many are transferring in. 13 transfers out and 4 transfers in was the answer.
Fourth: How does this budget contemplate the City’s community safety and plan? “Is that happening, I don’t see it,” Kroetsch stated.
Police Chief Frank Bergen outlined how HPS is responding to the Plan.
“I don’t see the community concerns I’ve heard, reflected in this budget,” Kroetsch stated, “about the kinds of services that are delivered, what the role of policing is.”
Board Member Robert George Elms, a provincial appointee, stated he “agreed with a lot” of Kroetsch’s concerns “to be honest” adding the budget reflects “due diligence” and “attention to detail” and police command have done “what they can do” to present a reasonable and fair budget.
The budget passed with only Kroetsch noted as opposed.