HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 05, 2023 - CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, October 5, 2023 7:00 p.m. The October 5, 2023 Council Meeting will allow for a hybrid meeting function. You may attend in person or virtually through the live-stream on the Municipality of Bayham’s YouTube Channel 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. PRESENTATIONS 6. DELEGATIONS
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S)
A. Regular Council Meeting held September 21, 2023 B. Planning Public Meeting held September 21, 2023
C. Drainage Court of Revision Meeting held September 21, 2023 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM 10. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
11. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
Council Agenda October 5, 2023
2
A. Report FR-04/23 by Harry Baranik, Fire Chief re Fire Prevention Week October 8-14,
2023
B. Report BL-06/23 by Stephen Miller, By-Law Enforcement Officer re Zoning By-law
Enforcement Policy
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Passing re Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-10/23 Froese B. Notice of Decision re Minor Variance Application A-09/23 Wall 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
Planning Reports to be posted through Addendum
13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Town of Midland re Catch and Release Justice B. City of Hamilton re Support for Basic Income C. City of Cambridge re Declaring Intimate Partner Violence an Epidemic
D. City of Quinte West re Support for Municipality of Wawa Resolution re Chronic Pain Treatments E. Township of Montague re Request to Review MFIPPA F. Township of Puslinch re Request to Review MFIPPA G. County of Elgin re September 12, 2023 County Council Highlights H. County of Elgin re September 26, 2023 County Council Highlights 13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Otter Valley Naturalists re Initiative to Plant a Native Host Plant and Pollinators Garden 13.2 Reports to Council
A. Report CAO-51/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO re Housing Affordability Task Force Recommendations
Council Agenda October 5, 2023
3
B. Report CAO-52/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO re Council Appointment – Elgin County
Business Retention and Expansion Leadership Team 14. BY-LAWS
A. By-law No. 2023-065 Being a by-law to provide for drainage works in the Municipality of Bayham in the County of Elgin known as the Hampton Municipal Drain Improvements
B. By-law No. 2023-075 Being a by-law to adopt a zoning enforcement policy 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 In Camera 16.2 Out of Camera 17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2023-076 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council 18. ADJOURNMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:00 p.m. The September 21, 2023 Council Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube.
PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER
COUNCILLORS DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT *via Zoom
ABSENT: COUNCILLOR TIMOTHY EMERSON
STAFF PRESENT: CAO THOMAS THAYER CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT
FIRE CHIEF/BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HARRY BARANIK MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS/DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Ketchabaw advised that September is childhood cancer awareness month and was
wearing a gold pin in support of this.
5. PRESENTATIONS 6. DELEGATIONS 7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Regular Council Meeting held September 7, 2023 B. Planning Public Meeting held September 7, 2023
Council Minutes September 21, 2023
2
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the minutes from the Regular Council meeting held September 7, 2023 and the
minutes from the Statutory Planning meeting held September 7, 2023 be approved as presented.
CARRIED 8. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 9. OPEN FORUM
10. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
10.1 Correspondence
10.1.1 Receive for Information
10.1.2 Requiring Action
10.2 Reports to Council
11. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Receive for Information
11.1.2 Requiring Action
11.2 Reports to Council
A. Report BL-05/23 by Harry Baranik, Fire Chief/By-Law Enforcement re Exemption from
By-law No. 2021-037 Emergency and Utility Off-Road Vehicles
Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT Report BL-05/23 re Exemption from By-law No. 2021-037 – Emergency and Utility Off-Road Vehicles be received for information; AND THAT the appropriate By-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration; AND THAT a copy of the appropriate By-Law be forwarded to the Elgin County’s Police Service Board.
CARRIED
12. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION
12.1 Correspondence
12.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Notice of Passing re Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-02/23 Thompson
Council Minutes September 21, 2023
3
B. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Minor Variance A-09/23 Wall
C. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-11/23 Shaw & Shipway
D. Notice of Public Meeting re Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-04/23 Algar Farms Limited
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT items 12.1.1 A – D be received for information.
CARRIED 12.1.2 Requiring Action
12.2 Reports to Council
A. Report DS-54/23 by Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk re Rezoning
Application ZBA-10/23 Froese, 57268 Calton Line
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT Report DS-54/23 regarding the Isaac and Maria Froese rezoning application ZBA-
10/23 be received for information; AND THAT pursuant to Planning Act Regulations Bill 73 Smart Growth for our Communities
Act, 2015, it be pointed out that at the public participation meeting held September 7, 2023 associated with this application, there were no written submissions and no oral presentation received regarding this matter; AND THAT all considerations were taken into account in Council’s decision passing this resolution; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, be further amended by changing
the zoning on a property located in Concession 5 Lot 22, known municipally as a 57268 Calton Line, from Agricultural (A1-A) to Special Agricultural (A2) on the retained lands, and from Agricultural (A1-A) Zone to a Rural Residential (RR) Zone on the severed lands to
permit the severance of a surplus farm dwelling in accordance with Official Plan policies; AND THAT Zoning By-law No. Z763-2023 be presented to Council for enactment. CARRIED 13. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
13.1 Correspondence
13.1.1 Receive for Information
A. Town of Bracebridge re Time for Change – MFIPPA
Council Minutes September 21, 2023
4
B. Town of Fort Erie re Time for Change – MFIPPA C. Township of Georgian Bluffs re Time for Change – MFIPPA
D. Township of Matachewan re Municipal Codes of Conduct
E. Town of Grimsby re Establishing a Guaranteed Livable Income F. City of Hamilton re Request to Abandon Greenbelt Development G. Municipal Policing Bureau re Distribution of Police Record Check Revenue to Municipalities H. Long Point Region Conservative Authority re July 5, 2023 Meeting Minutes I. County of Elgin re Business in Elgin September 2023 J. Elgin County re Saved by the Beep – Test Your Smoke Alarm Day – September 28th
Moved by: Councillor Froese
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT items 13.1.1 A – J be received for information. CARRIED 13.1.2 Requiring Action
A. Straffordville Community Committee re Request for Letter of Support Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the correspondence from the Straffordville Community Committee re Request for Letter of Support be received for information; AND THAT Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham recognizes that Watermelon Fest is a community festival of municipal significance and fully supports the event. CARRIED 13.2 Reports to Council A. Report CAO-49/23 by Thomas Thayer, CAO re Amendment to Site Plan Agreement –
Max Underhill’s Farm Supply Limited, 56532 Calton Line SPA-04/23 Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler
Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
Council Minutes September 21, 2023
5
THAT Report CAO-49/23 re Amendment to Site Plan Agreement – Max Underhill’s Farm Supply Limited – 56532 Calton Line, Vienna (Application No. SPA-04/23) be received for information.
CARRIED 14. BY-LAWS A. By-law No. 2023-071 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Rail Tech Enterprises Inc. for the construction of the Vienna Community Park Multi-Use Court B. By-law No. 2023-072 Being a by-law to amend by-law 2021-037 being a by-law to prohibit and/or otherwise regulate off-road vehicles (ORVs) on roads within the Municipality of Bayham
C. By-law No. Z763-2023 Being a by-law to amend By-Law No. Z456-2003, as amended – Froese Moved by: Councillor Chilcott
Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT By-law No. 2023-071, 2023-072 and Z763-2023 be read a first, second and third
time and finally passed. CARRIED
The Council Meeting recessed for a break at 7:19 p.m. with a Planning Public
Meeting to begin at 7:30 p.m.
The Council Meeting resumed at 7:34 p.m. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS
16.1 In Camera
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Council do now rise to enter into an “In Camera” Session at 7:35 p.m. to discuss:
A. Confidential Report re Personnel matters about an identifiable individual; litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals (Calton Cemetery)
CARRIED
Council Minutes September 21, 2023
6
16.2 Out of Camera Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott
THAT the Council do now rise from the “In Camera” Session at 7:56 p.m. and report on Confidential Report re Personnel matters about an identifiable individual; litigation or
potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals (Calton Cemetery) CARRIED
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT Confidential Report re Personnel matters about an identifiable individual; litigation
or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals (Calton Cemetery) be received for information; CARRIED
17. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL
A. By-law No. 2023-073 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council
Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT Confirming By-law No. 2023-073 be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. CARRIED 18. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Council meeting be adjourned at 7:57 p.m. CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM STATUTORY PLANNING MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – HYBRID Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:30 p.m. A. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-11/23 10465 Plank Road – Shaw & Shipway B. Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-04/23 53921 Nova Scotia Line – Algar Farms Limited The September 21, 2023 Public Planning Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube. PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER COUNCILLORS DAN FROESE SUSAN CHILCOTT *via Zoom ABSENT: COUNCILLOR TIMOTHY EMERSON STAFF PRESENT: CAO THOMAS THAYER
CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS/DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS
PUBLIC ATTENDEES A: N/A
PUBLIC ATTENDEES B: N/A APPLICATION A 1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. 3. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
4. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
2 Statutory Planning Minutes September 21, 2023
A. Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment ZBA-11/23 10465 Plank Road – Shaw & Shipway THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to rezone the subject lands from ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone to a ‘site-specific Rural Residential (RR-xx)’ to permit new livestock uses, livestock-related buildings and structures, whereas Section 7.11.1 of Zoning By-law Z456-
2003 does not permit such uses within the ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone. The subject lands are known as 10465 Plank Road, west side, south of Maple Grove Line and north of Black Bridge Line. THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to permit new livestock uses, livestock-related buildings and
structures on the subject lands to the existing ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No public participation.
6. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence received.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business.
8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Froese THAT the Zoning By-law be considered at a future meeting of Council;
AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Zoning Application ZBA-11/23 is now complete at 7:32 p.m. CARRIED
APPLICATION B 9. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 10. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3 Statutory Planning Minutes September 21, 2023
11. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The Chairman stated the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
12. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT B. Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA-04/23 53921 Nova Scotia Line – Algar Farms Limited THE PURPOSE of the Official Plan Amendment is to add a new site-specific sub-section to permit the severance of an existing dwelling made surplus through farm consolidation that does not conform to policy Section 2.1.7.1. The Subject lands are located at 53921 Nova Scotia Line, south side, east of Richmond Road and west of Saxton Road. THE EFFECT of this Official Plan Amendment will be to permit the severance of a surplus farm dwelling from a farm parcel where the owner does not own another dwelling within the Municipality of Bayham. 13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No public participation.
14. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence received. 15. OTHER BUSINESS
No other business.
16. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Deputy Mayor Weisler Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Official Plan Amendment be considered at a future meeting of Council; AND THAT pursuant to the Planning Act requirements, the Public Meeting for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA-04/23 is now complete at 7:34 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COURT OF REVISION MINUTES MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers - HYBRID Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:00 p.m. – Hampton Drain Improvements
The September 21, 2023 Hampton Drain Court of Revision Meeting was held using hybrid technologies via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube. PRESENT: MAYOR ED KETCHABAW DEPUTY MAYOR RAINEY WEISLER COUNCILLORS DAN FROESE
SUSAN CHILCOTT *via Zoom ABSENT:
COUNCILLOR TIMOTHY EMERSON STAFF PRESENT:
CAO THOMAS THAYER CLERK MEAGAN ELLIOTT MANAGER OF PUBLIC WORKS|DRAINAGE SUPERINTENDENT STEVE ADAMS ENGINEER: JOHN SPRIET PUBLIC ATTENDEES: N/A 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ketchabaw called the Court of Revision for the Hampton Drain Improvements to order at 8:00 p.m. 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
3. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
A. Hampton Municipal Drain Notice of Court of Revision Pursuant to Chapter D17, Section 41 of the Drainage Act the purpose of the Court of
Revision is to provide an opportunity for any person or body entitled to receive Notice to appeal their assessment as per Engineers Report #220242 dated June 5, 2023 as prepared by Spriet Associates
4. STAFF PRESENTATION A. Report DR-05/23 by Steve Adams, Manager of Public Works / Drainage Superintendent re Hampton Drain Improvements Court of Revision S. Adams presented report DR-05/23 and confirmed that no appeals were received by the Clerk.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No participation.
6. DISPOSITION Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Deputy Mayor Weisler THAT Report DR-05/23 re Hampton Drain Improvements Court of Revision be received for
information;
AND THAT the Court of Revision acknowledge that no appeals have been received with respect
to the Hampton Drain Improvements assessments outlined in Engineer’s Report #220242;
AND THAT Engineer Report #220242, dated June 5, 2023, for the Hampton Drain
Improvements be adopted as presented and that corresponding By-law No. 2023-065 be
presented to Council for a third and final reading.
CARRIED
7. ADJOURNMENT Moved by: Councillor Froese Seconded by: Councillor Chilcott THAT the Court of Revision for the Hampton Drain Improvements be adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR CLERK
REPORT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Harry Baranik, Fire Chief/CEMC
DATE: October 5, 2023
REPORT: FR-04/23 SUBJECT: FIRE PREVENTION WEEK: OCTOBER 8 – 14, 2023
BACKGROUND
The Ontario Fire Protection and Prevention Act addresses the duties of a Fire Department in Ontario. The Ontario Fire Marshal has spoken on the three pillars of the fire service in Ontario: Public Education; Inspection and Enforcement; and, Suppression. Every year, the Nation Fire Protection Association (NFPA) determines the theme for Fire Prevention Week, which is an international event supported by fire departments throughout North America. Fire Prevention Week 2023 addresses the first pillar with its tagline: “Cooking Safety Starts with YOU! Pay Attention to Fire Prevention.” According to NFPA, cooking is the leading cause of home fires, with nearly half (49 percent) of
all home fires involving cooking equipment; cooking is also the leading cause of home fire injuries. Unattended cooking is the leading cause of home cooking fires and related deaths. In addition, NFPA data shows that cooking is the only major cause of fire that resulted in more
fires and fire deaths in 2014-2018 than in 1980-1984. “These numbers tell us that more public awareness is needed around when and where cooking
hazards exist, along with ways to prevent them,” said Lorraine Carli, vice president of the Outreach and Advocacy at NFPA. “This year’s Fire Prevention Week campaign will work to promote tips, guidelines, and recommendations that can help significantly reduce the risk of having a cooking fire.” Following are cooking safety messages that support this year’s theme, “Cooking safety starts
with YOU! Pay attention to fire prevention”: Always keep a close eye on what you’re cooking. For foods with longer cook times, such as those that are simmering or baking, set a timer to help monitor them carefully. Clear the cooking area of combustible items and keep anything that can burn, such as dish towels, oven mitts, food packaging, and paper towels.
Turn pot handles toward the back of the stove. Keep a lid nearby when cooking. If a small grease fire starts, slide the lid over the pan and turn off the burner. Create a “kid and pet free zone” of at least three feet (one meter) around the cooking area and anywhere else hot food or drink is prepared or carried. DISCUSSION In support of this year’s Fire Prevention Week campaign, The Municipality of Bayham Fire and Emergency Services will be having the following events:
Tuesday October 11th, 2023
o The Straffordville Station will be attending the public and private schools in their area.
o At 7:00 p.m., they will host an open house at their station. This will include demonstrations and hot dogs. The firefighters will be there to answer any questions the community may have.
Wednesday October 12th, 2023,
o The Port Burwell Station will be attending the public and private schools in their area.
o At 6:00 p.m., they will be hosting an open house at their station. This will include activities and hot dogs for the community. The firefighters will be there to answer any questions the community may have. STRATEGIC PLAN 2.1: Quality of Life > To work collaboratively with community organizations and other in ensuring the availability of a diverse range of passive recreational, heritage, cultural and other community services that contribute to enriching Bayham’s valued quality of life.
Initiative(s): Develop partnerships and education to improve water sources and protection for Fire Services.
RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report FR-04/23 re Fire Prevention Week: October 8-14, 2023 be received for information.
Respectfully submitted: Harry Baranik Fire Chief/CEMC
B.A., CMM III Police Professional/Fire Services Executive, CAFI Reviewed by: Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT
MUNICIPAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Stephen Miller, By-Law Enforcement Officer
DATE: October 5, 2023
REPORT: BL-06/23 SUBJECT: ZONING BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY
BACKGROUND
The Municipality of Bayham adopted Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003 on April 15, 2002. This Zoning By-law is one of Bayham’s primary planning documents, used to guide orderly
development and land use in the municipality. The Zoning By-law employs Zones, which outline permitted uses, setbacks, lot coverages, and other acceptable forms of development within a given area. Any use or site-specific planning consideration outside of what is outlined in the
Zoning By-law, or approved to amend the Zoning By-law by Council assent, or pre-existing and legal non-conforming in nature, is deemed to be non-compliant with the Zoning By-law.
The Municipality may be advised of a potential Zoning By-law non-compliance matter in two manners: 1) A confidential by-law complaint is filed in accordance with the Municipality’s By-law Enforcement Policy; or, 2) The Municipality becomes aware of a potential non-compliance by virtue of its regular conduct of business and activity in the community. In recent months, the Municipality has been made aware of an increasing number of properties in Bayham that are potentially non-compliant with the Municipality’s Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended, which makes enforcement in this regard a priority consideration.
At its August 17, 2023 meeting, Council received Report BL-04/23 re Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy, and passed the following motion:
Moved by: Councillor Chilcott Seconded by: Councillor Froese
THAT Report BL-04/23 re Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy be received for information; AND THAT a Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy be brought forward for Council’s consideration with the approach outlined in Option 2 as contained within this report. Option 2 in Report BL-04/23 included considerations of a “Mid-Level Approach” to achieving compliance. A “Mid-Level Approach”, includes the provision of a compliance date, by which the contravention of the Zoning By-law must cease and provides for period of time for options to be considered by a property owner as it relates to compliance. Options could include Re-Zoning and Official Plan Amendment as well Minor Variance Application in addition to ceasing the prohibited activities. DISCUSSION
The By-law Enforcement Officer is responsible for enforcement of all Municipal by-laws including enforcement of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as
amended. The attached Draft Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy proposes a “Mid-Level Approach” to
Zoning enforcement and achieving compliance. The Policy contemplates the following: Formal Complaints: A Formal Complaint can be brought by a staff member of the Municipality
of Bayham where they become aware of a Zoning Contravention in the course of “Regular Municipal Business” which is defined as any duty assigned to a staff member through the regular course of their employment. Timelines for compliance: The Policy allows for a thirty (30) day period before the prohibited activity must cease. During this time frame, the subject land owner will have the ability to consult
legal counsel as well as a land use planning consultant. If a decision is made to pursue planning processes, such as Minor Variance or Rezoning/Official Plan amendments, an extension may be granted within a reasonable time frame as deemed appropriate by the CAO. Fees: This Policy allows for the establishment of a fee structure related to extensions. These fees are intended to recover costs related to staff time, and will be brought forward for Council’s
consideration in the next Fees and Charges By-law amendment. Immediate action related to Health and Safety or Risk: This Policy does permit immediate action where it has been determined that a Health and Safety or Risk of Liability issue is present. These determinations are only arrived at in consultation with the CAO. Policy statement: This Policy contains language that specifically addresses the fact that regardless of action being taken, nothing constitutes Municipal Approval of a contravention of the Zoning Bylaw. It is important to note that it is not staff’s intention to proactively patrol for zoning contraventions.
This policy is intended to provide a framework to address issues as they come to our attention during regular business. In the absence of direction, staff do not consider proactive patrol, for zoning contraventions to be within the scope of regular duties of the By-law Enforcement Officer.
Council should be advised that compliance with the Zoning By-law, as with all other by-laws, is important to ensure order in Bayham, specifically, in this case, with land use and development;
and, to mitigate potential liability associated with non-compliant uses when combined with municipal knowledge of same. Staff’s role in this regard is to limit or eliminate risk and ensure compliance to the Municipality’s Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003, as amended. STRATEGIC PLAN
Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report BL-06/23 re Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council approve the attached Zoning Enforcement Policy as presented; 3. AND THAT the appropriate adopting by-law be brought forward for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted: Reviewed by: Stephen Miller, MLEO (c), GDPA, Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Licensed Paralegal LSO By-Law Enforcement Officer Chief Administrative Officer
Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
Policy Name: Zoning By-law Enforcement Policy
Section 1 - Purpose
1.1 To provide a formal policy and procedure governing the handling of contraventions of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law and to provide a framework for a thorough, prompt and courteous investigation and resolution thereof.
1.2 To provide a framework for timelines to be established where a contravention exists and a property owner is intent on taking action towards compliance. 1.3 Municipality of Bayham Municipal Law Enforcement Officers are committed to the
delivery of professional Municipal Law Enforcement Services in a timely and effective
manner. The goal of the Municipality and of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers is to achieve compliance with Municipal by-laws, through education, mediation and as necessary through enforcement and prosecution.
Section 2 - Definitions 2.1 CAO shall mean the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality.
2.2 Formal Complaint shall mean a complaint received by the Municipality, wherein the
complainant provides their full name, address, phone number and nature of complaint, that can be verified by the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer, in writing using the required form submitted in the manner specified by the Municipality or; a complaint arising from staff, where the potential for a zoning contravention has become known
to staff through the execution of Regular Municipal Business.
2.3 Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall mean a person appointed by the Municipality by-law for the purposes of Municipal Law Enforcement including, but not limited to, a Building Inspector, Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer, Police Officer
and a person authorized by Council or an assigned individual with the responsibility
for enforcing and administering this Policy.
2.4 Municipality shall mean The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham. Municipal shall have a corresponding meaning when referring to staff or matters within
Bayham’s jurisdiction.
2.5 Regular Municipal Business shall mean the execution of any of the regular duties assigned to a staff member of the Municipality during their employment with the Municipality.
2.6 Spite Complaint, also known as a Frivolous and Vexatious Complaint, shall mean a complaint submitted with ill will or with the intention of malice towards another person and may include retaliatory complaints and civil disputes. A Spite Complaint may also be identified by a complaint that is part of a pattern of conduct by the
complainant that amounts to an abuse of the complaints process. Such a pattern
occurs when on three (3) or more occasions a complaint comes forward on a matter a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer has already dealt with. The determination of a complaint being a Spite Complaint shall always be at the sole, absolute and unfettered discretion of a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer.
Section 3 – Zoning Investigation and Enforcement Procedure 3.1 The Municipality shall only respond to Formal Complaints related to contraventions of
the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law, as long as they adhere to this Policy.
i. The Municipality will offer assistance and direction with respect to by-law interpretations and questions over the telephone, in person, or via email, where practical.
3.2 Upon receipt of a Formal Complaint, staff shall record the Formal Complaint in a
Complaints Database maintained by the Municipality. i. A Formal Complaint form shall in all cases provide space for the complainant to provide the complaint in their own words, detailing the “who”, “what”, “where”, “when” and “why” of the situation.
3.3 The name and any personal information provided by the complainant shall remain in the strictest confidence in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act and shall not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-essential municipal staff, the public or media unless so ordered by a
Court or other tribunal or body of competent jurisdiction. 3.4 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may conduct a preliminary review of the complaint to verify the information provided and research any supporting documentation which may be available in Municipal records.
3.5 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may call the complainant, when necessary, for further details or to confirm or clarify information provided within the Formal Complaint.
3.6 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may attend the site to witness and record the activity to determine if a contravention of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law
exists.
3.7 If a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer is unclear of a possible contravention, they may seek the advice of the Municipal Prosecutor, Planning Consultant, or Municipal Solicitor if required, or the appropriate Municipal staff member.
i. A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may provide the information required to
the appropriate party so that an informed determination can be provided and where necessary the appropriate actions initiated. 3.8 Where a contravention of the Zoning By-law is confirmed by a Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall issue a Notice of
Contravention in writing to the registered owners of the property outlining the specifics of the alleged contravened. i. The Notice of Contravention will further contain options for compliance. ii. The Notice of Contravention will also allot thirty (30) days by which one of the
options for compliance must be exercised.
iii. Upon written request and payment of any necessary fee or charge, a compliance date may be extended by the CAO at their sole discretion. 3.9 Notwithstanding Section 3.8 of this Policy, in situations where the contravention
represents a significant risk of liability to the Municipality or where a contravention
poses significant risk to the health safety and well-being of persons, following consultation with the CAO, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may immediately proceed by way of charges.
3.10 After the time limit has expired in the Notice of Contravention pursuant to Section 3.8
of this Policy, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may return to the site to determine if compliance has been accomplished. 3.11 When compliance with the Notice of Contravention is confirmed, a Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer shall enter the complaint’s finalized date in the Complaints
Database and close the file. 3.12 If the Notice of Contravention has not been complied with within the specified time period, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall review the non-compliance with the
CAO.
3.13 Following discussions with the CAO pursuant to Section 3.12 of this Policy, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall determine whether to proceed with the actions necessary to address the situation in accordance with Municipal By-laws or
otherwise.
i. If legal action is required, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall recommend to the CAO to proceed with legal action when it appears obvious compliance is not forthcoming. ii. At any stage of the enforcement process, if, in the opinion of the CAO the
matter is of significant consequence, the matter may be brought before Council
for direction.
3.14 Spite Complaints, shall not be accepted and/or investigated by a Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer.
3.15 A failure to comply with any provision of this Policy shall not vitiate any proceeding or any step, document or order in a proceeding otherwise in accordance with any Municipal By-law, Provincial, or Federal Legislation.
3.16 Any decision made under this Policy including a decision not to respond to a Formal Complaint or enforce by-laws, and also including a decision made by the CAO, may at any time be revisited.
Section 4 – Level of Involvement 4.1 When in receipt of any and all Formal Complaints, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer is delegated the sole absolute and unfettered discretion to determine an
appropriate level of response to said complaints. The level of response by a Municipal
Law Enforcement Officer may include a decision to act on some or all of the complaints, to not act on some or all of the complaints, or to assign priority to some or all of the complaints. In making a decision on the appropriate level of response to said complaints, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall have regard to the following
criteria:
i. safety factors; ii. history of attempts for compliance made by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer; iii. available resources, including financial resources;
iv. potential impact of not responding;
v. offer for formal mediation; vi. coordinating involvement with other relevant agencies; vii. likelihood of achieving compliance; viii. Municipal jurisdiction and authority;
ix. other enforcement avenues including civil processes.
4.2 Complainants are protected under the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act and every complainant will be kept completely confidential and not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-essential municipal
staff, the public or media unless so ordered by a Court or other tribunal or body of
competent jurisdiction. Persons who are the subject of a complaint are also protected under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and every subject of a complaint will be kept confidential and not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-essential municipal staff, the public or media unless required
for investigation purposes or so ordered by a Court or other tribunal or body of
competent jurisdiction. 4.3 Pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Policy, once a Formal Complaint has been filed, other than acknowledgment of receipt of the complaint, no follow up, involvement,
information or correspondence regarding the complaint shall be provided to the
complainant as the process is protected by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
4.4 No delegations to Council shall be permitted by any person concerning, or with the subject matter, of a Formal Complaint. 4.5 Pursuant to Section 4.1 of this Policy, any decision made or course of action chosen
shall not constitute Municipal Approval of an alleged Zoning Contravention. A court
proceeding or investigation may be commenced at any time, as long as an alleged contravention still exists.
Section 5 – Application
5.1 This Policy shall come into full force and effect on the day it is adopted by the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham.
Section 6 – Administration 6.1 This Policy shall be administered by the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer.
ZBA-10/23
PLANNING ACT NOTICE OF THE PASSING OF ZONING BY-LAW Z763-2023 BY THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM APPLICANT: FROESE, I & M, 57268 CALTON LINE TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham passed Zoning
By-Law No. Z763-2023 on the 21st of September 2023 under Section 34 of THE PLANNING
ACT.
AND TAKE NOTICE that any person or agency may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal in
respect of the By-law by filing with the Clerk of the Municipality of Bayham not later than the
17th day of October 2023 a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the By-law and the
reasons in support of the objection.
THE PURPOSE of this By-law Amendment is to rezone two portions of the subject lands, one
portion from ‘Agricultural (A1-A)’ to a ‘Rural Residential (RR)’ zone to permit a residential use,
and the remainder from ‘A1-A’ to ‘Special Agricultural (A2)’ as a result of a surplus farm dwelling
severance, in Zoning By-law No. Z456-2003. The subject lands are known as 57268 Calton Line,
north side, east of Toll Gate Road.
THE EFFECT of this By-law will be to recognize the residential nature of the newly created
residential lot and to prohibit new dwellings on the retained farm parcel in accordance with the
Official Plan, as part of the clearing of Consent Conditions for Elgin Land Division Committee file
number E31-23.
ONLY INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC BODIES may appeal a by-law to the
Ontario Land Tribunal. A notice of appeal may not be filed by an unincorporated association or
group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in the name of an individual who is a member of
the association or the group on its behalf.
NO PERSON OR PUBLIC BODY SHALL be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal
unless, before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a
public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of the Ontario Land
Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
The complete By-law is available for inspection by contacting the municipal office.
DATED AT THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM THIS 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023.
NOTE: For information regarding the fees associated with an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, please see the following link: https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/fee-chart/ or contact the Municipality.
Margaret Underhill Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk Municipality of Bayham 56169 Heritage Line, P.O. Box 160 Straffordville, ON, N0J 1Y0 T: 519-866-5521 Ext 222 F: 519-866-3884 E: munderhill@bayham.on.ca
W: www.bayham.on.ca
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND
575 Dominion Avenue
Midland, ON L4R 1R2 Phone: 705-526-4275
Fax: 705-526-9971
info@midland.ca
September 8, 2023 The Senate of Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4 Via Email: sencom@sen.parl.gc.ca
Premier Doug Ford Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Via Email: premier@ontario.ca
Dear Premier Ford:
Re: “Catch and Release” Justice is Ontario
At its September 6, 2023, Regular Council Meeting with Closed Session the Council for the Town of Midland passed the following Resolution:
That the Town of Midland send a letter to the Federal and
Provincial Governments requesting meaningful improvements to
the current state of “catch and release” justice in the Ontario legal
system. Police Services across Ontario are exhausting precious time and resources having to manage the repeated arrests of the
same offenders, which in turn, is impacting their morale, and
ultimately law-abiding citizens who are paying the often
significant financial and emotional toll of this broken system; and
That this resolution be sent to other Municipalities throughout
Ontario for their endorsement consideration.
Thank you. Yours very
truly, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND
Sherri Edgar
Sherri Edgar, AMCT
Municipal Clerk
Ext. 2210
From:Kolar, Loren
To:justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
Subject:City of Hamilton (Ontario) Correspondence respecting Support for Basic Income
Date:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:02:00 PM
Attachments:Correspondence City of Hamilton re Basic Income.pdf
Prime Minister,
Hamilton (Ontario) City Council approved the following as part of a greater
resolution respecting Support for Basic Income:
(c) That Hamilton City Council directs the Office of the Mayor to write a letter
to the Prime Minister, local Members of Parliament and the Senate, the Premier
of Ontario, local Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, calling on
these orders of government to work collaboratively towards implementing a
National Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to eradicate poverty and
homelessness, and ensure everyone has sufficient income to meet their basic
needs; and
Please see the attached correspondence respecting Support for Basic Income,
for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Loren Kolar
Legislative Coordinator
Office of the City Clerk(905) 546-2424 Ext.2604
City of Hamilton
71 Main Street West, 1st Floor
Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5
Vision: The Legislative Division is Dedicated to Excellence in the Provision of Service to the Community,
Corporation & Council with Integrity, Accuracy and Transparency.
Mission: The Legislative Division aims to strengthen and promote local government by facilitating the
proceedings of City Council and its Committees, fulfilling the requirements of various Provincial statutes
and educating the public to make it understandable and accessible.
From:Kolar, Loren
To:premier@ontario.ca; Donna Skelly Flambourough Glanbrook; M Taylor Hamilton Mountain; N. Lumsden HamiltonEast Stoney Creek; S Shaw Hamilton West Ancaster Dundas; Sarah Jama, Hamilton Centre
Subject:City of Hamilton (Ontario) Correspondence respecting Support for Basic Income
Date:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:04:00 PM
Attachments:Correspondence City of Hamilton re Basic Income.pdf
Premier,
Hamilton (Ontario) City Council approved the following as part of a greater
resolution respecting Support for Basic Income:
(c) That Hamilton City Council directs the Office of the Mayor to write a letter
to the Prime Minister, local Members of Parliament and the Senate, the Premier
of Ontario, local Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, calling on
these orders of government to work collaboratively towards implementing a
National Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to eradicate poverty and
homelessness, and ensure everyone has sufficient income to meet their basic
needs; and
Please see the attached correspondence respecting Support for Basic Income,
for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Loren Kolar
Legislative Coordinator
Office of the City Clerk(905) 546-2424 Ext.2604
City of Hamilton
71 Main Street West, 1st Floor
Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5
Vision: The Legislative Division is Dedicated to Excellence in the Provision of Service to the Community,
Corporation & Council with Integrity, Accuracy and Transparency.
Mission: The Legislative Division aims to strengthen and promote local government by facilitating the
proceedings of City Council and its Committees, fulfilling the requirements of various Provincial statutes
and educating the public to make it understandable and accessible.
From:Kolar, Loren
To:"C Collins MP Hamilton East Stoney Creek"; "D Muys MP Flamborough Glanbrook"; F Tassi, Hon. MP HamiltonWest—Ancaster—Dundas; "L Hepfner Hamilton Mountain"; "M Green MP Hamilton Centre"
Subject:City of Hamilton (Ontario) Correspondence respecting Support for Basic Income
Date:Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:05:00 PM
Attachments:Correspondence City of Hamilton re Basic Income.pdf
Members of Parliament,
Hamilton (Ontario) City Council approved the following as part
of a greater resolution respecting Support for Basic Income:
(c) That Hamilton City Council directs the Office of the Mayor
to write a letter to the Prime Minister, local Members of
Parliament and the Senate, the Premier of Ontario, local
Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, calling on
these orders of government to work collaboratively towards
implementing a National Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to
eradicate poverty and homelessness, and ensure everyone has
sufficient income to meet their basic needs; and
Please see the attached correspondence respecting Support
for Basic Income, for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Loren Kolar
Legislative Coordinator
Office of the City Clerk(905) 546-2424 Ext.2604
City of Hamilton
71 Main Street West, 1st Floor
Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5
Vision: The Legislative Division is Dedicated to Excellence in the Provision of Service to the Community,
Corporation & Council with Integrity, Accuracy and Transparency.
Mission: The Legislative Division aims to strengthen and promote local government by facilitating the
proceedings of City Council and its Committees, fulfilling the requirements of various Provincial statutes
and educating the public to make it understandable and accessible.
The Corporation of the City of Cambridge Corporate Services Department Clerk’s Division
The City of Cambridge Tel: (519) 740-4680 ext. 4585 mantond@cambridge.ca
September 20, 2023
Re: Declaring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) an Epidemic At its Council Meeting of September 12, 2023, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Cambridge passed the following Motion:
WHEREAS the safety of our community and its members is of extreme importance to every single Cambridge resident, as well as to Cambridge Council;
WHEREAS intimate partner violence, often referred to as domestic violence, means
any use of physical or sexual force, actual or threatened in an intimate relationship, including emotional and/or psychological abuse or harassing behaviour, and persons of any gender or sex can be victims of intimate partner violence;
WHEREAS Waterloo Region is experiencing a rise in intimate partner violence (IPV) and domestic violence during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS) experiences an average of 17 calls related to IPV per day, with a total of 6,158 calls in 2022 and 66,000 calls for service in total, despite the fact that 70% of IPV incidents go unreported due to feelings of shame, fear, and
secrecy; WHEREAS the WRPS has laid more than 35,000 charges related to IPV, or an average of 3,500 per year;
WHEREAS in 2022, five out of six homicides in Waterloo Region stemmed from IPV and domestic violence, with over 3,800 criminal charges issued by WRPS in relation to IPV; WHEREAS between 2012 and 2022, the WRPS received a total of 20,870 calls
related to IPV in Cambridge, and laid a total of 11,020 charges related to IPV in Cambridge; WHEREAS Indigenous women are approximately 3.5 times more likely to experience some form of intimate partner violence than non-Indigenous women, and the homicide
rate for Indigenous women and girls is approximately 6 times higher than for non- Indigenous women and girls, and Indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be murdered or missing than any other women in Canada, and 16 times more likely than white women;
WHEREAS violence against women costs the national justice system, health care systems, social services agencies and municipalities billions of dollars per year, and municipalities are on the front line in addressing gender-based violence;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Cambridge joins over 30 other Ontario municipalities in supporting the Recommendation #1 from the Culleton, Kuzyk and Warmerdam Inquest (C.K.W. Inquest) in formally declaring intimate partner violence (IPV) as an epidemic;
AND THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to declare that intimate partner violence and violence against women is an epidemic, in accordance with Recommendation #1 of the C.K.W. Inquest;
AND THAT Cambridge recommends that Waterloo Regional Council integrates
intimate partner violence in the Region’s Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan, in accordance with Recommendation #10 of the C.K.W. Inquest, and set out gender- based violence/intimate partner violence as a separate priority within the plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the City Clerk be directed to send a copy of this motion to the Region of Waterloo, Province of Ontario, The Right Honourable Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, Provincial Members of Parliament, United Nations, and all Ontario Municipalities.
Should you have any questions related to the approved resolution, please contact me.
Yours Truly,
Danielle Manton
City Clerk
Cc: (via email)
Hon. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Members of Parliament Provincial Members of Parliament United Nations Province of Ontario
Region of Waterloo All Ontario Municipalities
Township of Puslinch
7404 Wellington Road 34
Puslinch, ON N0B 2J0
www.puslinch.ca
September 15, 2023
RE 6.12 & 6.13 Municipality of Chatham-Kent Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act
Please be advised that Township of Puslinch Council, at its meeting held on August 16, 2023
considered the aforementioned topic and subsequent to discussion, the following was resolved:
Resolution No. 2023-249: Moved by Councillor Goyda and
Seconded by Councillor Hurst
That the Consent Agenda item 6.12 & 6.13 listed for AUGUST 16, 2023 Council meeting
be received for information; and
Whereas Township of Puslinch Council supports the resolution from the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent regarding the need for changes and updating to the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
That Council direct staff to send a support resolution accordingly.
Therefore, the Township of Puslinch, passes this resolution regarding the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
WHEREAS the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act R.S.O.
1990 (MFIPPA) dates back 30 years;
Municipality of
Chatham-Kent
315 King St W, P.O. Box
640, Chatham
ON, N7M 5K8
VIA EMAIL:
CKclerk@chatham-
kent.ca
AND WHEREAS municipalities, including the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, practice and
continue to promote open and transparent government operations, actively
disseminate information and routinely disclose public documents upon request outside
of the MFIPPA process;
AND WHEREAS government operations, public expectations, technologies, and
legislation surrounding accountability and transparency have dramatically changed and
MFIPPA has not advanced in line with these changes;
AND WHEREAS the creation, storage and utilization of records has changed significantly,
and the Municipal Clerk of the Municipality is responsible for records and information
management programs as prescribed by the Municipal Act, 2001;
AND WHEREAS regulation 823 under MFIPPA continues to reference antiquated
technology and does not adequately provide for cost recovery, and these financial
shortfalls are borne by the municipal taxpayer;
AND WHEREAS the threshold to establish frivolous and/or vexatious requests is
unreasonably high and allows for harassment of staff and members of municipal
councils, and unreasonably affects the operations of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS the Act fails to recognize how multiple requests from an individual,
shortage of staff resources or the expense of producing a record due to its size, number
or physical location does not allow for time extensions to deliver requests and
unreasonably affects the operations of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS the name of the requestor is not permitted to be disclosed to anyone
other than the person processing the access request, and this anonymity is used by
requesters to abuse the MFIPPA process and does not align with the spirit of openness
and transparency embraced by municipalities;
AND WHEREAS legal professionals use MFIPPA to gain access to information launch
litigation against institutions, where other remedies exist;
AND WHEREAS there are limited resources to assist administrators or requestors to
navigate the legislative process;
AND WHEREAS reform is needed to address societal and technological changes in
addition to global privacy concerns and consistency across provincial legislation;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services be requested
to review the MFIPPA, and consider recommendations as follows:
1. That MFIPPA assign the Municipal Clerk, or designate to be the Head under the Act;
2. That MFIPPA be updated to address current and emerging technologies;
3. That MFIPPA regulate the need for consistent routine disclosure practices across
institutions;
4. That the threshold for frivolous and/or vexatious actions be reviewed, and take into
consideration the community and available resources in which it is applied;
5. That the threshold for frivolous and/or vexatious also consider the anonymity of
requesters, their abusive nature and language in requests to ensure protection from
harassment as provided for in Occupational Health and Safety Act;
6. That the application and scalability of fees be designed to ensure taxpayers are
protected from persons abusing the access to information process;
7. That administrative practices implied or required under the Act, including those of
the IPC, be reviewed and modernized;
8. That the integrity of the Act be maintained to protect personal privacy and
transparent governments.
CARRIED
As per the above resolution, please accept a copy of this correspondence for your information
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Courtenay Hoytfox
Municipal Clerk
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Corporate Services
Municipal Governance
315 King Street West, P.O. Box 640
Chatham ON N7M 5K8
July 5, 2023
Via Email: Kaleed.Rasheed@ontario.ca
Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery (MPBSD) Honourable Rasheed:
Re: Time for Change Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Please be advised the Council of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent at its regular
meeting held on June 26, 2023 passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act R.S.O. 1990 (MFIPPA) dates back 30 years;
AND WHEREAS municipalities, including the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, practice and continue to promote open and transparent government operations, actively disseminate information and routinely disclose public documents upon request outside of the MFIPPA process;
AND WHEREAS government operations, public expectations, technologies, and legislation surrounding accountability and transparency have dramatically changed and MFIPPA has not advanced in line with these changes;
AND WHEREAS the creation, storage and utilization of records has changed significantly, and the Municipal Clerk of the Municipality is responsible for records and information management programs as prescribed by the Municipal Act, 2001;
AND WHEREAS regulation 823 under MFIPPA continues to reference antiquated technology and does not adequately provide for cost recovery, and these financial
shortfalls are borne by the municipal taxpayer;
AND WHEREAS the threshold to establish frivolous and/or vexatious requests is unreasonably high and allows for harassment of staff and members of municipal councils, and unreasonably affects the operations of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS the Act fails to recognize how multiple requests from an individual, shortage of staff resources or the expense of producing a record due to its size, number
or physical location does not allow for time extensions to deliver requests and
unreasonably affects the operations of the municipality;
2
AND WHEREAS the name of the requestor is not permitted to be disclosed to anyone
other than the person processing the access request, and this anonymity is used by
requesters to abuse the MFIPPA process and does not align with the spirit of openness and transparency embraced by municipalities;
AND WHEREAS legal professionals use MFIPPA to gain access to information launch
litigation against institutions, where other remedies exist;
AND WHEREAS there are limited resources to assist administrators or requestors to navigate the legislative process;
AND WHEREAS reform is needed to address societal and technological changes in addition to global privacy concerns and consistency across provincial legislation;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services be requested to review the MFIPPA, and consider recommendations as follows:
1. That MFIPPA assign the Municipal Clerk, or designate to be the Head under the Act;
2. That MFIPPA be updated to address current and emerging technologies;
3. That MFIPPA regulate the need for consistent routine disclosure practices across
institutions;
4. That the threshold for frivolous and/or vexatious actions be reviewed, and take into consideration the community and available resources in which it is applied;
5. That the threshold for frivolous and/or vexatious also consider the anonymity of requesters, their abusive nature and language in requests to ensure protection from harassment as provided for in Occupational Health and Safety Act;
6. That the application and scalability of fees be designed to ensure taxpayers are
protected from persons abusing the access to information process;
7. That administrative practices implied or required under the Act, including those of the IPC, be reviewed and modernized;
8. That the integrity of the Act be maintained to protect personal privacy and transparent governments.
3
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Judy Smith at
ckclerk@chatham-ketn.ca
Sincerely,
Judy Smith, CMO
Director Municipal Governance
Clerk /Freedom of Information Coordinator
c. Lianne Rood, MP
Dave Epp MP
Trevor Jones, MPP
Monte McNaughton, MPP
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Association of Municipalities of Ontario AMCTO Legislative and Policy Advisory Committee
Ontario municipalities
Judy Smith Digitally signed by
Judy Smith
Date: 2023.07.05
10:48:27 -04'00'
On Tuesday, September 12th, Warden Ed
Ketchabaw, alongside representatives from
Childcan, an organization that supports families
dealing with childhood cancer, raised the
Childhood Cancer Awareness flag in front of the
Heritage Centre. Dave Jenkins, a member of the
Childcan organization, is a community member
who lost his daughter Maggie to cancer. Dave
works tirelessly to increase awareness about
childhood cancer.
Warden Ketchabaw proclaimed September as
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, honouring
families like the Jenkins and others who have
lost a child, as well as children who survived the
disease.
By raising this flag, the County hopes to provide
awareness about an organization that helps
families and children with childhood cancer
deal with this disease's emotional and financial
tolls.
RAISING HOPE: A FLAG OF AWARENESS FORCHILDHOOD CANCER
PAGE 01ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTSCOUNCIL
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 12 , 2023
IN THIS ISSUE:
Raising Hope: A Flag of Awarenessfor Childhood Cancer
Preserving Care and Nourishment:
Updates in Elgin County Homes'Service Agreements
Prescribing Hope: Elgin County's
Collaborative Solution to PhysicianShortage
Revamping Highway 3 & 4: Paving
the Path to Progress - A Peek into The MTO’s Vision
December 2023 Council Meeting
Schedule Amendment
Clearing the Dust: Terrace Lodge's
Asbestos Abatement
and Policy Renewal
Shaping Tomorrow's Landscape:
Council Decisions on Planning
Amendments and RedlineRevisions in Elgin County
Pictured (L-R): Childcan representative, MP Karen Vecchio,
Warden Ketchabaw, Dave Jenkins and a local cancer survivor, Ben.
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 02
The County of Elgin Homes (Bobier Villa, Elgin Manor and Terrace Lodge)
have an agreement with CareRx Pharmacy for the provision of pharmacy
services, with an end date of September 30, 2023.
A request for proposal (RFP) was issued on June 12, 2023, and the
evaluation process is being followed and is anticipated to be completed in
September 2023. Elgin County Council approved extending the current
service agreement with CareRx Pharmacy to January 29, 2024, to support
the completion of the RFP process.
The County of Elgin Homes (Elgin Manor and Terrace Lodge) currently
prepare meals for the VON Meals on Wheels program. This program has an
agreement with an end date of September 30, 2023.
Elgin County Council approved a new Meal Supply Agreement from
October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2025. This new agreement will see a
minimal increase year over year based on current and forecasted labour,
food and packaging costs.
PRESERVING CARE AND NOURISHMENT: UPDATES IN ELGIN COUNTY HOMES' SERVICE AGREEMENTS
As a member of the South West Ontario Health Team (SW OHT), Elgin
County has been invited to work together with neighbouring Ontario
Health Teams on a proposal to recruit international physicians. Many Elgin
County residents struggle to secure a family physician.
Elgin County Council approved a cost-effective proposal to increase the
pool of physicians available to address the need.
PRESCRIBING HOPE: ELGIN COUNTY'S COLLABORATIVE SOLUTION TOPHYSICIAN SHORTAGE
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 03
Stantec Consulting Ltd. was hired by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation
(MTO) to improve Highway 3 from Highway 4 to Centennial Avenue in St.
Thomas. This project aims to enhance the highway corridor, which affects
County roads and nearby communities.
A Study Design Report (SDR) was presented during a Public Information
Centre (PIC) on August 17th, 2023, and is open for public review and
comment until September 15th.
Peter Dutchak, Acting Director of Engineering Services, provided Council
with an overview of the SDR and staff's comments on preliminary design
options for Council's review and input.
He noted that County staff, along with representatives from the Township
of Southwold and the Municipality of Central Elgin, have unanimously
agreed on their response to the MTO, which can be found in the
"Environmental Assessment - Highway 3 and 4 Widening and Talbotville
Bypass" Council Report.
REVAMPING HIGHWAY 3 & 4: PAVING THE PATH TO PROGRESS - A PEEK INTO THE MTO’S VISION
This image outlines the identified “Problem” and “Opportunities” statement as identified by the MTO.
The meeting scheduled for November 28, 2023, marks the end of the one-
year term for the position of Warden. The Annual Warden’s Election will be
held on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will resume
on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.
DECEMBER 2023 COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE AMENDMENT
For the complete September 12, 2023, County Council Agenda Package,
please visit the Elgin County website.
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 04
The Terrace Lodge Redevelopment Project is currently in Phase 2. During
this phase, residual dust of Amosite, a friable dust, has been discovered
throughout the facility on the suspended ceiling tile grids. Schouten
Environmental Inc. has been chosen to carry out the Terrace Lodge
Asbestos abatement at a total cost of $113,350.00, excluding H.S.T.
Following the Ministry of Labour Orders received in relation to Asbestos-
related work at Terrace Lodge, HR Policy 8.60 'Asbestos in Buildings' was
recently reviewed. The Ministry found the policy to be insufficient.
Therefore, extensive training has been scheduled for all maintenance staff,
management team members within the facilities, and JHSC members
associated with the Lodge.
CLEARING THE DUST: TERRACE LODGE'S ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AND POLICY RENEWAL
The Council of the Town of Aylmer has adopted an amendment to their
official plan, called Official Plan Amendment Number 24 (OPA No. 24),
which alters the land use designation of certain lands. The amendment
changes the designation from 'Low-Density Residential' to 'Medium
Density Residential' to allow the use of the lands for multi-family homes,
specifically townhouses.
The Creek's Edge Subdivision located in the Municipality of West Elgin
has proposed a modification to their draft plan of subdivision. The
proposed redline revision will involve altering the size of the stormwater
management block and making minor adjustments to road locations and
lot sizing. The number of lots will remain unchanged, and the revisions
will uphold the original two (2) subdivision concepts.
In accordance with Section 17 of the Planning Act, the Council of the County
of Elgin, as “Approval Authority,” is required to make a decision on the
adopted amendments and redline revisions in which Council may approve,
modify or refuse to approve. County Council approved the following
planning matters:
SHAPING TOMORROW'S LANDSCAPE: COUNCIL DECISIONS ON PLANNINGAMENDMENTS AND REDLINE REVISIONS IN ELGIN COUNTY
PAGE 01ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTSCOUNCIL
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
IN THIS ISSUE:
Revitalizing County Websites:Paving the Digital Path for
Accessibility, Security, and
Innovation
Driving Excellence: Elgin County's
Ambulance Fleet Renewal Strategy
Energizing Elgin: Powering Up the
POA Courthouse and EMS
Headquarters with Natural GasGenerators
Fostering Business Excellence:Empowering Entrepreneurs in
Elgin County and St. Thomas
Planning for Progress: Elgin's
Collaborative
Approach to Development
AccessAbility Open House -
Thursday September 28th
REVITALIZING COUNTY WEBSITES: PAVINGTHE DIGITAL PATH FOR ACCESSIBILITY,SECURITY, AND INNOVATION
The County's websites need upgrades for
accessibility, security, and new program
interfaces. A delay occurred due to unforeseen
challenges, but it's time to re-engage to meet
the modern needs of our communities and
residents alike.
The Economic Development Department
secured $50,000 in funding through the
Ministry of Economic Development’s Rural
Economic Development Program (RED) to
support the redevelopment of the County's
sites by the end of 2024.
County Council approved staff’s
recommendation to utilize Sandbox Software
Solutions, who has the necessary expertise and
familiarity with County operations.
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 02
Elgin County currently has a fleet of twelve
(12) ambulances and two (2) emergency
response vehicles. Every six (6) years, this
fleet is refreshed by purchasing two (2)
new ambulances each year.
Currently, there are only two (2)
manufacturers that are certified for Type 3
ambulances in Ontario - Crestline Coach
and Demers Ambulance. Since Demers
acquired Crestline, staff recommend that
the County purchase from Crestline for the
next two (2) years. County Council
approved the purchase of two (2)
ambulances from Crestline in 2023 and
again in 2024 and the disposal of two (2)
surplus ambulances each year.
DRIVING EXCELLENCE: ELGIN COUNTY'S AMBULANCE FLEET RENEWAL STRATEGY
As part of the 2023 Capital Budget, the County issued tenders for the
supply of labour, equipment, and materials for new Natural Gas Standby
Power Generators at the Provincial Offences Administration (POA)
Courthouse and Elgin-St. Thomas EMS Headquarters on Edward Street, in
accordance with the Procurement Policy.
Clark-Haasen Electric submitted the lowest compliant bid and was
subsequently approved by Elgin County Council to complete the
installation at a total cost of $258,300.00, excluding H.S.T.
ENERGIZING ELGIN: POWERING UP THE POA COURTHOUSE AND EMSHEADQUARTERS WITH NATURAL GAS GENERATORS
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 03
The Elgin Business Resource Centre (EBRC) hosts an annual business plan
contest called "The Pitch" for local businesses in Elgin County and St.
Thomas. The competition awards a grand prize package, and the EBRC is
seeking sponsors to help support the prize. On January 24, 2024, "The
Pitch" will return for its eighth annual event. The EBRC is looking for
sponsors to support the prize package. Previously, Elgin County Economic
Development contributed $1,000 towards the prize package. This year, the
EBRC aims to raise $35,000 ($25,000 cash and $10,000 in-kind) for the
prize package. County Council approved sponsoring "The Pitch" with
$1,000.
The Elgin- St. Thomas Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC), which
offers programs to small businesses in the region with valuable support,
resources, business counseling, loans, and youth-focused, recently
launched the Young Entrepreneurs Initiative (YEI). YEI a dynamic group
that focuses on supporting and connecting entrepreneurs under 40 in Elgin
and St. Thomas. To continue building momentum for this group, SBEC is
seeking a small number of sponsors at $1,000 to support the group for the
entire year. County Council approved sponsoring the Young Entrepreneurs
Initiative with $1,000.
FOSTERING BUSINESS EXCELLENCE: EMPOWERING ENTREPRENEURS INELGIN COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS
Elgin County Council received an update from representatives from the St.
Thomas-Elgin Social Services with information on their services for 2023
and beyond. They focused on three areas: Ontario Works, Housing Stability
Services, and Children's Services.
Joanne Weber, the Manager of Ontario Works, gave a detailed breakdown
of the statistics for 2023 to date. She noted that 25% of applicants were
from Elgin County, with the rest being from the City of St. Thomas. She also
mentioned that Ontario Works would transition to Employment Services
Elgin in 2024 and that Social Services will focus on Employment Services
Transformation as directed by the Ministry of Labour. This new service will
provide job seekers with person-centred support for basic needs, life skills,
health, and community support.
Danielle Neilson, the Manager of Housing Stability Services, discussed the
Homelessness Response Plan for Elgin County. She highlighted the
community's achievement of being recognized as Functional Zero on
Veterans Homelessness, which is a significant step in combating
homelessness in the region. Danielle also spoke about the Coordinated
Access St. Thomas-Elgin program, which matches people to resources
through bi-weekly meetings of local service groups. She also mentioned
The Family Central in Aylmer and the West Elgin Community Health Centre
and their services for people experiencing rural homelessness.
Teresa Sulowski, the Manager of Children's Services, presented Council with
an overview of childcare needs in the community. She mentioned the
shortage of qualified Early Child Educators and the desperate need for
more spaces across the entire County.
Overall, the presentations were well-received and sparked the need for
further conversations between St. Thomas-Elgin Social Services, Elgin
County Council, and Elgin County staff.
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 04
CHARTING A PATH TO A STRONGER COMMUNITY: ST. THOMAS-ELGINSOCIAL SERVICES' VISION FOR 2023 AND BEYOND
For the complete September 26, 2023, County Council Agenda Package,
please visit the Elgin County website.
ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS PAGE 05
Elgin's local economy and community are set to receive a significant boost
with the establishment of the Amazon Fulfillment Centre, the PowerCo SE
Gigafactory and other related investments. To ensure all Local Municipal
Partners (LMPs) are informed and involved in any joint efforts that may be
required, the Economic Development and Planning staff presented Council
with an Education Session.
During the session, an overview of the expected growth in our region over
the next few years was presented. This sparked a conversation about how
the Local Municipalities and the County plan to respond to this growth. The
session also highlighted the importance of professional planners and their
expertise in guiding us on this growth journey. The full presentations can
be accessed here.
PLANNING FOR PROGRESS: ELGIN'S COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT
ACCESSABILITY OPEN HOUSE - THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 28TH
Thomas, I am writing to you for some advice. Briefly, back in the early months of 2023 the Otter
Valley Naturalists wrote a letter to Bayham Council regarding "The Mayors Monarch
Pledge". In a response from Meagan Elliot, dated February 17th, the following resolutions were adopted at the February 16th Council meeting: THAT the correspondence from the Otter Valley Naturalists re The Mayors Monarch Pledge
be received for information; AND THAT Council refer the recommendations in the correspondence received from the Otter Valley Naturalists to staff for further consideration within operations. With that background I want to update you. The club felt that the scope of the 'Monarch
Pledge' was too narrow. It was resolved that the OVN explore opportunities to find a site, or
sites, to plant native pollinator demonstration garden(s). One such site has been secured in Port Burwell and two plots have been prepared. The site is at the Trinity Church property, adjacent to the Parish Hall, and 'piggy backs' on the Community Garden initiative already in place. The gardens measure 4' by 14' with a centre aisle and are framed in 2 x 6
lumber. The attached pictures show the ground preparation and subsequent application of landscape fabric. Planting will occur next spring. Now to my purpose:
In discussion with staff (Straffordville Branch of the Elgin County Library) Librarian Amanda Paupst, and her Supervisor Brian Masschaele, have expressed strong support in favour of establishing a demonstration plot on the library property to the north of the building. The purpose of these plots would be educational, beautification and to support pollinators of course. The OVN have set aside money for the purchase of appropriate plant materials,
educational signage and has a labour force in support of this goal. The library currently uses this area for children's outdoor activities and recreation and the staff believe the garden would be an enhancement to programming and provide an excellent educational experience to any interested visitor. The size of the garden would be limited (a sketch can be provided) and placed so as not to restrict contracted on-going maintenance. The
property at the library belongs to the Municipality of Bayham. We are ready to proceed but require permission from the Municipality. My ask of you is advice on how to proceed in that regard. Thank-you
Sincerely, Tom Manley President Otter Valley Naturalists
Straffordville Library
9366 Plank Road
PO Box 209
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
September 26, 2023
Mr. Thomas Thayer, CAO
Municipality of Bayham
56169 Heritage Line
PO Box 160
Straffordville, ON N0J 1Y0
Dear Mr. Thayer,
As the Supervisor of the Straffordville Library branch of the Elgin County Library system, it is my pleasure
to write a letter in support of the proposal, “OVN Initiative to Plant a Native Host Plant and Pollinators
Garden, Straffordville Public Library Site,” submitted by the Otter Valley Naturalists (OVN). The OVN has
gained my strong support for the proposal by consulting and collaborating with the Library to ensure the
proposed site aligns with branch library services and programs.
It is my understanding that the proposed initiative, which establishes a pollinator garden on the
property adjacent to the Straffordville Library, will provide a valuable resource that serves the diverse
needs of our community. The site will allow for educational library programming for all ages that
increases awareness of the environmental impact of pollinators and native plants. The site will provide
hands-on and immersive learning opportunities for children and youth in the area, including students
from the Straffordville Public School and the active local homeschooling community. Our community
partners, such as EarlyON, may likewise employ the site to enhance their program offerings, while
library staff are eager to integrate the site into our regular library programming, such as the TD Summer
Reading Club.
Similar initiatives have been established with great success at other public library locations throughout
Ontario. My library colleagues have utilized these spaces to implement learning programs for gardening,
create virtual guides to native plants and local pollinator sites, enhance literacy programs for children,
such as a Pollinator Garden Storywalk, and offer volunteer opportunities for youth and older adults. On
balance, pollinator sites create public outdoor spaces for leisure activities that encourage library users
and community members to explore the natural world and create stronger communities with a shared
interest in preserving and protecting the environment.
I believe that the OVN is uniquely qualified to oversee the proposed project. The executive members
have undertaken a planning process that demonstrates adequate consideration for the project timeline,
budget limitations, volunteer recruitment, permaculture maintenance, and the procurement of flowers
and potential host plants. The OVN recently completed a similar project at the Trinity Anglican Church in
Port Burwell. As such, the proposed site at the Straffordville Library will be a straightforward endeavour
that will create a cost-effective and valuable community space. In conclusion, I fully support the efforts
of the OVN to establish a pollinator garden on the property adjacent to the Straffordville Library.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Amanda Paupst, MA, MLIS
Library Branch Supervisor
Straffordville Library | Fred Bodsworth Public Library of Port Burwell
519-631-1460 ext. 453
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: October 5, 2023
REPORT: CAO-51/23 SUBJECT: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2023, Mayor Ketchabaw received correspondence from the new Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Paul Calandra. The correspondence is attached hereto. The
Minister’s correspondence details the work of the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF),
completed in February 2022. The Task Force Report is attached as well.
For clarity, on September 25, 2023, the Minister followed up this correspondence and the
Report with a chart outlining the 74 recommendations, making specific reference to those that
have been implemented to-date. This chart is attached hereto.
The Minister is requesting that each Head of Council identity their top five priorities stemming
from the Report to help guide future action regarding housing affordability in Ontario.
The correspondence was provided to staff, who have drafted this Report and appended draft
recommendations to convey to the Ministry. A response is required by October 16, 2023.
It is worth noting that the Ministry does not require Council as a whole to discuss and approve
the recommendations. However, for transparency purposes and as we are still well within the
commenting period, Council is being provided the opportunity via this Report to review the draft
recommendations.
DISCUSSION
During the review, staff found it difficult to select five recommendations from the chart offered as a follow-up to the Report that applied to rural housing and/or that would not imperil Bayham’s financial security by encouraging unsustainable development. The Task Force appears to suggest that municipal policies and fees are the primary mechanism for increasing building supply, which implicitly suggests that it is municipal failures that have led to housing supply issues. The recommendations are such that they appear to generally target policies of larger urban centres. The Province indicates that the majority of housing growth will be in urban centres, so
the recommendations of the task force will be more applicable in those contexts. The report, for instance, mentions development adjacent to “major transit stations” and offers suggestions for multi-storey housing (above 12 storeys) as of right, which either do not exist in Bayham (or Elgin County), or provide challenges for fire departments without apparatuses to service 12+ storeys. HATF Report by Section Under the first subheading of the report, “Focus on getting more homes built”, staff is of the opinion that many of the recommendations for reduction of exclusionary zoning practices and a push for “as of right” approaches are so rarely requested by developers that they are not the highest priority for Bayham. As noted, staff oppose unlimited height and unlimited density permissions without Provincial financial support to improve Fire response to these types of buildings. Recommendations to create a more permissive land use planning approval system and notions that the province override municipal policies, mandate province wide zoning
standards, or reduce the availability of additional public consultations are not supported by staff since local input into planning decisions has generally resulted in better development in our community and urban standards suitable for large urban areas are not generally compatible with
our more rural context. Staff agree that the delegated authority for Site Plan approvals or Minor Variances could be an appropriate recommendation. Delegated authority for Site Plan is already in place in Bayham for Site Plan Agreements by way of By-law No. 2022-046. Staff also agree
that requiring digital participation options is also a good way to engage with the public. That being said, staff does not see these as our top five priorities for increasing housing.
The second subheading, titled, “Cut the Red Tape so we can build faster and reduce costs” includes suggestions to legislate timelines, create approval facilitators, require pre-consultations with binding lists, simplify planning legislation, create province-wide standards and agreements, and alter letter of credit formats. Staff is amenable to considering some aspects of this section as recommendations for Bayham. Staff and Council have generally heard that the planning and development process and associated legislation is difficult to navigate, and as such, streamlining or simplifying documents and offering standardized pre-consultations is supported. Staff, however, do not recommend any simplifying of the system to reduce timelines and approval requirements as these may impact the municipality’s ability to conduct its due diligence and employ a thorough planning and development review, and while a standardized plan of subdivision agreement template is also a consideration herein, we are wary of reductions to
security provisions, which could saddle the municipality with infrastructure requirements should a developer not satisfy requirements under such an agreement. Further, recommendations in this section relate to process improvements at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), which have not
historically been a concern for Bayham. Some of these recommendations, exclusive of associated commentary, are featured in Attachment No. 4.
A third subsection focused on ways to “Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent” contains many provisions that staff find especially problematic. Recommendations to waive development charges, prohibit interest rates on development charges, and limit cash-in-lieu payments could create tremendous financial challenges for Bayham in the future. Bayham has adopted the principle that ‘growth should pay for growth’, and is implementing development charges in stages. Any Provincial intervention overriding this decision would mean that developer profitability is placed ahead of the existing residents’ interests. Despite these concerns, staff is more supportive of recommendations in the section to reduce tax disincentives, call on the federal government to implement housing strategies, fund pilot programs and provide loan guarantees. The final section of recommendations, under the “Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply” contain the recommendations that closely align with Bayham’s perspective in supporting new growth and new housing. Noting that “investing in municipal infrastructure” is key, sections
on implementing a municipal services corporation model for water and wastewater are beneficial in general, having the ability to withdraw infrastructure allocations provides flexibility, and
recommendations for expanding the labour force and providing training are all suggestions that Bayham supports. While not solicited, Bayham staff have compiled the following additional suggestions that, while not solicited, may have more applicability to Bayham than certain recommendations provided in the HATF Report. Alternatively, these suggestions can be creatively built into the commentary provided to support the recommendations identified in Attachment No. 4: - Provide funding to municipalities to invest in sanitary, water, roads, or other infrastructure to support potential or incoming growth. - Improve assessment timelines to allow municipalities to capture revenue sooner from new growth and appropriately finance the costs of development in the shorter timeframe. Upon Council direction, Mayor Ketchabaw will remit to the Ministry Bayham’s top five
recommendations, inclusive of appropriate commentary to support the recommendations, prior to the October 16, 2023 deadline. STRATEGIC PLAN 1.1: Quality of Place > To invest in community infrastructure initiatives that create an
effective foundation that contributes to Bayham’s quality of life and economic prospects.
Initiative(s): Focus on strategically encouraging urban development and growth ATTACHMENTS 1. Correspondence from Minister Calandra, dated September 15, 2023 2. HATF Report, February 2022 3. Follow-up – HATF Recommendations Chart, provided September 25, 2023 4. Draft Bayham Top Five HATF Recommendations (without commentary) RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report CAO-51/23 re Housing Affordability Task Force Recommendations received for information;
2. AND THAT the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham directs Mayor Ketchabaw to submit the recommendations attached as Attachment No. 4 to this Report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in advance of the October 16,
2023 deadline. Respectfully Submitted by: Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Chief Administrative Officer
234-2023-4597
September 15, 2023
Dear Head of Council,
Subject: Responding to the Housing Affordability Task Force’s Recommendations
As you know, in February 2022, the Housing Affordability Task Force delivered its final
report with recommendations to help Ontario tackle the housing supply crisis and build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031. Including sub-items and appendices, the Task Force made 74 unique recommendations, some of which apply to all communities in Ontario, with others more specific to large and urban municipalities. While Ontario has made
progress in acting on these recommendations — with 23 implemented to date helping to
achieve the highest level of housing starts in over three decades — as the province grows at incredible speed, all levels of government need to do more.
To bring the dream of home ownership into reach for more people, I have asked my ministry to renew its efforts to review and, where possible, implement the Task Force’s
remaining recommendations with minimal delay. As part of that review, I am asking for
you, as head of council, to prioritize your top five recommendations for future consideration. For these top five priorities, this could include your advice to revisit the way a recommendation has been implemented up to this point, as well as how some of the recommendations could or should be implemented with amendments.
Accompanying this letter, you will find a chart with space to rank the top five Task Force
recommendations. While I know that some of the recommendations may not be applicable to all small, rural, and Northern communities, I ask that you rank those recommendations that you feel would be, or have been, the most useful in increasing housing supply in your community.
As we look to do more to solve the housing supply and affordability crisis together, it’s
important for the province to have a full understanding of our municipal partners’ positions on these recommendations as quickly as possible. I ask that you please return the completed chart to housingsupply@ontario.ca no later than October 16, 2023.
…/2
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Office of the Minister 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000
Ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement Bureau du ministre 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3 Tél. : 416 585-7000
-2-
I look forward to continuing our work together to ensure that more people can afford a place to call home.
Sincerely,
The Hon. Paul Calandra
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
c: Hon. Rob Flack, Associate Minister of Housing
Kirstin Jensen, Interim Chief of Staff, Minister’s Office
Martha Greenberg, Deputy Minister
Joshua Paul, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market Housing Division
Sean Fraser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Growth Division
Caspar Hall, Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Division
Attachment:
Top Five Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) Recommendations for Response
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
February 8, 2022
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2
Contents
Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4
Introduction ............................................................................................6
Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9
Making land available to build .......................................................10
Cut the red tape so we can
build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18
Support and incentivize
scaling up housing supply .............................................................22
Conclusion ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27
Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29
Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31
Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32
References ..........................................................................................33
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3
Letter to Minister Clark
Dear Minister Clark,
Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing
to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now
spread to smaller towns and rural communities.
Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is
clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.
When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable,
concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the
freedom and independence to develop our recommendations.
In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial
sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently
around these themes:
• More housing density across the province
• End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing
• Depoliticize the housing approvals process
• Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system
• Financial support to municipalities that build more housing
We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government
has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an
ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years.
Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working
or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they
cannot afford to buy or rent.
The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained
by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in
favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing
and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms.
It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force.
Jake Lawrence
Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force
Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4
Executive summary and recommendations
House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than
incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not working as it should.
For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the
housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough
homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are
not building enough to meet the needs of our growing
population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more
housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will
continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario.
This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold
goal and clear direction for the province, increase density,
remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth,
prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure
municipalities are treated as partners in this process by
incentivizing success.
Setting bold targets and making
new housing the planning priority
Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold
goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years
and update planning guidance to make this a priority.
The task force then recommends actions in five main areas
to increase supply:
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways,
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways.
Adding density in all these locations makes better use
of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban
boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will
provide Ontarians with many more options for housing.
Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario
can quickly create more housing supply by allowing
more housing in more locations “as of right” (without
the need for municipal approval) and make better use
of transportation investments.
Reduce and streamline urban design rules
Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of
rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the
requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of
this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear
to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example,
requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls
even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements
result in delays and extra costs that make housing either
impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home
buyer or renter.
Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial
standards for urban design, including building
shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that
prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical
character over new housing, no longer require
municipal approval of design matters like a building’s
colour, texture, type of material or window details,
and remove or reduce parking requirements.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5
Depoliticize the process and cut red tape
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to
building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes
up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local
councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to
keep the status quo, the planning process has become
politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation
than is required, often using formats that make it hard for
working people and families with young children to take
part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal
staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no
heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed
and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are
also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction
throughout the system, risk aversion and needless
bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags
the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval
times. Ontarians have waited long enough.
Recommendations 13 through 25 would require
municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated
maximum, ensure people can take part digitally,
mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent
abuse of the heritage process and see property
owners compensated for financial loss resulting from
designation, restore the right of developers to appeal
Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews,
legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other
common sense changes that would allow housing to be
built more quickly and affordably.
Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal
Largely because of the politicization of the planning process,
many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body,
to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been
approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal
approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal –
paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well
succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might
no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal
faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously
under-resourced.
Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or
prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects,
allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in
more cases, including instances where a municipality
has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated
deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase
funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases
that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles
the backlog.
Support municipalities that commit to transforming
the system
Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together.
Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and
federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that
make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing
supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new
housing should see funding reductions.
Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario
government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match
funding, and suggest how the province should reward
municipalities that support change and reduce funding
for municipalities that do not.
This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get
the most housing units approved and built in the shortest
time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues
that are important but may take more time to resolve or
may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers
are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal
financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways
to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour
shortages in the construction industry (45-47).
This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions. This time must be
different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping
to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the
homes Ontarians need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6
Introduction
Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across
Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2]
Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have grown roughly 38%.[3] [4]
Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers,
construction workers, small business owners – could afford
the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to
expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood
you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality
rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system
is not working as it should be.
Housing has become too expensive for rental units and
it has become too expensive in rural communities and
small towns.
While people who were able to buy a home a decade or
more ago have built considerable personal equity, the
benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a
place to call home connects people to their community,
creates a gathering place for friends and family, and
becomes a source of pride.
Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of
Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows
people who are living with the personal and financial stress
of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young
family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where
they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about
where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if
the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will
have to stay at home for a few more years before he can
afford to rent or buy.
While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on
some groups than on others. Young people starting a family
who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the
market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face
even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only
recently begun to understand and address the reality
of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower
household incomes, making the housing affordability gap
wider than average.
The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and
lower income Ontarians further and further away from
job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership
rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And
homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are
11 times the national average. When housing prevents an
individual from reaching their full potential, this represents
a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and
revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire
Ontario economy.
Average price for a house across Ontario
2021
$923,000
$329,000
2011
+180%+38%
Over 10 Years
average house prices have climbed
while average incomes have grown
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7
As much as we read about housing affordability being a
challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the
challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than
almost anywhere in the developed world.
How did we get here? Why do we have this problem?
A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing.
A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the
fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and,
our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five
years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022
found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in
Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or
owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population
growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will
take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support
population growth in the next decade, we will need
one million more homes.
While governments across Canada have taken steps to
“cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time
buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is
enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a
direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases.
Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we
need to build more housing in Ontario.
Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the
next 10 years to address the supply shortage
The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of
the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential.
Economy
Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and
retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology
and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not
enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the
economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant,
diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide
essential services.
Public services
Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers
across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining
staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it
could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department,
because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes
drive of the firehall.
Environment
Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon
emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries
found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the
longest commute times in North America and was
essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest
commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities
and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to
the benefit of everyone.
Our mandate and approach
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our
progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve
housing affordability.
Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly
what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing
construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be
outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic
gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that
can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work.
We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives
that includes developing, financing and building homes,
delivering affordable housing, and researching housing
market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed
biographies appear as Appendix A.
Canada has the lowest amount of housing per
population of any G7 country.
We acknowledge that every house in
Ontario is built on the traditional territory
of Indigenous Peoples.
1.5MOntario must build
homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8
Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market
housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are
referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without
government support.
Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates
with government support) was not part of our mandate.
The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that
issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke
with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and
also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However,
affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will
require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the
significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have
included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable
housing in the body of this report, but have also included
further thoughts in Appendix B.
We note that government-owned land was also outside our
mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value
of surplus or underused public land and land associated
with major transit investments in finding housing solutions.
We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in
Appendix C.
How we did our work
Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and
mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end
of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline
because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible
solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from
insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in
other jurisdictions.
During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over
140 organizations and individuals, including industry
associations representing builders and developers,
planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions;
social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal
level; academics and research groups; and municipal
planners. We also received written submissions from many
of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad
public reports and papers listed in the References.
We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were
uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the
housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff
of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who
provided logistical and other support, including technical
briefings and background.
The way forward
The single unifying theme across all participants over the
course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency
to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are
incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining
approvals, and building homes takes years.
Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits,
others will take years for the full impact.
This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues
to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate
housing supply and to move quickly in turning the
recommendations in this report into decisive new actions.
The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to
build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build
1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can
fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up
to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth.
By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing
crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future
for everyone.
The balance of this report lays out our recommendations.
People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as
having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels,
water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9
Focus on getting more homes built
Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the
legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market can be aligned.
In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this
report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling
(detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite,
condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing
completions have grown every year as a result of positive
measures that the province and some municipalities have
implemented to encourage more home building. But we
are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other
G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of
1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need
and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario
built more housing units each year than we do today.[10]
The second recommendation is designed to address the
growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation,
policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities,
by providing clear direction to provincial agencies,
municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding
priorities for housing.
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in
ten years.
2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy
Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the
full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification
within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as
the most important residential housing priorities in
the mandate and purpose.
The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing
middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other
additional units in existing houses.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10
Making land available to build
The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city.
But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem.
Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas
and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts.
We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what
we can build and where we can build. If we want to make
better use of land to create more housing, then we need
to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners,
municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right”
zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations
and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool
in the provincial toolkit. We agree.
Stop using exclusionary zoning
that restricts more housing
Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules.
For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for
housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or
semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents
homeowners from adding additional suites to create
housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one
person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there
to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a
basement suite to my home.”
While less analysis has been done in other Ontario
communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential
land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing,
meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public
consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In
some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates
residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and
major highways.
One result is that more growth is pushing past urban
boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped
land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must
be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural
communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the
solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other
environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and
farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily
on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the
already small share of land devoted to agriculture.
Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more
rental housing, which in turn would make communities
more inclusive.
Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of
roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other
public services that are already in place and have capacity,
instead of having to be built in new areas.
The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing
secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the
province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still
place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last
three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto
has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted
and owners convert two units into one.[12]
These are the types of renovations and home construction
performed by small businesses and local trades, providing
them with a boost.
70%It’s estimated that
of land zoned for housing in Toronto
is restricted to single-detachedor semi-detached homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11
Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties
are another potential source of land for housing. It was
suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into
a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall,
a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban
streets in most large Ontario cities.
“As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are
accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods
stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing
built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any
other measure.
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through
binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to
four units and up to four storeys on a single
residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies
to remove any barriers to affordable construction
and to ensure meaningful implementation
(e.g., allow single-staircase construction for
up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or
redundant commercial properties to residential
or mixed residential and commercial use.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites,
and laneway houses province-wide.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting
rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase
density in areas with excess school capacity to
benefit families with children.
Align investments in roads and transit
with growth
Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways,
light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But
without ensuring more people can live close to those
transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those
infrastructure investments.
Access to transit is linked to making housing more
affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people
can get to work more easily. They can live further from the
centre of the city in less expensive areas without the
added cost of car ownership.
The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond
serving riders. These investments also spur economic
growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all
pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share
in the benefits.
If municipalities achieve the right development near
transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density,
office space and retail – this would open the door to better
ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK
and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased
land value and business activity along new transit routes
to help with their financing.
Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare)
for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit
corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13a] [13b] These are
areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations
and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local
opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods
and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors,
and the province need to stand up to these tactics and
speak up for the Ontarians who need housing.
The Province is also building new highways in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully
for the communities that will follow from these investments,
to make sure they are compact and liveable.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height
and unlimited density in the immediate proximity
of individual major transit stations within two years
if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet
provincial density targets.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with
no minimum parking requirements on any streets
utilized by public transit (including streets on bus
and streetcar routes).
10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and
residential use all land along transit corridors and
redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed
commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
11. Support responsible housing growth on
undeveloped land, including outside existing
municipal boundaries, by building necessary
infrastructure to support higher density
housing and complete communities and applying
the recommendations of this report to all
undeveloped land.
Start saying “yes in my backyard”
Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official
plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like
maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias
is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from
the official plan. Although requirements are presented as
“guidelines”, they are often treated as rules.
Examples include:
• Angular plane rules that require successively higher
floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number
of units that can be built by up to half and making
many projects uneconomic
• Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts
• Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details
One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their
backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete
proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws
and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character”
often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to
existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young,
visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect
example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but
is discriminatory in its application.[14]
Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and
holding consultations for large projects which conform with
the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which
would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless
delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants.
Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another
example of outdated municipal requirements that increase
the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with
public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking
requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new
housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling:
data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario
shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking
stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto
City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements.
We believe other cities should follow suit.
While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation
has also become a tool to block more housing. For example,
some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to
a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage
value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or
registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon
as a development is proposed.
This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or
NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from
being built.
New housing is often the last priority
A proposed building with market and affordable
housing units would have increased the midday
shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall
and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer
months. To conform to a policy that does not permit
“new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors
of housing, including 26 affordable housing units,
were sacrificed.
Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were
designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing
being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws
are being used to prevent families from moving into
neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along
transit routes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13
NIMBY versus YIMBY
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant
obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood
pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up
costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps
out new residents. While building housing is very costly,
opposing new housing costs almost nothing.
Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual
municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition –
it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The
outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise
of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to
persuade their local councillor to vote against development
even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense
among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal
approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long
delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat.
Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and
many have called for limits on public consultations and
more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new
term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing
Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment
“NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing,
thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is
exclusionary and wrong.
As a result, technical planning decisions have become
politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to
senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the
delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote
at Council. We heard that this situation is common across
the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor
to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor
to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of
individual housing applications should be the role of
professional staff, free from political interference.
The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that
it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes
in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched
opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home.
They provide a voice at public consultations for young people,
new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians
struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to
the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to
Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting
climate change means supporting higher-density housing,
and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means
keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud,
a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that
regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most
vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a
neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate
Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians
saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would
encourage more homes.
Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We
cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual
housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs
of all Ontarians.
12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and
approvals system:
a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning,
or plans that prioritize the preservation of
physical character of neighbourhood
b) Exempt from site plan approval and public
consultation all projects of 10 units or less that
conform to the Official Plan and require only
minor variances
c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or
prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum
building setbacks, minimum heights, angular
planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth,
landscaping, floor space index, and heritage
view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site
plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of
materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking
requirements; and
d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow
larger, more efficient high-density towers.
13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting
additional public meetings beyond those that are
required under the Planning Act.
14. Require that public consultations provide digital
participation options.
15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan
approvals and minor variances to staff or
pre-approved qualified third-party technical
consultants through a simplified review and
approval process, without the ability to withdraw
Council’s delegation.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14
16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and
designation process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal
heritage registers
b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after
a Planning Act development application has
been filed
17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property
owners for loss of property value as a result of
heritage designations, based on the principle of
best economic use of land.
18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official
Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.
We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of
Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some
cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy
step in the process. We would urge the government to first
implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances
and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess
whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an
improvement over staff-level decision making.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15
Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries,
only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15]
A 2020 survey of development approval times in
23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging:
Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval
times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines
do not include building permits, which take about two years
for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the
time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for
housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16]
Despite the good intentions of many people involved in
the approvals and home-building process, decades of
dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have
made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with
the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous
reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other
Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We
believe that the major problems can be summed up as:
• Too much complexity in the planning process, with the
page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and
by-laws growing every year
• Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other
requirements of the type we outlined in the previous
section, including many that go well beyond the scope
of Ontario’s Planning Act
• Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies
that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with
conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated
• Process flaws that include reliance on paper
• Some provincial policies that are more relevant
to urban development but result in burdensome,
irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural
and northern communities.
All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part
of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial
Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions
on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of
subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but
municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For
other processes, like site plan approval or provincial
approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The
cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant.
The consequences for homeowners and renters are
enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets
passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said:
“Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because
developers have to carry timeline risk.”
Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration.
Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical
review of the external features of a building. In practice,
municipalities often expand on what is required and take
too long to respond.
8,200
Then & NowTotal words in:
1996
Provincial Policy
Statement
17,0002020
17,0001970
Planning Act
96,0002020
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16
An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the
cost of delays between site plan application and approval
concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment
building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant
an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17]
A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land
Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay
on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It
estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on
average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home.
A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type,
adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot
house in the GTA.[16]
Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive
additional work would significantly reduce the burden on
staff.[16b] It would help address the widespread shortages of
planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger
sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing
solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and
lower the costs of delivering homes.
Adopt common sense approaches that save
construction costs
Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood,
made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a
lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise
projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use.
Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost:
• Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters
carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals
• Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and
creates jobs, including for Indigenous people
British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow
woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits
it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey
woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased
use of forestry products and reduce building costs.
Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required
to guarantee their performance would free up billions of
dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds
are a much less onerous option than letters or credit,
and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities.
We outline the technical details in Appendix D.
19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial
and municipal review process, including site plan,
minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem
an application approved if the legislated response
time is exceeded.
20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with
the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among
municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties
at which the municipality sets out a binding list that
defines what constitutes a complete application;
confirms the number of consultations established
in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that
if a member of a regulated profession such as a
professional engineer has stamped an application,
the municipality has no liability and no additional
stamp is needed.
22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan
of subdivision and standard set of conditions which
clarify which may be included; require the use of
standard province-wide legal agreements and,
where feasible, plans of subdivision.
24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.
25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay
on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in
southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and
mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre
and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter
setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear
conditions for final approval.
And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval
process to build on a piece of serviced residential land
in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years,
18 professional consultant reports were required,
culminating in draft plan approval containing 50
clearance conditions. The second approval, issued
by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to
23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost
10 years before final approval is received.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17
Prevent abuse of the appeal process
Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the
time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and
compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope
of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the
appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay
$400 and tie up new housing for years.
The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved
cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays,
this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an
appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful:
• After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a
proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements,
the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own
planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to
appease local opponents.
• Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to
the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side
must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing
the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the
project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the
bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs
in residential cases.
This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new
housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from
municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable
housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if
unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build.
Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its
backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many
appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined
goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this
costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who
bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets
established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful
party and face the risk of a larger project being approved.
The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We
have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only
meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces
some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal
will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our
recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume
of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the
Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now.
Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to
adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and
intensification over competing priorities contained in
provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend
the following:
26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission
(“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate
that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence
and expert reports, before it is accepted.
27. Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at
least 30% affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party
appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award
full costs to the successful party in any appeal
brought by a third party or by a municipality
where its council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the
day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow,
and allow those decisions to become binding the
day that they are issued.
29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused
an application simply to avoid a deemed approval
for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award
punitive damages.
30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators
and case managers), provide market-competitive
salaries, outsource more matters to mediators,
and set shorter time targets.
31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage
the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support housing growth and
intensification, as well as regional water or utility
infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section, and government fees.
A careful balance is required on government fees because,
as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments
need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically
needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that
make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of
ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages
rather than discourages developers to build the full range
of housing we need in our Ontario communities.
Align government fees and charges
with the goal of building more housing
Improve the municipal funding model
Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It
requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure.
The provincial government provides municipalities with a way
to secure funding for this infrastructure through development
charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication
(providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent).
These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not
current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it
is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers
pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or
colleges that will be around for generations and may not be
located in their neighbourhood. And, although building
affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because
affordable units pay all the same charges as a market
unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same
building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the
project. We do not believe that government fees should
create a disincentive to affordable housing.
If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are
for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development
charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be
as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities,
development charges have increased as much as 900%
in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the
prices of homes go up. And development charges on a
modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury
6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build
housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge
as development charges have to be paid up front, before
a shovel even goes into the ground.
To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government
passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine
development charges earlier in the building process. But
they must pay interest on the assessed development charge
to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there
is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually.
Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also
significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects,
adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo
across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the
amount of cash collected, but also about the money not
being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being
spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of
Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22]
Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our
communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent,
perhaps it means that more money is being collected for
parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of
housing if we adjusted these parkland fees.
A 2019 study carried out for BILD
showed that in the Greater Toronto Area,
development charges for low-rise housing are
on average more than three times higher per unit than
in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly
1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities.
For high-rise developments the average per unit
charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the
US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other
Canadian urban areas.[19]
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19
Modernizing HST Thresholds
Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing –
including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component
is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and
provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two
decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate
was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially,
resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and
$24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home
price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a
significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately
reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be
passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government
agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not
be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes.
32. Waive development charges and parkland
cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection
fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units
or for any development where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
33. Waive development charges on all forms of
affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable
for 40 years.
34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges
higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.
35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community
Benefit Charges, and development charges:
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections
and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are
being used in a timely fashion and for the
intended purpose, and, where review points
to a significant concern, do not allow further
collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide
infrastructure projects, require municipalities to
spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they
were collected. However, where there’s a
significant community need in a priority area of
the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation
of unspent and unallocated reserves.
36. Recommend that the federal government and
provincial governments update HST rebate to
reflect current home prices and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal
government match the provincial 75% rebate and
remove any clawback.
Make it easier to build rental
In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to
find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an
affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental
units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and
1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were
constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the
significant population growth during that time. In fact,
between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments
increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by
0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive
changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental
units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction
and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020
of 3,400 annually.[23]
Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments
that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And
because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing
ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who
would gladly take those apartments are instead living in
crowded spaces with family members or roommates.
Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way
beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck
in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing
co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving
Ontario altogether.
Government charges on a new single-detached home
averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price,
across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a
new condominium apartment, the average was almost
$123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price.
of all purpose-built rental units
in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979.
66%
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20
A pattern in every community, and particularly large
cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that
we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are
being converted to condos or upgraded to much more
expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and
turned into larger single-family homes.
A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that,
more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make
economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is
no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing
investments, particularly large pension funds – but the
economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just
don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment
projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects
that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can
governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the
right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the
housing we need built?
Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly
indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to
require purpose-built rental on surplus government land
that is made available for sale. (Appendix C)
Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can
be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes
for condominium or other ownership housing.[24]
The Task Force recommends:
37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with
those of condos and low-rise homes.
Make homeownership possible for
hardworking Ontarians who want it
Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian
dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when
the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for
young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work
hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first
home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same
for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy.
The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of
ownership, stability and security. And after that first step
onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility
of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real
possibility for anyone who wanted it.
That’s not how it works now. Too many young people
who would like their own place are living with one or both
parents well into adulthood.
The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has
put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing
number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of
Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black
people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates
for other populations, including Indigenous People who are
severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger
adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians
aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25]
In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs
has historically been a shared between the federal and
provincial governments. The federal government works
closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to
improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on
and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in
urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience
homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is
52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing
299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing
cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant,
contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made
significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but
we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an
active partner.
While measures to address supply will have an impact on
housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue
to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through
traditional methods.
The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about
measures that would spur demand for housing before the
supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing
number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are
proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some
of these organizations are aiming at households who have
sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient
down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall
short in both income and down payment requirements for
current market housing.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21
The Task Force heard about a range of models to help
aspiring first-time home buyers, including:
• Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or
for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage”
payable at time of sale of the home
• Land lease models that allow residents to own their home
but lease the land, reducing costs
• Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s
rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a
down payment on their current unit or another market
unit in the future
• Models where the equity gain is shared between the
homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the
non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and
sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s
affordability from one homeowner to the next.
Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart
progress in implementing new solutions.
• The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of
21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from
accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or
credit union that are available to them when they buy
through traditional homeownership.
• The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any
options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit
models from using equity formulas for re-sale and
repurchase of homes.
• Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is
sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this
tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax
in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up
being paid first by the home equity organization and then
by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit.
• HST is charged based on the market value of the home.
In shared equity models where the homeowner neither
owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their
home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home
simply reduces affordability.
• Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal
government and reflective of traditional homeownership.
Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to
new co-ownership and other models.
The Task Force encourages the Ontario government
to devote further attention to avenues to support new
homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task
Force offers the following recommendations:
38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to
extend the maximum period for land leases and
restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to
housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal Government to implement
an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous
Housing Strategy.
41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative
pathways to homeownership, for Black,
Indigenous, and marginalized people and
first-generation homeowners.
42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees
for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and
affordable ownership projects.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22
Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario
creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground with the skills to build new homes.
There is much to be done and the price of failure for
the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial
government must make an unwavering commitment to
keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also
why the province must be dogged in its determination to
galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels
of government so that working together, we all can get
the job done.
Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of
capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government
can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place
to achieve the 1.5 million home goal.
Invest in municipal infrastructure
Housing can’t get built without water, sewage,
and other infrastructure
When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they
emphasized how much future housing supply relies on
having the water, storm water and wastewater systems,
roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of
community infrastructure to support new homes and
new residents.
Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built
for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification
when added density exceeds the capacity of existing
infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new
infrastructure in new developments to be designed for
future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities
where the number one barrier to approving new housing
projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them.
Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this
infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments
are required long before new projects are approved and
funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden
development charges place on the price of new housing,
most municipalities report that development charges are
still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new
infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in
neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure
crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and
time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders
also shared their frustrations with situations where new
housing projects are approved and water, sewage and
other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project –
only to have the developer land bank the project and
put off building. Environmental considerations with new
infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task
Force recommends:
43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external
economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where
construction has not been initiated within three
years of build permits being issued.
44. Work with municipalities to develop and
implement a municipal services corporation
utility model for water and wastewater under
which the municipal corporation would borrow
and amortize costs among customers instead
of using development charges.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23
Create the Labour Force to meet
the housing supply need
The labour force is shrinking in many segments
of the market
You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure.
You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people
in every community who can build the homes we need.
The concern that we are already facing a shortage in
skilled trades came through loud and clear in our
consultations. We heard from many sources that our
education system funnels young people to university
rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the
perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less
value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline
domestically and recruit internationally, but mass
retirements are making it challenging to maintain the
workforce at its current level, let alone increase it.
Increased economic immigration could ease this
bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer
with no Canadian work experience to qualify under
Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies
also favour university education over skills our economy
and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming
immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and
houses that will accommodate our growing population.
The shortage may be less acute, however, among
smaller developers and contractors that could renovate
and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the
changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier.
These smaller companies tap into a different workforce
from the one needed to build high rises and new
subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will
require a major investment in attracting and developing
the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically
needed housing supply. We recommend:
45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools,
and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize
municipalities, unions and employers to provide
more on-the-job training.
46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program
to promote skilled trades.
47. Recommend that the federal and provincial
government prioritize skilled trades and adjust
the immigration points system to strongly favour
needed trades and expedite immigration status
for these workers, and encourage the federal
government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000
the number of immigrants admitted through
Ontario’s program.
Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund to align efforts and incent new housing supply
Build alignment between governments to enable
builders to deliver more homes than ever before
All levels of government play a role in housing.
The federal government sets immigration policy, which has
a major impact on population growth and many tax policies.
The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and
growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for
many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing
in highways and transit, training workers, the building code
and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the
front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal
immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors,
some very localized, into official plans and the overall
process through which homes are approved to be built.
The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether
for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions
at every level of government. In turn, how many home
developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly
into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24
Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently
aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and
incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in
Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years.
• The Ontario government has taken several steps to
make it easier to build additional suites in your own
home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing,
improved the appeal process, focused on density around
transit stations, made upfront development charges more
predictable, and provided options for municipalities to
create community benefits through development.
• The federal government has launched the National
Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in
funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion
Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities
remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27]
• Municipalities have been looking at ways to change
outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that
create delays and increases costs of delivering homes.
Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards
eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other
barriers described in this report.
All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis.
Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and
alignment across governments.
Mirror policy changes with financial incentives
aligned across governments
The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way
to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes.
Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes
will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding
municipalities that meet housing growth and approval
timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire
additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly,
municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY
pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see
funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal
responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed
to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary
choices to grow housing supply.
In late January 2022, the provincial government
announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development
Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red
tape and improving processes for residential and industrial
developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed.
Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal
funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29]
despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being
in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address
this funding gap.
48. The Ontario government should establish a
large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and
encourage the federal government to match
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or
exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for
new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary
zoning practices
49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail
to meet provincial housing growth and approval
timeline targets.
We believe that the province should consider partial grants
to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges
for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental.
Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve
Digitize and modernize the approvals and
planning process
Some large municipalities have moved to electronic
tracking of development applications and/or electronic
building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising
results, but there is no consistency and many smaller
places don’t have the capacity to make the change.
Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use
different systems to collect data and information relevant to
housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves
much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by
ensuring uniform data architecture standards.
Improve the quality of our housing data to inform
decision making
Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and
making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard
from multiple housing experts that we are not always using
the best data, and we do not always have the data we need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25
Having good population forecasts is essential in each
municipality as they develop plans to meet future land
and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about
inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to
municipalities by the province is updated only when the
Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but
federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth,
changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry
of Finance produces a population forecast on a more
regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not
used consistently across municipalities or even by other
provincial ministries.
Population forecasts get translated into housing need in
different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data
about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed
to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another
challenge is the lack of information on how much land is
permitted and how much housing is actually getting built
once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard
that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires
municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term
(build-ready) land and report it each year to the province,
many municipalities are not meeting that requirement.[30]
At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on
the housing we have today, housing needed to close the
gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future,
and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved
data will help anticipate local and provincial supply
bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine
the appropriate level and degree of response.
It will also be important to have better data to assess how
much new housing stock is becoming available to groups
that have been disproportionately excluded from home
ownership and rental housing.
Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation
around housing
Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario
can find and afford the housing they need. This time must
be different.
The recommendations in this report must receive sustained
attention, results must be monitored, significant financial
investment by all levels of government must be made. And,
the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape
in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and
those who have been left behind are given equal weight
to the housing advantages of those who are already well
established in homes that they own.
50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal
e-permitting systems and encourage the
federal government to match funding. Fund
the development of common data architecture
standards across municipalities and provincial
agencies and require municipalities to provide
their zoning bylaws with open data standards.
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make
funding conditional on established targets.
51. Require municipalities and the provincial
government to use the Ministry of Finance
population projections as the basis for housing
need analysis and related land use requirements.
52. Resume reporting on housing data and
require consistent municipal reporting,
enforcing compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the Ontario
Housing Delivery Fund.
53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial
level on any gap between demand and supply by
housing type and location, and make underlying
data freely available to the public.
54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government
committee, including key provincial ministries
and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations and any other
productive ideas are implemented.
55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations
for the next three years with public reporting
on progress.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26
Conclusion
We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.
We believe this can be done. What struck us was that
everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates,
elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now.
As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time
in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take
advantage of that.”
Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful.
To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but
workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario
for the future.
Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply
of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool
demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need.
More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the
competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give
Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing
affordability across the board.
Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing.
So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27
APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members
Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a
real estate development and operating company active
in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for
institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European
Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman
Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a
former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for
the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds
degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of
Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for
Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the
Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor
at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional
Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban
Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and
consulting work explore topics where urban planning
interfaces with economics, including land and housing
markets. He is an academic advisor to the National
Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member
of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society).
He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial
and a range of municipal governments. Internationally,
he has undertaken work for the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern
Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also
serves on the editorial boards of several international
academic journals.
Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for
growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to
secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families.
IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to
onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance,
municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has
significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp
certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate
social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers
on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate
projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery
of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for
private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA
from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate
Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate.
Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association
(OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the
dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a
distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years
as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into
Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at
the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and
consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard
forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its
Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one
of the most powerful people in North American residential
real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years.
Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two
daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys
trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well
as grilling outdoors.
Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and
Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021.
In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global
Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its
global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has
held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury
and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to
January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking
and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital
Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across
product groups and priority markets to best serve our
clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and
Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and
execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving
into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy
Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding
activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice
President, Investor Relations.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28
Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is
self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest
female-run Real Estate Development Companies in
North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham
award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004)
as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner
President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario
Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP),
St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair
of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of
Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian
Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various
governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues,
Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO
Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the
Year 2021.
Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and
was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal
Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of
progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including
two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and
consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds
numerous designations across financial, operations, and
housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair
of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s)
Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board
member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for
both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL)
as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in
Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental
human right and that when Indigenous people have access
to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides
the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives.
Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater
Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps
working, lower income families build strength, stability and
self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes
are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds,
contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and
for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private
sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company
before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene
holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of
Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from
Ivey Business School.
Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building
Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA
(BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly
represents builders, developers, professional renovators
and those who support the industry.
Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and
organizations. He has previously served on the George
Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling
Association, and is currently engaged with Black North
Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council.
Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography)
from Ryerson.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29
APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing
Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly
rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking.
Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the
housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous
and marginalized people. We also received submissions
describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve
Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres
and in the north.
While many of the changes that will help deliver market
housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable
housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility.
We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor
on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve
the problem.
The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers,
fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit
builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector
referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit
developers that tap into the development and construction
expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful
examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with
Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable
homeownership.
We were also reminded by program participants that,
while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very
impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies
in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes
confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants,
supporting independence of occupants of affordable
housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain
affordable from one occupant to the next.
One avenue for delivering more affordable housing
that has received much recent attention is inclusionary
zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires
developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new
housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous
Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018
providing a framework within which municipalities could
enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in
fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit
station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been
used successfully to incentivize developers to create new
affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units
than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable)
or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s
approach did not include any incentives or bonuses.
Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for
below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives
together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be
approved for projects has led developers and some housing
advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic
and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared
with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the
provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments.
Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the
equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would
enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for
example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood,
where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident).
Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
all levels of government. The federal government has
committed to large funding transfers to the provinces
to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard,
however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not
reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This,
in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the
province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the
affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30
Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations
pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for
building more affordable housing and this is discussed
in Appendix C.
We have made recommendations throughout the report
intended to have a positive impact on new affordable
housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations
specific to affordable housing:
• Call upon the federal government to provide equitable
affordable housing funding to Ontario.
• Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of
“affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability.
• Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land
Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from
property price appreciation) to be used in partnership
with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the
creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust
should create incentives for projects serving and brought
forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and
marginalized groups.
• Amend legislation to:
• Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units
at the discretion of the municipality.
• Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or
other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable
Housing policies that apply to market housing.
• Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary
Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for
affordable housing units.
• Encourage government to closely monitor the
effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating
new affordable housing and to explore alternative
funding methods that are predictable, consistent and
transparent as a more viable alternative option to
Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of
affordable housing.
• Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment
on below-market affordable homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31
APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land
Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question
came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration:
• Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and
development through RFP of surplus government land
and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for
density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use.
• All future government land sales, whether commercial or
residential, should have an affordable housing component
of at least 20%.
• Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized
Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
• Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher
density building or relocate services outside of
major population centres where land is considerably
less expensive.
• The policy priority of adding to the housing supply,
including affordable units, should be reflected in the
way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders
to structure their proposals accordingly.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32
APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds
Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building
When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site
improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction.
Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario
municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for
subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however,
they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a
chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that
developers are often required to collateralize the letter of
credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal
works they are performing.
Often this means developers can only afford to finance
one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing
supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates
that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in
collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to
advance more projects.
Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to
provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit,
while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit
do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across
Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with
the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried
out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the
developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the
municipal agreement.
Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial
obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond
is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety
companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they
have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims.
More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions
of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be
used to build new infrastructure and housing projects,
provide for more units in each development and accelerate
the delivery of housing of all types.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33
References
1. Ontario Housing Market Report https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market
2. Global Property Guide
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/
Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030
3. National Household Survey Factsheet
https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/
nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20
of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900
4. CMHC
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/
5. The Globe And Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-black-canadians-
have-some-of-the-lowest-home-ownership-rates-in-canada/
6. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
7. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html
8. Expert Market
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/
best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
9. Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of-
housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/
10. Poltext
https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/
Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf
11. Toronto City Planning
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/
backgroundfile-173165.pdf
12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf
13a. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at
Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/pdfs/CUR_Pre-Zoning_Corridor_Lands_to_a_
Higher_Density.pdf
13b. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-
horseshoe/where-and-how-grow
14. More Neighbours Toronto https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
15. The World Bank https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/
dealing-with-construction-permits
16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20Benchmarking%20
Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%202020%20BILD.pdf
16b. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/CUR_Accelerating_Housing_Supply_and_
Affordability_by_Improving_the_Land-use_Planning_System_
Nov_2021.pdf
17. Ontario Association of Architects
https://oaa.on.ca/OAA/Assets/Documents/Gov.%20Initiatives/
p5727_-_site_plan_delay_study_-_oaa_site_plan_delay_study_
update_-_july_....pdf
18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_
Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html
19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20
Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20
Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf
20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20
Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf
21. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/
where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be-
used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html
22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20
Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20
2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf
23. Urbanation Inc.
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction-
surged-2021-vacancy-fell
24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters
25. Edison Financial
https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/
26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy
https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy
27. CMHC
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/
news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program
28. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/
ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and-
speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html
29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/
federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx
30. Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University (CUR)
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-urban-research-land-
development/pdfs/CUR_Submission_Proposed_Land_Needs_
Assessment_Methodology_A_Place_to_Grow_July_2020.pdf
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
1 of 6
Attachment: List of 74 Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) Recommendations for Reference
Housing Affordability Task Force Recommendation
(Note: Bracketed numbers are per the numbering in the original Task Force report; numbering in the first column is for Ministry use)
Recommendations with an asterisk * have been implemented (with or without amendments)
1. 1) Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years.*
2. 2) Amending the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose.
3. 3) a) Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: allow “as of right” residential housing up to four
units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot.*
4. 3 b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful
implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.)
5. 4) Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and
commercial use.
6. 5) Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide.*
7. 6) Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
8. 7) Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children.
9. 8) Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations
within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets.
10. 9) Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets that have direct access to
public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes).
11. 10) Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors and re-designate all Residential
Apartment to mixed commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
2 of 6
12. 11) Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary
infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all
undeveloped land.
13. 12) a) Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans
that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood.*
14. 12 b) Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require
only minor variances.*
15. 12 c) Establish provincewide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights,
angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore
pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate
minimum parking requirements.
16. 12 d) Remove any floorplate (sic) restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers.
17. 13) Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act.
18. 14) Require that public consultations provide digital participation options.
19. 15) Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical
consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation.*
20. 16) a) Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage
registers.*
21. 16 b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed.*
22. 17) Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designations, based on
the principle of best economic use of land.
23. 18) Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.*
24. 19) Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial
reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded.*
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
3 of 6
25. 20) Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial
authorities and ensure timelines are met.*
26. 21) Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a
complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member
of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional
stamp is needed.
27. 22) Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
28. 23) Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be
included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision.
29. 24) Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.*
30. 25) Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
31. 26) Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the OLT and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying
on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted.
32. 27) a) Prevent abuse of process: remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed
affordable for 40 years.
33. 27 b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third party appeals.*
34. 27 c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a
municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval.
35. 28) Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to
become binding the day that they are issued.*
36. 29) Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the
Tribunal to award punitive damages.
37. 30) Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more
matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets.
38. 31) In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth
and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity.
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
4 of 6
39. 32) Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up
to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required.
40. 33) Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years.
41. 34) Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.*
42. 35 a) Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: Provincial review of reserve
levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and,
where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected.
43. 35 b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the
neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for
specific ward to ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves.
44. 36) Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin
indexing, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback.
45. 37) Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes.
46. 38) Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40
or more years.*
47. 39) Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth.
48. 40) Call on the Federal Government to implement an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy.*
49. 41) Funding for pilot projects that create innovative pathways to homeownership, for Black, Indigenous, and marginalized people and
first-generation homeowners.
50. 42) Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects.
51. 43) Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted
projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued.
52. 44) Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under
which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges.
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
5 of 6
53. 45) Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships, encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers
to provide more on-the-job training.*
54. 46) Undertake multi-stakeholder education program to promote skilled trades.*
55. 47) Recommend that the federal and provincial government prioritize skilled trades and adjust the immigration points system to
strongly favour needed trades and expedite immigration status for these workers and encourage the federal government to increase
from 9,000 to 20,000 the number of immigrants admitted through Ontario’s program.*
56. 48) The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices
57. 49) Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets
58. 50) Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the
development of a common data architecture standard, supported by an external expert committee, across municipalities and provincial
agencies/ministries and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of
2025 and make funding conditional on established targets.
59. 51) Require municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing
need analysis and related land use requirements.
60. 52) Resume reporting on housing data and require consistent municipal reporting, enforcing compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the Ontario Housing Delivery Fund.*
61. 53) Report each year at the municipal and provincial level on any gap between demand and supply by housing type and location, and
make underlying data freely available to the public.
62. 54) Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an all of government committee that meets weekly to
ensure our remaining recommendations and any other productive ideas are implemented.
63. 55) Commit to evaluate these recommendations for the next three years with public reporting on progress.*
64. B-1) Call upon the federal government to provide equitable affordable housing funding to Ontario.*
234-2023-4597 RSNM FOLLOW-UP
6 of 6
65. B-2) Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of “affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability.
66. B-3) Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from property price
appreciation) to be used in partnership with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the creation of more affordable housing units.
This Trust should create incentives for projects serving and brought forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and marginalized
groups.
67. B-4) Amend legislation to:
Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusionary Zoning units at the discretion of the municipality.
Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing policies
that apply to market housing.
Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for affordable housing
units.
68. B-5) Encourage government to closely monitor the effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating new affordable housing and to
explore alternative funding methods that are predictable, consistent and transparent as a more viable alternative option to Inclusionary
Zoning policies in the provision of affordable housing.
69. B-6) Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment on below-market affordable homes.
70. C-1) Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and development through RFP of surplus government land and surrounding land by
provincially pre-zoning for density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use.
71. C-2) All future government land sales, whether commercial or residential, should have an affordable housing component of at least
20%.
72. C-3) Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
73. C-4) Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher density building or relocate services outside of major population centres
where land is considerably less expensive.
74. C-5) The policy priority of adding to the housing supply, including affordable units, should be reflected in the way surplus land is offered
for sale, allowing bidders to structure their proposals accordingly.
1 of 1
Attachment: Top Five Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) Recommendations for Response
Please identify the top 5 HATF recommendations that you support, and rationale / comments
1. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents (27)
2. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated professional such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed
(26)
3. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision (28)
4. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children (8)
5. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships, encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide
more on-the-job training. (45)
REPORT
CAO
TO: Mayor & Members of Council
FROM: Thomas Thayer, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: October 5, 2023
REPORT: CAO-52/23 SUBJECT: COUNCIL APPOINTMENT – ELGIN COUNTY BUSINESS RETENTION AND
EXPANSION LEADERSHIP TEAM
BACKGROUND
Elgin County is responsible for Economic Development provision in Elgin County. Functions
under the Economic Development department include Elgincentives, business support, tourism,
and associated grant programs for general economic supports as provided by the County.
In August 2023, discussion commenced at the County level regarding an initiative for County-
wide business retention and expansion (BR+E). This was presented in September 2023 to the
Elgin-area CAOs for consideration and discussion. The Proposal document is attached. The
BR+E program is to include a Leadership Team, with staff representation from all Elgin County
lower-tiers.
DISCUSSION Dutton-Dunwich and Southwold currently have Economic Development Committees, and requests came into the County from these municipalities regarding the possibility of having their Committee Chairs included in the Leadership Team structure along with municipal staff
representation. To ensure fairness, Elgin County’s Manager of Economic Development and Strategic Initiatives
provided an email to all CAOs (attached) opening up appointments to a maximum of one (1) staff and one (1) Council representative per lower-tier municipality. The Bayham staff representative is the CAO.
Should Council wish to appoint a member of Council to sit on the BR+E Leadership Team, they may do so by resolution, which will be provided to Elgin County for their files.
STRATEGIC PLAN
1.3: Quality of Place > To continually work to create innovative opportunities and strategies that attract new businesses and retain current businesses. Initiative(s): Continue to work with Elgin County and other organizations to increase business attraction and retention.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Elgin County BR+E Proposal 2. Email from Carolyn Krahn, dated September 26, 2023, re BR+E Follow-up RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report CAO-52/23 re Council Appointment – Elgin County Business Retention and Expansion Leadership Team be received for information; 2. AND THAT Council appoint, if desired, one (1) member of Council as a Bayham representative to sit on the Elgin County Business Retention and Expansion Leadership Team.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Thomas Thayer, CMO, AOMC Chief Administrative Officer
Business Retention and Expansion Program Proposal
Background:
The Elgin-St. Thomas Region is expected to experience substantial growth with the imminent openings of the Amazon
Fulfillment Facility, the Volkswagen Electric Battery Plant, and the potential influx of other businesses. To proactively
support local enterprises and fuel economic development, we are introducing the Business Retention and Expansion
program (BR+E). This program aims to gain insights into challenges and opportunities by conducting business visits and
confidential interviews. Armed with this knowledge, we can strategically address specific needs. Integrating the BR+E
program will unlock several benefits, including job creation, increased community investment, an early warning system
for issues, and heightened community self-awareness.
Program Goals:
Short Term
1. Strengthen relationships with existing businesses.
2. Address immediate concerns.
3. Collect vital business and market data.
4. Identify community strengths and weaknesses.
5. Develop and implement tailored action plans.
Long Term
1. Increase competitiveness of existing businesses.
2. Foster sustainable development and job creation.
3. Provide accessible and streamlined support.
Implementation:
The BR+E program combines business visits and confidential interviews, fostering trust and collaboration. This initiative
will be overseen by the County of Elgin's Business Enterprise Facilitator, supported by a dedicated Leadership Team and
Resource Network.
Target Sectors:
Our focus extends to both established and emerging industries within the county, including agriculture, commercial, and
industrial sectors. Apart from residential properties, agricultural land generates the highest revenue. Encouraging small
value-added farm commercial and industrial ventures could potentially increase this income. Following agriculture, the
commercial sector makes a substantial contribution, highlighting the importance of nurturing existing establishments
and facilitating growth. The most promising avenue for growth and retention lies in the industrial sector due to its
relatively low revenue but high tax ratio. As trends emerge, subsequent BR+E cycles may delve deeper into specific
sectors, offering comprehensive insights into their unique challenges, opportunities, and characteristics. This approach
underscores our commitment to understanding the needs of local businesses and tailoring our support accordingly.
Program Leadership:
The Business Enterprise Facilitator, with the Manager of Economic Development, will coordinate business visits,
promptly address concerns and opportunities (‘red flags’), and manage communication and data.
Leadership Team:
The BR+E Leadership Team is comprised of local CAOs or their representatives who provide strategic direction to the
program and help resolve ‘red flags’ in their communities. Our intention is to collaborate closely, leveraging local
expertise, and fostering comprehensive benefits for the entire county.
Leadership Team Meetings:
For the inaugural BR+E survey, Aileen Murray from Mellor Murray Consulting Inc. will develop a facilitation plan in
consultation with the Business Enterprise Facilitator. This plan will outline program objectives, key milestones,
anticipated outcomes, and the program’s structure. Three facilitated meetings will occur at the launch, mid-point, and
conclusion of the BR+E interview process, with venues selected and organized by Elgin County Economic Development.
Meeting #1 will align participants with program objectives and gather their insights and recommendations on target
sectors and individuals to include in the BR+E program, tactics to encourage business participation, and the leaders’ role
in championing the program.
Meeting #2 will provide an update on the project process and insights gathered so far. Participants will be asked for their
recommendations on any adjustments to the BR+E process, targeted groups, and individuals to ensure meaningful
participation and data collection.
Meeting #3 will review the results of the BR+E interviews. Participants will be asked to identify and prioritize key issues
and opportunities and recommend actions to build on identified opportunities and address challenges.
After each meeting, the Leadership Team will receive a brief summary, outlining the meeting participants, key
outcomes, and recommended next steps.
Red Flags:
A ‘red flag’ is raised when a business experiences operational hurdles, plans to downsize, sell, relocate, or close within
six months of the survey date. Red flag reports will document each case, with summaries shared during meetings with
local municipal partners. Red flags will be addressed immediately with the support of the leadership team and local
resource network.
Final Report/Action Plan:
The project will culminate with a comprehensive written report detailing the BR+E facilitation process, observations, key
findings, priority areas, and recommended actions.
1
Thomas Thayer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carolyn Krahn
September 26, 2023 2:40 PM
Thomas Thayer; Adam Boylan; Andy Grozelle; Robin Greenall; Lisa Higgs; Tracy Johnson;
'Magda Badura'
Abigail Moore; CAO
RE: BR+E Follow-Up
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Municipality of Bayham email system.
Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon,
I'm excited to share some fantastic news with all of you! There's been a lot of interest in joining our BR+E leadership
team, and we're even seeing some interest from Local Councillors. We want to strike a balance here – we'd love to keep
the leadership team relatively small to encourage meaningful discussions, but we also want to ensure that our local
municipalities are well-represented.
To achieve this, perhaps we could offer each municipality the opportunity to appoint up to two representatives to the
leadership team? This means that you would have the option of having one staff and one council representative on the
leadership team. Please keep in mind that this is entirely optional. If you have any concerns with this approach, please
let me know.
Once our leadership team has crafted a framework for the BR+E initiative, we'd be happy to visit each local municipality
to provide a comprehensive overview of our project (pending interest at the local level, of course). This presentation will
also give our Local Councils the chance to dive deeper into the project, ask questions, and share their valuable feedback.
When it comes to business visits, our staff, along with willing members from the leadership team, will be conducting
initial surveys with businesses. Participation in these interviews by the leadership team members is entirely voluntary.
The aim here is to address any pressing concerns or opportunities that businesses might be facing. During these visits,
we'll also ask whether businesses would like to schedule a follow-up meeting with their Local Councillors to discuss any
concerns or questions, and to get a better understanding of the programs and priorities of their Local Municipality. To
ensure these meetings are productive, we'll be communicating any concerns or questions to the Councillors ahead of
time, so they can be well-prepared to discuss how the Local Municipalities can best support the business community.
Following these visits, our County staff will compile the survey responses, ensuring that individual responses remain
completely anonymous. The leadership team will then dive into the data, searching for trends and insights, and use that
information to develop an action plan to support our local business community. Before we adopt the action plan, it will
be presented to County Council and the Local Councils for their review. Your input and collaboration are key to our
success!
If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, please let me know. We will be sending out a meeting invitation for
the first leadership team meeting in the next few days.
Thank you,
Carolyn Krahn
Manager of Economic Development and Strategic Initiatives
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2023-075 A BY-LAW TO ADOPT A ZONING ENFORCEMENT POLICY WHEREAS Section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, provides a
Municipality with the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for
the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act;
AND WHEREAS Council resolved on August 17, 2023 to bring forward a zoning enforcement policy for approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Zoning Enforcement Policy attached hereto as Schedule “A” and forming part of this by-law is hereby adopted; 2. AND THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK
Schedule ‘A’ Municipality of Bayham By-law 2023-075
Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
Policy Name: Zoning Enforcement Policy
Section 1 - Purpose
1.1 To provide a formal policy and procedure governing the handling of contraventions of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law and to provide a framework for a thorough, prompt and courteous investigation and resolution
thereof.
1.2 To provide a framework for timelines to be established where a contravention exists and a property owner is intent on taking action towards compliance.
1.3 Municipality of Bayham Municipal Law Enforcement Officers are committed to the
delivery of professional Municipal Law Enforcement Services in a timely and effective manner. The goal of the Municipality and of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers is to achieve compliance with Municipal by-laws, through education, mediation and as necessary through enforcement and prosecution.
Section 2 - Definitions
2.1 CAO shall mean the Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality.
2.2 Formal Complaint shall mean a complaint received by the Municipality, wherein the complainant provides their full name, address, phone number and nature of complaint, that can be verified by the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer, in writing using the required form submitted in the manner specified by the
Municipality or; a complaint arising from staff, where the potential for a zoning contravention has become known to staff through the execution of Regular Municipal Business. 2.3 Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall mean a person appointed by the
Municipality by-law for the purposes of Municipal Law Enforcement including, but not limited to, a Building Inspector, Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer, Police
Schedule ‘A’ Municipality of Bayham By-law 2023-075
Officer and a person authorized by Council or an assigned individual with the responsibility for enforcing and administering this Policy.
2.4 Municipality shall mean The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham. Municipal shall have a corresponding meaning when referring to staff or matters within Bayham’s jurisdiction. 2.5 Regular Municipal Business shall mean the execution of any of the regular
duties assigned to a staff member of the Municipality during their employment with the Municipality. 2.6 Spite Complaint, also known as a Frivolous and Vexatious Complaint, shall mean a complaint submitted with ill will or with the intention of malice towards
another person and may include retaliatory complaints and civil disputes. A Spite Complaint may also be identified by a complaint that is part of a pattern of conduct by the complainant that amounts to an abuse of the complaints process. Such a pattern occurs when on three (3) or more occasions a complaint comes forward on a matter a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer has already dealt with.
The determination of a complaint being a Spite Complaint shall always be at the sole, absolute and unfettered discretion of a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer. Section 3 – Zoning Investigation and Enforcement Procedure 3.1 The Municipality shall only respond to Formal Complaints related to contraventions of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law, as long as they adhere to this Policy. i. The Municipality will offer assistance and direction with respect to by-law
interpretations and questions over the telephone, in person, or via email, where practical. 3.2 Upon receipt of a Formal Complaint, staff shall record the Formal Complaint in a Complaints Database maintained by the Municipality.
i. A Formal Complaint form shall in all cases provide space for the complainant to provide the complaint in their own words, detailing the “who”, “what”, “where”, “when” and “why” of the situation. 3.3 The name and any personal information provided by the complainant shall
remain in the strictest confidence in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act and shall not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-essential municipal staff, the public or media unless so ordered by a Court or other tribunal or body of competent jurisdiction.
3.4 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may conduct a preliminary review of the
complaint to verify the information provided and research any supporting documentation which may be available in Municipal records.
Schedule ‘A’ Municipality of Bayham By-law 2023-075
3.5 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may call the complainant, when necessary, for further details or to confirm or clarify information provided within the Formal Complaint.
3.6 A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may attend the site to witness and record the activity to determine if a contravention of the Municipality of Bayham Zoning By-law exists.
3.7 If a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer is unclear of a possible contravention, they may seek the advice of the Municipal Prosecutor, Planning Consultant, or Municipal Solicitor if required, or the appropriate Municipal staff member. i. A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may provide the information required to the appropriate party so that an informed determination can be
provided and where necessary the appropriate actions initiated. 3.8 Where a contravention of the Zoning By-law is confirmed by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall issue a Notice of Contravention in writing to the registered owners of the property outlining the
specifics of the alleged contravened. i. The Notice of Contravention will further contain options for compliance. ii. The Notice of Contravention will also allot thirty (30) days by which one of the options for compliance must be exercised. iii. Upon written request and payment of any necessary fee or charge, a
compliance date may be extended by the CAO at their sole discretion. 3.9 Notwithstanding Section 3.8 of this Policy, in situations where the contravention represents a significant risk of liability to the Municipality or where a contravention poses significant risk to the health safety and well-being of
persons, following consultation with the CAO, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may immediately proceed by way of charges. 3.10 After the time limit has expired in the Notice of Contravention pursuant to Section 3.8 of this Policy, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may return to the site to
determine if compliance has been accomplished. 3.11 When compliance with the Notice of Contravention is confirmed, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall enter the complaint’s finalized date in the Complaints Database and close the file.
3.12 If the Notice of Contravention has not been complied with within the specified time period, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall review the non-compliance with the CAO.
3.13 Following discussions with the CAO pursuant to Section 3.12 of this Policy, a
Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall determine whether to proceed with the actions necessary to address the situation in accordance with Municipal By-laws or otherwise.
Schedule ‘A’ Municipality of Bayham By-law 2023-075
i. If legal action is required, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall recommend to the CAO to proceed with legal action when it appears obvious compliance is not forthcoming.
ii. At any stage of the enforcement process, if, in the opinion of the CAO the matter is of significant consequence, the matter may be brought before Council for direction. 3.14 Spite Complaints, shall not be accepted and/or investigated by a Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer. 3.15 A failure to comply with any provision of this Policy shall not vitiate any proceeding or any step, document or order in a proceeding otherwise in accordance with any Municipal By-law, Provincial, or Federal Legislation.
3.16 Any decision made under this Policy including a decision not to respond to a Formal Complaint or enforce by-laws, and also including a decision made by the CAO, may at any time be revisited. Section 4 – Level of Involvement 4.1 When in receipt of any and all Formal Complaints, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer is delegated the sole absolute and unfettered discretion to determine an
appropriate level of response to said complaints. The level of response by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer may include a decision to act on some or all of the complaints, to not act on some or all of the complaints, or to assign priority to some or all of the complaints. In making a decision on the appropriate level of response to said complaints, a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall have
regard to the following criteria: i. safety factors; ii. history of attempts for compliance made by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer; iii. available resources, including financial resources;
iv. potential impact of not responding; v. offer for formal mediation; vi. coordinating involvement with other relevant agencies; vii. likelihood of achieving compliance; viii. Municipal jurisdiction and authority;
ix. other enforcement avenues including civil processes.
4.2 Complainants are protected under the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act and every complainant will be kept completely
confidential and not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-
essential municipal staff, the public or media unless so ordered by a Court or
other tribunal or body of competent jurisdiction. Persons who are the subject of a complaint are also protected under the Municipal Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act and every subject of a complaint will be kept
confidential and not be intentionally divulged to any member of Council, non-
essential municipal staff, the public or media unless required for investigation
Schedule ‘A’ Municipality of Bayham By-law 2023-075
purposes or so ordered by a Court or other tribunal or body of competent jurisdiction.
4.3 Pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Policy, once a Formal Complaint has been filed, other than acknowledgment of receipt of the complaint, no follow up, involvement, information or correspondence regarding the complaint shall be provided to the complainant as the process is protected by the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
4.4 No delegations to Council shall be permitted by any person concerning, or with the subject matter, of a Formal Complaint. 4.5 Pursuant to Section 4.1 of this Policy, any decision made or course of action
chosen shall not constitute Municipal Approval of an alleged Zoning Contravention. A court proceeding or investigation may be commenced at any time, as long as an alleged contravention still exists. Section 5 – Application 5.1 This Policy shall come into full force and effect on the day it is adopted by the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham.
Section 6 – Administration 6.1 This Policy shall be administered by the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM
BY-LAW NO. 2023-076 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE
COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 5, 2023 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other
action by the Council at the Council meeting held October 5, 2023 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.
2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.
____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK