May 27, 1998

 To:Emergency and Protective Services Committee

 From:H.W.O. Doyle

City Solicitor

 Subject:Records Retention By-law for the Toronto Police Services Board

 Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to seek City Council=s approval for an amendment to the schedule to the records retention by-law enacted by the former Metropolitan Council on behalf of the Toronto Police Services Board and to re-enact such by-law as a by-law of the City of Toronto.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 N/A

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (i)the records retention schedule forming part of Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92 be amended to provide for an increase in the retention period for bicycle registrations from five years to ten years;

 (ii)City Council take the opportunity to re-enact Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92 as a by-law of the City of Toronto and in so doing repeal Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92; and

 (iii)the necessary bills be introduced.

  Council Reference/Background/History:

 Subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act provides that a local board, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, shall not destroy any of its records or documents except:

 (i)with the approval of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; or

 (ii)in accordance with a by-law passed by the municipality and approved by the auditor of the municipality establishing retention periods for such records and documents.

 The Toronto Police Services Board (the ABoard@) is a local board under the definition of that term contained in the Municipal Affairs Act. As a result, the Board can only destroy its records and documents in accordance with the methods described above.

 Pursuant to subsection 270(1) of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act (MMTA), section 116 of the Municipal Act was deemed to apply to the former Metropolitan Corporation with necessary modifications. As a result of the application of subsection 270(1) of the MMTA and subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act, the Board requested Metropolitan Council to adopt a by-law governing retention periods for records and documents of the Board and the Toronto Police Service (the AService@). In light of the former statutory structure, at its meeting of April 27, 1992, Metropolitan Council adopted By-law No. 58-92 (the ABy-law@), establishing a retention schedule for various records of the Board and the Service. The By-law was only amended once by Metropolitan Council at its meeting held on September 24, 1997, in order to amend the retention schedule to provide retention periods for additional records identified by the Board and the Service

 At its meeting held on October 16, 1997, the Board received a report from the Chief of Police respecting various bicycle programs operated by the Service, including its bicycle registration program. A concern was expressed in that report regarding the current five year retention period for bicycle registrations contained in the By-law and the impact it has on the ability of the Service to return recovered bicycles to their rightful owners on an ongoing basis. In light of this concern, the Board adopted a motion requesting the former Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor to review the By-law and determine whether an amendment was required to it in order to accommodate the ongoing retention of bicycle registration information. If, subsequent to such review, an amendment appeared to be required, the Board authorized the former Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor to initiate the appropriate action on behalf of the Board.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 A review of the By-law, along with discussions with representatives of the Community Policing Support Unit of the Service responsible for bicycle registrations, indicates that an increase in the retention period for bicycle registrations from the current five years to ten years would be desirable in order to address the concern raised in the report of the Chief of Police. In order to accommodate such an increase in the retention period, an amendment to the current terms of the retention schedule forming part of the By-law would be required.

 However, rather than simply amend the By-law, it appears expedient to take this opportunity to repeal the By-law and re-enact it in the form of a by-law of the City of Toronto incorporating the requested amendment. This would allow for a consolidation of the By-law and the requested amendment in the form of a by-law of the current municipality and avoid the necessity for continued reference to a by-law of a municipality that is no longer in existence. A by-law identical in all respects to the By-law, and incorporating the requested amendment, would be introduced as a bill before Council. The proposed by-law has been reviewed and approved by the City Auditor in accordance with the provisions of subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act.

Conclusions:

 City Council may wish to consider the Board=s request for an amendment to the By-law. If Council wishes to amend the By-law as requested, it is recommended that it repeal the By-law and adopt a new by-law containing identical provisions.

Contact Name:

 Karl Druckman

(392-4520)

 H.W.O. Doyle

City Solicitor