TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 11

1Requested Amendment to By-law No. 20-85 - Adult Entertainment Establishments - Stardust Lounge

2Holistic Practitioner Licensing Category

3Proposal to Establish Additional Collision Reporting Centres (CRCs) in the City of Toronto

4By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing - Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities

5Enactment of Bill C-68 - Gun Control Legislation

6Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada - Unlawful Avoidance of Police

7Quotation for the Provision of Services Related to the Inspection of Taxicabs, Livery Cabs Including Limousines and Driving School Vehicles

8Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on October 6, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

1

Requested Amendment to By-law No. 20-85 - Adult Entertainment

Establishments - Stardust Lounge

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the request by the Stardust Lounge for an amendment to By-law No. 20-85 be refused and that the communications submitted by the applicant in regard thereto be received; and

(2)the report (September 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, be received; and that the procedures with respect to the business matters of the former Licensing Commission be carried forward to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee until such time as the final process for dealing with such matters is determined by Council.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following communication (July6, 1998) Mr. Sam Reteja, Stardust Lounge, Toronto:

I was referred by Carol Ruddell-Foster, the General Manager at Toronto Licensing Commission on June 24, 1998 to contact you. We have both come to an understanding that the amendment we require is very reasonable; she advised me to ask you to have this proposal placed on a committee agenda for consideration. With all due respect, I hope you can be in support of the goal we are trying to accomplish related to a new cleaner and safer trend in Adult Entertainment.

We are in the plan of finalizing the development of a new additional lounge located in the lower level of our existing adult entertainment parlour called STARDUST LOUNGE, although the by-law states and restricts us from operation in our lower level due to the section stating that the entertainers are to be in clear and unobstructed view of a main stage located on the main floor, (it is clearly understood that this is to restrict the possibility of physical contact by entertainers and clients by making the working area clearly visible to staff and law enforcers to witness this illegal activity and lay the appropriate charges.)

We find this will not be relevant to our concept and wish to have a pardon in our establishment or an amendment made for this section of the by-law.

WHY?

We have developed fantasy rooms that will guarantee no physical contact or illegal activity in a very effective way, however, these rooms are in obstructed view of our main stage.

In our situation, the entertainers perform in private cubicles (as far as the by-law regulations this is considered illegal and we are fully aware of the by-law regulations and have absolutely no intention of operating in contravention with the said by-law). So in our development we have installed (100% sealed and secured) 1/4" shatter resistant glass partitions in each of 6 cubicles making it physically impossible for any physical contact whatsoever making approximately 4500 square feet of our business cleaner and safer by eliminating the chances of illegal activity that sometimes may not even be noticed within the clear and unobstructed view of a main stage (this can be verified by all the charges laid since the no lap-dancing law).

To accomplish this goal we will require an amendment to the by-law or written approval to operate.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (September 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

On September 8, 1998 Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having:

1)referred the foregoing matter to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor for a report to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on October6, 1998, advising how best to deal with this and other such matters in the future and what the public consultation process should be for amendments to By-law No. 20-85; and

2)requested that the local Councillors be informed when this issue is to be considered by the Committee.

Prior to May 1998 proposals for amendments to the Licensing By-law were presented to a Business Meeting of the Licensing Commission. Subsequent to the review and recommendation of the Business Meeting the proposal was forwarded to the standing committee and then on to Council. Only Council can amend the Licensing By-law.

The Commission maintained mailing lists for various license categories and these parties would be advised when relevant matters were to be considered by the Business Meeting. Occasionally, but not often, the Commission would advertise a proposed amendment. Deputations to a Business Meeting were advised if a matter was proceeding to the standing committee so that they could depute, if required, at the committee.

To a much lesser degree, proposals for possible By-law amendments were initiated at the committee level and these were then referred to the Commission for review and recommendation.

With the adoption of the restructuring of the Commission there is no facility for Business Meetings. Council through the standing committee has full responsibility for all policy matters including By-law amendments. Proposals for By-law amendments may be generated from two sources, either from communications or deputations to committee or from Licensing staff based on their experience with the By-law or in response to requests from Members of Council.

Unlike planning and land use legislation, there is no statutory requirement for processing amendments to the Licensing By-law. The committee may develop its own procedures and the following suggestions take into consideration the impact that some amendments may have on a licensee's ability to earn a living.

Proposals being presented by staff should be accompanied by a substantive background report and based on that information the committee may decide if they wish to proceed, if they wish notification letters to be mailed out or if an advertisement is warranted.

When an issue arises at committee or correspondence goes directly to committee the procedure in the past has been to refer the matter to staff for a report back to committee at which time committee may decide to proceed. To expedite the matter the committee may wish to establish the date when the report must return to committee and the date can then be advertised or circulated.

In the development of background reports to support the development of new By-laws or substantive amendments to existing By-laws, Licensing staff will undertake to consult with the various stakeholders to understand the operation of the Industry and the potential impact of any proposed regulatory requirements.

The City Solicitor has been consulted during the development of this report.

Conclusion:

Emergency and Protective Services Committee adopt the recommendation set out in this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Carol Ruddell-Foster, General Manager

Toronto Licensing Commission

416-392-3070

________

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the October 6, 1998, meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee.

(i)(July 13, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, forwarding a copy of her letter (July 13, 1998) to Mr. Sam Reteja, Nooky's, advising that a by-law amendment is required to permit an additional lounge at this location; that the proposed operation does not conform with the current Licensing By-law; and that charges will be laid if this business is found to be operating; and

(ii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. A.J. Bickerton, Solicitor, forwarding a copy of his letter (July 20, 1998) to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, on behalf of the applicant, expressing his opinion on this proposal.

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. A.J. Bickerton, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant;

-Mr. Stan Steiner, Taxicab Consulting Services, who filed a written submission with the Committee; and

-Mr. Andrew Reti, Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association.

________

Councillor Moscoe absented himself from the discussion on this matter insofar as it related to the issue of lap dancing as he is presiding over a hearing of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to receive testimony in a case and did not vote on Recommendation No. 1 submitted by the Committee.

2

Holistic Practitioner Licensing Category

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from Recommendation No. (1)(c) of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee the words "the inclusion of a provision related to", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "a provision to include", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(c)a provision to include 'incidental touching'; and".)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. I A, B and C, II and III, embodied in the report (September 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, subject to the following amendments:

(a)the deletion of the word "and/" from Recommendation No. I. B. 2.;

(b)the deletion of the word "customers'" from Recommendation No. I. 3. (h); and

(c)the inclusion of a provision related to "incidental touching"; and

(2)that the necessary Bill be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report ( September21, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Purpose:

This report addresses "options for controlling body rub parlours without impacting on the complementary therapy disciplines", as directed in a motion at the former Metro Licensing Commission's Business Meeting on August 15, 1997, and addresses the motions/issues raised at the Emergency and Protective Services (EPS) Committee July 14, 1998, meeting where Licensing, Legal and an Advisory Committee presented reports on a proposed scheme for licensing complementary therapy disciplines/holistic services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement

The creation of a new licensing category will have no impact on the net budget of Toronto Licensing. The funding for a new licensing category will come from the licensing fees which will be set at a cost recovery level. However, the new category will have resource implications. Additional staff time will be required to issue new licences and to enforce By-law 20-85 for this category.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

I.By-law 20-85 be amended to acknowledge holistic service businesses by either establishing a new licensing categories for "holistic centre" owners, and "holistic practitioners", (individuals administering therapy) and implement the following:

A.[note: A, B, and C are from the June 22, 1998 report from the Licensing Commission (Appendix 1), the italicized sections are revisions]:

Amend By-law 20-85, Section I, Definitions, to add a licence category for "holistic services/manual healing" defined as modalities used as tools for therapeutic and wellness purposes that involve touch and manipulation, this would include, but is not limited to the following therapies:

Acupressure, Alexander Techniques, Biofield Therapeutics, Feldenkrais Method, Reflexology, Rolfing, Shiatsu, Therapeutic Touch, Trager Method and Zone Therapy;

This does not include Alternative Systems of Medical Practice, Bioelectromagnetic Applications, Diet/Nutrition/Lifestyle Changes, Herbal Medicine, Mind/Body Control, and Pharmacological/Biological Treatments and their associated therapies [as defined and listed in a scheme proposed by the Office of Alternative Medicine, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Appendix 2], or body rub [as defined in the Municipal Act and By-law 20-85] and does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by persons duly qualified under the laws of the Province of Ontario;

B.By-law 20-85 be amended to establish new licensing categories for "holistic centre" owners, and individuals administering therapy referred to as "holistic practitioners" as follows:

1.Grant licences to currently active holistic practitioners during a ninety (90) day grandparenting period. Applicants will have ninety (90) days from the date of the passing of the By-law amendments to submit reasonable proof of business activity;

2.Implement a criteria for qualifying as a holistic service practitioner by requiring that applicants file training certificates from programs recognized by other levels of government and/or meet other standards (set out in the by-law). Require that any practitioners wishing to obtain a municipal licence after the end of the ninety-day period, show proof of meeting qualifying criteria.

3.Establish regulations requiring that holistic practitioners:

(a)file proof of meeting qualifying criteria (as discussed in B(2));

(b)be 18 years or older;

(c)remain fully clothed;

(d)provide services only to clients who are clothed or appropriately draped;

(e)not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol;

(f)display a licence (with photo identification) while providing service;

(g)practice only in a place of business licensed for that purpose, which includes operating out of a home (where permitted by zoning regulations); and

(h)not have contact with customers' genitals.

4.Establish regulations requiring that owners:

(a)carry general business liability insurance of $1,000,000.00;

(b)file corporate documents;

(c)record business and client transactions;

(d)keep the premises clean;

(e)keep the premises in good repair;

(f)ensure the premises have washroom access;

(g)post the licence at work locations;

(h)cite a licence number on all advertising;

(i)close centres to all clients between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;

(j)hire only licensed practitioners; and

(k)keep a record of employees.

C.The licence fee be $143.00 for every person who owns or operates a holistic services centre and $143.00 for every practitioner. These fees will be reviewed after the regulations have been in effect for a period of time. A report will be presented to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee six months after the By-law amendment comes into effect. Renewal fees are to be determined;

or,

exempting holistic services practitioners from the By-law as described below:

Adopt the principles found in the Markham Body Rub Parlour By-law (Appendix 4). Holistic services are exempt. Practitioners must prove credentials only upon challenge from licensing body.

II.If A,B, and C are adopted, a permanent Advisory Committee be established and that reporting relationships, representation and the role of the Committee be referred to staff and the Advisory Committee for further development; and

III.The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History

The minute of the July 14, 1998 meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, regarding the licensing of holistic services, reads:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee referred the reports and communications [presented at the July 14, 1998 meeting, attached] together with the following motions, to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, in consultation with the City Solicitor, for a joint report thereon to the Committee in October 1998:

(I)that a fee be established for holistic therapy centres that reflects the licence fee for massagists and massage parlours;

(ii)that the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be requested to:

(a)review the licence fee after it has been in effect for a period of time so that the adjustments that may be necessary can be made and submit a report thereon to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee after six months;

(b)examine the feasibility of eliminating the word 'new' from the proposed regulation requiring that owners 'close centres to all new clients between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.';

(iii)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to provide clarification as to zoning;

(iv)that after zoning approval is given by the City, there also be a process of public meetings and public consultation for the issuance of such licences and that [this] motion be referred to the City Solicitor for report;

(v)that the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be requested to report further on including those holistic practices where touching is incidental; and

(vi)that the practitioner's licence clearly state that they can only practice in a place of business licensed for that particular purpose.

These motions and those outstanding issues identified by Legal and the Advisory Committee at the July 14th, 1998 the Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting are directly incorporated into recommendation (I), listed above, with the exception of options for defining "holistic services", and the requirements for obtaining a licence. A recommended Option for these are presented in recommendation (I(B)2) and this and other options on the requirements for qualifying are the subject of the remainder of this report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification

Earlier reports from Licensing, Legal and the Advisory Committee, highlight the major difficulties faced in developing regulations for holistic service, i.e., defining "holistic services", determining what is to be regulated, and the requirements for obtaining a holistic services licence. These remain unresolved issues. In the most recent reports brought forward to the July 14th, 1998 Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting Licensing, Legal and the Advisory Committee addressed these issues.

Licensing put forward to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee the following recommendations in a June 22, 1998, report:

[1] A category be created for "holistic services" that includes modalities used for therapeutic and wellness purposes that involve touching or massaging, but does not include therapies where touching is incidental (p.1);

[Require that any practitioners wishing to obtain a municipal licence after the end of the sixty-day period, complete training in one or more modality (p.1);

In response to these recommendations Legal, in a June 22, 1998 report, raised the following concerns, that:

[1] The definitions of "holistic practices", "holistic services", "holistic centres" and "holistic practitioner" be further particularized (p. 1); and

[2] staff review the issue of the training certificate to be provided by persons seeking licences as practitioners of holistic services (p.1).

In addition, the July 14, 1998, report of the Advisory Committee (Appendix 3) brought forward the concern that:

the holistic community makes no differentiation between its practitioners who touch and its practitioners for whom touch is incidental. Most holistic practitioners touch at some point during treatment. The Advisory Committee wants all members of the holistic community to be licensed (p.1).

Definition of Holistic Services/Requirements for Obtaining a Licence

In the most recent report and over the course of consultations on proposing "to control body rub parlours without impacting on the complementary therapy disciplines", the following issues have been identified by various stakeholders as the barriers to defining holistic services and the requirements for obtaining a licence:

I.Issues arising from maintaining current licensing scheme

The status quo is not workable. Without workable criteria the By-law is unable to clearly and readily distinguish holistic services practitioners and body rubbers. Holistic services practitioners are facing charges as body rubbers. Body rubbers are masquerading as holistic services providers, and as a result the allowed limit of twenty five body rub parlours operating within the City of Toronto is effectively exceeded.

II.Issues arising from developing a licensing scheme for holistic practitioners while maintaining the regulations established for body rub parlours

It is assumed that there is a need to leave licensing regulations for body rub intact. Body rub regulations were established in August, 1975. Council adopted regulations to control body rubs and to ensure "standards of cleanliness, competencies and ethics for the protection of the public." (From the report of the Solicitor, June 20, 1974, Council minutes, Appendix "A", p.1985). The premise for establishing these regulations has not changed. Therefore, based solely on the reasons for initially establishing regulations, change to these regulations is not needed.

However, leaving the body rub regulations intact means that any new regulations for holistic practitioners must reflect the current legislative framework. This creates two difficulties. Firstly, because "body rub" was defined in By-law 20-85, and the Municipal Act (s.224(9)) as:

the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating, by any means, of a person's body or part thereof but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the law of the Province of Ontario,

it is difficult to distinguish body rub activities from many of the techniques of holistic services practitioners, which also involve kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, etc. The intentions of these practitioners differ (holistic therapists perform holistic/remedial/therapeutic services), but by-law definitions cannot be developed on the basis of intent. If body rub and holistic practitioners are to be distinguished, it will be with some criteria other than intent; one that is clear and workable for issuing and enforcement staff and for the persons subject to the proposed regulations.

Secondly, although the practices of body rubbers and holistic therapists have similarities, it can be reasonably argued that holistic practitioners should not have to describe their occupation in terms of how they can be distinguished from body rubbers, but should be defined instead by their own standards.

Should holistic services where touch is incidental be included in the licensing scheme

The primary purpose for licensing any category of business is to protect the safety and rights of the citizens of the City of Toronto. In the case of holistic therapy involving touch, the similarity of the treatment between these types of holistic therapies and body rubs are indistinguishable in terms of the definition of body rub, this led to some body rub operators holding themselves out to be holistic therapists in order to circumvent By-law 20-85 and operate outside the regulatory framework of the City.

The recommendations set out in this report are designed to prevent this circumvention of the By-law by body rub operators thereby ensuring that Council's objectives are met while having as little as possible impact on the holistic community.

However an argument can be made that:

regulating Holistic Services that use touch, only emphasizes the perceived sexual side of the business (the public at large perceives Body Rub to be a type of sexual service that uses massaging or touch).

Most Holistic Services/Practices are not subjected to any form of regulation (including self regulation). This lack of control leaves the public without clearly recognized bodies to address any concerns they may have about the industry, such as health standards, fair business practices and maintaining standards of ethical practice.

Licensing some practitioners may confuse the public who may infer that all holistic serves are licensed and are safe, clean etc. and may base their decision to use these services on this.

Regardless of the validity of the above concerns, there does not appear to be an issue or compelling reason in terms of protecting public safety and rights in relation to all Holistic Practitioners. Complaints that have been received have been in relation only to those practices that use touch/massage as part of their technique. These complaints are from citizens who complain that the person(s) holding themselves out to be a Holistic Practitioner(s) is (are) in reality operating a body rub operation. Therefore, based on the experience of licensing staff there is no public policy need to licence Holistic Practitioners who do not use touch or massaging as a normal part of their technique.

Issues arising from setting requirements to licence holistic practitioners

As indicated earlier, the difficulty faced in developing licensing regulations for holistic services is defining the business activity and determining what is to be regulated. Because holistic therapy is an emerging field, there are no universal standards for identifying holistic services practitioners and their activities (although the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has recently proposed a useful scheme for categorizing therapies/modalities which has been adopted for the purposes of this By-law). The use of criteria for establishing requirements for obtaining a licence such as completion of courses or training, membership in professional associations, eligibility for payment from extended health benefits insurance, attended courses eligible for tax credits, eligibility for malpractice insurance were examined in previous reports where it was found the use of these criteria offered only partial solutions.

Furthermore, there is need to compensate for the lack of provincial educational and scope of practice standards for holistic practitioners if a licensing scheme is to be developed. Only a limited number of holistic practitioners have completed training at provincially-recognized training institutions. The remainder have either no formal training, have completed courses at a various private institutions, or trained with a Master.

Options for establishing qualification Requirements for Obtaining a Licence

The following are options for setting qualification requirements for holistic services practitioners, owners and operators. The conditions and goals any one option will meet are discussed and summarized in the attached chart. These are provided as a guideline to evaluating these options:

Recommended option

Require that applicants file training certificates from programs recognized by other levels of government and/or meet other standards

Under this option practitioners prove they have completed courses at a college, vocational school or any other school that issues tuition tax credits. This approach revises the current licensing scheme, gives recognition to holistic services practitioners, distinguishes holistic service practitioners by training credentials and provides a clear workable criteria to distinguish holistic practitioners. As discussed earlier in this and other reports the difficulty with this option is that only a limited number of practitioners have completed training at these institutions. This option provided no accommodation for foreign-trained practitioners and modalities where training is traditionally provided in an informal manner.

For those practitioners who do not qualify under the above training requirements, a substitute set requirements could be introduced, such as those listed in the Markham By-law (Appendix 4): Schedule "B" sections; 1(b) i-iv; 1(c) ii, iv; 3(b) i-vi; 3(d) i-x.

All practitioners would be required to file proof of training. If the training qualifications did not meet the By-law requirements, an applicant could request to prove their qualifications by meeting these additional standards.

Evaluation of recommended Option

This approach revises the current licensing scheme, gives recognition to holistic services practitioners, distinguishes holistic services practitioners by training credentials or other criteria and does not effect body rub regulations. However, as it is anticipated there will be many practitioners who do not meet the training requirements, the major concern with this approach is that the processing and evaluating of these various records could be administratively complex and tax the resources of Toronto Licensing. However cost of administration would be recovered in the fee.

Other Licensing Options

1.Require that applicants file proof of training (as recommended in the Licensing report of June22, 1998)

Under this option, practitioners meet the requirement for obtaining a holistic services licence by showing proof of training in one or more modality. As discussed in the earlier report Toronto Licensing may find that initially it needs to rely on the expertise and honesty of applicants to correctly distinguish themselves from body rub parlour operators until an inventory of modalities, schools and courses is developed.

An initial grandparenting period was proposed, during which time applicants submit reasonable proof of carrying on a business providing holistic services, such as a lease or dated printed advertisement which clearly specify the services provided. Toronto Licensing will rely on business records to distinguish holistic services businesses from body rub parlours. During this period Toronto Licensing staff and the Advisory Committee will work on the inventory of modalities, schools and courses. After the grandparenting period expires, holistic practitioners, who wish to obtain a licence but have not submitted business records, will be required to submit proof of completion of training.

Evaluation of Option One

This approach revises the current licensing scheme, gives recognition to holistic services practitioners, and distinguishes holistic service practitioners by training credentials. However, as addressed in earlier reports, this proposal does not provide clear and workable criteria to distinguish holistic services practitioners, and may have an impact on body rub parlours.

As holistic services training is not standardized - the field is emerging and there are numerous modalities and instructional methods and centres - identifying legitimate training certification is problematic (as discussed in the report from Legal, June 22, 1998). Without objective standards by which to evaluate the courses or training, applicants may qualify upon presentation of any certificate, regardless of its legitimacy. Accordingly, it would not be difficult to circumvent the regulations. Licensed body-rub parlours might apply under the new holistic services category, so as to avoid the restrictions and higher licence fees of body rub parlours. Operators who currently are unable able to obtain body rub parlour licences, because of the restriction on the number of operations, may apply for holistic services licences to operate a business.

2.Allow applicants to qualify for Holistic Services licences without any entry restrictions

Under this option holistic services practitioners do not file proof of their occupation and simply self-identify.

Evaluation of Option Two

This approach revises the current licensing scheme, and gives recognition to holistic services practitioners. This option avoids the concerns regarding the verification of qualifications of practitioners addressed in the June 22, 1998 report by Legal. However, even more so than the previous option, this approach has the potential to effect body rub parlours. With no criteria for qualifying as a holistic services practitioner, body rub parlour owners/operators could easily misrepresent the nature of their operations and effectively circumvent the restrictions on the number of body rub parlours.

4.Adopt the principles of the Markham Body Rub Parlour by-law. Holistic services are exempt. Practitioners must prove credentials only upon challenge from licensing body

Under this approach, all holistic services practitioners would be exempt from requiring a licence if they can demonstrate a level of commitment to a bona fide health care discipline. If there is any doubt as to whether the service provided is or is not a body rub, a practitioner would have to prove that they were in fact a holistic services provider by submitting evidence of sufficient education from a qualifying institution and membership in a qualifying association. It is not intended that every such practitioner apply for an exemption. Instead, they could claim the exemption if a challenge arises that they are a body-rub operating without a licence. Then the licensing officer would review and make a decision based on the applicant's supporting material.

Evaluation of Option Four

This option revises the current licensing scheme and distinguished holistic service practitioners. However, there are several concerns associated with this approach. The Markham By-law would be administratively complex. The criteria for distinguishing holistic practitioners is extensive. If more than a couple of practitioners are challenged the administration of these regulations would tax the resources of Licensing. In addition, as there are no new fees collected there would be no funding available to administer these exemption regulations.

Zoning/home-based businesses

In earlier reports the question of possible zoning regulations prohibiting the operation of home-based businesses was raised. I have been informed by various planners from the former area municipalities that throughout the City of Toronto these by-laws vary as each former area municipality continues to operate under its own By-laws. The operation of holistic services businesses in residential property is permitted in the former City of Toronto, City of York, Borough of East York and City of Etobicoke. It is not permitted in the former City of Scarborough and City of North York.

It is anticipated that eventually these zoning by-laws will be consolidated. In the meantime, it is recommended that once licensing regulations for holistic services have been adopted staff meet with Planning and Building officials to discuss the smooth implementation of the new licensing regulations for home-based businesses.

Conclusions

In summary, Council should adopt one of the options set forth in this report to regulate and distinguish Holistic Practitioners from Body Rub Operators.

Contact Name and Telephone

Carol Ruddell-Foster

General Manager, Toronto Licensing

392-3070

(A copy of the documents referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting of October6, 1998, and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (October1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee made at its meeting of July 14, 1998 for a legal opinion on a process of public meetings and public consultations in respect of the issuance of business licences to natural health practitioners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 14, 1998 the Emergency and Protective Services Committee requested a legal opinion on a process of public meetings and public consultations in respect of the issuance of business licences to natural health practitioners.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under section 6 of By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council, as amended (By-law No.20-85), when staff of the Toronto Licensing Commission receive an application for a licence, they are required to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the licence should be issued or refused. The grounds upon which a licence may be refused are set out in subsection 11(1) of the by-law, which states that an applicant is entitled to the issuance of a licence except where the investigation or other information available supports a finding that the licensee has breached subsection 11(1) of By-law No. 20-85. Subsection 11(1) of the by-law reads as follows:

11. (1)An applicant for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence is, subject to the provisions of this By-law, entitled to be issued the licence or renewal, except where,

(a)the conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on his trade, calling, business or occupation in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty; or

(b)there are reasonable grounds for belief that the carrying on of the trade, calling, business or occupation by the applicant will result in a breach of this By-law or any other law; or

(c)the applicant is a corporation and its conduct or the conduct of its officers, directors, employees or agents affords reasonable grounds for belief that its trade, calling, business or occupation will not be carried on in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty; or

(d)there are reasonable grounds for belief that the premises, accommodation, equipment or facilities in respect of which the licence is required do not comply with the provisions of this By-law or any other law; or

(e)the conduct of the applicant or other circumstances afford reasonable grounds for belief that the carrying on by the applicant of the business in respect of which the licence is sought would infringe the rights, or endanger the health or safety, of other members of the public.

The investigation conducted by Toronto Licensing staff to determine whether or not a licence should be issued or refused includes obtaining whatever relevant evidence may be available from persons with direct knowledge of the conduct of the business by the applicant. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the investigation by Toronto Licensing staff may include consultations with other enforcement agencies such as the Toronto Police, licensing agencies such as the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, residents of the community in which the premises is located, municipal officials such as building inspectors, and City councillors.

Where the investigation conducted by Toronto Licensing staff reveals sufficient cogent evidence to support an adverse finding against the applicant under subsection 11(1) of the by-law, the application for a licence must be refused by the Manager of Issuing of the Toronto Licensing Commission.

Under section 6 of By-law No. 20-85, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, where the Manager of Issuing refuses to issue a licence he must advise the applicant that he or she is entitled to a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal to determine whether or not the licence should be issued.

Hearings before the Licensing Tribunal

All hearings before the Licensing Tribunal to determine whether a licence should be granted or refused, involve the conduct of the applicant as it relates to the carrying on of the business. The grounds upon which a business licence may be refused by the Licensing Tribunal are contained in subsection 11(1) of By-law No. 20-85, set out above.

In its capacity as an administrative tribunal, the Licensing Tribunal is governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the rules of natural justice. By law, the applicant is entitled to an opportunity for a hearing to determine whether or not the licence should be issued or refused. In addition, the applicant must be provided with reasonable notice of the allegations that may result in the refusal of the licence, so that the applicant is notified of the case to be met. At a hearing, an applicant is entitled to be represented by counsel or an agent, and is entitled to call and examine witnesses and present arguments and submissions to the panel hearing the matter. The conduct of the proceeding must ensure procedural fairness to the applicant because failure to meet these requirements may result in the decision of the Licensing Tribunal being overturned by a Court on an application for Judicial Review.

At a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal, Toronto Licensing staff must satisfy the Tribunal that, on a balance of probabilities, there is cogent evidence to indicate that the applicant has breached or may be expected to breach subsection 11(1) of the By-law before the Licensing Tribunal is entitled to refuse the issuance of the licence. Again, the Licensing Tribunal's primary consideration in these hearings is the conduct of the business of the applicant.

Witnesses in hearings before the Licensing Tribunal

In all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, the primary mechanism by which a person may become directly involved in the proceeding is as a witness. The primary criteria by which a person may be called to testify as a witness in a proceeding is whether or not that person has relevant, credible and admissible evidence to give on the matters in issue in the proceeding.

In the context of hearings before the Licensing Tribunal, since the grounds upon which a licence may be refused are the grounds set out in subsection 11(1), a person called as a witness in a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal must have evidence or testimony relevant to the provisions of subsection 11(1) relied upon by Toronto Licensing staff and counsel to support an allegation that the licence should be refused.

The process of determining whether or not a particular person should be called as a witness in a particular proceeding usually begins at the investigation stage of the matter. Where Toronto Licensing staff receive an application for a licence, they are required to conduct an investigation to determine whether there is sufficient basis upon which the licence may be refused. During this process staff must assess the available relevant facts to determine how those facts may be properly introduced as evidence by witnesses in the hearing in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and the rules of natural justice.

Where members of the community in which the business is located or other persons have relevant, credible and admissible evidence or testimony in respect of the conduct of the business by the applicant, such persons may testify as witnesses at the hearing before the Licensing Tribunal.

Public Meetings

It is my opinion that any proceedings to determine whether or not a licence should be issued must be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, as described above. The applicant must be provided with sufficient notice of the allegations and must be provided with a full and fair opportunity to respond to those allegations by examining and cross-examining witnesses and by making submissions.

It is my opinion that public meetings conducted by means of deputations by interested persons would not meet these requirements imposed by the rules of natural justice and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The processes and procedures applicable to meetings where members of the public may attend and make deputations, such as committee meetings or public meetings convened under the Planning Act in respect of land use matters, do not apply to hearings to determine whether or not a business licence should be issued. By law, hearings to determine whether or not a business licence should be issued are quasi-judicial and must be conducted in a manner substantially similar to court proceedings.

Contact Name:

Ansuya Pachai, 392-9074

________

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Linda Caplan, Chair, Advisory Committee on Complementary Therapies, Toronto, who filed a copy of her written submission with the Committee;

-Ms. Diane May, Member, Advisory Committee on Complementary Therapies, Mississauga, who also addressed the Committee on behalf of Janette Strong and Sandra Wagman, holistic practitioners, and filed a written submission with the Committee from Ms. Sandra Wagman;

-Mr. Mario Paliska, Toronto;

-Ms. Maggie Mann, West Wind School of Aromatherapy, Toronto; and

-Ms. Mary Jane Louth, Toronto.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 27, 1998) from Mr. Mario Paliska, regarding the proposed exemption of holistic practitioners.)

3

Proposal to Establish Additional Collision Reporting Centres

(CRCs) in the City of Toronto

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for further consideration at such time as the report requested of the City Auditor in regard to the operations and profit margins of the existing CRCs is submitted to the Committee; and the City Auditor was requested to expedite the submission of such report.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (September 23, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to comment on the benefits and feasibility of establishing three proposed additional Collision Reporting Centres and the impact of existing CRCs on auto body shops in the City.

Financial Implications:

There is no financial impact from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council not establish any additional Collision Reporting Centres.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, the Council requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on the benefits of possible establishment of three additional Collision Reporting Centers (CRCs) in the City of Toronto and to comment on the impact of existing CRCs on auto body shops in the City.

In addition to the above request, the City Solicitor and the City Auditor were also requested to report on the subject of the City's liability in view of the existing contracts with the private sector operator. That report has now been submitted on the confidential agenda of the Committee and may have an impact on Council's consideration of the recommendation contained in this report. During the 1998 budget process, the City Auditor was requested to report on the operations and profit margins of the existing CRCs.

The Police Services Board, at its January 19, 1998 meeting, approved a motion to establish a sub committee for evaluating the performance of CRCs; hearing complaints from representatives of the towing industry and auto body shops regarding CRCs; and, reviewing on-going problems related to the CRCs.

Discussion and Justification:

Process

Meetings and consultations were held with the CRC operator and site visits were conducted. Staff from the City's Legal, Audit, Licensing, and Police organizations were also consulted and relevant reports and documents pertaining to the establishment and operation of CRCs were examined.

Historical Perspective

The Provincial Highway Traffic Act requires that any incident resulting in a personal injury or property damage above a specified level (currently set at $1,000), must be reported to a police officer. Traditionally, police were summoned to the incident location where the officer would prepare the incident report and then the parties involved would leave the scene. During the period 1990-92, the benefit of dispatching a police officer to the accident site was increasingly questioned and it was concluded that the police could realize substantial savings (up to seventy percent) if the public were required to report accidents at prescribed locations; the only exception would be situations which involved serious injuries or fatalities. From the public perspective, waiting for hours for the police to arrive, particularly in inclement weather, would be avoided; and, the reporting could be completed off site.

In 1994, the police implemented a pilot CRC in North York (113 Toryork Drive), in partnership with North York Accident Support Services Limited - a private sector corporation. The pilot proved to be successful and the police issued a request for proposal for two additional CRCs. Two new CRCs were established in 1995 at 855 Oxford Street, Etobicoke and 39 Howden Road, Scarborough in partnership with Toronto West Accident Support Services Limited and Toronto East Accident Support Services Limited respectively. All the three "Accident Support Services" corporations are operated by the same individuals.

Current Situation

The CRCs provide a facility for the public to report accidents and initiate insurance claims processing; it also allows adequate waiting time to select the auto body shop for vehicle repairs. The Police are currently responsible for recording of the accident report, verification of vehicle damage and investigation of suspected fraud. The CRC operator is responsible for providing a suitable working environment for the Police, adequate space for public use, a vehicle pound service, and the initiation of insurance claims processing. The expenditures incurred by the CRC operator are recovered through the sale of claims processing services to the insurance industry. On average, insurance claims may be initiated in about seventy one percent of the approximately 65,000 collision reports filed each year; the charges for those services range from about $37 per collision report and upwards, based on the services requested by a particular insurance company.

From a public perspective, the CRC offers a one stop facility to deal with all collision related issues. In addition, the public receives other ancillary services provided by the CRC operator and funded by the insurance industry, payment to tow truck operators, free one day parking of unsafe vehicles, initiation of claims processing, disposal of vehicles written off, assistance with vehicle rentals and assistance with completing the accident report form.

Resource Requirements: A typical CRC managed and operated by the private sector is staffed by about 25 staff (uniformed and civilian) from the Police force and 3 officers from the OPP at a combined cost of about $1.8 million. Staff estimates for other annual expenditures are: lease cost, $300thousand; customer service, vehicle pound operation and insurance claims processing cost, $750thousand.

Monitoring of CRC Operations: Since the Police provide collision recording services directly to the public, it monitors its own activity directly; however, the CRC operator does provide monthly activity statistics to the Police. Any complaints received by the CRC operator are immediately forwarded to the Police; during 1997, about five complaints were received relating to tow truck operators or auto body shop owners; and, waiting time during periods of peak demand.

Observations: The operation of the three CRCs represents a collaborative partnership between the Police, the CRC operator and the insurance industry that results in enhanced levels of services to the public. The Police and the insurance industry also benefit from lower costs while the operator is able to generate sufficient return on investment to remain financially viable.

Proposal to Establish City Operated CRCs

Assuming that the additional CRCs would provide an equivalent level of service to that of the existing CRCs, the following factors need to be considered:

-Cost: The annual operating expenditure for the proposed three CRCs is estimated at between $7.5 to $9.0 million annually (excluding the cost of vehicle pound operation and insurance claims processing). In addition, one time costs are estimated at about $1.2 million for the three proposed CRCs.

-Revenue Generation: Depending on the number of accidents reported at the proposed CRCs, the range of services provided and the potential number of accident reports purchased by the insurance industry, the total revenue for the three proposed CRCs is estimated at between $ 300 thousand to $ 450 thousand. However, this will not represent additional revenue for CRC operations as a whole because revenues generated by the three proposed CRCs will, by definition, arise from the loss of revenues by the existing CRCs.

-Impact on existing CRCs: The proposed CRCs will take away the accident reporting volume and the resulting business from the existing CRCs causing them to be financially non viable. That situation may cause the existing CRC operator to withdraw from the arrangement and consequently require the Police to bear additional costs relating to the three existing CRCs; total incremental cost to the police is estimated at about $ 2.8 million annualized.

-Diversion of Police resources: Unless the Police/City increase the staffing level by about 129 full time equivalents, establishment of the three proposed CRCs will result in the diversion of scarce resources away from higher priority police initiatives such as neighborhood policing.

-Market Demand: Increasing the number of CRCs assumes an increased growth in the demand for services of CRCs; the current CRCs have adequate capacity to handle the existing volumes of collisions reported within the City. Three additional proposed CRCs will double the overall capacity, thereby resulting in the under utilization of all the CRCs.

-Traffic Implications: CRCs generate considerable traffic; therefore, its location requires proximity to a major arterial roadway, wide streets to permit tow truck and tractor trailer traffic, and sufficient open space for operation of a vehicle pound. In addition, parking space is also required for Police use and for tow trucks and vehicles reporting accidents. Typically, CRCs are housed in industrial/commercial zoned areas.

-City Role: The City's current role in the operation of the CRCs is exercised through the provision of police services and the licensing and monitoring of CRC operations. Extending this role to that of a CRC operator which is currently provided by the private sector may not be appropriate.

Assessment

The operation of three proposed CRCs is not recommended as it will not result in any incremental benefits to the public, the Police or the City. Further, the establishment of the proposed CRCs would result in the diversion of scarce police resources and may jeopardize the financial viability of the existing three CRCs.

Impact of Existing CRCs on Auto Body Shops in the City

The operation of the CRCs is governed by the Licensing By-law 20-85, amended by By-law 168-97, Municipality of Metro Toronto, which requires that persons arriving at the CRCs to report accidents may not be canvassed by the tow truck operators, the Police, any employee of the CRC operator or any other person with a view to recommending a particular auto body shop for carrying out the repairs. Further, any vehicle towed in to the CRC location must be "dropped" off by the tow truck and the tow truck operator must leave the premises.

The By-law was enacted in response to some unfair past practices at the CRC premises where tow truck operators or agents of the auto body repair shops were alleged to have influenced the owners of damaged vehicles to direct the repair work to specific auto body repair shops. The By-law "capped" tow rates and provides a "cooling off" period to the person involved in the accident so that the selection of the auto body shop is made without coercion. Under the provisions of the existing Licensing By-law, auto body shops have been restricted in their ability to canvass for business at the CRC premises. The Licensing Commission is also encouraging the concept of accreditation of auto body shops for doing collision repair work.

Conclusion:

The CRCs represent a collaborative partnership between the Police, the insurance industry and the CRC operator in the interest of all the participants and the public. The existing CRCs are conveniently located, equipped to handle the mandatory drops, provide valuable services and have sufficient capacity to service the current volume of collisions. The proposed CRCs will not result in any additional benefits to the City and cost about $7.5 to $9.0 million annually. In addition, the proposed CRCs may jeopardize the financial viability of the existing CRC operations, resulting in incremental police expenditures of about $2.8 million. Therefore, it is recommended that the City not consider establishing the three proposed CRCs at this time.

Contact Name:

Firoz Kara, 392-8678

________

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, a confidential report (August 11, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting liability issues related to the establishment of additional collision reporting centres, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (August 11, 1998) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

4

By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing -

Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on November 25, 1998.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (August 26, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, recommending amendments to Sub-section 40(3), Schedule 37, of By-law No.20-85, subject to the following:

(a)that the notice simply read "The tow truck operator may not recommend a body shop or other vehicle repair facility - By-law No. 20-85."; and that appropriate wording be included on the notice with regard to penalties for failure to comply with this provision of By-law No. 20-85;

(b)that By-law No. 20-85 also include guidelines for the display of signage, i.e. that it should be clearly visible and not be covered up; and

(c)that the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, be requested to meet with the Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and Councillor Moscoe, the Toronto Licensing representative on the Committee, to develop a revised waiver form consistent with the By-law;

(2)the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to:

(a)advise tow truck operators that if they charge patrons for the recovery of vehicles towed under common law, they are in danger of losing their contract with the Toronto Police Service;

(b)lay charges against towing companies that collect fees contrary to the Nash decision; and

(c)request the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service to establish a suggested protocol for towing companies and property owners to follow with respect to towing from private property and to submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee to be held on November 3, 1998; and

(3)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to ensure that the By-law Enforcement Officers allocate time to enforcing this issue.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, to ensure that the signage at all pounds in Toronto conform with By-law No. 20-85;

(2)requested the City Solicitor, the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on amendments to By-law No. 20-85 to prevent tow truck operators from collecting fees from cars towed under common law;

(3)requested the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, and the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate officials, to submit a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on harmonizing towing by-laws across the new City of Toronto so that the by-laws of the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke and Scarborough are brought into sync with the by-laws of the former Cities of North York, Toronto and York;

(4)requested the Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee to meet with staff of Toronto Licensing and to report back to the Committee on some proactive measures that can be taken to protect citizens from being charged illegal fees under the By-law and from being towed improperly;

(5)referred the following motion to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, for a report thereon to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee:

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'That By-law Enforcement Officers be directed to lay charges against pounds collecting fees in excess of the amount set by By-law No. 20-85.'";

(6)referred the following motion to the City Solicitor for a report thereon to the next meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee to be held on November 3, 1998:

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'That the City take immediate legal action against companies issuing phony parking tickets.'"; and

(7)received the following communication (July 15, 1998) from the City Clerk.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following communication (July15, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No.1 contained in Report No.6 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "By-law to Amend By-law No.20-85- Accident Towing- Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities", directed, inter alia, that the following motion be referred to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for consideration in September, 1998, and the City Solicitor and the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be requested to report thereon, in writing, to such meeting:

"Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

'That the foregoing Clause be amended by striking out the recommendation of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendations Nos. (1)(b), (c), (d), (2) and (4) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, with respect to accreditation, be deferred to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998, and the Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee be requested to meet with representatives of the Provincial Government to encourage swift passage of a Province-wide accreditation which would complement the City's plan;

(2)the City Auditor be requested to submit the report, previously requested by Council with respect to accident reporting centres, to Council, through the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, no later than October 1, 1998;

(3)staff be requested to submit a report, to the same meeting, on the possibility of establishing City-operated/independent reporting centres, as previously requested by Council;

(4)the operators of the existing reporting centres be advised that City Council will not tolerate any solicitation of any resident by agents of insurance companies, auto body shops, car rental companies, tow trucks, or other businesses;

(5)a self-help or 'what-to-do' pamphlet be produced and submitted to Council for approval, such pamphlet to provide guidance and advice to every person involved in an accident and distributed by the police, tow truck operators and reporting centres;

(6)Recommendation No. (1)(a) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

'that the mandatory drop be delayed until January 2000 and the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report on the legal authority to force all tow-truck operators to display or hand-out notices to the public which would advise the public that any recommendations of body shops or other businesses made by tow truck operators will result in the immediate suspension of their licence and a hearing before the Licencing Tribunal';

(7)City staff be requested to strictly enforce these rules at all collision reporting centres with all tow truck operators on a regular basis; and

(8)Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be adopted. " ' "

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (August18, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide a legal opinion on the authority of City Council to require licensed tow truck operators to display or provide notices advising members of the public that the tow truck operator may not recommend body shops or other vehicle repair facilities and that such recommendations would result in an immediate suspension of the operator's licence and a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

If City Council decides to amend Schedule 37 to By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council to implement the proposed notice, it is recommended that:

1.The notice be made consistent with subsection 40(3) of Schedule 37, by stating that:

(a)the tow truck operator may not recommend a body shop or other vehicle repair facility unless requested to do so by the vehicle owner; or

(b)by amending subsection 40(3) by deleting the clause therein which permits tow truck operators to make such recommendations at the request of the vehicle owner; and

2.The notice be amended to state that a hearing will be held before the Licensing Tribunal to determine whether the licence should be suspended, revoked or have conditions placed on it.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 considered Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee entitled "By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing- Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities". At this meeting, City Council requested a legal opinion on its authority to require licensed tow truck operators to display or provide notices advising members of the public that the tow truck operator may not recommend body shops or other vehicle repair facilities and that such recommendations would result in an immediate suspension of the operator's licence and a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In my opinion, two concerns arise from the proposed notices. Firstly, subsection 40(3) of Schedule37 to By-law No. 20-85 permits a tow truck operator to recommend a body shop or other such facility when requested to do so by the vehicle owner. The proposed notice is inconsistent with this provision in that it suggests that the tow truck operator is prohibited from making any recommendations, even when requested to do so by the vehicle owner.

Accordingly, I recommend that the proposed notice, if implemented, be consistent with subsection40(3) of Schedule 37 to By-law No. 20-85 by amending the notice to take into account recommendations made at the request of the vehicle owner as permitted by the present provision. In the alternative, the by-law provision could be amended to prohibit tow truck drivers from making any recommendation. Such amendment would result in the by-law provision being consistent with the proposed notice.

The second concern that arises from the proposed notice is with respect to the reference to the "immediate suspension of their licence and a hearing before the Licensing Tribunal."

It is well-settled law that the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness require that a licence holder be afforded an opportunity to be heard in respect of any suspension of the licence. The purpose of the hearing before the Tribunal is to afford the licencee this opportunity to be heard. It is on the basis of the evidence and argument adduced at such a hearing that the Tribunal would determine whether or not the licence should be suspended, revoked or have conditions placed on it.

The difficulty that arises from the wording of the proposed notice is that it suggests that the suspension of the licence is somehow independent of the hearing before the Tribunal and that the licence will be suspended before the hearing. It is my opinion that a suspension of a licence in these circumstances prior to a hearing before the Tribunal would be contrary to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Accordingly, I recommend that the proposed notice, if implemented, state that a hearing will be held before the Licensing Tribunal to determine whether the licence should be suspended, revoked or have conditions placed on it.

Regarding the manner in which the proposed notice may be provided or displayed, members of my staff have been advised by the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, that it is her opinion that the most effective means of displaying this notice would be by requiring that the notice be posted in the cab of the tow truck such that it is visible to members of the public in the passenger seat of the tow truck. However, the wording of the notice may have to be revised to take into account space restrictions if the notice is to be posted in the cab of the vehicle.

Conclusions:

In my opinion, the proposed notice is inconsistent with subsection 40(3) of Schedule 37 to By-law No. 20-85 of the former Metropolitan Council in that it suggests that a tow truck operator may not recommend a body shop or other vehicle repair facility, regardless of any request by the vehicle owner for such a recommendation. Further, it is my opinion that a suspension of a licence in these circumstances prior to a hearing before the Tribunal would be contrary to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

It is the opinion of the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, that the most effective means of displaying the proposed notice would be by requiring that the notice be posited in the cab of the tow truck such that it is visible to members of the public in the passenger seat of the tow truck.

The General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, has reviewed this report and concurs with its contents.

Contact Name:

Ansuya Pachai 392-9074

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (August26, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Recommendation:

That By-law 20-85, Schedule 37 Sub-section 40(3) be amended by deleting the clause "unless requested to do so by such person".

Sub-section 40(3) would then read "No owner or driver shall suggest or recommend to any hirer or other person requesting his services that any vehicle in respect of which his services are given or requested, be towed, conveyed, driven or delivered to any particular salvage yard, body shop, storage yard, or any other public garage, building or place".

Discussion:

The August 18, 1998 report from the City Solicitor recommends that the notice be displayed in the Tow Truck be made consistent with Sub-section 40(3) of Schedule 37 and the Solicitor offers two proposals for achieving this consistency. I suggest that Committee may also wish to have this portion of the Licensing By-law consistent with the restrictions placed on owners, operators and employees in Collision Reporting Centres who are prohibited from recommending repair facilities (Schedule 24, Part 6, Section 14[2]) and this can be accomplished by approving recommendation (b) of the Solicitor's report.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also submits the following report (August26, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Purpose:

To provide Committee with an update on the information currently available regarding a possible Provincial Accreditation Program for Collision Repair Facilities.

Discussion:

The minutes of the Council meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 reference the possibility of a Provincial initiative to establish a province wide accreditation program.

I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with a representative of the Ministry of Finance and I can advise you of the following:

-representatives of the various Ministries have been meeting with an industry based group (Collision Industry Standards Council of Ontario) to develop standards and a code of ethics for the program and to develop a proposed work plan and budget for the administration of the program.

-if the Province decides to implement this program it will likely be through a regulation to the Insurance legislation that would provide that insurance claims be paid only to accredited repair facilities.

-the accreditation process, if approved, is targeted to start in January 1999, however, there is no date as to when the program and insurance restrictions would be triggered. The program implementation date will be influenced by the number of shops accredited and their geographic dispersal. Contrary to the assumptions of some industry participants the program does not start on January 1, 1999.

The various Provincial Ministries and the industry representatives (CISCO) appear to be committed to implementing an accreditation program, however, the magnitude of this endeavour with minimal grass roots development in place and the proposal that the operation be industry operated does not argue for an early implementation date.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Carol Ruddell-Foster, General Manager

416-392-3070

________

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (September 14, 1998) from the Mr. George Ching, Weston, Ontario, requesting an opportunity to address the Committee with regard to the practices of the towing companies, a copy of which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the Supplementary Agenda of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting of October 6, 1998, and is on file in the Office of the CityClerk.

Mr. George Ching, Weston, Ontario, appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

5

Enactment of Bill C-68 - Gun Control Legislation

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following resolution (September 24, 1998) submitted by Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, and Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport:

WHEREAS the Ontario Government pledged during the last provincial election to make fighting crime a top priority, and has established a three person crime commission to develop a crime control strategy; and

WHEREAS any crime control strategy must recognize the importance of appropriate gun control legislation, which has been enacted by the Parliament of Canada in Bill C-68;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto Council formally request the Government of Ontario to withdraw from the constitutional challenge of Bill C-68;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto Council request the Ontario Cabinet to rescind the regulations passed this summer, with no public hearings or review by the Ontario Legislature, which will lower the hunting age in Ontario from 15 to 12 years of age, thereby permitting the carrying of firearms by children who are still in elementary school;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Council express its support to Conservative MPP Jim Brown, who chairs the Ontario Government Crime Commission, for his statement that he is "horrified" by the regulatory lowering of the hunting age to 12 year olds, and request that his Commission also recommend this regulation be rescinded; and

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution be forwarded to all MPP's in the Greater Toronto Area and to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for endorsement.

_______

Mr. John Duffy, Toronto, appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 28, 1998) from Ms. Wendy Cukier, Coalition for Gun Control, providing background information on gun control in Toronto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following organizations requesting that the motion dealing with the enactment of Bill C-68 be referred back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in order to allow for further review and the hearing of deputations:

(a)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. Larry Whitmore, Executive Manager, Ontario Handgun Association;

(b)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Institute for Legislative Action; and

(c)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. Gordon Gallant, Firearms Specialist, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters.)

6

Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada - Unlawful

Avoidance of Police

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council request the Provincial Government to introduce amendments to the Highway Traffic Act which would significantly increase the penalties for unlawful vehicular flight from Police, in order to better reflect the gravity of this offence.")

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following resolution (October 2, 1998) submitted by Councillor Brad Duguid, Scarborough City Centre:

WHEREAS the flight from legitimate police interdiction by suspected criminal offenders has resulted in the tragic deaths of two innocent bystanders in Toronto in the past four months; and

WHEREAS the punitive provisions of the Provincial Highway Traffic Act do not reflect the gravity of the offence of unlawful avoidance of police (those being a minimum $500 fine, to a maximum of a $5,000 fine, or no more than 6 months in provincial jail, in addition to a maximum 3 year driver's licence suspension); and

WHEREAS current penalties do not adequately reflect society's revulsion with the actions of fleeing suspects and the damage and death that can tragically result from such illegal flight;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the City of Toronto request the Federal Government, in the person of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to introduce legislation in the House of Commons to provide for applicable amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, to give effect to an indictable offence provision, with attendant penalties, for unlawful vehicular flight from police during the lawful execution of their duties;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this Council endorse any measure undertaken by the Federal Government, in conjunction with Provincial authorities, police, and Municipal authorities, and in accordance with law and accepted practice, to reduce, and deter, unlawful flight from police;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Motion be forwarded to the Ministers responsible for giving legal effect to this initiative, as well as to Members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Parliament from the City of Toronto.

7

Quotation for the Provision of Services Related to the Inspection

of Taxicabs, Livery Cabs Including Limousines and Driving School

Vehicles

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the draft Terms of Reference for the tender call for the mechanical inspections of taxicabs, livery vehicles and driving school vehicles, be submitted to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee prior to the issuance of the tender call.")

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (October 5, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing; and

(2)that tenders be called for the provision of mechanical inspections of taxicabs, livery vehicles and driving schools vehicles to take effect May 1, 1999 and that the tendering process and the necessary approvals required to finalize the award of such contract be completed by March 31, 1999.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, to provide all members of the Committee with details on the process to be followed in connection with this tender call prior to calling tenders for this contract.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report (October 5, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Purpose:

To extend the contract for the provision of mechanical inspections of taxicabs, livery vehicles and driving school vehicles.

Recommendations:

1)that the City of Toronto enter into a contract with Reg Quinn Ltd. expiring April 30, 1999 for the mechanical inspection of taxicabs, livery vehicles and driving school vehicles;

2)that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

3)that the General Manager report back on further extending the contract including an amendment for the testing of exhaust emissions as part of the vehicle inspection process for the second check of 1999.

Source of Funding:

Licence fees and additional inspection fees. The cost of scheduled inspections are included in the annual licence fee. Additional inspections are a separate charge.

Background:

At its meeting of July 29th, 30th and 31st, 1998 City Council approved the following:

1)that the City of Toronto enter into a contract with Reg Quinn Ltd. until the end of December, 1998;

2)that the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, in consultation with the appropriate officials, be requested to investigate the possibility of adding to the inspections, at this stage, the testing of exhaust emissions using the new technologies available for such testing; and

3)that the appropriate city officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The quotation for the provision of services relating to the inspection of taxicabs, livery cabs including limousines and driving school vehicles was first approved by Council on April 16, 1998 to expire on August 31, 1998 pending a report from the Taxicab Task Force. The contract was further extended to December 31, 1998 by Council at their meeting on July 29, 30 & 31 (Clause 8, Emergency and Protective Services, Item #3 as amended).

The original contract was awarded to Reg Quinn Limited, the lowest bidder.

The need for the services still exist and this report is to extend the contract to cover the first inspection period for various licensed vehicles which commences January 4th, 1999. Notices of the time and date for these inspections should be in the mail by late November.

Conclusions:

That the contract with Reg Quinn Ltd. be extended for an additional 4 months to cover the mechanical inspection of vehicles requiring inspection as provided for in the Licensing By-law. When the Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry reports out, the General Manager will advise Committee of the impact if any, on the vehicle inspection process.

That the General Manager report back to Committee on further extending the contract including an amendment for the testing of exhaust emissions, the cost of which was included in the calculation of the 1999 licence fee approved by Council.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Carol Ruddell-Foster, General Manager

Toronto Licensing

416-392-3070

L.A. Pagano, Director, Purchasing & Materials Management

416-392-7312

8

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Proposed Unarmed Constabulary in the City of Toronto.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having deferred the following to its next meeting to be held on November 3, 1998, to allow Councillor Feldman to be present when this matter is considered:

(i)(August 28, 1998) from Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, advising that the Toronto Police Services Board on August 27, 1998:

(1)approved the establishment of a committee to review the issue of an unarmed traffic constabulary; and that the Committee will consist of representatives from the Toronto Police Services Board, the Toronto Police Service, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of the Attorney General and City Legal; and

(2)referred the Chief's report (dated July 23, 1998) to the proposed committee as well as deferred consideration of the following motions to the above-noted committee:

"1.That the Board advise the Minister of Transportation that we do not support the proposed unarmed constabulary program.

2.That the Chief prepare a report for the next meeting of the Board on the following issues:

(a)With an aggressive zero-tolerance 'Community Road Safety' enforcement campaign (red light runners, rolling stops at stop signs, speeding in residential neighbourhoods and school zones) what would be the estimated revenues that could be achieved?

(b)With the estimated revenues how many officers could be hired?

(c)The possibility of establishing a 'Community Road Safety' enforcement unit?"; and

(ii)(October 5, 1998) from Councillor Michael Feldman, North York Spadina, requesting that the Emergency and Protective Services Committee instruct the Toronto Police Service to keep him personally informed as to the developments and findings of the newly struck committee.

(b)Land Acquisition for Toronto Police Service - 14 Division.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having received the following report for information:

(August 28, 1998) from the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, advising that the Toronto Police Services Board on August 27, 1998, received a report (July 7, 1998) from the Chief of Police advising that the Toronto Police Service has evaluated the TTC Lansdowne garage site as the potential new location for 14 Division; that the evaluation was not favourable primarily because of geographical location and site conditions, however, the Police Service has not yet ruled out its possible use; and that the City Real Estate has been asked to continue its search for possible sites for both 14 Division and 11 Division.

(c)Hours of Operation of Body Shops.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following communication to the City Solicitor and the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, for a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on November 3, 1998, such report to include information on regulations governing working conditions for these establishments and the effect of this proposal on working conditions; and

(2)requested that the foregoing report also include car washes in residential areas.

(September 10, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, recommending that the City of Toronto Legal Department and Toronto Licensing Commission staff be directed to draft a by-law that would prohibit auto repair service centres and body shop garages, as a condition of their license, from performing any body work or vehicle repairs between the hours of 9:00p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday; and that would prohibit auto repair service shops and body shop garage doors to be kept open during the hours of operation.

(d)Emergency Planning Procedures for Earthquakes - Pickering/Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report thereon to the Committee:

(September 28, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, forwarding a copy of her communication (September 28, 1998) addressed to Mayor Lastman requesting that a joint meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee be held to review emergency planning information that is available and the procedures that are in place to deal with situations such as earthquakes; and that information on the emergency planning procedures that have been coordinated between the City of Toronto and Ontario Hydro be shared with the Members of Council.

(e)Licence Fee Stabilization Reserve.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having:

(1)received the following communication; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, to consider bringing forward a proposal to garner further revenues from licensing in 1999.

(October 5, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, in adopting, as amended, Clause No. 2 of Report No. 9 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "1999 Licence Fees", directed, in part, that the following motion be referred to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for consideration at its next meeting scheduled to be held on October 6, 1998, with a request that the Committee report thereon to City Council at its next regular meeting scheduled to be held on October 28, 1998:

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is recommended that a fee stabilization reserve be established and that a surcharge of 2 percent be added to each licence to kick-start the reserve, such reserve to be established in such a manner as to protect it from the Budget Committee.'"

(f)City Centre Airport.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance, for a joint report thereon to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee at which the Centre City Airport issue will be considered:

(October 6, 1998) from Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway, recommending that the Chief of Police, Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance Services jointly report to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee at which the Airport will again be considered on whether the City Centre Airport should be immediately closed down and remain so closed until a fixed link is in operation because of unacceptable safety concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

DENNIS FOTINOS,

Chair

Toronto, October 6, 1998

(Report No. 11 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.)