TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 19
1Urban Planning and Development Services Integrated Business Management System (IBMS) Request for
Proposals P-09-98.RFP
2Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity Policy Framework
3Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor Property at 178 Clonmore Drive (Ward 13 -
Scarborough Bluffs)
4Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor Property at 221 Golfview Avenue (Ward 26 - East
Toronto)
5Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor Property at 2 Norwood Terrace(Ward 26 - East
Toronto)
6Sale of Surplus Spadina Property at 19 Gloucester Grove(Ward 28 - York Eglinton)
7Sale of Surplus Spadina Property at 23 Gloucester Grove(Ward 28 - York Eglinton
8Proposed Lease for Children's Safety Village Within McCowan Road Park Site, West SideMcCowan Road,
South of CNR (Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)
9Property Declaration: Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project
10Update on the Strategy to Create Affordable Housing and Demonstration Projects
11Standing Authority to Solicitor to Enforce Leases/Licences
12Toronto Atmospheric Fund -Appointment of Directors
13Consent to Use of Corporate Name
14Quotation for Fine Paper
15Tender for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
16Use of Parking Machines for On-Street Parking
17Purchase of Property at the Greenwood Subdivision for Public Parking Purposes
18Acquisition for Public Lane Purposes, of the Private 'Lane Extending Easterly from Berkeley Street, Behind
Premises Nos. 319 to 333 Queen Street East
192 Bloor Street West, Toronto Consent to Assignment of Lease Hammerson Canada Inc. To 2 Bloor Street
Property Corporation
20410 Queens Quay West - Amending Agreement(Ward 24 - Downtown)
21Granting of Contribution Holiday Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan
22Public Closing of Portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street, and the Public Lane O'Keefe Lane - Yonge
Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)
23Other Items Considered by the Committee
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 19
OF THE CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on December 7, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
1
Urban Planning and Development Services
Integrated Business Management System (IBMS)
Request for Proposals P-09-98.RFP
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:
"It is recommended that the joint report dated December 11, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendations, be
adopted:
'It is recommended that City Council:
(1) receive this report for information;
(2)grant authority to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate City staff to
negotiate and enter into a contract with CSDC Systems Inc., being the proponent submitting the proposal with the highest
evaluated score, for the supply, installation, maintenance and support of an Integrated Business Management System as
recommended in the report submitted to the Corporate Services Committee on December 7, 1998. The cost of the
negotiated contract is not to exceed the total budget allocation of $4,846,000.00; and
(3)authorize the appropriate officials to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.' ")
The Corporate Services Committee submits the following joint report (December 1, 1998) from the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, without
recommendation; and reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services,
and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to
be held on December 16, 1998, on:
(1)the innovative solution that they have taken with respect to the course upon which they have embarked, such
report to include a comparison of the selection process involving FIS (Financial Information Systems) and HRIS
(Human Resource Information Systems); and
(2)the reasons why Tri-Net Solutions Canada Ltd., was rejected:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the Request for Proposals P-09-98.RFP for an Integrated Business
Management System capable of processing, tracking and managing all major land, building, municipal standards and
licensing related activities administered by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department (UPDS), and to
request authority to negotiate a contract with the recommended proponent, CSDC Systems Inc.
Source of Funds:
At its meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, Council adopted Clause No.1 contained in Report No.11 of The Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee, headed Transition Projects. Council approved the allocation of funding in the amount of
$3,000,000.00 for the creation of an Integrated Business Management System (IBMS) for the Urban Planning and
Development Services Department. This $3,000,000.00 to be phased over three years; $500,000.00 allocated from the 1998
Transition Reserve Fund and separate funding allocations of $2,000,000.00 and $500,000.00 were committed for 1999 and
2000 respectively.
In addition to these costs, the Year 2000 Project Office has provided funding in the amount of $1,610,000.00 to accelerate
the implementation process and contribute to the data conversion component. These funds were previously approved by
Council at its meeting held on November25, 1998 when it adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 24 of The Strategic Policy
and Priorities Committee.
A further $236,000.00 of capital funding was previously approved for a development tracking system by the Council of the
former City of Etobicoke in January 1997. These funds have also been applied to the IBMS initiative.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate City staff be
granted the authority to negotiate a contract with CSDC Systems Inc., being the proponent submitting the proposal with the
highest evaluated score, for the supply, installation, maintenance and support of an Integrated Business Management
System. The cost of the negotiated contract is not to exceed the total budget allocation of $4,846,000.00.
Council Reference/Background History:
At its meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 11 of The
Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee approving the allocation of funds for certain transition projects, including the
creation of an Integrated Business Management System for the Urban Planning and Development Services Department
(UPDS). UPDS and Corporate staff have undertaken an in-depth review of business requirements and carried out a
thorough Request for Proposal selection process for potential vendors of such a system. This report seeks Council's
approval to enter into negotiations with the recommended vendor, CSDC Systems Inc.
A Request for Information (RFI) was issued by the Finance Department, Purchasing and Materials Management Division,
to eighty four (84) vendors, eighteen (18) vendors responded, and five (5) proponents were pre-qualified for the Request
for Proposal (RFP) process. The RFP was issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management Division and closed on
November9, 1998 with the following four (4) proponents responding:
(1)CSDC Systems Inc.;
(2)Hansen Information Technologies;
(3)Municipal Software Corporation; and
(4)Tidemark Computer Systems Inc.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The RFP evaluation process included a detailed review of the submissions, visits to sites where the products had been
installed and in-depth vendor demonstrations. UPDS business and technology staff from each District worked with
Corporate Information and Technology and Purchasing and Materials Management staff to evaluate the proposals.
Evaluation criteria included the following:
(a)Price;
(b)Specific Features and Requirements (IBMS objectives, "year 2000" / implementation deadline issues, functional
requirements, match to technical standards, growth and expansion capability and technical risks);
(c)Qualification of Proponents (reference checks, site visits, vendor stability and depth, maintenance, training and
support); and
(d)Product Demonstrations (to a specified script and questions).
Based on these criteria, CSDC Systems Inc. received the overall highest evaluation score and was selected as the vendor of
preference.
As part of the process, Ernst & Young was engaged to perform a review of the IBMS project selection process. We will
provide you with a letter from Ernst & Young by December 4, 1998, outlining the procedures they performed and their
comments on their review of the selection process.
Conclusion:
Having undertaken a comprehensive evaluation, this report requests authority for the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services to negotiate a contract with CSDC Systems Inc., being the proponent with the highest evaluated
score, for an Integrated Business Management System (IBMS) for the Urban Planning and Development Services
Department, at a cost not to exceed the total budget allocation of $4,846,000.00.
Contact Name:
Glenn KippenL. A. Pagano
DirectorDirector
Service Integration & SupportPurchasing and Materials Management
(416) 397-4617(416) 392-7312
________
The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following
communications:
(i)(November 18, 1998) from Mr. David L. Dueck, President, Tri-net Solutions Canada Ltd., requesting an opportunity to
appear before the Corporate Services Committee respecting Tri-net's response to the City's Urban Planning and
Development RFI; and submitting comments in regard thereto; and
(ii)(December 4, 1998) from Ms. Sheryl Teed, Ernst & Young, respecting the review of the IBMSSystem Selection
Process.
Mr. Peter Hebb and Mr. Don Hamilton, Representatives of Tri-Net Solutions Canada Ltd., appeared before the Corporate
Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter and filed a written submission and a CD Disc, entitled "The
Tri-Net Solution - Financially Friendly Document Management - Tri-Net Solutions introduces the computer-based digital
data management system for the next millennium."
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
joint report (December 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
This report addresses the motions passed at the Corporate Services Committee meeting of December7, 1998, directing the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a
report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998, providing further information on:
(1)the innovative solution that they have taken with respect to the course upon which they have embarked, such report to
include a comparison of the selection process involving FIS (Financial Information Systems) and HRIS (Human Resource
Information Systems); and
(2)the reasons why Tri-Net was rejected.
Financial Implications:
Due to the urgency imposed by Year 2000 compliance deadlines to replace thirty-four (34) critical Urban Planning and
Development Services (UPDS) systems, it is imperative to proceed immediately with the Integrated Business Management
System (IBMS). Failing to do so will result in actioning the Year 2000 contingency plan for UPDS, providing risk-fraught
"patches" to aging existing systems. This contingency plan will incur $1.14 million in direct costs that are not recoverable
and will defer all unification benefits of the new IBMS.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1) receive this report for information;
(2)grant authority to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate City staff to
negotiate and enter into a contract with CSDC Systems Inc., being the proponent submitting the proposal with the highest
evaluated score, for the supply, installation, maintenance and support of an Integrated Business Management System as
recommended in the report submitted to Corporate Services Committee on December 7, 1998. The cost of the negotiated
contract is not to exceed the total budget allocation of $4,846,000, and
(3)that the appropriate officials be given authority to take whatever actions are necessary to give effect thereto.
Background:
The amalgamation process, coupled with pressing demands to streamline and integrate operations, reduce process time,
cut costs and improve service to clients has presented Urban Planning and Development Services with a unique
opportunity to re-think the manner in which we conduct and manage our business.
The combination of the critical need to replace existing systems that are not Year 2000 compliant and the opportunity to
develop an integrated business solution that supports emerging needs of UPDS underlines the importance of moving ahead
with this project without delay.
The new Integrated Business Management System will transform the way in which UPDS conducts its business. It will
provide a fully integrated and automated method of electronically capturing, processing, and disseminating information
across all planning, building, municipal licensing and standards activities administered by UPDS. As well, it will improve
access to services for internal and external clients through leading edge technologies such as document management and
use of the Internet. The new system will incorporate a uniform set of business procedures and business rules based on
performance standards and best practices that will be applied uniformly throughout all district offices.
Comments:
Innovative Features Provided by the Recommended Solution
The recommended solution proposed by CSDC Systems Inc. combines a comprehensive understanding of municipal
government operations with the latest available technologies. Key features of the recommended system include the ability
to:
-support the "one-stop-shopping" concept by sharing information through a unified database;
-ensure that all transaction data will be captured at source by the system and stored in a relational database thus
allowing for easy access to business data which can be shared corporately;
-ensure that data is up to date and accurate, and eliminate duplicate capture of data which is a significant problem with
our current systems and processes.
-streamline work by automating activities, reengineering workflows and eliminating repetitive processes;
-improve tactical and strategic level management through comprehensive analysis, forecasting and reporting
capabilities;
-provide project management capabilities to monitor all departmental projects, work load balancing, automatically
generate to-do lists and project status updates;
-utilize web technologies to enable clients to submit applications, schedule service requests and conduct queries, all of
which will improve access to services and data as well as reduce service costs;
-utilize fully Integrated Voice Response (IVR) capabilities, allowing users to access information quickly and easily by
telephone;
-utilize call centre technology to manage all types of service requests and inquiries from clients;
-utilize fully integrated Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities to support activities such as automated
notification procedures, automatic scheduling of inspections by district and discipline, and conduct spatial analysis of
development activity;
-provide fully integrated document management capabilities that allow for the electronic capture, circulation and
annotation of drawings, images and video which can be electronically linked to project files, thereby forming part of a
corporate information repository that can be shared by external clients or users throughout the corporation;
-allow inspectors to capture data directly in the field using hand-held computers and to remotely send and receive
information required to carry out inspections without having to visit their district offices;
-automatically generate standard reports and provide ad-hoc querying capability; and
-fully automate the electronic transfer of statistical reports to Statistics Canada and other external agencies as required.
In addition, the recommended solution is open and scalable and will be capable of handling the high volume of
transactions from each of the district offices over the City's wide area network. The preferred proponent has recommended
use of the City's standard Oracle relational database management system running in a dual server configuration, thus
ensuring that the system will be operational on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis. In the event of a system failure,
the system can be fully recovered in less than one minute. The system has an easy to use graphical user interface which
will run on standard issue desktop computers throughout the Corporation. The system is fully Year 2000 compliant and
will be rigorously tested to ensure that it satisfies the City's Year 2000 standards. Maritime Information Technology (MIT)
is partnering with CSDC to provide the City with system and network support throughout the implementation phase.
Implementation will be phased over an 18 month period beginning January 1999. The first phase will focus on mission
critical core business processes which must be fully operational by September 1999 to satisfy Year 2000 requirements
(replacement of existing non-compliant systems). This includes training for all users of the system and conversion of data
from existing systems into the new system. Additional functionality such as IVR, remote field inspection, document
management and web-access will be incorporated in the second phase of the project which is scheduled to be completed by
June2000.
UPDS is embarking on a program of continuous improvement based on ongoing performance measurement. The new
system will contain reporting and analysis tools that will enable us to evaluate how well we are delivering service to our
clients and identify areas where improvements are warranted. The system's table driven, rules based architecture provides
flexibility to change process flows, business rules or fees formulae without the need for systems programming. This will
allow UPDS to respond rapidly to legislative or policy changes.
One of the factors for selecting CSDC is the opportunity to build upon a knowledge base of best practices that has been
developed by CSDC users in other Canadian and U.S. municipalities. We can immediately incorporate these work flow
templates into the system and quickly edit them to satisfy our unique requirements. Using this approach, the City of
Winnipeg was recently able to implement a corporate permit and tracking system within five months. Rapid
implementation is a critical factor, given our need to satisfy Year 2000 requirements and replace non-compliant systems
that are currently in use in several jurisdictions by the third quarter of 1999.
CSDC has a proven product with a broad client base in Southern Ontario. CSDC User groups have been established in
three regions across southern Ontario and meet on a regular basis. The user group forum allows municipal users the
opportunity to exchange ideas, provide vendor feedback, work collaboratively to improve and enhance business
applications and system capabilities, and ensure that the CSDC product offering remains current technologically. This
represents a cost-effective and low risk way of introducing continuous improvement to the product over time to better meet
the needs of municipalities and their constituents.
The local base of CSDC users currently includes:
City of AjaxCity of BarrieCity of BramptonCity of Brantford
City of BurlingtonCity of CambridgeCity of GuelphCity of Hamilton
City of KitchenerCity of LondonTown of MarkhamCity of Niagara Falls
Town of OakvilleCity of PeterboroughCity of Thunder BayCity of Vaughan
City of WaterlooCity of WindsorCounty of Oxford
Former City of Scarborough
CSDC's client base also includes municipalities across Canada as well as other international locations.
The Selection Process
The IBMS project followed a standard system selection process that was rigorous and included all of the activities
normally conducted by organizations when selecting a system of the size and complexity of the IBMS. The process involved
the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) for selected proponents who were
pre-qualified at the RFI stage.
Request for Information (RFI) Phase
On April 15, 1998 a Request for Information for an Integrated Business Management System for the Urban Planning and
Development Services Department was issued by the Purchasing & Materials Management Division. An ad was placed in
the Globe and Mail on April 17, 1998 inviting Requests for Information for the project.
A total of eighty-four (84) documents were issued to interested vendors. The Request for Information closed on May 13,
1998. Eighteen (18) responses were received.
Included in the eighteen (18) responses were five (5) informal responses which did not satisfy the basic response
compliance requirements of the RFI. The thirteen (13) remaining vendors were each invited to demonstrate their proposed
solutions. The demonstrations were held July2 - July 17 at Metro Hall.
The Evaluation Team, with input from Corporate Services staff, evaluated and scored the thirteen (13) responses and
demonstrations and as a result five (5) proponents were pre-qualified to participate in the Request for Proposals phase on
the basis of extensive criteria summarized in the RFI document.
Request for Proposals (RFP) Phase
On October 9, 1998, the Request for Proposals document was issued by the Purchasing and Materials Management
Division to the five (5) pre-qualified proponents, (Geopower Technologies Inc., Tidemark Computer Systems Inc., Hansen
Information Technologies, CSDC Systems Inc. and Municipal Software Corporation.)
The deadline for submission of proposals was Monday, November 9, 1998. Four (4) responses were received (Hansen
Information Technologies, Tidemark Computer Systems Inc., CSDC Systems Inc. and Municipal Software Corporation).
One proponent, Geopower Technologies, declined due to other commitments.
The Evaluation Team visited reference sites and each proponent provided a full day scripted demonstration of their
solution to a representative cross-section of staff from UPDS and Corporate Services.
The proposal submissions, site visits, demonstrations, and customer references were evaluated and scored by the
Evaluation Team.
As a result of the evaluation, CSDC Systems Inc. was the highest ranking proponent. A report was prepared for the
December 7, 1998 Corporate Services Committee Meeting, recommending CSDC Systems Inc. and seeking Committee
approval to negotiate a contract with CSDC Systems Inc. for the supply, installation, maintenance and support of the
Integrated Business Management System for the Urban Planning and Development Services Department.
As part of the process, Ernst & Young was engaged to perform a review of the IBMS vendor selection process. Their
report, outlining the procedures they performed and their comments on the review of the selection process, is attached
(Appendix A). This information confirms that the process used was thorough, objective and consistent with similar
activities conducted by other organizations who have considered a comparable type of system.
The Financial Information System (FIS) and the Human Resources Information System (HRIS) selection process involved
the issuing of documents which requested proposals to be submitted. Similar to the process used by UPDS, demonstration
of the products were provided to confirm RFI responses. Reference sites were contacted.
Evaluation teams consisting of staff members from Finance and Human Resources of all former Municipalities reviewed
and evaluated the submissions received based on criteria which included functionality, City requirements, qualifications of
proponents, presentations of systems offered and price/payback. On review of the highest ranking proposals, SAP was
selected as providing the best integrated solution. An external consultant from LGS Group was used to review the business
case prepared by the City staff, including a risk analysis. The external consultant confirmed the staff selection. A
subsequent second consultant did a review of the business cases and confirmed the selection.
Reasons Why Tri-Net was Rejected
On the basis of Tri-Net's written RFI submission and product demonstration, the Tri-Net proposal ranked tenth out of the
thirteen (13) RFI submissions that were reviewed and demonstrated. The criteria stated in the RFI document and outlined
below were of particular concern and contributed to the relatively low overall score that Tri-Net received.
RFI criterion:Installed Base: While the RFI encouraged proponents "to offer innovative solutions that provide new
opportunities for the City to streamline processes and re-engineer its way of doing business where feasible", the RFI
explicitly stated that "the City is looking for proven solutions".
Tri-Net's product is not installed in a single municipality anywhere in the world.
RFI criterion:Solution Quality:
Tri-Net's product is an untested prototype that has not yet been released, even in "Beta" version.
RFI criterion:Solution Functionality: The IBMS RFI listed extensive functional requirements to meet the needs of all
functional units of UPDS - Planning, Building, Municipal Licensing & Standards - in an integrated fashion.
Tri-Net's product was demonstrated to meet only limited needs for planning applications and building permits. Tri-Net's
proposal addressed the needs of Municipal Licensing and Standards in a very cursory manner. The majority of Municipal
Licensing and Standards needs and a high proportion of other requirements such as appeals, decisions and internal
circulation were designated as Stage 3, activities "to be scheduled". The Evaluation Team interpreted this to mean that
these modules had not yet been researched by Tri-Net.
On the basis of the above, the team believed that extensive further development would be required in order to satisfy the
full range of functional requirements set out in the RFI. This represents a "build" not "buy" approach and considerable
technical risk given the urgency of our need.
RFI criterion:Extent to which Solution Fits Requirements: In addition to the functional requirements, 25 systems
objectives were clearly set out in the RFI document.
Tri-Net was unable to demonstrate many of the stated objectives. The following are of note:
Tri-Net's solution did not appear to be responsive to the dynamic needs of an organization structure still in transition. The
City would have limited control, initially no control, over changes to the system.
Tri-Net's response stated that they have not linked their solution to Integrated Voice Response systems.
Tri-Net's response stated that they have not linked their solution to Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Tri-Net's response proposed limited capability to interface effectively and efficiently with other Corporate systems.
Tri-Net's solution provided limited direct control by City staff to migrate to new and evolving technologies.
Tri-Net's solution is not hardware independent. The solution requires that servers utilize IBM's proprietary AIX or O/S2
operating systems.
The Tri-Net solution addressed a limited range of Planning and Building permit applications and left other functional
areas unscheduled, i.e. future development. This indicated to the evaluation team that the proponent had limited
knowledge of the full extent of business activities of UPDS.
The Tri-Net solution did not provide a time and project management component.
All on-going application development, enhancements and maintenance would be done by Tri-Net, limiting UPDS ability to
quickly respond to changing requirements such as changes in business rules, legislative or policy changes. This implies a
lack of flexibility.
RFI criterion:Urgency: The RFI stated: "In addition to the urgent need to have an integrated solution to support
effective decision making and unified service delivery requirements, most of these legacy systems are reaching the end of
their useful life cycles. Moreover, many of these mainframe systems are not year 2000 compliant and their design and
architectures do not conform to the long range Information Technology strategy for the new City."
Given the urgent need to replace 34 systems that have been designated as "critical" for Year 2000 replacement, Tri-Net
offered what was considered to be an extremely high risk solution for the Planning and Building functional units, i.e. as yet
undeveloped and untested in a production environment. Additionally, no concrete proposal for replacement of the
Municipal Licensing & Standards systems was submitted.
RFI criterion:References: The RFI requested three (3) references sites.
While Tri-Net provided reference sites in other industries such as financial services for mortgages and loans, they were
unable to provide municipal reference sites where the system could be demonstrated.
Conclusions:
Following a rigorous, thorough and objective review and evaluation of all submissions and product demonstrations by the
Evaluation Team, the top five (5) ranked proponents were invited to participate in the RFP. All pre-qualified proponents
demonstrated proven products, innovation and the ability to meet the IBMS requirements as stated. CSDC Systems Inc.
was the proponent with the highest ranking score.
We acknowledge that representatives from Tri-Net spoke of innovative solutions. However, in our analysis of the
information provided in their RFI submission, they were not providing any type of technology that was not being offered by
other proponents. The preferred proponent offers a much wider range of options in their base package than those
addressed by Tri-Net. With the implementation of this system, our expectation is to move towards a paperless process
which will accommodate all clients.
We are recommending the receipt of this additional information and ask for endorsement of our recommendations
granting authority to proceed to negotiate and finalize a contract with CSDC Systems Inc.
Contact Name:
Glenn KippenL.A. Pagano
Director, Service Integration & SupportDirector, Purchasing and Materials Management
(416) 397-4617(416) 392-7312.)
(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications expressing
concern regarding the proposal to acquire an Integrated Business Management System:
(i)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. David L. Dueck, President, Tri-Net Solutions Canada Limited; and
(ii)(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Richard Lyall, General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders
Association.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (December
4, 1998) from Ms. Sheryl Teed, Ernst & Young, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Act.)
2
Human Rights, Harassment and
Hate Activity Policy Framework
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (November25, 1998) from the Executive
Director of Human Resources.
The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded the communication
(November 4, 1998) from the President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association,
Incorporated; and the submission dated (December 7, 1998) from League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada,
regarding Policies on Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity, to the Executive Director of Human Resources for
report thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998.
The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Executive Director
of Human Resources:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to present a policy framework regarding the achievement of human rights and the elimination
of discrimination, harassment and hate activity, in support of protecting employees, residents of the City of Toronto and the
users of municipal services.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Each of the former municipalities allocated resources and had procedures in place to address these issues. This Proposed
policy is being presented in advance of the final Report of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity, expected in
January, 1999. The final level of resource allocation will be made in conjunction with the corporate implementation plan
for the Task Force Report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity Policy Framework outlined in this report and the policies in
Appendices One and Three be approved;
(2)all Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Special Purpose Bodies be requested to implement a Human Rights,
Harassment and Hate Activity policies consistent with the provisions of these policies within one year, and be required to
report back through the Executive Director of Human Resources; and
(3)the appropriate civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Reference:
At its meeting of October 9, 1998, the Corporate Services Committee had before it a Draft Human Rights and Harassment
Policy.
In February 1998, the Inter-Agency Working Committee on Anti-Hate and Anti-Crime started to develop a harmonized set
of procedures on how to address hate crime activities.
The draft policies were circulated for comment. As a result of the comments received, it was decided to present a policy
framework within which the specific policies and procedures would operate. Discrimination and harassment are human
rights issues which tend to be addressed in civil law; hate crime is a human rights matter which is also addressed by
criminal law. Appended to this report in Appendices One and Three are the specific policies and procedures being
recommended to address human rights, harassment and hate activities.
History and Background of Human Rights and Harassment Policy and Procedures:
Each of the former municipalities had policies which were established to ensure compliance with human rights legislation,
to be pro-active and prevention oriented regarding discrimination and harassment, and to be a corporate leader. The human
rights policies and programs apply to employment, contracts, services, facilities, and accommodation.
Attached are two appendices. Appendix One, the proposed human rights and harassment policy, is a consolidation of the
"best practices" of the former municipalities. Appendix Two provides a comparison of the practices and policies of the
former municipalities.
The consolidated policy incorporates best practices as well as the framework which the Ontario Human Rights
Commission recommends for internal systems.
These include:
(a)choice of complaint process, e.g., internal complaints process, grievance, where applicable, or the Ontario Human
Rights Commission;
(b)opportunity for dispute resolution at the department or corporate level;
(c)separation of complaint intake from formal investigation;
(d)investigation to be undertaken on an "arms-length basis" outside the "chain of command";
(e)the provision of education and training for all covered by the Policy; and
(f)the submission of an annual report to Council.
Experience has shown that the establishment of a Human Rights and Harassment Policy, besides continuing to place the
City as a corporate leader, clarifies what is appropriate workplace behaviour, provides a mechanism that is fair to all
parties, and at the same time provides "due diligence".
Responses received to the Draft Human Rights and Harassment Policy:
The overall response was positive in support of the Policy and for it to be provided in a "clear language" version and
alternate formats when approved.
Clarification was requested regarding the support that would be available to small community centres, the availability of
legal advice for staff in the executive group and the organizational placement of the proposed human rights office.
Changes were requested regarding the following: application to all Members of Council, the right of staff to use an external
investigator; the establishment of a tribunal to make decisions about complaints; and that the Policy be established as a
by-law of Council.
Changes made as a result of these comments:
(1)The text has been clarified to refer to all "Members of Council".
(2)The Human Rights Office may assist with investigations involving the Executive Directors of an Agency, Board or
Commission, or Board members appointed by City Council, only when requested by the Board.
(3)Because the policy is intended to assist with dispute resolution and create a positive environment, a limit of $5,000.00
is to be placed on the amount of legal fees that will be reimbursed to either party. To ensure no distinction between the
parties during the investigation process, both the complainant and the respondent will be eligible for coverage. However,
coverage continues to be limited to only those complaints brought against Members of Council and staff covered by
Section 6 of the policy.
The following requests for changes are not recommended:
(1)the right of staff to file complaints with an external investigator; and
(2)the establishment of an arms-length Tribunal to make decisions regarding complaints rather than internal human rights
office; and
(3)the establishment of a stand-alone by-law.
These requests are not recommended because they are contrary to the purpose behind the adoption of this Policy - which is
voluntary self-regulation. The proposed Policy continues to provide choice of complaint avenue for members of the public
and employees. The proposed Policy is aimed at prevention through a strategy of public and staff education backed up by
rigorous enforcement procedures. In addition, the cost of providing the automatic right to an external investigator would be
considerable.
As a corporate leader with a legal obligation to create a respectful environment for workers and users of our services, we
need to have the opportunity to address problems. This Policy is intended to minimize the necessity for any staff person or
member of the public to formalize their concerns. The Policy seeks to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes outside
of the realm of more formalized systems, such as collective agreements and human rights laws. Individuals retain the right
to pursue external avenues such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Given that the policy will be approved through a confirmatory by-law, there is no value added by a separate by-law,
according to the City Solicitor.
History and Background for Hate Activity Policy and Procedures:
A hate crime is a criminal offence against a person or property where the evidence demonstrates that the offence was
motivated by the suspect/offender's bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language colour,
religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.
Toronto Police Services reported an 19percent increase in hate crime activity in the first six months of 1998, compared
with the same period in 1997. Offences range from murder, attempted murder, violent assaults, sexual assaults, physical
assaults, verbal harassment, threats, obscene calls, intimidation and harassment, hate mail, damage to property, graffiti,
vandalism, etc. In Toronto, 1,190 crimes of hate have been reported to the police Services since 1993. Based on this
information, the victims have been Aboriginal/Native/First Nations persons, black persons, other people of colour, Jews,
Lesbians, Gays, Transgendered persons, persons with disabilities and women. The impact on the victim as well as the
community is devastating.
In this context, this report is both timely and urgent. Hate activity in the City of Toronto is rising and this has serious
implications to the quality of life for all of Toronto's residents.
The proposed Hate Activity Policy presented in Appendix Three is the result of several months work with City's
Community Advisory Committee on Anti-hate and Anti-Racism, a committee comprised of staff from several different
community agencies and government organizations working in this field.
The Hate Activity Policy is designed to ensure the safety and protection of all staff, members of Council and users of
municipal services. The Policy provides staff and elected officials with procedures and guidelines to enable them to
respond to hate activity and support victims, creating an environment that will allow individuals to feel safe in reporting
hate activity.
Responses received to the Draft Hate Activity Policy:
The overall response was supportive of the establishment and implementation of a Hate Activity Policy. Based on specific
comments received, the draft policy was amended to include positive measures in the policy statement and to further clarify
the roles and responsibilities of supervisors, police and the City's Human Rights Office.
In addition to the policy, the City has already developed a resource book, "HATE: Communities Can Respond", which is a
comprehensive guide providing information on understanding hate activity, assisting the victim, mobilizing the
community, roles and responsibilities of various institutions, legal definitions and remedies, law enforcement, hate
symbols, anti-hate organizations, definitions of terms and the intake of incident reports. Copies of the resource book are
available upon request from the Access and Equity Centre.
Conclusion:
The formalization of the proposed Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity Policy Framework advances the
harmonization of policies and practices across the new City based on best practices and continues to integrate access and
equity into all municipal functions, and continues to identify the City of Toronto as a corporate leader on human rights. The
inter-agency working group on hate activity is an important mechanism for continuing the City's work. As well, the
implementation of a comprehensive communications strategy for employees and members of the public will contribute to
an environment which recognizes the dignity and worth of the people of Toronto.
Contact:
Alison Anderson 392-5028
--------
Appendix One
City of Toronto
Human Rights and Harassment Policy
1.0Policy Statement:
Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, every person has a right to equal treatment by the City of Toronto, its agencies,
boards, commissions and its citizen advisory committees, with respect to services and facilities, accommodation, contracts
and employment.
In continuing its leadership in the recognition of the dignity and worth of each person, the City of Toronto has adopted this
Human Rights and Harassment Policy to ensure ethical and respectful service and employment practices which incorporate
equitable treatment for all employees, residents, and recipients of municipal services.
The goal of the Policy is the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect where each person feels a part of the
community and is able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the City of Toronto.
The City of Toronto will not tolerate, ignore, or condone any form of discrimination or harassment. All employees are
responsible for respecting the dignity and rights of their co-workers and the public they serve. Discrimination and
harassment are serious forms of employee misconduct which may result in disciplinary action up to and including
discharge.
Members of the public, visitors to City facilities, or individuals conducting business with the City of Toronto, are expected
to adhere to this Policy, including refraining from harassment of employees, elected officials, and persons acting on behalf
of the City of Toronto. If such harassment occurs, the City will take any steps available to ensure a harassment-free
workplace, including barring the harasser from its facilities, where appropriate, or discontinuing business with contractors
or consultants.
2.0Application:
2.1Services and Facilities:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to City services and facilities, without discrimination or
harassment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, age, marital status, family status, receipt of public assistance, political affiliation, disability or level of
literacy.
2.2Occupation of Accommodation:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of City-owned accommodation, without
discrimination or harassment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, family status, receipt of public assistance, political affiliation, disability or
level of literacy.
2.3Contracts:
Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry,
place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, family
status, political affiliation, disability or level of literacy.
2.4Employment:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment with the City without discrimination or harassment
because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
age, record of offences, marital status, family status, disability, level of literacy, political affiliation, membership in a union
or staff association, or any other personal characteristic.
3.0Program:
In addition to the formal policy and complaints procedure described here, activities of the Human Rights Program include:
(a)providing confidential advisory services;
(b)training;
(c)monitoring selection processes;
(d)monitoring appointments to Agencies, Boards and Commissions;
(e)policy development and research;
(f)public education and awareness programs with agencies;
(g)program and policy advocacy; and
(h)community liaison.
4.0Definitions:
4.1Equal Treatment:
Equal treatment is treatment that brings about an equality of results and that may, in some instances, require different
treatment. For example, to give all employees equal treatment in entering a building, it may be necessary to provide a ramp
for an employee who requires the use of a wheelchair.
4.2Discrimination:
Discrimination is any practice or behaviour, whether intentional or not, which has a negative effect on an individual or
group because of personal characteristics or circumstances unrelated to the person's abilities or the employment or service
issue in question (e.g.,disability, sex, race, sexual orientation). Discrimination may arise as a result of direct differential
treatment or it may result from the unequal effect of treating individuals and groups in the same way. Either way, if the
effect of the behaviour on the individual is to withhold or limit full, equal and meaningful access to goods, services,
facilities, employment, housing accommodation, or contracts available to other members of society, it is discrimination.
4.3Harassment:
Harassment means improper comment or conduct that a person knows or ought to know would be unwelcome, offensive,
embarrassing or hurtful. Harassment may result f rom one incident or a series of incidents. Examples of harassment
include, but are not limited to: derogatory remarks; threats; inappropriate jokes, innuendos and teasing; insulting gestures;
practical jokes which result in embarrassment; displaying pin-ups, pornography, or other offensive materials; actions that
invade privacy; spreading rumours that damage one's reputation; refusing to work with; condescending or patronizing
behaviour; abuse of authority; unwelcome touching; physical assault or sexual assault.
4.4Workplace Harassment:
The workplace includes all locations where business or social activities of the Corporation are conducted. Workplace
harassment can also include incidents that happen away from work (e.g.,inappropriate phone calls or visits to an
employee's home) or harassment from clients and service recipients.
4.5Employee:
For the purpose of this Policy, the term employee includes Members of Council, employees, appointees, volunteers,
contractors and consultants working with the City of Toronto.
4.6Human Rights Office:
The Human Rights Office is an office established by the City, reporting to the Executive Director of Human Resources to
implement the provisions of this Policy. For the purposes of this policy, the Executive Director of Human Resources
reports to Chief Administrative Officer.
5.0Complaints Procedure for Employees:
5.1Informal Resolution:
This procedure is intended as an alternate dispute resolution process. All employees are encouraged to attempt to resolve
matters themselves before filing a complaint or grievance. If employees feel they have been harassed or discriminated
against, they are encouraged to raise the matter and explain their concerns to the co-worker or manager who is the source of
their concern. When presented with such a concern, all employees and managers are expected to make reasonable
adjustments to their behaviour to resolve the matter.
5.2Advice, Assistance and Accommodation:
Employees can seek advice and assistance from their supervisor, manager, Departmental Human Resources staff,
Employee Assistance, the Human Rights Office, or their union or staff association. All information provided to the Human
Rights Office will remain confidential. The employee's department will only be contacted with the employee's express
consent. The Office can help employees solve the problem themselves or consult with the Department in order to resolve
the matter without a formal complaint. Accommodation of special needs (e.g.,documents in alternate formats, interpreters,
off-hour meetings) will be provided as required to ensure that employees can fully participate in the resolution process.
5.3 Formal Complaints:
If informal means of resolving a situation are not effective or appropriate, a formal complaint may be necessary.
Anonymous complaints will not be accepted. Formal complaints must be in writing and signed by the complainant. Staff of
the Human Rights Office can assist in drafting the formal complaint. All formal complaints will be referred to the Human
Rights Office for mediation and/or investigation.
5.4Other Avenues of Complaint:
Employees have a legal right to pursue a human rights concern under a variety of complaint avenues: a grievance under
collective agreement, a complaint under the human rights policy, a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission,
Ontario Labour Relations Board, or a criminal complaint with the Police if appropriate. Complaints under the Policy will
be held in abeyance if a grievance has been filed under a collective agreement, Human Rights Code, or other avenue
regarding the same events.
5.5Complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission:
Official complaints filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission will be referred to the City Solicitor and the Human
Rights Office for joint review, mediation or investigation.
5.6Grievances of Discrimination or Harassment:
The Employee and Labour Relations Office will inform the Human Rights Office of grievances regarding discrimination or
harassment that are filed under the collective agreements.
5.7Complainants:
Complaints about a contravention of the Policy will be accepted from any source that provides reasonable grounds to
initiate an investigation (i.e., involved person or group, witnesses, other third parties). The Human Rights Office may also
initiate a formal complaint if it has information which suggests the existence of an outstanding specific or systemic
problem in the workplace.
5.8Reprisals:
This Policy strictly prohibits any retaliation against an individual for pursuing their rights under this Policy, initiating a
complaint, participating as a witness in an investigation, or having been associated with a complainant or witness.
5.9Time Limits:
The time limit for the filing of complaints under the Policy is 6 months from the time of the alleged discrimination or
harassment. Exceptions may be made in extenuating circumstances.
5.10Refusal to Investigate:
The Human Rights Office may also refuse to investigate, or may discontinue an investigation, where: an adequate remedy
already exists; the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith; or, having regard to all the circumstances,
further investigation of the matter is unnecessary.
5.11Notification:
The responsible Commissioner and Executive Director/General Manager will be notified of a formal complaint as soon as
it is received by the Human Rights Office. Individual respondents to a complaint will be notified as soon as practicable
during the mediation/investigation process.
5.12Settlement and Mediation:
Depending upon the circumstances, it is often possible to resolve a complaint without an extensive investigation. The
Human Rights Office may attempt to mediate a settlement of a complaint at any point during an investigation. All
settlement discussions will be held on a "without prejudice" basis. Any settlement would have to be satisfactory to both
parties and be consistent with this Policy. Parties will be required to sign Minutes of Settlement.
5.13Investigation:
Investigations will be conducted by staff of the Human Rights Office and include a comprehensive and impartial review of
all relevant information, including the position of the respondent(s) and witness interviews. The investigator has the
authority to speak with anyone, examine any documents, and enter any work locations which are relevant to the complaint.
5.14Completion of Investigation/Mediation:
Proceedings under the Policy will be completed within six months of receipt of a formal complaint.
5.15Representation:
Parties to a complaint have the right to a representative of their choice during meetings regarding a complaint under the
Policy. However, as this complaints procedure is a mechanism for alternative dispute resolution, a mediation or
investigation may be terminated if either party to the complaint retains legal counsel during the mediation or investigation.
5.16Disclosure to Parties:
At the conclusion of an investigation, the investigator's findings and conclusions will be shared with the Commissioner (or
designate), the complainant and individual respondent. These parties will also be given an opportunity to submit comments
before a final decision is made.
5.17Final Decision:
Final decisions regarding the disposition of a complaint will be made by the responsible Commissioner and Executive
Director/General Manager. All final decisions will be communicated in writing to the parties.
5.18Recommendations:
The Human Rights Office may make Recommendations to correct any existing problems and/or to prevent similar
problems from occurring in the future.
5.19Complaint Records:
Records of a complaint will only be placed on an employee's personal file when corrective action requires discipline of that
employee. This record of discipline is subject to the provisions of the applicable agreement or memorandum. All records
pertaining to enquiries and complaints under this Policy will be kept in confidential secure storage in the Human Rights
Office. All records are subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
5.20Reporting:
Annual reports will be submitted to City Council regarding statistics and trends in human rights enquiry and complaint
activities and other programs undertaken internally and externally.
5.21Confidentiality:
All persons involved with a complaint are expected to treat the matter as confidential. Employees may be disciplined if
confidentiality is breached.
5.22Disciplinary Action:
Any employee who engages in discrimination or harassment, and/or who is in a supervisory position and fails to take
action when advised of discrimination or harassment, will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, which may include
termination of employment. Disciplinary action will also be taken if a complaint is found to have been made fraudulently
and with malicious intent.
5.23Complaints involving staff of the Human Rights Office:
Complaints made by or regarding the direct personal behaviour of staff of the Human Rights Office will be handled by
qualified external consultants. Final decisions in such matters will be made by the Commissioner of Corporate Services
and the Executive Director of Human Resources.
5.24Complaints at Agencies, Boards and Commissions:
The Human Rights Office may assist with investigations involving the Executive Directors or Board members appointed
by City Council, only when requested by the Board of the Agency, Board, or Commission.
6.0Procedure for Complaints Involving Senior Management and Members of City Council:
6.1External Consultant:
Complaints made by or regarding the "direct personal behaviour" of Members of Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, Commissioners, Executive Directors, General Managers, the Executive Director, Human Resources, and statutory
officials will be handled by qualified external consultants.
6.2Notification of Complaint:
The Consultant shall notify the Corporate Services Committee in camera of all complaints immediately upon receipt. The
Consultant shall notify the persons named in the complaint of the specific allegations against them as soon as possible
thereafter.
6.3Authority and Duties of the Consultant:
The Consultant has the authority of the Corporate Services Committee to investigate and/or attempt to settle the complaint,
and to speak with anyone, examine any documents and enter any work location relevant to the complaint for the purposes
of investigation or settlement. Unless otherwise stated in this section, the external consultants will follow the principles
and procedures outlined under "Section 5: Complaints Procedure for Employees."
6.4Interim Reports and Discontinuance of Complaint:
The Consultant may make interim reports to the Corporate Services Committee in camera, as required, to address instances
of interference, obstruction, retaliation, or breaches of confidentiality encountered by the Consultant while dealing with a
complaint under this policy.
Upon receipt of the complaint, or at any point during the investigation/mediation, the Consultant may submit a report to
Corporate Services Committee recommending that the Committee discontinue dealing with a complaint where: the
complaint is outside the scope of this section; an adequate remedy already exists; the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or
not made in good faith; or, having regard to all the circumstances, further investigation of the matter is unnecessary.
The Committee may approve or reject the recommendation after considering submissions from the parties to the complaint.
6.5Other Avenues of Redress:
Nothing in this section should be interpreted as denying or limiting access to other avenues of redress available under the
law (e.g., criminal complaint, civil suit, or a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission). Corporate Services
Committee, however, may decide to postpone, suspend or cancel any investigation into a complaint under this Policy if it is
believed that the investigation would duplicate or prejudice such a proceeding.
6.6Consultant's Final Report:
The Corporate Services Committee shall be presented with a final report outlining the findings, conclusions, recommended
corrective action, or terms of settlement, within 90days of the making of the complaint. Corporate Services Committee may
grant an extension of time upon the request of the Consultant.
The complainant and respondent will be given 30 days to review and comment on the final report. Comments are to be sent
to the Corporate Services Committee.
6.7Final Decision:
Final Decisions regarding complaints involving Members of Council, the Chief Administrative Officer, the
Commissioners, statutory officials, and the Executive Director, Human Resources, will be made by the Corporate Services
Committee in camera. Corporate Services Committee will review the final report and any comments received before
making any decision on the matter. The Committee may approve, change or reject any proposed terms of settlement or
recommended corrective action.
The Consultant will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Committee's decision and for providing
regular progress reports to the Committee.
Cases involving other Executive Directors and General Managers will be decided in the same manner by the Chief
Administrative Officer and the responsible Commissioner.
6.8Legal Representation and Costs:
Parties to a complaint under this section of the Policy have the right to a representative of their choice, including legal
counsel. Subject to the conditions set out below, each party to a complaint under this section will be reimbursed up to
$5,000.00 for legal costs.
The legal costs for respondents under this section will be reimbursed, subject to the limit outlined above, in all cases which
result in a settlement or where the external consultant concludes that there has been no violation of the policy.
The legal costs for complainants under this section will be reimbursed, subject to the limit outlined above, in all cases
except where a complaint has been found to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith.
6.9Confidentiality:
All persons involved with a complaint are expected to treat the matter as confidential. Breaches of confidentiality will be
addressed by Corporate Services Committee in camera.
7.0Complaints Procedures for Residents
and Recipients of Municipal Services:
7.1Jurisdiction:
Residents and service recipients may complain under this Policy regarding discrimination and harassment in the
administration and delivery of City services, access to and use of City facilities, occupancy of City-owned
accommodations, or discrimination in legal contracts. The Human Rights Office has no jurisdiction over acts or procedures
(i.e., policy decisions) of Toronto City Council or its Committees. In addition, residents and service recipients may be
required to exhaust any other avenues of appeal which are reasonably available prior to making a complaint under this
Policy.
7.2Departments:
Where appropriate the complaint will be referred to the manager of the appropriate service delivery unit to allow that unit
an opportunity to resolve the matter.
7.3Early Resolution:
If the resident or service recipient is unable to resolve their problem directly with the Department, the Human Rights
Office, may try to mediate a solution.
7.4Formal Complaint and Investigation:
If early resolution does not resolve the situation, the Human Rights Office will prepare a complaint form based on the
resident's information. Once the complaint form is signed the Department will be notified and required to respond.
7.5Settlement:
The Human Rights Office will keep both parties advised of the progress of the investigation. With the consent of both
parties, the Human Rights Office may attempt to mediate a settlement of a complaint at any point during an investigation.
If a settlement is reached, the matter is closed and no Investigation Report is written.
7.6Investigation Report:
The Investigation Report formally tells both parties what relevant information the investigation discovered, on which the
Human Rights Office will base recommendations.
7.7Commenting on the Investigation Report:
The Investigation Report is disclosed to the resident or service recipient and the involved Department. Both parties will be
given 15 working days to individually review the Investigation Report and submit written comments if they believe the
report missed or misstated any information which would have a bearing on the outcome.
7.8Recommendations:
The Human Rights Office may make Recommendations to correct any existing problems and/or to prevent similar
problems from occurring in the future.
7.9Final Decision:
The Chief Administrative Officer, or designate, will review the Investigation Report along with any Recommendations and
provide the parties with a final written decision within 30days.
--------
Appendix Three
City of Toronto
Hate Activity Policy and Procedures
(1)Statement of Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to assist Members of the Council, employees, service recipients and Agencies, Boards and
Commissions to identify a hate motivated crime or incident. The Policy outlines procedures for responding to hate through
the City's Human Rights Program.
(2)Policy Statement:
The City of Toronto believes that a diversity of racial and ethnic origins and a wide range of cultural and religious
backgrounds, as well as its diverse population made up of Aboriginal and First Nations persons, women, people with
disabilities, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people, immigrants and refugees residing and working within the
City, strengthens and enriches the community economically, culturally, politically and socially. In support of this belief,
Members of Council, employees and recipients of all municipal services must be able to function in an environment
without hatred being perpetrated through institutional practices or individual biases. Therefore, the City of Toronto is
committed to:
(i)eliminating hate activity, harassment and all forms of discrimination through the development of programs and
educational resources;
(ii)facilitating combined efforts of each and every sector including staff, government institutions, policing, community
groups and elected officials to eliminate hate activity;
(iii)taking remedial measures to ensure that a victim of a hate-motivated crime is assisted in a timely and meaningful
way;
(iv)condemning publicly the actions of hate groups/individuals and racist organizations;
(v)advising the Attorney General of Ontario to proceed, where appropriate, with charges against
organizations/groups/individuals for the incitement of hatred in accordance with the Criminal Code of Canada; and
(vi)ensuring that every member of Council, employee and service user can work and is served in an environment without
hatred being perpetuated through institutional practices or individual bias.
(3)Background Information:
Hate activity could take the form of:
(a)Acts of Violence;
(b)Graffiti (e.g., hate group symbols or slogans or epithets defacing property);
(c)Flyers/literature/hate mail with messages promoting hatred against "identifiable" groups;
(d)Verbal slurs accompanied by a threat;
(e)Recorded telephone hate lines;
(f)Vandalism of ethnic, religious, lesbian or gay, minority sites;
(g)Obscene or threatening phone calls;
(h)Sexual assaults;
(i)Intimidation and harassment;
(j)Music and videos inciting hatred against an identifiable group; and
(k)Bomb threats.
(4)Scope:
This policy applies to Members of Council, members of the City's agencies, boards and commissions, all employees,
service recipients, volunteers, consultants, grant recipients and contractors working with the City and its agencies, boards
and commissions and special purpose bodies.
Every person has a right to be free of hate activity with respect to City services and facilities, to the occupancy of
City-owned/leased buildings, facilities owned or leased by City grant recipients, to contracts on equal terms, and to
employment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, disability, level of literacy, political affiliation,
membership in a union or staff association, or any other personal characteristic.
(5)Definitions:
(5.1)Definition of a Hate Crime:
A hate crime is defined as a criminal offence committed against a person or property. The evidence demonstrates that the
offence was motivated in any part by the suspect/offender's bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.
The Law:
According to the Criminal Code of Canada section 718.2 enhanced sentencing is provided when a crime is motivated by
bias/prejudice/hate. It states:
Section 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a)a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating
to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
(i)evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language,
colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.
(5.2)Definition of Hate Propaganda:
Hate propaganda can be any communication, poster and/or graffiti used by a person or group which promotes hatred based
on race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin.
The Law:
In terms of the law, the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code of Canada is broken down into two sections,
Advocating Genocide and Public Incitement of Hatred and includes the following:
Advocating Genocide:
Section 318:
(1)states that, "everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years".
(2)In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any
identifiable group, namely:
(a)killing members of the group, or
(b)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by color, race, religion or ethnic origin.
Public Incitement of Hatred:
Section 319 deals with the "Public Incitement of Hatred" This offence is committed when someone communicates
statements in a public place, and incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a
breach of the peace.
The section also states that an offence is committed when anyone who communicates statements, other than in private
conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group.
Communicating includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other
visible representations.
It should be noted that, with the exception of the "reach of the peace"section, no proceedings can be instituted without the
consent of the Attorney General of Ontario.
(For a detailed treatment of the law, refer to the Criminal Code of Canada sections318-320).
In keeping with the requirements of the law, elected officials are liable if their actions incite hatred against identifiable
groups.
(5.3)Definition of Telephone Recording Promoting Hate:
Telephone recordings contain messages that promote hatred against an identifiable group or verbal exposure to hatred by
use of a telephone line.
The Law:
The authority to investigate such incidents is obtained from the Canadian Human Rights Act, section13(1) states:
"It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate over the telephone or
cause to be so communicated repeatedly, in whole or in part, by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking
within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt
by reason of the fact that, that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a "prohibited" ground of discrimination."
As per the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 3(1): A prohibited ground of discrimination is: race, national or ethnic
origin, color, religion, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, family status, disability and conviction for which a
pardon has been granted.
(5.4)Definition of Hate Activity under the Ontario Human Rights Code:
Any one who displays hate in public through any notice, sign, symbol, emblem is in violation of the Ontario Human Rights
Code.
The Law:
Section 13(1) states: A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the
publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation that indicates
the intention of the person to infringe a right under PartI or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a
right under Part I. Section 13 of the Code applies to hate activity.
To meet the requirements of section 13:
(a)the display must be public;
(b)a person must have the intention to infringe a right under Part 1; and
(c)the display must take place within the context of one of the prohibited grounds.
This section has been specifically applied in public housing, parks and recreation, and child care centers.
(6)Use of Public Facilities:
Public space, facilities and properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto, and owned or leased by recipients of
City grants will not be available or accessible to any individual or group that promotes views and ideas which are likely to
promote discrimination, contempt or hatred for any person on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, color,
citizenship, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, political
affiliation, receipt of public assistance or level of literacy.
The City of Toronto (through its Facilities and Real Estate Division, as well as through incorporating the above statement
in contracts/agreements with recipients of City grants) requests potential users of public space to certify that they will not
be conducting any business that violates the Criminal Code of Canada - hate propaganda laws and human rights act.
(7)Procedures:
All incidents have to be reported to the City's Human Rights Office. Perpetrators of hate crimes will be charged by the
police under the Criminal Code of Canada. In some cases incidents may also be dealt with as part of a complaint under the
City's Human Rights and Harassment Policy.
(7.1)Whom to Notify:
1.1Notify your direct supervisor. The supervisor should first attend to safety requirements, obtain and record all details
by asking questions such as who, when, where, what, why, how (use the Hate and Racial Incident Intake Form). If it is an
emergency, the supervisor is required to act immediately based on existent emergency guidelines and notify the police. The
supervisor is also required to report the information to the City's Human Rights Office.
1.2Some departments such as Works and the Toronto Transit Commission already have Graffiti Removal Offices.
Follow the existing procedure.
1.3The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has its own procedures for dealing with hate crimes throughout the system.
All such incidents must be reported to the TTC Human Rights Unit and the Corporate Security Department for appropriate
action and follow-up.
(7.3)Gathering and Verification of Information:
A specific form will be used to collect all relevant information.
(7.4)Investigation:
If the incident is a criminal offence, the local police division should be contacted to conduct an investigation. If it is a
violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter should be referred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The following are examples of how hate motivated incidents should be dealt with:
Handling of Hate Mail:
In order that the police obtain fingerprints from hate mail and from any other object involved in a hate-motivated incident,
ensure that the item is handled as little as possible. Place the item in a protective envelope or clear plastic bag. Keep the
item aside and inform your direct supervisor immediately.
Bomb Threat:
Follow the Bomb Threat procedures of the specific site. In addition, notify Building Security of the hate motivated
bomb-threat incident. Building security have to notify police that the bomb threat is hate-motivated. Police are required to
take specific actions in such cases.
Threatening Phone-calls:
Hate motivated threatening phone-calls or voicemail messages must be documented immediately by the receiver. Notify
your direct supervisor immediately.
Graffiti:
If there is hate motivated graffiti, notify your direct supervisor who will notify police. Do not remove it until the material
has been investigated by a police officer.
(7.5)Victim Assistance and follow-up:
Appropriate staffing resources will be allocated for the provision of victim assistance. Wherever applicable, referrals will
be made to appropriate community agencies and victim-services programs.
(7.6)Classification of reported incidents:
Incidents reported will be classified accordingly. An annual report will be compiled by the City's Human Rights Office and
submitted to City Council and to the City's Community Advisory Committee on Anti-Racism and Anti-Hate.
(7.7)Training of all personnel:
The City will provide training based on request. Training opportunities will be published in the City's Educational and
Training calendar.
(7.8)Resource Allocation for efficient response to hate activity:
The City will allocate appropriate resources for the efficient response to hate activity.
(8)Monitoring and Evaluation:
The City of Toronto's Community Advisory Committee on Anti-Hate and Anti-Racism, which is a staff inter-agency
committee chaired by a Member of Council, will receive deputations. It will take appropriate action to advocate for the
elimination of hate activity and review the annual report.
(9)Guidelines to Help Determine an Alleged Hate Crime:
Factors To Consider To Determine A Hate Crime:
The following factors help individuals understand how to identify a hate motivated crime. Criminal offences are
investigated by the police. The following factors are considered when investigating a criminal offence purported to be
motivated by hate:
(a)Absence of motive;
(b)Perception of the victim;
(c)Location;
(d)Graffiti/symbols used;
(e)The date and time of the occurrence;
(f)Victim easily identifiable;
(g)Profile of the victim;
(h)New coverage of similar events;
(i)The groups involved in the attack;
(j)The manner and means of the attack;
(k)Similar incidents in the same area or against the same victim(s); and
(l)Statements/gestures by the suspect(s).
The following questions form a reliable guide to assess if a crime is motivated by hate:
(a)is the victim a member of a target racial, religious, ethnic/national or sexual orientation group?
(b)Were the offender and the victim of different racial groups?
(c)Would the incident have taken place if the victim and offender were of the same racial group?
(d)Were biased verbal comments, written statement or gestures made by the offender that indicated their bias?
(e)Was certain clothing worn (i.e., offender wore a t-shirt which read, "white power forever")
(f)Was a sign left, such as a graffiti with a "hate logo"?
(g)Have several incidents occurred in the same locality?
(h)Does the community feel that the incident was motivated by hate?
(i)Was the victim involved in promoting their racial group?
(j)Did the incident coincide with a holiday relating to religious or cultural significance?
(k)Is the offender previously involved in a similar hate crime?
(l)Did a hate group take responsibility for the crime?
(m)Does a historically established animosity exist between the victim's group and the offender's group?
(n)Did the offender have some understanding of the impact their actions would have on the victim?
(10)Institutions Responsible for Dealing with Hate Crimes:
(10.1)Hate Crime/Hate Propaganda - Police.
Each police division has a trained Hate Crimes Detective. If there is evidence that a criminal offence motivated by hate has
occurred, the local police services are informed immediately. The Police Services have an extensive hate crimes protocol to
follow when such incidents are reported. The Toronto Police Services have a Hate Crimes Unit available at 808-3500 to
assist with identification of a hate crime. The Police Services are responsible for handling criminal offences. If it is an
emergency, call 911. If it is not an emergency, call 808-2222.
(10.2)Hate Telephone Lines -- Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Call the Canadian Human Rights Commission. When it receives the complaint the Commission follows the process
outlined below:
(a)Is the Commission the right agency to handle your complaint?
(b)If yes, the complaint is accepted for investigation.
(c)if no, the complaint is referred to another agency that might help.
(d)an investigation begins. Sometimes it results in an early settlement that both parties agree to.
(e)If the complaint cannot be settled, a report is prepared for the Commission.
(f)The Commission may dismiss the complaint, appoint a conciliator, or send the complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal.
(10.3)Refer to the City of Toronto's publication, "HATE: Communities Can Respond" for a comprehensive coverage on
resources available to deal with hate crimes.
(11)Conclusion:
Every individual is required to be vigilant and report incidents. This policy and guidelines are developed for the purpose of
keeping Toronto a safe city. This policy is a work-in-progress. Amendments and changes will be recommended based on
research from environmental scans.
_______
The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following:
(1)communication (November 4, 1998) addressed to the Executive Director, Human Resources, from Mr.David Neil,
President, City of Toronto Administrative, Professional Supervisory Association, Incorporated, advising that the
COTAPSAI Board has reviewed the draft Human Rights Harassment Policy and submitting recommendations in regard
thereto;
(2)submission (December 7, 1998) from Ms. Toni Silberman, Chair, Ontario Region League for Human Rights,
regarding Policies on Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity; and
(3)report (undated) entitled "Hate, Communities Can Respond - A Community Handbook", produced by the Community
Advisory Committee on Anti-Hate and Anti-Racism, edited and printed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,
Access and Equity Centre, Toronto, 1996.
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (December 9, 1998) from the Executive Director of Human Resources:
Purpose:
To respond to the request for additional information made by the Corporate Services Committee at its meeting of Monday,
December 7, 1998.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Reference:
The Corporate Services Committee requested that staff report directly to Council on the issues raised in the
communications received on this report.
Comments:
During consideration of the report outlining the Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity Policy Framework, the
Committee had before it two communications which proposed several changes. These included:
(a)Inclusion of a Specific Definition of "Poison Environment":
The education materials distributed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission explains that a poison environment results
from harassing behaviour such as insulting slurs or jokes, even when they are not directed toward a specific employee,
and even when members of the insulted group are not there to hear them. Examples of such harassing behaviour are
already included in the Policy.
(b)Establishment of an Arms-length Tribunal to Make Final Decisions, Hear Appeals and Monitor Corrective Action:
The Policy is intended to be an "internal" dispute resolution process to help the City meet its obligations and not to
duplicate external processes which remain available.
(c)Provision of an Advisor:
Employees have access to the services of a number of human resource staff. In addition, each Division has been asked to
identify the contact person who will be able to advise employees. Once the Policy has been approved by Council, a
communications plan will be put in place.
(d)Provision for the Intake Function to Be Separate from the Investigation Function:
This is a practice followed by staff.
(e)Right to Obtain an External Investigator.
(f)Having the Same Process for All Employees as That Provided to Members of Council and Senior Management:
Provision is made in the Policy for external consultants to the used for complaints involving Members of Council and
senior management. It would not be appropriate for the staff who are human rights consultants to investigate those who
are in positions of authority over them. Besides being expensive, allowing all employees to involve an external consultant
is not consistent with the purpose of having an "internal" system.
(g)Allowing Internal Complaints While Other Processes are being Pursued:
The Policy requires that internal proceedings be held in abeyance while other avenues are being pursued. This provision
discourages the expensive and time consuming duplication of proceedings, recognizes the parties' rights to pursue any
available avenue they wish, and still allows the matter to be revisited when the other avenue has been exhausted to
determine whether any further action is necessary.
Contact:
Alison Anderson 392-5028.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (December 11, 1998)
from the Committee Administrator, The Committee on the Status of Women, recommending adoption of the report dated
November 25 1998, from the Executive Director of Human Resources regarding the Human Rights, Harassment and Hate
Activity Policy Framework.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (December 7, 1998) from
Ms. Alison Kemper, Executive Director, The 519Church Street Community Centre, reporting, as requested, with respect to
the Human Rights, Harassment and Hate Activity Policy Framework.)
3
Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor
Property at 178 Clonmore Drive
(Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November20, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 178 Clonmore Drive.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Revenue of $154,900.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.
Recommendations:
It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:
(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $154,900.00 as detailed
herein;
(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on
September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;
(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit
No. CP300J56042;
(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, to complete the transaction on behalf of the
City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The City of Toronto is the owner of 178 Clonmore Drive. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The
Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus
pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been
complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Sutton Group Estates (2000) Ltd. On October 29,
1998 at an asking price of $154,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board.
The following offers were received:
PurchaserDepositPurchase PriceTerms
Russell Leeming$7,745.00 (draft)$154,900.00non-conditional
Andrea Alison Hillier$6750.00 (draft)$135,000.00non-conditional
The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:
Property Address:178 Clonmore Drive.
Legal Description:Lot 4, Plan 3653, City of Toronto.
Approximate Lot Size:10.44 metres (34.3 feet) fronting onto Clonmore Drive,
106.68 metres (350 feet) depth.
Easement:N/A.
Location:North side of Clonmore Drive, west of Warden Avenue, north of Kingston Road.
Improvements:Detached, 2 bedroom wood bungalow.
Occupancy Status:Vacant.
Recommended Sale Price:$154,900.00.
Deposit:$7,745.00 (bank draft).
Purchaser:Russell Leeming.
Closing Date:March 23, 1999.
Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.
Listing Broker:Sutton Group Estates (2000) Ltd.
Selling Broker:Sutton Group Estates (2000) Ltd.
Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.
Conclusion:
Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.
Contact Name:
Michelle deVey, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services
Telephone: (416) 392-8160, Fax: (416) 392-4828
E-mail: michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.
4
Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation
Corridor Property at 221 Golfview Avenue
(Ward 26 - East Toronto)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November23, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 221 Golfview Avenue.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Revenue of $147,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, is anticipated.
Recommendations:
It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:
(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $147,000.00 as detailed
herein;
(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on
September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;
(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit
No. CP300J56083;
(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, to complete the transaction on behalf of the
City and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The City of Toronto is the owner of 221 Golfview Avenue. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The
Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus
pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been
complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd. on October
22, 1998 at an asking price of $119,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate
Board. The following offers were received:
PurchaserDepositPurchase PriceTerms
Richard and Gillian Shaw$7,350.00$147,000.00non-conditional
(certified cheque)
Jaime Davila-Bird$7,000.00$140,000.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Arthur Wechsel and$7,000.00$140,000.00non-conditional
Evelyn Wechsel (certified cheque)
Maria L. Neto$7,500.00$136,300.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Kenneth Charters and$6,800.25$136,005.00non-conditional
Tara Charters(bank draft)
Mehari Manna Scara$6,760.00$135,200.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Lisa Claire Clarke$7,000.00$135,000.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
John Richard Giles Jr.$7,000.00 $132,532.00non-conditional
(certified cheque)
Kathy Pearson$6,625.00 $132,500.00non-conditional
(certified cheque)
PurchaserDepositPurchase PriceTerms
Dwayne Rose and $6,700.00$132,000.00non-conditional
Glynis Deaver(bank draft)
Carol Linguer and$7,000.00$132,000.00non-conditional
Bill Bagshaw(certified cheque)
Darius Wong$7,000.00$131,000.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
James Johnson$6,500.00$130,100.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Nicole Hardy and$6,505.00$130,100.00non-conditional
Shauna Alexander(bank draft)
Evelyn Schultz$17,000.00$127,500.00non-conditional
(certified cheque)
Sandra Lynn Manson$6,305.00$126,100.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Shannon Robertson$6,500.00$125,200.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Bruce Gaskins and$6,150.00$123,000.00non-conditional
Valerie Christine Gaskins(bank draft)
Debbie Armstrong$6,000.00$120,000.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Tam T. Vu$6,000.00$120,000.00non-conditional
(bank draft)
Thanh Duc Tran$6,000.00$119,000.00conditional upon
(bank draft)Financing and home
Inspection
Tara Ward$6,000.00$118,000.00non-conditional
(certified cheque)
The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:
Property Address:221 Golfview Drive.
Legal Description:Part of Lot 35, Plan 453-E, City of Toronto.
Approximate Lot Size:6.2 metres (20.33 feet) fronting onto Golfview Avenue,
30.48 metres (100 feet) depth.
Easement:N/A.
Location:East side of Golfview Avenue, east of Woodbine Avenue, south of Gerrard Street East.
Improvements:Semi-detached, 2 storey, 3 bedroom brick dwelling.
Occupancy Status:Vacant.
Recommended Sale Price:$147,000.00.
Deposit:$7,350.00 (certified cheque).
Purchaser:Richard Shaw and Gillian Shaw.
Closing Date:January 25, 1999.
Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.
Listing Broker:Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd.
Selling Broker:Coldwell Banker Delphian Realty
Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.
Conclusion:
Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.
Contact Name:
Michelle deVey, Valuator-Negotiator, Telephone: (416) 392-8160, Fax: 392-4828 E-mail:
michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.
--------
Appendix "A"
221 Golfview Avenue - Comparable Sales
The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which
forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of six room semi-detached dwellings with three
bedrooms.
Approximate
AddressLot Size Sale PriceDate of Sale
2058 Gerrard Street East 18' x 100'$128,000.00October 6, 1998
41 Kingston Road 17.42' x 123'$128,500.00October 8, 1998
1961 Gerrard Street East17.1' x 109'$129,500.00May 22, 1998
5
Sale of Surplus Scarborough Transportation Corridor
Property at 2 Norwood Terrace
(Ward 26 - East Toronto)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 2 Norwood Terrace.
Financial Implications:
Revenue of $127,200.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $127,200.00 as detailed
herein;
(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on
September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;
(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit
No. CP300J56084;
(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the
Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable;
and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The City of Toronto is the owner of 2 Norwood Terrace. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The
Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to
By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with,
a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Homelife Cimerman Real Estate Limited on October
30, 1998 at an asking price of $129,900.00 and offered through the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate
Board. As a result, the following offer was received:
Property Address:2 Norwood Terrace.
Legal Description:Part of Lots 20 and 22, Block 5, Plan 635, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 64R-16065
together with a right-of-way.
Approximate Lot Size:6.64 metres (21.78 feet) fronting onto Norwood Terrace,
18.09 metres (59.35 feet) depth.
Location:North side of Norwood Terrace east of Woodbine Avenue.
Improvements:Detached, 2-storey, 2 bedroom, house.
Recommended Sale Price:$127,200.00 (conditional on financing - 3 days following vendor acceptance).
Deposit:$6,000.00 (bank draft).
Purchaser:Osra Naomi Lindo
Closing Date:January 27, 1999.
Occupancy Status:Vacant.
Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.
Listing Broker:Homelife Cimerman Real Estate Limited.
Selling Broker:Homelife New World Realty Inc.
Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.
Conclusion:
Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.
Contact Name:
Mrs. Melanie Hale Carter, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416)397-0585, Fax No.:(416)392-4828, E-Mail
Address: melanie_halecarter@metrotor.on.ca.
6
Sale of Surplus Spadina Property
at 19 Gloucester Grove
(Ward 28 - York Eglinton)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 19 Gloucester Grove.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Revenue of $275,320.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the
Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee,
approved on December 4, 1996.
Recommendations:
It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:
(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $275,320.00 as detailed
herein;
(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on
September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;
(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit
No. CP300J56166;
(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario
Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the
closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Province of Ontario is the owner of 19 Gloucester Grove, subject to a ninety-nine year lease in favour of the City of
Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and
13, 1997, Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal.
The procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no
requirements have been identified.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, the property was listed with Prudential SadieMoranis Realty on
October 29, 1998 at an asking price of $309,900.00, subsequently reduced to $284,900.00, and offered through the
Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. The following offers were received:
PurchaserPurchase PriceDepositTerms
Joshua Sugar$275,320.00$25,000.00 (bank draft)Non conditional
Bill Iuele and Jennifer Pitt$267,000.00$12,000.00 (bank draft)Non conditional
The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:
Property Address:19 Gloucester Grove.
Legal Description:Part of Lots 106, 107, 108 and 109, Registered Plan 2339, City of Toronto, together with and subject
to rights-of-way.
Approximate Lot Size:8.08 metres (26.5 feet) fronting onto Gloucester Grove,
30.48 metres (100 feet) depth.
Easement:N/A.
Location:South side of Gloucester Grove, west of Strathearn Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.
Improvements:Detached, 3 bedroom 2 storey brick dwelling.
Occupancy Status:Vacant.
Recommended Sale Price:$275,320.00.
Deposit:$25,000.00 (bank draft).
Purchaser:Joshua Sugar.
Closing Date:February 25, 1999.
Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.
Listing Broker:Prudential Sadie Moranis Realty.
Selling Broker:Royal LePage R.E.S. Johnston & Daniel Div.
Commission:Four (4) per cent, plus G.S.T., payable on closing of the transaction.
By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of The Corporate Services Committee, Council at the meeting held on
July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, directed that comparable sales data be provided in future reports of property sales. Appendix "A",
identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that have recently sold. While comparable sales information
can be included as part of the staff report, this property was listed for sale on the TREB multiple listing service and the
forces of the market place have determined the true market value.
Conclusion:
Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.
Contact Name:
Michelle deVey, Valuator Negotiator, Real Estate Services,
(416)392-8160, Fax No.:(416) 392-4828,
E-Mail Address: michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.
--------
Appendix "A"
19 Gloucester Grove - Comparable Sales
The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which
forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of six room detached, two storey dwellings with 3
bedrooms.
Approximate
AddressLot Size Sale PriceDate of Sale
103 Everden Road25' x 132'$300,300.00August 5, 1998
141 Everden Road25' x 132'$281,600.00July 15, 1998
121 Everden Road 25' x 132'$325,500.00October 9, 1998
7
Sale of Surplus Spadina Property
at 23 Gloucester Grove
(Ward 28 - York Eglinton)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November20, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 23 Gloucester Grove.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Revenue of $250,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments, subject to the revenue sharing agreement with the
Province pursuant to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 25 the former Metropolitan Corporate Administration Committee,
approved on December 4, 1996.
Recommendations:
It is recommended, subject to Provincial concurrence, that:
(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $250,000.00 as detailed
herein;
(2)Council, pursuant to Clause No. 14 of Report No. 27 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on
September 28, 1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;
(3)authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit
No. CP300J56170;
(4)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action, in conjunction with Province of Ontario
Officials and/or agents, to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the
closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and
(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Province of Ontario is the owner of 23 Gloucester Grove, subject to a 99year lease in favour of the City of Toronto. By
its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Corporate Administration Committee on February 12 and 13, 1997,
Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The
procedures with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed no
requirements have been identified.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Pursuant to the February 12 and 13, 1997 authority, negotiations were conducted with the tenants, Henry Lowi and
Yasmine Merri, and the following offer was received:
Property Address:23 Gloucester Grove.
Legal Description:Part of Lots 106, 107, 108 and 109, Registered Plan 2339, City of Toronto, together with and subject
to rights-of-way.
Approximate Lot Size:7.92 metres (26 feet) fronting onto Gloucester Grove,
30.48 metres (100 feet) depth.
Easement:N/A.
Location:South side of Gloucester Grove, west of Strathearn Road, south of Eglinton Avenue West.
Improvements:Detached, 3 bedroom, 2 storey dwelling.
Occupancy Status:Tenanted.
Date Interest Expressed:June 9, 1.997
Recommended Sale Price:$250,000.00.
Deposit:$12,500.00.
Purchaser:Henry Lowi and Yasmine Merri.
Closing Date:April 15, 1999.
Terms:Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.
It is noted this is a sale to the existing tenant and is based on a market value appraisal as of the date the tenant expressed
written interest. By the adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 9 of TheCorporate Services Committee, Council at the
meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 directed that comparable sales data be provided in future reports of property
sales. Appendix"A" identifies three comparable properties located in the vicinity that sold at the time of the effective date
of appraisal.
Conclusion:
Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value as of June 9,
1997.
Contact Name:
Michelle deVey, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services
Telephone: (416) 392-8160, Fax: (416) 392-4828
E-mail: michelle_devey@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
--------
Appendix "A"
23 Gloucester Grove - Comparable Sales
The following three addresses represent recent comparable sales of properties that are quite similar to the residence which
forms the subject matter of this report. These three properties consist of detached, two-storey brick dwellings with three
bedrooms.
Approximate
Address Lot Size Sale PriceDate of Sale
103 Everden Road 25' x 132'$300,300.00August 5, 1998
141 Everden Road25' x 132'$281,600.00July 15, 1998
121 Everden Road25' x 132'$325,500.00October 9, 1998
8
Proposed Lease for Children's Safety Village
Within McCowan Road Park Site, West Side
McCowan Road, South of CNR
(Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized to approve the content of the Lease
Agreement, and the City Solicitor be authorized to approve the form of the Agreement.")
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 20, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the lease of a three acre portion of the McCowan Road Parks Site to Scarborough Children's Safety Village
for a period of 20 years for the nominal consideration of $2.00per year.
Financial Implications:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City lease the area shown on the attached sketch to Scarborough Children's Safety Village for a period of 20 years
for the nominal consideration of $2.00 per year;
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and have executed the necessary documentation; and
(3)appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Scarborough Children's Safety Village is a community project to develop an educational facility to teach children
about traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety for those in grades 1 to 8. The Steering Committee which was formed to
develop the concept of the Village includes both the Public and Separate School Boards, the former Scarborough Works
and Environment and Recreation, Parks and Culture Departments, the Toronto Police and community organizations.
On September 2, 1997, City of Scarborough Council approved in principle the establishment of a Children's Village in the
City of Scarborough, and directed "up to three acres of City- owned land to be leased for ninety-nine (99) years at a rate of
one dollar per year."
Comments:
A series of community meetings were held to consider various sites within the former City of Scarborough. A consensus
has now been reached that the most appropriate location is within a 7.9ha City-owned property located on the west side of
McCowan Road, south of Eglinton Avenue. Originally purchased for use as a works yard, the property is now designated
for parks uses.
Scarborough Children's Safety Village has secured commercial financing for the project which is contingent upon the
execution of a lease for the site.
The 1997 Council directive to lease "up to three acres" of City-owned land for 99 years was not site specific. In addition, a
lease of greater than twenty years is considered to be a disposal under the Municipal Act, and would require that the lands
be declared surplus and public notice of the intent to enter into the lease.
The Steering Committee for the Scarborough Children's Safety Village has agreed on the site and has also agreed that a
twenty year term is acceptable. A term of 20 years will enable the City to enter into such an agreement without the need to
declare the property surplus.
Conclusion:
The lease of approximately three acres as indicated on the attached sketch will enable the Scarborough Children's Safety
Village to proceed with the project and will implement the direction received from the former Scarborough Council.
Contact Name:
Warren Poole, Telephone:. (416) 396-7700, Fax: (416) 396-4241
poole@city.scarborough.on.ca
--------
(A copy of the maps, Site Concept Plan, Proposed Floor Plan and the Elevation and Sections, attached to the foregoing
report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December7, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee,
and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
9
Property Declaration:
Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November23, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To secure authority to declare portions of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project lands surplus to the City's
requirements for the purposes of s. 193(4) of the Municipal Act.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Revenue will be generated from the ultimate sale of the subject lands.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)for the purposes of Section 193(4) of the Municipal Act, the following properties be declared surplus to City
requirements, namely: (a) the properties known municipally as 311Yonge Street, 313 Yonge Street, 317 Yonge Street, 323
Yonge Street and 327 Yonge Street (the Yonge Street properties); (b) the City's exclusive possession of portions of
O'Keefe Lane, Victoria Street and Gould Street over which easements are being granted, either to utility companies or to
adjoining property owners for right-of-way purposes, all as shown on the attached sketches; and, upon compliance with the
requirements of By-law No. 551-98, the Yonge Street properties be sold to PenEquity Management Corporation on the
terms delineated by Council in adopting Clause No. 26 of Report No. 10 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
at its meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998;
(2)Council affirm that the sale of the Yonge Street properties is in accordance with and pursuant to Section 28 of the
Planning Act; and
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing
recommendations.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council endorsed its commitment to proceed with the Yonge Dundas
Redevelopment Project. Among the matters thereby authorized were the expropriation of certain properties on Yonge
Street, the continuation and amendment of an agreement with PenEquity Management Corporation regarding the future
development of a portion of such lands, and development of the public square. The agreement with PenEquity provides for
the City to ultimately convey to PenEquity the Yonge Street properties (hatched on the sketch attached as Appendix A-1),
as well as a portion of O'Keefe Lane, (Parts 2, 3 and4 on Appendix A-1). At its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30,
1998, Council adopted Clause Nos. 61 and 62 of Report No.12 of the Toronto Community Council, and Clause No. 7 of
Report No. 15 of The Corporate Services Committee, thereby authorizing closing and conveying, or closing and retaining
(subject to the creation of rights-of-way in favour of utilities or adjoining property owners), affected portions of O'Keefe
Lane (shown on Appendix A-2 and Parts 1 to 4 on Appendix A-1), Victoria Street and Gould Street (shown on Appendix
A-3).
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Council has endorsed its commitment to the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project, and directed appropriate City officials
to take whatever steps are necessary to implement the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project as approved. Section 193(4)
of the Municipal Act requires that before selling any real property, a municipality must declare the property surplus. In the
present instance, however, the Yonge Street properties were acquired as part of a community improvement plan adopted by
the City pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act. There is an apparent inconsistency in the provisions of the two Acts.
The sale of the properties is not because the property is surplus to the City's needs, rather the sale is to implement the
City's objectives, as they have been expressed in the community improvement plan. Therefore, the Yonge Street properties
should be declared surplus solely for the purposes of and in accordance with Section 193(4) of the Municipal Act, but at the
same time Council should affirm that the Yonge Street properties were acquired and will be disposed of in accordance with
the objectives of the community improvement plan and pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning Act.
Conclusions:
In order to proceed with the sale of the City's lands to PenEquity, and the granting of easements to utility companies and
for right-of-way purposes to adjoining properties, City Council should declare the relevant interests in the lands surplus to
the City's requirements, solely for the purposes of compliance with the property disposal provisions of Section 193 of the
Municipal Act. In doing so, Council affirms that the sale is to achieve the goals of the City described in the community
improvement plan.
Contact Name:
Barbara A. Cappell, 397-4055, Fax: 392-3848
--------
(A copy of Appendices A-1, A-2 and A-3 referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with
the December 7, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the
City Clerk.)
10
Update on the Strategy to Create
Affordable Housing and Demonstration Projects
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the joint report dated December 11, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and
Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following
recommendations, be adopted:
'It is recommended that Council:
(1)direct staff to include in any Request for Proposals for an affordable housing development of the northerly Grand
Avenue site a requirement that potential developers work within a community design consultation process;
(2) direct the Commissioner of Corporate Services to re-examine the disposition of the Legion Road site and report to
the Corporate Services Committee on the matters discussed in this report related to adjacent City-owned property, lands
suitable for conveyance to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, contaminated soils and a possible recreational
trail along Mimico Creek; and
(3)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect to the above
recommendations.' ")
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Council Strategy
Committee for People without Homes, embodied in the following communication (November 18, 1998) from the
City Clerk, subject to the following properties not being declared surplus at this time:
(1)Southerly Grand Avenue Site; and
(2)the Legion Road Site; and
the Commissioner of Community and Neighbour Services be requested to consult with Councillors Irene Jones and
Blake F. Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway, in regard thereto:
The Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes at its meeting of November 16, 1998, had before it a report
dated November 12, 1998, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, advising on the progress
to date related to the strategy for creating affordable housing adopted by Council on July 29, 1998, and recommending
steps to be taken to support the development of proposals for affordable housing demonstration projects on City-owned
sites.
The Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, directed that the following recommendations, as contained in
the noted report, be forwarded to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Corporate Services
Committee for consideration:
"It is recommended that:
(1)The Committee recommend to Council that the Lawrence/Allen Road (Ward 8) site continue to be held from sale and
the Commissioner of Community Services be requested to report back by April 1999 on the results of the proposal call for
transitional housing, as outlined in this report;
(2)the Committee recommend to Council that the two City-owned sites on Grand Avenue (Ward 2) continue to be held
from sale, the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to expedite the soil remediation study now underway, and
based on results of that study, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back
by April 1999 on the results of a proposal call for affordable rental and ownership housing as outlined in this report;
(3)the Committee recommend to Council that the Legion Road (Ward 2) site be released for sale, given that it is not
suitable or feasible for affordable housing development;
(4)Council confirm the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto of October28, 1996 that the City-owned
site at 419-425 Coxwell Avenue (Ward 26) and 331Bartlett Avenue North (Ward 21) will continue to be used for
affordable housing purposes and any proceeds from sale will be returned to the Social Housing Reserve Fund, as the site
was obtained under the Section 36 (now 37) density bonusing provisions of the Planning Act; and
(5)Council confirm the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto of October28, 1996 that the City-owned
sites at 156 Munro Street (Ward 25) and 30St.Lawrence Street (Ward 25) be used for affordable housing purposes; the
City-owned site at 275Ontario Street (Ward 25) continue to be retained by the City; and any proceeds from sale of these
sites be returned to the Land Banking fund of the former City of Toronto to help retire the debenture debt related to that
fund."
The Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes also had before it a communication dated November 13, 1998,
from Councillor Irene Jones, requesting that if the northerly Grand Avenue site is used for affordable housing, that it have a
community-controlled process for the project.
The Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes also submits the noted communication from Councillor Irene
Jones, for consideration by Committee.
(Report dated November 12, 1998, from the Commissioner
of Community and Neighbourhood Services,
addressed to the Council Strategy for People Without Homes.)
Purpose:
(i)To update the committee on progress to date related to the strategy for creating affordable housing adopted by Council
on July 29, 1998.
(ii)To recommend steps to be taken to support the development of proposals for affordable housing demonstration
projects on City-owned sites.
Financial Implications:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Committee recommend to Council that the Lawrence/Allen Road (Ward 8) site continue to be held from sale and
the Commissioner of Community Services be requested to report back by April 1999 on the results of the proposal call for
transitional housing, as outlined in this report;
(2)the Committee recommend to Council that the two City-owned sites on Grand Avenue (Ward2) continue to be held
from sale, the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to expedite the soil remediation study now underway, and
based on results of that study, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back
by April 1999 on the results of a proposal call for affordable rental and ownership housing as outlined in this report;
(3)the Committee recommend to Council that the Legion Road (Ward 2) site be released for sale, given that it is not
suitable or feasible for affordable housing development;
(4)Council confirm the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto of October 28, 1996 that the City-owned
site at 419-425 Coxwell Avenue (Ward 26) and 331 Bartlett Avenue North (Ward 21) will continue to be used for
affordable housing purposes and any proceeds from sale will be returned to the Social Housing Reserve Fund, as the site
was obtained under the Section 36 (now 37) density bonusing provisions of the Planning Act; and
(5)Council confirm the decision of the Council of the former City of Toronto of October 28, 1996 that the City-owned
sites at 156 Munro Street (Ward 25) and 30 St. Lawrence Street (Ward 25) be used for affordable housing purposes; the
City-owned site at 275 Ontario Street (Ward 25) continue to be retained by the City; and any proceeds from sale of these
sites be returned to the Land Banking fund of the former City of Toronto to help retire the debenture debt related to that
fund.
Background:
At its July 1998 meeting, Council adopted in principle a strategy for creating affordable housing in the City of Toronto. In
light of the critical shortage of affordable housing and the need for longer term solutions to homelessness, the strategy
recognizes that the City must play a key role in facilitating the creation of affordable housing. However, the strategy also
recognizes that the City has limited resources and all levels of government must be involved. It was proposed that the City
launch a number of demonstration projects, to show that private and community partners can develop affordable housing
without traditional non-profit housing programs. The strategy includes longer term initiatives (e.g., changes to property tax
policies to support new rental development) as well as short term incentives for demonstration projects (e.g. making
surplus City land and buildings available). Appendix 1 provides a summary of the overall strategy.
This report summarizes progress to date on longer term initiatives and demonstration projects.
Comments:
Longer Term Initiatives:
Special Property Tax Class for New Rental Housing:
At its meeting on October 28 and 29, 1998, Council agreed to make a change to property tax policy in order to encourage
the development of new rental housing in the City of Toronto. Council has agreed to implement, beginning in 1999, a new
special property tax class for newly-constructed multi-residential rental housing. This class will allow Council, if it
chooses, to reduce the amount of property tax paid for new rental buildings to a rate that is more competitive with
condominium buildings for the first eight years after construction. It is hoped that this action will help to make rental
production economically feasible; for example, it is estimated that the gap between the cost of operating new rental
housing and the market rent revenues that can be achieved is approximately $3,000.00 per year. Equalizing property tax
rates between new rental and condominium housing helps to reduce this rate by about $1,200.00. The greatest impact of
this policy change is that it signals to the private sector and to senior levels of government that Council is willing to do its
part to stimulate affordable housing development. It is recognized that other measures will be needed, such as reduced
federal and provincial taxes (e.g., GST and PST) on rental housing and reduced federal mortgage insurance premiums.
At the October meeting, Council also re-affirmed its intent to move toward equity in property taxes paid between
homeowners and tenants. Staff will begin working on options in 1999.
Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing:
A recent survey of 186 organizations across Canada, found that 38 per cent. of these groups were able to develop, or are
developing, affordable housing projects without ongoing government subsidies (New Ways to Create Affordable Housing,
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, January 1998). The survey also found that the biggest obstacle faced by
organizations trying to develop affordable housing without government subsidy was the difficulties they had in obtaining
financing (followed by cost of land and site acquisition and then difficulties with development approvals). This does not
mean these groups wanted or needed free money - rather the groups needed assistance with cash flow during project
development and construction, and help to obtain mortgage financing (e.g.,second mortgages) given that they had very
little equity at the start.
As a result of this gap, access to pre-development funding and capital financing must be a key element of an overall
strategy. At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council agreed, in principle, that a capital revolving fund for
affordable housing should be established to provide financial support to projects that demonstrate the City's role in
facilitating the creation of affordable housing, and requested the Chief Financial Officer, the Commissioner of Corporate
Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report back on options for establishing such
a fund and potential funding sources. A report is now being prepared on this matter, to come forward in December, and
staff are planning to present the proposed approach to the Council Strategy Committee on November 16, 1998.
Input into Official Plan Process:
Urban Planning and Development Services staff are in the process of developing a strategy for the new Official Plan. This
will be presented to the Urban Environment and Development Committee early next year at which time it can also be
presented to this Committee. The presentation will address the role of the Council Strategy Committee in making input on
affordable housing policy. As outlined in the strategy adopted in June, there are a number of land use planning tools that
can support the creation of affordable housing. Many of these tools have been used by the former municipalities in the past
and some are part of the exist official plans that remain in effect until a new plan is adopted. Some potential tools include:
requiring that affordable housing be included in large redevelopment projects in the City; density incentives for developers
in certain areas in return for affordable housing benefits; etc.
Development of Demonstration Projects:
Demonstration projects are intended to test new affordable housing models and address housing needs (such as household
types, income ranges, tenure types, housing forms, need for community supports) in the following key areas:
(a)housing that provides a transition from living in emergency shelter to stable, longer term housing, and which includes
appropriate community supports (Transitional Housing Projects);
(b)affordable rental housing for target groups which do not require community supports (Affordable Rental Projects);
and
(c)ownership housing that is sufficiently low-cost that it can be purchased by households (in particular, families) with
moderate to low incomes (Affordable Homeownership Projects).
The Council Strategy Committee adopted a strategy based on using proposal calls to seek community partners, and to
provide a fair basis for providing City land, buildings and other resources for new affordable housing projects.
Status of Surplus City-Owned Sites:
Based on a report to the July meeting of Council and a subsequent staff report to the September meeting of the Corporate
Services Committee, four surplus City-owned sites have been held back from sale pending a review of their potential for
affordable housing development. The sites include Grand Avenue (2 sites - Ward 2), Legion Road (Ward 2)and
Lawrence/Allen Road (Ward 8). This report provides an update on the review of these sites. Corporate Services has been
consulted as part of preparing recommendations about these sites, and agrees with the recommendations made.
(a)Lawrence/Allen Road (Ward 8):
Based on our review, the Lawrence/Allen site has significant potential as a site for transitional housing. As described in the
June strategy report, our approach to this type of housing is to first issue a "concept proposal call" to find community
partners who are experienced with the client group and who have the capability to develop full proposals. The proposal for
Lawrence/Allen is focused on low income women with children. This is a population that faces severe affordability
problems in the City and for which short term accommodation (e.g.,shelters and motels) is inadequate to their needs. Staff
have prepared a concept proposal call document that is now being discussed with the local councillors and local planning
staff.
Based on the results of the concept proposal call, up to three community groups would be asked to prepare more detailed
proposals. We plan to provide funding of up to $5,000.00 to each proponent assist them in preparing a proposal,
recognizing that these agencies generally do not have the internal staff capacity or expertise to prepare development
proposals. Funds are available within the budget approved for the Council Strategy Committee in 1998, and can be
provided under the authority given to staff at the last meeting. We are currently discussing with Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation the potential for these proposals to also qualify for Proposal Development Fund (PDF) loans of up to
$75,000.00 offered by their Centre for Public-Private Partnerships. For those proposals that are not selected, we will
consider alternative ways to implement them (e.g. on other City sites) if feasible. At this time we recommend that the
Lawrence/Allen site continue to be held back from sale and staff report back by April 1999 on the results of the proposal
call process.
(b)Grand Avenue (Ward 2):
Our review of the two Grand Avenue sites suggests that the northerly block has the greatest potential for development as
affordable rental and/or ownership housing. The use is compatible with the surrounding area and is in keeping with the
Etobicoke Official Plan. The site could potentially accommodate up to 366 units, likely enough to allow for some internal
cross-subsidy to support a percentage of units at below-market rents. The southerly block, on the other hand, is designated
in the OP as open space and may be needed to accommodate a future school. Both sites, however, require soil remediation
to deal with the effects of a former incinerator and sewage plant. A study is underway to determine the cost of clean-up and
until this is complete, a proposal call cannot be issued. We recommend that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be
requested to expedite this study. We recommend that the Grand Avenue sites continue to be held back from sale and that
staff report back by April 1999 on the results of a proposal call, provided that the clean-up costs are manageable.
(c)Legion Road (Ward 2):
Our review of Legion Road has confirmed that the site faces significant environmental issues, particularly related to its
location in the floodplain of Mimico Creek. We conclude, therefore that affordable housing development is not feasible,
and suggest the site be released for sale.
Sites Retained by the Former City for Affordable Housing:
Included in the list of former City of Toronto surplus sites are a number of land parcels that had been acquired for
development as non-profit housing. Many of these sites were acquired either through the former City's land-banking
program or through density bonus agreements with developers under Section 37 of the Planning Act. A report dated June
22 from the Commissioner of Corporate Services indicates that the revenues from the sale of such properties must be
allocated to the land-banding fund or social housing reserve fund, under policies adopted by the former City of Toronto.
They are not included in the $50 million target of revenues to be generated through the sale of City property in 1998.
There are a limited number of former City sites that were specifically retained for affordable housing development
following cancellation of the non-profit program. In October 1996, the former Council adopted a report proposing that 5
sites not be sold and that staff develop proposals to create affordable housing without non-profit housing subsidies (such as
affordable home-ownership). It was assumed at the time that there would be no revenue recovery for the sites as the land
value would be needed to leverage affordability on the sites. The five sites retained "for affordable housing purposes" were
the southerly portion of 419-425 Coxwell Avenue, 331 Bartlett Avenue North, 30 St. Lawrence Street, 156 Munro Street,
and 275 Ontario Street. As the committee is aware, a project is already under development on 30 St. Lawrence. The
Bartlett property has been leased to Cityhome and contains a renovated building that is being managed as affordable artist
live/work housing by the City's Housing Company. The new City's land disposition process has not altered these or other
similar decisions of the former municipalities.
Consistent with the Strategy to Create Affordable Housing adopted by Council at its July meeting, staff are now
considering the Coxwell and Munro for affordable housing purposes. As noted in the last update report, staff were
proceeding with a proposal call for affordable ownership on the Coxwell site and were in the process of consulting with the
local councillors. As discussed below, staff are also proceeding with a concept proposal call to seek a community partner
for the 156 Munro site. At this time, staff have no plans to proceed with development or sale of 275 Ontario Street, and
will report back if this changes. Given that proposal calls are now being issued for Coxwell and Munro, we would like to
confirm the previous Council's decision that these sites are being retained and any proceeds of sale for these properties
must be returned to the appropriate reserve fund (Social Housing Reserve Fund or Land Banking Fund).
Re-Allocation of Other City-Owned Property:
In addition to sites already declared surplus, there are potentially hundreds of sites and buildings that will become surplus
to the needs of City Departments and agencies in the coming months as a result of re-organization and service
restructuring. At its July meeting, Council adopted a process for declaring properties surplus which will require that
potentially surplus properties be circulated to Departments, to the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes
and to non-profit organizations to determine their interest in sites. The real estate policy also creates a Property
Management Committee (of senior staff) which will have the authority to make decisions on re-use of land (e.g., to
re-allocate sites for housing purposes). Housing staff have already expressed an interest in a number of potentially surplus
sites that have been circulated. However, the Property Management Committee has not yet been established and as a result,
decisions on these sites have not yet been made. The Commissioner of Corporate Services was also asked by Council at its
July meeting to report on a policy for the use of City land or proceeds from land sales to meet social objectives. We would
ask that the Committee recommend that the establishment of the Property Management Committee and creation of a policy
for meeting social objectives be expedited.
Projects Under Development: 30 St. Lawrence and 11 Ordnance:
Appendix 2 provides a summary of the progress of the transitional housing projects under development at 11 Ordnance
Street and 30 St. Lawrence Street.
Low Income Singles Demonstration Project:
Staff are taking steps to proceed with a low income singles/single room occupancy demonstration project. A key objective
of this pilot project is to build on the experience of the 30 St. Lawrence project to date, i.e., to develop a replicable housing
form that serves the needs of low income single adults, that can be built economically, and that can be integrated into
existing neighbourhoods throughout the City. The City-owned site at 156 Munro (Ward 25 - see Appendix 3) is being
considered for this pilot, pending discussion with the local councillors and planning staff. A proposal call is being issued to
identify community partners who have experience with the low income singles population and who are interested in
developing a pilot project.
At its last meeting the Committee discussed a number of issues raised in the wake of a recent rooming house fire at 1495
Queen Street. For example there is some question whether existing housing forms such as rooming houses or bachelorettes
are an appropriate or acceptable form of housing for some low income populations, particularly those who have become
isolated from social supports and are therefore the most vulnerable. A number of alternative singles housing models have
been proposed, including the single room occupancy model, and shared accommodation models. There are also many
examples of singles housing projects in Toronto with varying levels of success and certain lessons to be learned. We feel it
is important that this pilot project help to define a housing model that for low income singles that will serve the needs of
this population well, and that can be integrated into existing neighbourhoods throughout the new City.
In addition to seeking community partners for this pilot project, we have been reviewing the experience across North
America with single room occupancy housing and will be reporting on specific measures that the City could take to support
this form of housing in Toronto. This work will focus on establishing design specifications for this housing form, and
identifying regulatory changes, financing tools and appropriate management/support service models that are required to
support it. It is hoped that this work will inform the development of a detailed proposal for the pilot project on a specific
site.
Implementing the Grow-as-You-Go Concept:
The "Grow-as-You-Go" concept was presented to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee earlier this year
by architect John Van Nostrand. Given that the model would require the City to be very flexible in terms of building code
and other requirements, Housing staff are facilitating discussions with Mr. Van Nostrand and City planning, development
and property standards staff on ways in which it could best be to implemented.
Conclusion:
Staff will provide regular updates on the strategy for creating affordable housing, and demonstration projects, through the
Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes.
Appendices:
(1)Framework for the Strategy to Create Affordable Housing.
(2)Project Updates:
(a)30 St. Lawrence Street - Homeless Men and Women; and
(b)11 Ordnance Street - Homeless Youth.
(3)Description of 156 Munro Street.
Contact Name:
Rob Cressman, Phone: 392-0601, Fax: 392-0548, Email: rcressma@city.toronto.on.ca.
Joanne Campbell, General Manager, Shelter, Housing and Support Division.
Shirley Hoy, Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services
________
The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it the following
communications:
(i)(December 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on
December 3, 1998:
(1)recommended to the Corporate Services Committee the adoption of the recommendation of the Council Strategy
Committee for People Without Homes embodied in the communication (November 18, 1998) from the City Clerk; and
(2)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development be requested to report to the Corporate Services Committee for its meeting on December 7, 1998, if
possible, or directly to Council on December 16, 1998, on:
(a)the feasibility of a community design concept use for the northerly Grand Avenue site referred to in Recommendation
No. (2) of the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services;
(b)the need for open space on the southerly Grand Avenue site;
(c)an underpass for the Legion Road site; and
(d)dedication of the Legion Road site to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for open space;
(ii)(December 2, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, forwarding comments respecting properties
located in Ward 2 which had been declared surplus.
(A copy of the Appendices attached to the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December 7,
1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a joint report
(December 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To respond to directives of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee resulting from the Committee's
consideration of a November 12, 1998 report on an " Update on the Strategy to Create Affordable Housing and
Demonstration Projects".
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no funding implications associated with this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Council:
(1)direct staff to include in any Request for Proposals for an affordable housing development of the northerly Grand
Avenue site, a requirement that potential developers work within a community design consultation process;
(2) direct the Commissioner of Corporate Services to re-examine the disposition of the Legion Road site and report to
the Corporate Services Committee on the matters discussed in this report related to adjacent City-owned property, lands
suitable for conveyance to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, contaminated soils and a possible recreational
trail along Mimico Creek; and
(3)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect to the above
recommendations.
Background and Context:
At its meeting on November 16, 1998, the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes considered a November
12, 1998 report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services on an "Update on the Strategy to
Create Affordable Housing and Demonstration Projects". The Committee directed that the report's recommendations be
forwarded to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Corporate Services Committee for
consideration.
The report includes the following recommendations:
(2) the Committee recommend to Council that the two City-owned sites on Grand Avenue (Ward2) continue to be held
from sale, the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to expedite the soil remediation study now underway, and
based on results of that study, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report back
by April 1999 on the results of a proposal call for affordable rental and ownership housing as outlined in this report;
(3) the Committee recommend to Council that the Legion Road (Ward 2) site be released for sale, given that it is not
suitable or feasible for affordable housing development;
In its consideration of the report and these two recommendations, the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Committee:
(1)recommended to the Corporate Services Committee the adoption of the recommendation of the Council Strategy for
People Without Homes embodied in the aforementioned communication from the City Clerk; and
(2)directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services be requested to report to the Corporate Services Committee for its meeting on December 7,
1998, if possible, or directly to Council on December 16, 1998, on:
(a)the feasibility of a community design concept use for the northerly GrandAvenue site referred to in recommendation
No. (2) of the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services;
(b)the need for open space on the southerly Grand Avenue site;
(c) an underpass for the Legion Road site; and
(d)dedication of the Legion Road site to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for open space.
Comments:
This report responds to the Community and Neighbourhood Services' directives for the Grand Avenue and Legion Road
sites (see Figure 1).
(a)Community Design Concept Use for Northerly Grand Avenue Site
The Grand Avenue sites are located on the east side of Grand Avenue between the Gardiner Expressway and the CNR line,
within Park Lawn Road/Lake Shore Boulevard Secondary Plan which was approved in 1995. The site north of Algoma
Street is designated in the Plan as High Density Residential and could potentially accommodate up to 366 units. The site
south of Algoma Street is designated Open Space. A possible future school site is identified in the plan straddling both sites
(see Figure 2). The sites are zoned Industrial Class 1 (IC.1). A zoning code amendment would be required to change the
designations to residential and green belt (G) in accordance with the Official Plan land use designations.
As part of the Secondary Plan, the former Etobicoke Council endorsed design guidelines for the area. Development of the
northerly Grand Avenue site would be reviewed in the context of these guidelines. With respect to Councillor Jones
suggestion that a community design concept be followed, this approach has been used successfully by the former City of
Etobicoke on other City-owned lands which were to be disposed of and developed privately. A City-sponsored urban
design competition was held in which local residents were involved directly in the decision-making from the initial stages
of the project when the overall process and design criteria were determined through to the final selection of the successful
developer/architect team.
Housing staff would be pleased to consult with the community on the concept design and to include a requirement in the
Request For Proposals to potential developers that they must work within such a consultation process. They would also be
pleased to discuss innovative tenure options, such as "rent to own", to meet the needs of the local community.
It should be noted that in the November 12, 1998 report, staff indicated that the feasibility of the Grand Avenue sites for
development cannot be determined until the current soil study is complete. In the event that the site is found to be suitable
for redevelopment all applicable policies and requirements of the Secondary Plan would apply.
(b)Need for Open Space on the Southerly Grand Avenue Site
The Park Lawn Road/Lake Shore Boulevard Secondary Plan notes that future development/redevelopment as proposed in
the plan will require the creation of additional park space. In addressing this need for additional park space, the
Secondary Plan designates the portion of the Grand Avenue site south of Algoma Street as open space (see Figure 2).
In discussions with Councillor Jones, Housing staff have agreed that the northerly site has the most potential for
residential development and the southerly site would be most appropriately used for open space. This approach is in
accordance with the land use provisions of the Secondary Plan. An affordable housing demonstration project is therefore
only being considered for the Grand Avenue site north of Algoma Street, which is designated in the Official Plan as high
density residential. Affordable housing is not being considered for the lands designated open space.
It should be noted that Figure 2 also identifies both sites as a possible future school location. At the time of the community
design process discussed above, the need for a school in this area would be reviewed with the school boards. If a school is
required, its location and design would be determined as part of the overall design process.
(c)Requirement for an Underpass for the Legion Road Site
The Secondary Plan identifies a number of infrastructure improvements which are required as development proceeds. One
of the infrastructure elements identified in the Plan is the extension of Legion Road under the Canadian National Railway
Line and north to a new road from the Queen Elizabeth Way eastbound ramp at Park Lawn Road. The Legion Road
Extension, including the underpass segment, has been endorsed by the former Etobicoke Council. Required land
dedications are being secured as part of the recent McGuinness Distillery/Mystic Pointe development east of Grand
Avenue on the north side of Manitoba Street.
The construction of the Legion Road extension is to be completed in phases and its complete construction is not a
condition of development until the area as a whole reaches certain build out thresholds. The development of the Grand
Avenue housing site would not require the construction of the Legion Road extension as the thresholds have not been
reached at this time. The development would, however, be expected to contribute to the funding of these improvements
through the payment of development levies which are in place at the time development proceeds.
(d)Potential Dedication of the Legion Road Site to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
The 0.43 hectare Legion Road site was part of the 5.33 hectare Humber Filtration Plant property (see Figure 1). The
filtration plant is not operational. Corporate Services have been requested to report on the future use of the Humber
Filtration Plant property.
The Mimico Creek valley at this location is ill-defined and results in a "spill zone" which is a broad uncontained exit for
flood waters (see Figure 3). A large part of the filtration plant property is flood plain where development is restricted to
passive open space uses or municipal parking subject to flood proofing measures. Portions of both the Legion Road and
filtration plant properties are in the spill zone. The Park Lawn Road/Lake Shore Boulevard Secondary Plan (Etobicoke
Official Plan) provides that new development in the spill zone must be protected to the level equivalent to the Regional
Storm and no new development will be permitted until protective works have been installed to the satisfaction of the TRCA.
There is a strong possibility that the sites may be contaminated. This issue requires further investigation.
The City's Official Plan (Metro Official Plan) provides for the development of a continuous recreational trail through
valley and waterfront corridors. The potential for a recreational trail along the Mimico Creek at this location should be
examined.
In view of these circumstances, it would be appropriate to review the future use of the two properties together.
Conclusion:
A decision on the disposition of the Legion Road site should be deferred pending further examination of the future use of
adjoining City-owned land, soil conditions (contamination), lands appropriate for conveyance to the TRCA and a
recreational trail along the Mimico Creek.
This report has been prepared in consultation with staff from Corporate Services, Economic Development, Culture and
Tourism and the TRCA.
Contact Names:
Barbara Leonhardt, Director of Policy and Research, City Planning Division, Tel: 392-8148;
Rob Cressman, Acting Director, Policy and Programs Shelter, Support and Housing,
Tel: 392-0601.)
(A copy of each of Figures 1, 2 and 3, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
11
Standing Authority to Solicitor
to Enforce Leases/Licences
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October30, 1998) from the
City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To obtain standing delegated authority to enforce the terms of leases, licences and similar agreements.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City Solicitor be granted standing authority to enforce the provisions of leases, licences and similar agreements, on
the terms and conditions outlined in the body of this report;
(2)this authority supersede and replace any policies, authorities or by-laws which existed in the seven former
municipalities with respect to the subject matter hereof; and
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In some of the former seven municipalities, standing delegated authority had been granted to the relevant Solicitor to
enforce the municipality's rights under leases, licences and similar agreements. For example, the Metropolitan Council, by
its adoption of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 66 of the Executive Committee on December 17, 1963; Clause No. 39 of Report
No. 42 of the Executive Committee on November 17, 1970; Clause No. 8 of Report No. 33 of the Executive Committee on
September 7, 1973 and Clause No. 24 of Report No. 43 of the Executive Committee on September10, 1974, provided a
series of standing authorities to the Solicitor to commence actions for arrears of rent, to engage "skip tracers" to locate
ex-tenants, to bring actions to recover possession, to enforce the non-monetary provisions of such agreements, as well as to
write off "bad debt" accounts in certain circumstances.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
While there are a myriad of reasons why a tenant/licensee/concessionaire could be in default or other breach of its
obligations to the City, most frequently, it is due to non-payment, or habitually late payment, of rent. However, simply
taking steps to collect outstanding rent, where a tenant remains in possession, may generally be ineffective to protect the
City's interests, because if the tenant merely remains in the property, the arrears continue to accumulate. In addition, it is
generally the case that where rent is unpaid, municipal taxes and operating costs (including utilities) also tend to be unpaid,
some of which ultimately become the legal responsibility of the property owner (i.e., the City).
In the normal course, the time required to regain possession of rented premises can be lengthy (e.g.,three months), and
arrears in such instances frequently continue to increase, often to sizeable sums. Where the tenants do not comply with
certain provisions of the lease/licence or other agreements, the City may also be in breach of its own by-laws for zoning,
housing or health standards. In addition, the property in question may be allowed to deteriorate, ultimately costing the City
out-of-pocket expenses to repair same to an acceptable standard.
Accordingly, the City Solicitor should have authority to take steps as quickly as possible to collect monetary amounts
outstanding (including, but not limited to, rent, taxes or other sums due) as well as to take such other steps to enforce the
provisions in the relevant lease, licence or other similar agreement which, in his opinion, in consultation with the head of
the relevant department or A, B,C, are appropriate in the circumstances, including but not limited to: engaging "skip
tracers"; recovery of possession; termination of the agreement, distraining to realize on amounts owing (commercial leases
only); and writing off "bad debt" accounts where appropriate..
Conclusions:
It is desirable that the City be in a position to expeditiously enforce leases, licences and similar agreements. Adoption of
the recommendations in this report will enable the City Solicitor to act expeditiously to protect the City's interests.
Contact Name:
M. A. Fischer - 392-8054
12
Toronto Atmospheric Fund -
Appointment of Directors
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendations of the Board of Directors of
the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, embodied in the following communication (November 25, 1998) from the City
Clerk:
At its meeting on November 20, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund had before it a report dated
November 4, 1998, from Mr. H. W. O. Doyle, City Solicitor, addressed to the Corporate Services Committee with
recommendations regarding filling one vacancy on the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and to appoint
a replacement for another member of the Board.
The Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund moved that:
(1)the recommendations contained in the aforementioned communication be forwarded to the Corporate Services
Committee for adoption;
(2)Mr. Alan Shultz, Director, Accounting Services, City of Toronto, be appointed a Director of the Toronto Atmospheric
Fund to fill the position on the Board designated to the Commissioner of Finance, as indicated in Recommendation No. (1)
embodied in the report (November 4, 1998) from Mr. Doyle to the Corporate Services Committee; and
(3)as recommended in Recommendation No.(2) of the aforementioned report from Mr.Doyle, the Director, Healthy
Environments, Public Health Division, Community and Neighbourhood Services, be appointed to the Board of Directors of
the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, to replace the position on the Board designated to the Medical Officer of Health, and that
the name of the individual who is appointed as the Director, Healthy Environments, be forwarded to the Corporate Services
Committee when such person has been appointed.
(Report dated November 4, 1998, from Mr. H. W. O. Doyle,
City Solicitor, addressed to the Corporate Services.)
Purpose:
To fill one vacancy on the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and to appoint a delegate for another
member of the Board.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the position on the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund reserved for the Commissioner of Finance be
filled by the person who holds the title of Director of Accounting Services of the City of Toronto, from time to time, in lieu
of the Commissioner of Finance (City Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer); and
(2)the position of the Medical Officer of Health on the Board of Directors, currently held by Dr.Sheela Basrur be filled
by one of her senior staff members whose name and position will be reported directly to the Committee.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Clause No. 56 of Report No. 1 of the Former City of Toronto Executive Committee adopted by former City Council at its
meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, entitled "Toronto Atmospheric Fund - Board of Directors", and Clause No. 1 of
Report No. 1 of The Striking Committee, adopted by Council at its meeting of January 8, 1998.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Former City of Toronto Council, by the adoption of Clause No. 56 of Report No. 21 of the Executive Committee at its
meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, continued the appointment of two City officials, who were made Directors of the
Board of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund ("TAF"), under the TAF legislation. Section 3 (1) of the TAF legislation,
paragraph three stipulates that "the Commissioners of Finance and City Works Services and the Medical Officer of Health"
of the City are Directors on the Board. As a result of a change in the name of the department head for Finance and Works
in 1996, there was no longer a "Commissioner of Finance", nor a "Commissioner of City Works Services", so the
individuals holding those equivalent positions were appointed by name (NickKristoffy, who was then Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer, and Barry Gutteridge who was then Commissioner of City Works Services). These appointments
were continued through amalgamation until such time as a further appointment was made by City Council. This process is
set out more particularly in the attached letter from Mr. Cliff Goldfarb, Counsel for TAF, dated November 2, 1998.
In light of the post-amalgamation staff appointments and corporate restructuring of the three statutory Board positions
reserved for City officials, the person who is the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Mr. Barry Gutteridge,
remains appointed to the Toronto Atmospheric Board of Directors by name for the statutory position of the Commissioner
of Public Works and the Environment. The position for the person who is the Commissioner of Finance of the City is not
officially occupied since the title of the City official doing that function is the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer
and the position was last filled by the appointment of the person previously acting in that capacity in the old City of
Toronto by name. That individual referred to, Nick Kristoffy, is no longer with the City and the new City Treasurer has
never been formally appointed to the Board. In terms of the workload demands of the City Treasurer, it is appropriate that a
delegate be appointed to the Board of Directors of TAF to sit instead of the City Treasurer. The recommendation of the
City Treasurer for this delegation is the position of the Director of Accounting, which is presently occupied by Al Shultz.
The third position, for the person who is the Medical Officer of Health of the City, has been filled by the Medical Officer
of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur, since that title has not changed from the original statutory provision. However, given the
workload requirements of Dr.Basrur, she has requested that one of her senior staff be appointed to sit as a delegate for the
Medical Officer of Health on the TAF Board of Directors. She will be providing the name and title of that individual
directly to the Committee.
Conclusions:
In order to ensure that the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund is able to carry out its mandate in
accordance with the statutory requirements, it is recommended that the action set out in this report and the attached
correspondence from Cliff Goldfarb, Counsel for TAF, be adopted.
Contact Name:
Lorraine Searles-Kelly
392-7240
13
Consent to Use of Corporate Name
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November18, 1998) from the
City Solicitor:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek approval for consent to the registration of a name as part of the incorporation of a
non-profit corporation.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)approval be granted to the request, contained in the correspondence attached as Appendix"A" to this report, for
consent to the registration of the name "Educational Staff Development Council of Ontario/Conseil Educationale De
Perfectionnement du Personnele de L'Ontario" as part of the incorporation of a non-profit corporation described in the
material contained in the Appendix; and
(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take such actions as required to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
N/A.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
I recently received the request, attached as Appendix "A" to this report, for consent to the registration of the name
"Educational Staff Development Council of Ontario/Conseil Educationale De Perfectionnement du Personnele de
L'Ontario" as part of the incorporation of a non-profit corporation described in the Appendix. The principal objects of the
proposed corporation are described in its draft articles of incorporation contained in the Appendix, and are directed towards
maintaining standards and qualifications in the education profession and in education in Ontario.
The City's approval for registration of this name is being sought because the provincial Ministry of Consumer and
Commercial Relations will not allow registration without the City's consent, given the use of the word "council' in the
proposed corporate name.
I do not perceive any difficulties with consenting to registration of the name given that the sole issue is the use of the word
"council" and given the broad education-related purposes for which the corporation is being established.
Conclusions:
Consent should be granted to the incorporation of the corporation under the name "Educational Staff Development Council
of Ontario/Conseil Educationale De Perfectionnement du Personnele de L'Ontario.
Contact Name:
Karl Druckman, (392-4520).
(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the December
7, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
14
Quotation for Fine Paper
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (November 18, 1998)
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to the
necessary funds being available in the 1999 Operating Budget:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Request for Quotation issued for the supply and delivery of Fine
Paper, used for printing and photocopying in all departments in accordance with specifications, for the period January 1,
1999, to December 31, 1999, and to request authority to award a contract to the recommended bidder.
Source of Funds:
Funds will be provided in the appropriate departmental Operating Budgets for 1999 subject to availability of funds in
specific accounts.
Recommendation:
It is recommend that the quotation submitted by Graphic Resources for the supply and delivery of Fine Paper used for
printing and photocopying in all departments in accordance with specifications, for the period January 1, 1999, to
December 31, 1999, be accepted, at a total price of $2,204,540.07 including all taxes and charges, subject to escalation or
de-escalation as of June 30, 1999, being the lowest quotation received.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Eighteen (18) firms were invited to submit quotations for this requirement. Six (6) quotations were received for the supply
and delivery of Fine Paper, used for printing and photocopying in all departments in accordance with specifications for the
period January 1, 1999, to December31, 1999, as summarized below.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The following is a summary of prices for the supply and delivery of Fine Paper for the period January1, 1999 to December
31, 1999.
Total Price Including
Firm NameAll Taxes and Charges
Graphic Resources*$ 2,204,540.07
Buntin Reid-Division of Domtar Inc.**$ 2,227,151.64
Unisource Canada Inc.***$ 2,388,300.57
Coast Paper****$ 2,570,972.48
Xerox Canada$ 1,590,502.67(incomplete bid: only 16 percent of items were quoted on)
International Data Systems$ 1,356,636.83(incomplete bid: only 8 percent of items were quoted on)
* Prices firm until June 30, 1999, after which they may be subject to Manufacturer's increases or decreases.
** Prices firm until April 15, 1999, after which they may be subject to Manufacturer's increases or decreases.
*** Prices firm until May 1, 1999, after which they may be subject to Manufacturer's increases or decreases.
**** Prices firm until March 31, 1999, after which they may be subject to Manufacturer's increases or decreases.
The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.
Conclusion:
This report requests authority to award the contract for the supply and delivery of Fine Paper, used for printing and
photocopying in all departments in accordance with specifications, for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999,
to Graphic Resources, being the lowest quotation received.
Contact Name:Contact Name:
L. A. PaganoJ. A. Abrams
DirectorDirector
Purchasing and Materials ManagementSecretariat, Printing and Distribution
Telephone: 392-7312Telephone: 392-8670
15
Tender for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (November 19, 1998)
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Corporate Services, subject to:
(1)amending the Recommendation embodied therein by inserting the following words "noting that the Petro
Canada bid included both the lowest sulphur content as well as the lowest price", after the words "recommended
that", so that the Recommendation now reads as follows:
"It is recommended that, noting that the Petro Canada bid included both the lowest sulphur content as well as the
lowest price, the tender submitted by Petro Canada for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,890,000 litres
of Gasoline and 11,628,515 litres of Diesel Fuel (approximately 7,937,015 litres of Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel used in
various fleet vehicles and approximately 3,691,500 litres of Coloured Diesel Fuel used in heavy equipment and
emergency power generators), be accepted at the tendered price of $0.1952 per litre for Gasoline, $0.1894 per litre
for Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel and $0.1768per litre for Coloured Diesel Fuel, exclusive of all taxes, subject to
escalation or de-escalation as of January 1, 1999, for a total expenditure of $6,339,252.60 including all taxes and
charges, being the lowest tender received; and
(2)the necessary funds being available in the 1999 Operating Budget:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the tender issued for the supply and delivery of Gasoline
and Diesel Fuel, used in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and emergency power generators, by various
Departments for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, and to request authority to award a contract
to the recommended bidder.
Source of Funds:
Funds will be provided in the appropriate departmental Operating Budgets for 1999 subject to availability of
funds in specific accounts.
Recommendation:
It is recommend that the tender submitted by Petro Canada for the supply and delivery of approximately
4,890,000 litres of Gasoline and 11,628,515 litres of Diesel Fuel (approximately 7,937,015 litres of Low Sulphur
Diesel Fuel used in various fleet vehicles and approximately 3,691,500 litres of Coloured Diesel Fuel used in heavy
equipment and emergency power generators), be accepted at the tendered price of $0.1952 per litre for Gasoline,
$0.1894 per litre for Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel and $0.1768 per litre for Coloured Diesel Fuel, exclusive of all taxes,
subject to escalation or de-escalation as of January 1, 1999, for a total expenditure of $6,339,252.60 including all
taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received;
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Bid Committee at its meeting held on October 7, 1998, opened the following tenders for Tender No. 127-1998
for the supply and delivery of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel used in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and
emergency power generators by various Departments for the period January1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, as
summarized below.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The following is a summary of prices for the supply and delivery of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel for the period
January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.
FederalGoods &
BaseExciseProvincialServicesTotal
PriceTaxRoad TaxTax Price
TendererPer LitrePer LitrePer LitrePer LitrePer Litre
Gasoline (87.0 Octane)
Petro Canada*$0.1952$0.1000$0.1470$0.030954$0.473154
Shell Canada Products Ltd.**$0.1985$0.1000$0.1470$0.031185$0.476685
Sunoco Inc.***$0.2170$0.1000$0.1470$0.032480$0.496480
Big K Fuels Inc.****No Bid
Low Sulphur Diesel
Petro Canada*$0.1894$0.0400$0.1430$0.026068$0.398468
Shell Canada Products Ltd.**$0.1918$0.0400$0.1430$0.026236$0.401036
Sunoco Inc.***$0.1980$0.0400$0.1430$0.026670$0.407670
Big K Fuels Inc.****$0.2300$0.0400$0.1430$0.289100$0.441910
Coloured Diesel
Petro Canada*$0.1768$0.0400not applic.$0.015176$0.231976
Shell Canada Products Ltd.**$0.1859$0.0400not applic.$0.015813$0.241713
Sunoco Inc.***$0.2080$0.0400not applic.$0.017360$0.265360
Big K Fuels Inc.****$0.2200$0.0400not applic.$0.018200$0.278200
* Base price firm until January 5, 1999, after which price may be adjusted monthly during 1999 based on the
previous month average Canadian unbranded rack price for Gasoline, Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel and Coloured
Diesel Fuel in Toronto as published in Bloombergs Oil Buyers' Guide, a price index published weekly and used by
the petroleum industry as a benchmark to follow market conditions.
** Base price firm until January 5, 1999, after which price may be adjusted monthly during 1999 based the
previous three month average Shell Canada's unbranded rack price for gasoline low sulphur diesel fuel and
coloured diesel fuel in Toronto as published in Bloombergs Oil Buyers' Guide.
*** Base price firm until January 1, 1999, after which prices are subject to change upon 30 days written notice
based on market conditions and/or raw material costs.
****Price based on Sunoco's Toronto rack price plus $0.035 per litre.
In the report dated October 9, 1998, to the Board of Health and Corporate Services Committee from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services, Medical Officer of Health and Director of Fleet Management Services
entitled Sulphur in Fuels - Toronto's Fuel Purchase Program, it was recommended that when making bulk
purchases of gasoline, on-road diesel fuel and off-road diesel fuel, the City should consider sulphur content, as well
as cost, as a selection criteria. Accordingly, the specifications for the purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel contained
in this tender included the requirement for bidders to provide information regarding the sulphur content in the
fuels they were offering to the City.
The low bid was from Petro Canada for the supply and delivery of 87 Octane unleaded gasoline, low sulphur
diesel fuel oil and coloured diesel fuel oil. The sulphur content for the fuels offered by Petro Canada was within
the specification requirements. The Department of Health, Environment Protection Office was consulted
regarding the sulphur content and was in concurrence with the acceptance of Petro Canada's bid.
The tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of
Corporate Services and was found to be in conformance with the Tender requirements.
The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.
Conclusion:
This report requests authority to award the contract for the supply and delivery of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel used
in various fleet vehicles, heavy equipment and emergency power generators, by various Departments, for the
period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999, to Petro Canada, being the lowest tender received.
Contact Name:
L. A. Pagano
Director
Purchasing and Materials Management
Telephone: 392-7312
S. Burrows
Director
Fleet Management
Telephone: 392-7791
16
Use of Parking Machines for On-Street Parking
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from
the President, The Toronto Parking Authority:
Purpose:
To allow for the establishment and operation of pay and display machines for on-street parking facilities,
including replacing parking meters with parking machines and setting fees.
Financial Implications:
The authority to establish parking machines will aid the Toronto Parking Authority in achieving its net revenues
from on-street operations identified in its 1999 budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1)authorize the City Solicitor to prepare and introduce an amendment to By-law No.1998-28 being 'A By-law
Respecting the Toronto Parking Authority' to:
(a)establish the same powers and authorities currently provided to the Toronto Parking Authority with respect
to on-street meters to include on-street parking machines throughout the City;
(b)provide the City Solicitor with standing authority with respect to City of Toronto by-laws regulating
on-street parking machines and meters to process bills to:
(i)incorporate fees set by the Toronto Parking Authority, on certification to the Solicitor by the President,
Toronto Parking Authority that the fees have been set according to the criteria approved by City Council at its
meeting of July29, 30 and31, 1998, as amended at their meeting of October 1, 2, 1998;and
(ii)allow for the replacement, as an administrative matter of parking meters with machines or machines with
meters on certification to the solicitor by the President that the Ward Councillors are in agreement with such
replacement; and
(2)authorize the City Solicitor to prepare and introduce a By-law to establish regulations for the operation and
use of parking machines throughout the City of Toronto.
Reference:
At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council adopted Clause 38 of Report No. 11 of TheCorporate Services
Committee, entitled 'Transfer of Parking Operation to the Parking Authority' as amended at its meeting of
October 1, 2, 1998. The intent of Council's action in adopting that report was to allow the operation of all
on-street metered spaces, and municipal off-street lots to be undertaken by the Authority. Council directed the
City Solicitor to take whatever actions were necessary to give effect to this. Regulations relating to the
establishment and operation of on-street parking machines were not included in the recommendation as adopted
by Council.
Comments:
It is appropriate to use parking machines and meters to control and regulate parking on roadways in the City of
Toronto. It is therefore appropriate for Council to delegate the authority to administrate the operation and use of
parking machines on roadways in the City of Toronto to the Toronto Parking Authority. This will provide the
Authority with the ability to deal with all aspects of the on-street parking program within the administrative
parameters established by Council. The replacement of parking meters with machines is essentially an
administrative matter and may be done with the concurrence of the Ward Councillor.
In Chapter 400 of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code, a parking machine is defined as:
"An automatic or other electronic, electro mechanical or mechanical device, with the necessary standard for the
device, for the purpose of controlling and regulating the parking of any vehicle in a parking space and which,
when a coin has been inserted in it and the machine activated, issues a card indicating the date and time of the
activating and the duration of the parking in or on the parking space permitted."
Chapter 400 authorizes the use of parking machines to control and regulate parking on roadways in the former
City of Toronto, subject to the approval of City Council. Unlike a parking meter, that is used to control a single
parking space, a parking machine is designed to control a number of parking spaces and different parking
regulations apply. Patrons are required to purchase a ticket from a parking machine and must display the ticket
inside the windshield of the vehicle. A parking infraction notice is issued for failure to display a ticket or for
exceeding the time purchased on the ticket.
These regulations are currently in existence only in the former City of Toronto area. The recommendations
contained herein will facilitate the extension of these provisions to allow parking machines to be installed and used
throughout the new City of Toronto.
17
Purchase of Property at the Greenwood
Subdivision for Public Parking Purposes
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (November 26, 1998) from
the President, Toronto Parking Authority, respecting the purchase of a property at the Greenwood Subdivision
for public parking purposes, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.
(Extract from a confidential report
dated November 26, 1998
from the President, Toronto Parking Authority)
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1)authorize the purchase of the subject lands and the development of 120 municipal parking spaces at a total
cost not to exceed $3.0 million;
(2)authorize the expenditure of dunds in the amount of $3.0 million. This would increase the capital funding for
parking in the Beaches area by $1.8 million. The total funding request includes the purchase price, land transfer
tax, legal fees, development costs and contingencies;
(3)designate the acquired lands for use as a municipal parking facility; and
(4)authorize appropriate City officials to undertake the action necessary to give effect thereto.
18
Acquisition for Public Lane Purposes, of the Private'
Lane Extending Easterly from Berkeley Street,
Behind Premises Nos. 319 to 333 Queen Street East
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November2, 1998) from the
General Manager, Transportation Services Division:
Purpose:
To acquire the necessary lands for the establishment of a public lane at the above noted location, in response to a
request from the affected residents.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds in connection with the acquisition of the private lane at this location, in an amount to be recommended by
the Commissioner of Corporate Services, are accommodated in Capital Account No. 296-601.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1)authorize an application to Council for approval of the expropriation of all rights, title and interests, for
public lane purposes, of certain lands described as follows:
Schedule "A"
In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of parts of Lots32 and 33 on Plan 7-A designated
as PARTS 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-16009, both said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan
Toronto Registry Division (No.64).
The easterly limit of Berkeley Street as confirmed under the Boundaries Act by PlanBA-1749(CT417089)";
(2)authorize the service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the Expropriations Act;
(3)authorize the appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the said Act, any
requests for hearings that are received;
(4)authorize the Commissioner of Corporate Services to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with
The Expropriations Act;
(5)direct the appropriate Officials to report further to City Council as the occasion may require;
(6)authorize a by-law to lay out the lands to form the new lane as described in Schedule "A" hereinabove, and
thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and
(7)authorize the appropriate Officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the
introduction in City Council of any bills that might be necessary.
Comments:
At the request of the area property owners, the possibility of establishing a public lane at the above noted location
has been investigated by staff. The lane is shown as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Plan64R-16009, a print of which has been
deposited with the City Clerk.
In order to establish a public lane at this location, it will be necessary to:
(a)acquire the residue lands with ownership dating back to the nineteenth century, identified as Part1 on Plan
64R-16009;
(b)acquire Part 2 on Plan 64R-16009, from the appropriate owners; and
(c)extinguish all of the interests and rights-of-way over the lands referred to in Items (a) and (b) above.
Part 3 on Plan 64R-16009, forms part of an adjoining building wall and is excluded from the acquisition.
The majority of the affected property owners are willing to convey their interests in the private lane to the City.
However, given that a major portion of the lane is composed of residue lands, procedurally, the most expeditious
way to acquire free and clear title to all the required lands is by expropriation.
This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for
Municipal Road Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Andrew Koropeski, Director
Transportation Services District 1
392-7711
19
2 Bloor Street West, Toronto
Consent to Assignment of Lease
Hammerson Canada Inc. To
2 Bloor Street Property Corporation
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November27, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To seek approval to an assignment of lease between a head tenant and a wholly owned subsidiary corporation.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)authority be granted for the City of Toronto to consent to an assignment of a Lease between Hammerson
Canada Inc. ("Hammerson") and 2 Bloor Street Property Corporation ("2 Bloor Street");
(2)the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Corporate Services be authorized and directed to review the consent
and, provided that it is satisfactory in terms of form and content, arrange for the execution of same; and
(3)the appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
By the adoption on September 22, 1970 of Clause No. 32 of Report No. 34 of the Metropolitan Executive
Committee, Council authorized the leasing of certain Metropolitan owned lands situated between Bay Street and
Yonge Street, south of Cumberland Street, to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The property is
municipally known as 2 Bloor Street West, Toronto. The ground lease provided for a term of 99 years on the basis
of an initial term of 33years commencing on September 1, 1971, together with two successive rights of renewal,
each for an equal period of 33years.
Throughout the years, several sub-lease agreements have resulted in Hammerson being in control of the leased
lands on a sub-tenancy basis. In December of 1990, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce transferred its
interest to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Development Corporation ("CIBCDC"). Metropolitan
Council, at its meeting on August 13, 1997, by the adoption of Clause No. 34 of Report No. 19 of The Corporate
Administration Committee, consented to an assignment from the CIBCDC to Hammerson, as a result of
Hammerson's acquisition of the development corporation's interest in the property.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
During the 1990's, Hammerson had been pursuing a rezoning of a portion of the site to permit high density
residential use. During this period, negotiations occurred between Hammerson and municipal officials with
respect to Hammerson's potential acquisition of the site. It was anticipated that these discussions would be
concluded in 1998 with the transaction closing and providing revenue to the City.
On November 3, 1998, a letter was received from D.S. Marcil Inc., Hammerson's representatives in the sale
negotiations, indicating that Hammerson was in the process of disposing of its assets in Canada and that, as a
result, Hammerson was not in a position to continue the negotiations with the City. Subsequently, the sale of the
Hammerson assets to OMERS was announced in the newspaper and confirmed with Mr. Dale Richmond,
President of OMERS.
On November 24, 1998, a letter was received from Mr. Steven Diamond of McCarthy, Tetrault, Solicitors for
Hammerson. The letter confirms the sale of the shares of Hammerson to OMERS Realty Corporation. In order to
effect this share purchase transaction, Hammerson is required to assign the lease to a wholly owned corporation
known as 2 Bloor Street Property Corporation and they will then sell the shares in Hammerson to OMERS. The
transaction has been scheduled to close on December 21, 1998 and, in this regard, Hammerson is required to
obtain the City's consent to an assignment of the interests of Hammerson Canada Inc. to 2 Bloor Street.
Hammerson will remain on the covenant.
Conclusions:
I am of the opinion that the request is reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of the August25, 1971,
ground lease and, therefore, recommend that consent be granted.
Contact Name:
Doug Stewart, Director of Real Estate Services;
Phone No.: (416) 392-7202; Fax No.:(416)392-1880; E-mail: dstewart@city.toronto.on.ca.
20
410 Queens Quay West - Amending Agreement
(Ward 24 - Downtown)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To secure approval to modify the terms of the MLQ4 Agreement dated April 1, 1998 between Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada, Queens Quay West Land Corporation, Harbourfront Corporation (1990) and the City
of Toronto in respect of the sale of MLQ4, being 410 Queens Quay West, and the construction of the Permanent
Harbourfront Office at 235 Queens Quay West.
Financial Implications:
No funding required.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the new business arrangements, extending and modifying the terms as defined in the April1, 1998 Agreement
between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Queens Quay West Land Corporation, Harbourfront
Corporation (1990) and the City of Toronto in respect of the sale of MLQ4, being 410 Queens Quay West, and the
construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office at 235 Queens Quay West be approved;
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to make the necessary changes to the Agreement to incorporate the required
provisions as detailed in this report; and
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.
Background:
The property at 410 Queens Quay West, also known as MLQ4, has been the subject of various Agreements which
address the future disposition of the property and which have been affected by the fact that Harbourfront
Corporation (1990) ("Harbourfront") has its main offices in this building.
The most recent amendment approved by City Council, at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and6, 1998, authorized
Queens Quay West Land Corporation ("QQWLC") to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest (REI) to solicit
interested developers to submit proposals whereby they would agree to construct the new Harbourfront offices at
235 Queens Quay West in exchange for the conveyance of the development site at 410 Queens Quay West.
The main components of the Agreement approved by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, are:
(1)QQWLC would enter into an agreement with a third party, subject to the City being satisfied with the terms
and conditions, whereby 410 Queens Quay West would be sold in exchange for the third party constructing an
addition on the second floor of the York Quay Terminal Building at 235 Queens Quay West for the relocation of
Harbourfront's offices;
(2)QQWLC shall be solely responsible for the accumulated cash flow deficiency for Harbourfront's use of 410
Queens Quay West to December 31, 1998, estimated at $550,000.00 and shall not require any compensation from
the City or Harbourfront;
(3)Harbourfront shall be responsible for any cash flow deficiency after December 31, 1998;
(4)QQWLC shall pay to Harbourfront $100,000.00 for use towards defraying the cost of moving into their new
space;
(5)QQWLC shall pay up to $50,000.00 towards engineering and architectural studies; and
(6)QQWLC agreed to a deadline date for payment to the City of the sum of $3,000,000.00 relative to BQ7.
It is noted that extensive retrofit is required to bring the York Quay Centre building up to standard, mainly the
installation of a sprinkler system throughout, a new roof and major upgrades to the HVAC systems. These issues
were to be addressed as part of the construction of the new Harbourfront offices at York Quay Centre.
Comments:
QQWLC through its agent, Canada Lands Corporation, has advised that in response to the REI no single
proponent was found capable of purchasing and developing the lands at 410 Queens Quay West and carrying out
the renovations to the building at 235 Queens Quay West. QQWLC and Harbourfront representatives have
advised that the two processes, the disposal of MLQ4 and the construction of new office accommodation for
Harbourfront have now been separated.
QQWLC and Harbourfront have initiated two separate processes and have received offers for the purchase of
MLQ4 and tenders for the construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office. They have further advised that,
subject to approval by the City, they have recently accepted a conditional offer to purchase MLQ4 and that the
Purchaser is currently conducting due diligence.
The current Agreement requires modification to accommodate changes to the disposal process and extension of
the current terms of the Agreement to accommodate time parameters associated with the revised processes.
The required amendments to Agreement are as follows:
(1)Extensions:
(a)The deadline for approval by the Committee of each of an offer to purchase MLQ4 and a tender to design,
construct and renovate the Permanent Harbourfront Office shall be extended from September 30, 1998 to
February 15, 1999. If such approvals are not granted by the deadline, the Agreement shall terminate and the
original MLQ4 Agreement shall be reinstated;
(It is noted that the Committee as set out in the current agreement is comprised of one representative from
QQWLC, one representative from Harbourfront and the City of Toronto, Executive Director of Facilities and
Real Estate, and that no action can be taken unless there is unanimous agreement.)
(b)The deadline for completion of the Permanent Harbourfront Office shall be December31, 1999;
(c)Harbourfront shall be entitled to remain in possession of its premises at MLQ4 pursuant to the MLQ4 Lease
until the Permanent Harbourfront Office is completed.
(2)Sale of MLQ4/Construction of Permanent Harbourfront Office:
(a)If the purchase agreement provides for an all cash, short-term (ie. 60 days) closing, the sale proceeds shall be
held in trust by QQWLC, and such proceeds, together with any interest accrued thereon, shall be released by
QQWLC as progress draws to pay construction costs in respect of the Permanent Harbourfront Office.
(b)If the purchase agreement for MLQ4 provides for a closing date beyond 60 days, QQWLC shall finance
construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office and shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses, costs,
liabilities and charges incurred in respect of such construction, together with interest thereon, out of the eventual
proceeds from the sale of MLQ4, save and except for the Ongoing Obligations costs as set out in (5)(b) herein.
(c)If QQWLC has financed the construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office and the sale of MLQ4
subsequently fails to close, QQWLC shall be entitled to remarket MLQ4 and to sell the property on such terms as
it sees fit, acting reasonably.
(d)If a shortfall exists following the sale of MLQ4 and construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office, such
shortfall shall be paid by QQWLC.
(e)If a surplus exists following the sale of MLQ4 and construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office, such
surplus shall be paid to the City.
(f)All expenses incurred in connection with the sale of MLQ4 shall be paid out of the sale proceeds.
(g)The date to complete the sale of MLQ4 shall be no later than December 31, 1999 but may be extended for up
to a 90 day period.
(h)In no case shall a tender to renovate 235 Queens Quay West be finally approved until such time as a firm
agreement of purchase and sale has been executed for the sale of 410Queens Quay West.
(3)Indemnities:
(a)QQWLC shall indemnify the City in respect of any liens or other claims (and related costs) registered against
235 Queens Quay West and any other lands owned by the City in Harbourfront in connection with the
construction of the Permanent Harbourfront Office.
(4)Operating Costs for MLQ4:
(a)QQWLC shall be solely responsible for the accumulated Cash Flow Deficiency accrued to March 31, 1999,
which is currently estimated to be approximately $600,000.00.
(b)From April 1, 1999 to the date of closing of the sale of MLQ4, operating costs shall be paid out of any
revenues derived from MLQ4.
(5)Ongoing Obligations:
(a)QQWLC's obligation to pay Harbourfront $100,000.00 on account of moving costs upon execution of a
purchase agreement in respect of MLQ4, shall continue (Section5 of the Agreement);
(b)QQWLC's obligation to pay the Consultant's fees and any other consultant's fees in respect of engineering
and architectural studies relating to the Permanent Harbourfront Office to a maximum of $50,000.00, shall
continue (Section 6 of the Agreement); and
(c)QQWLC's obligation to pay to the City the sum of $3,000,000.00 relative to BQ7, shall continue (Section 19 of
the Agreement).
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications:
QQWLC and Harbourfront representatives have advised that the linked REI process was unsuccessful. The
amendments set out herein will allow two separate processes, one to sell and develop 410 Queens Quay West and
one to renovate 235 Queens Quay West. The disposal process would still ensure that the City is receiving fair
consideration for its interest in MLQ4, while the renovation process should secure an experienced contractor
specializing in retrofit. It is reasoned that, although the business plan is being altered, the outcome will remain the
same, in that a solution to Harbourfront's long term office need is still being met and the objectives for MLQ4 will
be achieved.
Financially, the City is not exposed to any greater risk and will realize capital improvements to the City-owned
building at 235 Queens Quay West. The cost of the renovations will either be recaptured from the proceeds of the
sale of MLQ4 or, assuming any shortfall, will be paid by QQWLC, and if a surplus exists, QQWLC will pay the
City such surplus. All other financial obligations under the existing Agreement remain the same.
Conclusion:
The separation of the two REI processes will realize the best price for MLQ4 and should attract an experienced
contractor to carry out the renovations at 235 Queens Quay West. As the City is not exposed to any additional
financial risks pursuant to these amendments, the proposed amendments should be approved.
Contact Name:
Greg Wallans, 392-7135, gwallans@city.toronto.on.ca.
21
Granting of Contribution Holiday
Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the Recommendation of the Board of Trustees of
the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, embodied in the following communication (November 24, 1998) from the
Interim Board Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan:
The Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan at its meeting held on November20, 1998, again
had before it a communication dated October 8, 1998 from Mr.RobertCamp, Actuary, Senior Vice-President,
Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, responding to the Board's request on August 28, 1998 for an accurate appraisal by
employee group and age group of the cost of an OMERS-type contribution holiday; and advising that the cost of a
one year holiday is $0.59million over and above the cost of the 2percent reduction previously recommended.
The Board of Trustees also had before it a communication dated November 3, 1998, from Mr.RobertCamp,
Actuary, Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, respecting benefit improvements for retired members;
setting out the limitations imposed by the Income Tax Act regulations that apply to pensions, and the further limit
established under the Ontario Municipal Act; advising that the only area of possible improvements available is full
indexing to the Consumer Price Index; suggesting that a simple improvement to the indexation process be
examined; and recommending to the Board of Trustees that it make a decision regarding the adoption of a
complete contribution holiday for 1999, and whether the 1999 pension update is to be applied retroactive to
January 1, 1998.
Recommendation:
The Board recommended to the Corporate Services Committee that a 100 percent contribution holiday be granted
to members and employers for the period January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999; and requested the City Solicitor
to submit directly to the Corporate Services Committee, the appropriate draft amending by-law.
(Communication dated October 8, 1998, addressed to
the Trustees, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, from Mr. Robert Camp,
Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes.)
We have calculated the impact of a one year, three year and five year contribution holiday on the Indexation
Reserve Account of the Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan in total and split by employer.
We have used the same assumptions in these calculations as are in our funding valuation reports. There were 180
active contributing members as of December 31, 1997.
In the 1997 valuation report, we recommend a reduction of employee and employer contributions by 2 percent of
earnings for the period from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2003, inclusive.
On the attached spreadsheets I have set out the present value as at December 31, 1998, of the future contributions
assuming no reduction in contribution level and no early retirements occurred in 1998. That figure is $4.7 million
for the group as a whole.
The 31.12.98 value of the 2 percent reduction is $1.57 million as only 4.5 years of the reduction would remain to be
recognized for the total group.
Assuming that 1999 is the only year for which a holiday is to be granted, the Indexation Reserve Account will be
reduced by an additional $0.59 million. Extending the holiday to three years would increase the reduction to $1.63
million while a full five year holiday would cost $2.49million.
In short, the cost of a one year holiday (i.e. to match the OMERS holiday period in length of time) is $0.59 million
over and above the cost of the 2 percent reduction previously recommended.
We await the Trustees' decision as to whether they wish to implement the full contribution holiday.
180Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanTotal
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions2,358,441
Employer Contributions2,358,441
Total4,716,882
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions786,147
Employer Contributions 786,147
Total1,572,294
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions295,987
Employer Contributions295,987
Total for 1999591,975
or
Employee Contributions815,348
Employer Contributions 815,348
Total for 1999, 2000 and 20011,630,696
or
Employee Contributions1,247,327
Employer Contributions1,247,327
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive2,494,654
56Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanMetro
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions619,667
Employer Contributions 619,667
Total1,239,334
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions206,556
Employer Contributions206,556
Total413,111
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions72,595
Employer Contributions 72,595
Total for 1999145,189
or
Employee Contributions200,516
Employer Contributions200,516
Total for 1999, 2000 and 2001401,032
or
Employee Contributions311,897
Employer Contributions311,897
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive623,794
69Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanNorth York
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions958,174
Employer Contributions 958,174
Total1,916,348
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions319,391
Employer Contributions319,391
Total638,783
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions123,019
Employer Contributions123,019
Total for 1999246,039
or
69Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanNorth York (cont'd.)
Employee Contributions342,065
Employer Contributions342,065
Total for 1999, 2000 and 2001684,131
or
Employee Contributions528,936
Employer Contributions 528,936
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive1,057,871
8Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanNorth York Library
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions71,230
Employer Contributions 71,230
Total142,460
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions23,743
Employer Contributions23,743
Total47,487
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions8,226
Employer Contributions 8,226
Total for 199916,452
or
Employee Contributions24,449
Employer Contributions24,449
Total for 1999, 2000 and 200148,897
or
Employee Contributions36,359
Employer Contributions36,359
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive72,718
10Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanScarborough
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions146,863
Employer Contributions146,863
Total293,726
10Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanScarborough
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions48,954
Employer Contributions48,954
Total97,909
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions19,034
Employer Contributions19,034
Total for 199938,068
or
Employee Contributions56,569
Employer Contributions 56,569
Total for 1999, 2000 and 2001113,139
or
Employee Contributions91,269
Employer Contributions91,269
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive182,538
21Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanEast York
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions220,082
Employer Contributions220,082
Total440,164
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions73,361
Employer Contributions73,361
Total146,721
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions44,227
Employer Contributions44,227
Total for 199988,453
or
Employee Contributions105,897
Employer Contributions105,897
Total for 1999, 2000 and 2001211,793
or
Employee Contributions134,957
Employer Contributions134,957
Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive269,915
16Metropolitan Toronto Pension PlanCivilian Police
Present Value of Future Contributions (at 1997 levels)
Employee Contributions342,425
Employer Contributions342,425
Total684,850
Present Value of 2 percent reduction for four and one half years
Employee Contributions114,142
Employer Contributions114,142
Total228,283
Present Value of Contribution Holiday
Employee Contributions28,887
Employer Contributions28,887
Total for 199957,773
or
Employee Contributions85,853
Employer Contributions85,853
Total for 1999, 2000 and 2001171,705
or
Employee Contributions143,576
Employer Contributions143,576Total for 1999 through 2003 inclusive287,151
--------
(Communication dated November 3, 1998, addressed to
the Trustees, Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan, from Mr. Robert Camp,
Senior Vice-President, Sedgwick Noble Lowndes.)
I was asked to comment on what improved benefits could be granted to pension plan members. I have briefly set
out on the attached spreadsheet the limitations imposed by the Income Tax Act Regulations (ITAR) that apply to
pensions. I have also set out the further limit established under the Ontario Municipal Act (OMA).
The only area of possible improvement available for retired members is full indexing to the Consumer Price Index
(CPI).
Under the indexing permitted under ITAR, a pension benefit can be increased by the change in CPI from the
month of first pension payment to the current date.
Another spreadsheet comparing Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan (MTPP) updates with 100percent of CPI
change for various retirement years on an initial pension of $1,000.00 per month is attached.
With the above information, it would be my suggestion that a simple improvement to the indexation process be
examined. Currently, when the valuation report is submitted, the recommendation involving indexation increases
is applied at July 1. Application of the recommended increase retroactively to January 1 would cost an additional
.5 percent of total annual pensions (currently about $70 million) or $350,000.00. This is an amount somewhat
comparable to the City saving on the contribution holiday report of last month.
You will note that, although the MTPP has granted updates equal to the Consumer Price Index increase since
1987, there is a shortfall for retirees from before 1982 (there were extras granted in the mid 1980's to catch up
some previous shortfalls).
Action Required:
This is a follow-up to the request for a determination of the cost of a contribution holiday to active Members. The
Trustees of MTPP must decide:
-if the complete contributions holiday for 1999 will be adopted; and
-whether the 1999 pension update will be applied retroactively to January 1.
Pension Plan Summary
Registered Defined Benefit
|
ITAR Best Possible
|
Ontario Municipal Act
|
Eligibility
|
no waiting period
|
|
Normal Retirement Date
Earliest of: (for most women)
Earliest of: (for public safety
members)
|
60 years of age
30 years of service
80 years of age & service
55 years of age
25 years of service
75 years of age & service
|
|
Pension Benefit
|
2.0 percent FAE(3) per year of service
service restricted to 35 years prior to 1991
|
2.0 percent FAE(5) per
year of service service
restricted to 35 years offset
by 0.7 per cent of FAYMPE
(3) per year of service
restricted to 35years and to
years after 1965.
|
Maximum Benefit
|
$1,722.22 per year of service
service restricted to 35 years prior to 1991
|
|
Indexing
|
COLA warranted by changes in CPI
from date of benefit commencement
|
|
Bridge Benefit
|
Old Age Security plus Canada Pension Plan
benefit must be reduced by 10 percent per service
year <10 benefit must be reduced by 3 percent
per year early retirement age <60
|
|
Pre-Retirement Death Benefit
|
66.67 percent of projected pension to surviving
spouse 100 percent of projected pension to all
beneficiaries in total lump sum amount may be
two times contributions with interest
|
|
Early Retirement Reduction
|
3 percent per year prior to earliest Normal
Retirement Date
|
|
Member Contributions
|
Minimum - 0 percent of earnings
maximum - 9 percent of earnings (restricted to
$11,430.00 in 1998)
|
|
Pension Form
|
life with 15 year guarantee if no contingent
annuitant 66.67 percent continuation with 5 year
guarantee if contingent annuitant
|
|
Minimum Pension
|
none
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
earnings may include all remuneration
|
|
________
D R A F T
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW No. -1998
To amend further By-law No. 15-92
of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
respecting pensions and other benefits.
The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.(1)Subsection 13(1) of By-law No. 15-92 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, a by-law "To
provide pensions for employees, their spouses and children of the Metropolitan Corporation and other
participating employers", as heretofore amended is further amended by striking out the words "Subject to
subsection (1.1)" at the beginning thereof and substituting therefor "Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2)".
(2)Subsection 13(1.1) of said By-law No. 15-92 as enacted by By-law No. 279-1998 of the City of Toronto is
amended by striking out the word "During" at the beginning thereof and substituting therefor "Except as
specified in subsection (1.2), during".
(3)Section 13 of said By-law No. 15-92 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"Contribution
