In order to provide equal access of information for the 2018 municipal election, the City has established a protocol for responding to requests for information from candidates and third party advertisers about City services and programs. Questions received and responses given will be provided in writing and posted here without revealing the source of the request. This page will be updated as information becomes available.

Candidates and third party advertisers may submit a request to the City about services and programs by emailing:

The goal is to respond to every request as soon as possible, but within three full business days.



Q. Request to meet with District Director and District Consultant for child care centres in a particular ward.

A. Unfortunately due to timing, we have been advised that we are unable to meet with (the Councillor), who is a candidate in the upcoming municipal election. For your reference, please see the City’s protocol for responding to requests for information from candidates for the October 22, 2018 municipal election, which is posted on the City’s website:

Requests for meetings or tours

Any requests by candidates for personal meetings with Division Heads or other staff, and requests for tours of City facilities, cannot be accommodated due to resource and time constraints. If this were provided to one candidate, it would have to be provided to all candidates.

We are happy to provide the councillor with information for his ward.  Please let us know if we are providing the information as part of his councillor role or as a candidate.

Q. Could you please advise of any zoning regulations and/or bylaws in (current) Ward 32 (Beaches) that limit the number of multi-residential dwellings and/or limit the number of conversions of single-family dwellings to multi-residential dwellings – e.g. conversion of basements to apartments?

A. In the zone, the former City of Toronto zoning by-law permitted all building types and allowed for conversion of detached dwelling into multiple unit dwellings through what was called a ‘converted dwelling’.

The former zoning by-law also permitted the keeping of roomers and boarders. As such basement apartments could be created. Currently, those initiatives are echoed by the Province through its ‘secondary units’ policies.

In short, the former and now current zoning by-laws allow for conversion of detached dwellings.

For your information, we are no longer legally able to refer to the buildings as single family dwelling because we are not able to zone on the basis of relationships.

Q. You state that “current zoning by-laws allow for conversion of detached dwellings.”  Is there a different consideration for attached or semi-detached dwellings?

A. There are similar rules for semi-detached and townhouse buildings.

Q: Request for information about the number of City employees with disabilities.

A: The City conducts  the Count Yourself In Workforce Survey to obtain data on the Toronto Public Service. The aim is to create a public service that reflects the population we serve and to ensure an engaged, diverse and productive workforce that meets our current and future needs. Participation in the survey is voluntary. The most recent data can be found in the Count Yourself In Report:

You may also be interested in this Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee agenda item, Employment Accessibility at the City of Toronto:

Re: Agreement Between City of Toronto and Tuggs Incorporated

Q1. I note that under 2.3 of the agreement, the base rent for years 11 to 15, as set out in 2.2, “shall be reviewed and recalculated to reflect fair market rent in accordance with 2.3(b) and (c).”  Could you please tell me whether the window for renegotiating the base rent for years 11 to 15, as set out in 2.3(b), is now open?  Further, could you please tell me what the City is doing or has done to assess the “fair market rent” for the properties subject to this agreement?

A1. Any limitations on the timing of rent adjustments, or discussions about rental rates, are reflected in the lease document. Establishing a fair market rent will follow standard appraisal methodology.

Q2. I note that that part of the property formerly occupied by “Carter’s Landing” is currently vacant and has been for some time.  As the City remains the landlord of this property – Tuggs Inc, I understand, having failed to assign part of this agreement to another Tenant – could you please advise when you will consider a) the agreement to have been abandoned and/or b) the property, as a result of the vacancy, to no longer be in a state of good repair with the consequence of nullifying the agreement?

A2. The restaurant formally known as “Carter’s Landing” closed at the end of May. The tenant is in the process of retrofitting and re-branding the space. The City is aware of this ongoing work, and will monitor its progress.

Re: Property at 83 Charles St. East

Q: I am requesting documentation as to the property at 83 Charles St. East and seeking to know if any of that property is leased to the City of Toronto and, if so, a map of the City’s portion and Hydro’s portion.

A: Toronto Hydro owns the property and it is under the management of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation as City parkland.

Re: Property at 20 Castlefield Avenue and 565 Duplex Avenue, Yonge-Eglinton Area

Q: I have looked at the various documents that are available about the sale (or pending sale) of the Green P parking lot at the above address.  I understand that much of the information relating to this transaction is confidential.  I am hoping that there are some questions you can answer that do not fall within that restriction:

  • Is this sale (or potential sale) one that fell under the purview of CreateTO?
  • Is the land is already sold by TPA to Madison?
  • Is the developer’s proposal, particularly the part that covers the Green P parking lot, being evaluated by City Planners?
  • When can we expect to hear about this site next?  Any idea on when the public might be made aware of the dealings with respect to this property?
  • Are there talks or plans for a public meeting?  If so, when?
  • Is there any suggestion, by the developer, that they will build affordable housing on the property?

Any further information that you might be able to provide to me would be very much appreciated.

A: The following information is provided to you, in consultation with the City’s Legal Services and Real Estate Services Divisions.

The property which you have identified in your inquiry is the subject matter of a report that was considered by City Council at its meeting of July 26th through 29th, 2018, as item CC43.20. A copy of the public component of that report can be found on the City’s website by searching the agenda items for that meeting ( ). As indicated in the public component of that report, the property is owned by the City and is the subject matter of an agreement entered into between the Toronto Parking Authority and 2500 Yonge Street Limited. City Staff are not at liberty to release information that is contained in the confidential component of report CC43.20.

An application to amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-laws was received by the City on June 29, 2018 for 10-20 Castlefield Avenue, 565-567 Duplex Avenue, and 2490-2514 Yonge Street. The application materials are publicly available through the City’s Development Application Status online search tool ( by searching the property addresses. Community Planning staff are reviewing the applications and will bring forward a report to Community Council in due course.

Re: Where to Find Demographic Information about the City of Toronto

The Social Research & Information Management Social Policy, Analysis & Research section of the Social Development, Finance & Administration Division has provided a document on how to find demographic information about the City of Toronto.

This presentation includes how to find ward and neighbourhood profiles,interactive tool Wellbeing Toronto, census backgrounders, youth services and other research and map portals.

Q. Could you please advise whether all questions of the City from registered candidates for Council ought to be submitted through this email address (  Or, can I just expect to receive responses from this address?

A. The City has a protocol in place for responding to requests for information from candidates for the October 22, 2018 municipal election, which is posted on the City’s website. See:

Candidates may submit their questions directly to this mailbox. However, the protocol recognizes that City Divisions also may receive requests for information directly from candidates. If approaching a City Division directly, it would be helpful to identify yourself as a candidate. City staff are directed to refer candidates’ requests for information by email to the mailbox to ensure that consistent and timely responses are provided to candidates.

Through the mailbox, we coordinate the requests, obtain the necessary information from the appropriate City Division(s), respond to the requester and keep a record of the information so that it can be provided to others who may request it.

The response to the request may come directly to the candidate from or, in the case where the requested information is readily available, it may come from the City Division copying

Responses will be provided in writing and posted on the City’s election webpage in a question and answer format, without revealing the source of the request. This gives all candidates access to the same information.


Re: Woodbine Bike Lanes

Attachment: Roadway parking Safety Summary: Corley Avenue – Norway avenue Roadway

Q1. Would you please share the simulations?  I’d like to understand the assumptions built into them.  For example, was it assumed that traffic would veer off Woodbine and cut through side streets to avoid delays or not?

A1. The simulations were undertaken using Synchro, a traffic modeling and traffic signal optimizing software frequently used to evaluate how changes to signal timings at intersections along a corridor would affect traffic. The simulation output reports from Synchro are technical and require specific expertise to be analysed properly.

The assumptions and principles that were used in the traffic modelling were:

  • Existing traffic would continue to use Woodbine Avenue and timing adjustments for traffic signals on Woodbine Avenue were made using the same traffic volume that existed pre bike lane (existing) installation. No diversion of traffic to surrounding roads was assumed.
  • Minimize vehicular stops and delays at intersections on Woodbine Avenue by adding additional green light time for Woodbine and maintain existing green times for side streets.
  • Optimize signal timing at intersections considering impacts on all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, TTC buses and automobile traffic.
  • Intersections on Danforth Avenue (Victoria Park to Coxwell) were also part of traffic simulations to ensure that traffic signal coordination on both Woodbine and Danforth corridors are maintained after bike lanes installation.

Q2.  It appears that no studies of traffic were conducted on side streets pre-bike lane implementation?  Can you confirm that to be the case?  If studies were done, could you please share those results (so that we can compare traffic volume/speed pre- and post- etc.)?

A2. Studies were conducted on Corley Avenue, between Woodbine and Brookside, and Norway Avenue, between Woodbine and Elmer. This work included a review of existing automobile traffic volumes, parking regulation and usage and any specific operational and safety issues. Please see attached a summary of traffic, parking and safety matters for Corley Avenue and Norway Avenue. In addition, following installation of the bike lanes on Woodbine Avenue, we received feedback regarding cut-through traffic using Heyworth Crescent to/from Woodbine Avenue and Kingston Road. As a result, traffic volume and speed studies were undertaken on Heyworth Crescent in late fall 2017. These revealed an eight-hour daytime traffic volume on Heyworth Crescent of 237 vehicles and an average speed of 25 km/hr within a 30 km/hr posted speed limit zone.  This volume and speed study will be repeated in spring 2018.

Q3. For the upcoming post-implementation study, why is the study of side streets so limited?  The only side street to be studied in Ward 37 is Heyworth.  Two things about that, a) I don’t understand why volume on Heyworth would be (potentially) affected by Woodbine congestion as anybody seeking to avoid Woodbine congestion would just turn right on Kingston Rd (which is where Heyworth leads) and, b) what is the reason for excluding the streets north of Corley/Eastwood and south of Gerrard, running from and parallel to Woodbine? These are the streets that allow motorists to avoid congestion at Kingston and Woodbine and Gerrard and Woodbine.

A3. As mentioned above, following installation of the bike lanes on Woodbine Avenue we received feedback regarding cut-through traffic using Heyworth Crescent to/from Woodbine Avenue and Kingston Road.

Staff are continuing to monitor traffic operations on other side/parallel streets to Woodbine Avenue north of Corley and south of Gerrard.