Memoranda issued by the Office of the City Clerk

Date: March 1, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David White, City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with information regarding forthcoming changes to policing legislation in Ontario. The Ontario Government has proclaimed April 1, 2024, as the date that various legislative provisions will come into force under Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019, as well as Bill 102, the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023.

The legislation makes changes in many areas of policing policy, including the role of municipal councils with respect to police services boards. Through Bill 68, the current Police Services Act will be repealed and replaced by the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019. More than 25 regulations under the new Act have also been published and will generally come into force on April 1, 2024.

Staff are reviewing legislative requirements and transition-related matters. Staff anticipate that items Council must address within prescribed timelines will be brought forward through the 2022- 2026 Mid-term Governance Review process, as described below and in the attachment to this memorandum.

General responsibilities with respect to policing

Bill 68 includes updated language with respect to a municipality’s role with respect to policing. Currently, Subsection 4(1) of the Police Services Act provides that a municipality “shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs.” Under Subsection 31(1) of the Police Services Act, a municipal police services board “is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality …”.

In updated language regarding policing responsibility, Subsection 10(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, states that police service boards “shall ensure adequate and effective policing is provided in the area for which they have policing responsibility in accordance with the needs of the population in the area and having regard for the diversity of the population in the area.” The legislation also includes an updated definition of “adequate and effective policing,” as set out in Attachment 1.

A municipality that maintains a police service board is required to provide the board with sufficient funding to “comply with this Act and the regulations” and “pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of board members”.

Matters to be addressed by Council within prescribed timelines

Council will be required to address the following matters within prescribed timelines after the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 comes into force. As noted above, staff anticipate that Council will consider these matters through the 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review process:

1. Size of the police service board – The Ottawa Police Services Board currently includes seven members, which is the maximum size of a police services board under the Police Services Act. The Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that Council may determine whether its board shall be composed of five, seven or nine members; the default size will be five members unless a Council passes a resolution to increase the size.
2. Mandatory diversity plan regarding Council appointments to the police service board – Every municipality that maintains a municipal board will be required to “prepare and, by resolution, approve a diversity plan to ensure that the members of the municipal board appointed by the municipality are representative of the diversity of the population in the municipality.”

Matters that may affect future Council processes and decisions

Other provisions of Bill 68 and Bill 102 may affect the following Council-related matters after April 1, 2024, and will be addressed by staff as required:

1. Council appointments to the police service board – The Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 includes additional requirements regarding diversity and competency considerations, as well as the promotion of available board appointments, police record checks for board appointments, and new restrictions on board member eligibility.
2. Board budget matters and process – Among other things, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 changes the process followed if a police service board disagrees with Council’s budget. Staff will provide additional information prior to the 2025 budget process.
3. Board planning and reporting – The police service board will be required to adopt a strategic plan for the provision of policing, and in doing so will be required to consult with various entities, including Council. On or before June 30 in each year, the board will be required to file an annual report with the municipality regarding various matters, including the implementation of the strategic plan.
4. Community safety and well-being plan – The Community Safety and Police Act, 2019 continues the requirement for such a plan and adds a requirement upon the municipality to consult with individuals who have received or are receiving mental health or addiction services in its preparation. The new regulation also requires Council to review and, if appropriate, revise the plan every four years.

Staff are also reviewing any new provisions applicable to a “special constable employer.”

The attachment to this memorandum provides additional details regarding the Council-related matters noted above, as well as a summary of some provisions that will apply to the Ottawa Police Services Board. The latter includes new requirements with respect to matters such as open meetings, policies, training, the code of conduct for board members, and a provincially appointed Inspector General of Policing whose duties include oversight of police service boards. On January 22, 2024, the Ottawa Police Services Board considered the reports titled, “Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CPSA),” and “Ottawa Police Services Board Work Plan: 2024,” which provide additional information from the perspective of the Ottawa Police Service and Ottawa Police Services Board.

I trust the above-noted overview is of assistance.

David White
City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk

Attachment 1 – Summary of legislative changes: Bill 68 and Bill 102

This document provides additional details regarding legislative changes that come into force on April 1, 2024, under Bill 68, the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act,  2019, and Bill 102, the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, largely focusing on matters that will affect Council’s roles and responsibilities with respect to the Ottawa Police Services Board.

Matters requiring action from Council within prescribed timelines

1. Police service board size

A municipality may determine, by resolution, that its municipal board shall be composed of five members, seven members or nine members [Subsection 31(3) of the Community  Safety and Policing Act, 2019]. The default size of a board will be five members unless a municipality passes a resolution to change the size [Subsection 31(2)].

Section 27 of the current Police Services Act generally prescribes the size of a police services board to be three or five members, with seven-member boards permitted in certain circumstances. The Ottawa Police Services Board currently includes seven members – Subsection 6(3) of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 provides that, “On January 1, 2001, the city shall be deemed to have applied for, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council to have approved, an application under subsection 27 (9) of the Police Services Act to increase the size of the Ottawa Police Services Board to seven members.”

Under Subsection 27(9) of the current Police Services Act, a seven-member board is composed of:

(a) the head of the municipal council or, if the head chooses not to be a member of the board, another member of the council appointed by resolution of the council;

(b) two members of the council appointed by resolution of the council;

(c) one person appointed by resolution of the council, who is neither a member of the council nor an employee of the municipality; and

(d) three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

A seven-member board under the new legislation would have the same general composition as set out above [an amendment to clause (a) adds that if the Mayor is ineligible to be a member of the board, another Member of Council is to be appointed], as set out in Subsection 31(5). A nine-member board would have the same composition as a current seven-member board, but would include one additional Member of Council, appointed by Council, and one additional provincial appointee [Subsection 31(6)]. A five- member board would include one Member of Council, appointed by Council, and two provincial appointees [Subsection 31(4)].

With respect to transition, Subsection 31(11) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that, “… the members of the municipal board who are in office immediately before the day this subsection comes into force shall continue in office as members of the board until the expiration of the terms for which they were appointed.”

Further transition provisions set out in Subsection 31(13) provide that an existing municipal board may continue to have the number of members that it had under the Police Services Act until the earlier of,

a) the day the municipality passes a resolution to determine the board size; or

b) the day that a new municipal council is organized following the first regular municipal election after the day the relevant provision comes into force.

If council does not pass a resolution to set the board size before the day that the new council is organized, the default number of five members will apply to the board as of that day [Subsection 31(14)].

2.  Mandatory diversity plan

Subsection 28(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 requires every municipality that maintains a municipal board to “prepare and, by resolution, approve a diversity plan to ensure that the members of the municipal board appointed by the council are representative of the diversity of the population in the municipality.” Subsection 28(5) of the legislation requires that the first municipal diversity plan must be approved before the later of:

1. 12 months after the day that Section 28 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 comes into force; and
2. 12 months after the municipality constitutes its municipal board.

The municipal diversity plan must be published on the Internet in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister, if any [Subsection 28(2)]. The plan must be reviewed by Council and, if appropriate, revised at least once every four years [Subsection 28(3)].

Council will also be required to publish reports on the implementation of the plan on the Internet in accordance with regulations made by the Minister, if any [Subsection 28(4)].

Matters that may affect future Council processes and decisions

1. Updated language regarding a municipality’s role with respect to policing

Currently, Subsection 4(1) of the Police Services Act provides that a municipality “shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs.” Subsection 4(2) of the Police Services Act provides that, “Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services:

1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Assistance to victims of crime.
4. Public order maintenance.
5. Emergency response.”

Subsection 4(3) of the Police Services Act provides that, “In providing adequate and effective police services, a municipality shall be responsible for providing all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communication devices, buildings and supplies.”

In updated language regarding policing responsibility, Subsection 10(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, states that police service boards “shall ensure adequate and effective policing is provided in the area for which they have policing responsibility in accordance with the needs of the population in the area and having regard for the diversity of the population in the area.” A board is responsible under Subsection 37(1)(a) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 as amended by Bill 102 to “ensure that adequate and effective policing is provided in the area for which it has policing responsibility,” in addition to various other duties.

In updated language regarding the meaning of “adequate and effective policing,” Subsection 11(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that, “Adequate and effective policing means all of the following functions provided in accordance with the standards set out in the regulations, including the standards with respect to the avoidance of conflicts of interest, and with the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code:

1. Crime prevention.
2. Law enforcement.
3. Maintaining the public peace.
4. Emergency response.
5. Assistance to victims of crime.
6. Any other prescribed policing functions.”

Subsection 11(2) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that “adequate and effective policing” does not include, “the enforcement of municipal or First Nation by- laws, other than prescribed by-laws,” and “providing court security in accordance with Part XV.” Subsection 11(3) provides that, “For greater certainty, a police service board or the Commissioner may provide policing or other services that exceed the standards for adequate and effective policing, including providing enforcement of by-laws.”

With respect to a municipality’s role, Subsection 50(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, provides that a municipality that maintains a municipal police service board shall provide the board with sufficient funding to “comply with this Act and the regulations” and “pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of board members.”

2.  Council appointments to the police service board

New prescribed considerations

Subsection 33(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 includes specific matters that Council (and any other “appointing person or body”) will be required to consider in appointing or reappointing a police service board member. Specifically, these considerations include as follows:

a) the need to ensure that the police service board is representative of the area it serves, having regard for the diversity of the population in the area;

b) the need for the police service board to have members with the prescribed competencies, if any; and

c) any applicable diversity plan.

New requirements regarding the promotion of an available appointment

Subsection 29(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, provides that if the need to appoint a new member of a police service board by resolution is “reasonably foreseeable,” the municipality “shall take reasonable steps to promote the availability of the appointment, having regard to the need to ensure that police service boards are representative of the communities they serve.”

New requirement for Council to consider the results of a police record check when making an appointment

Subsection 33(2) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 requires an “appointing person or body” to “consider the results of a potential appointee’s police record check that was prepared within the past 12 months before appointing him or her as a member of a police service board.”

New restrictions on board member eligibility

Currently, Subsection 27(13) of the Police Services Act provides that, “a judge, a justice of the peace, a police officer and a person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may not be a member of a board.”

Under Subsection 33(5) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, a former member of a police service is not eligible to be a member of a police service board unless the board does not maintain a police service that the person was a member of, and at least one year has passed since the person ceased to be a member of any police service. Also ineligible are a judge or justice of the peace; a member of a police service, a special constable or a First Nation Officer; any person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel or as a prosecutor; a director, officer or employee of a prescribed policing provider; and any other prescribed persons [Subsection 33(4)].

Transition provisions

As noted above, Subsection 31(11) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that, “… the members of the municipal board who are in office immediately before the day this subsection comes into force shall continue in office as members of the board until the expiration of the terms for which they were appointed.” Subsection 31(12) further provides that, “A member of the municipal board appointed by resolution of a municipality who is in office immediately before the day this subsection comes into force may continue to sit after the expiry of his or her term of office until the appointment of his or her successor.”

In addition, Subsection 33(9) provides that the provisions noted above regarding ineligibility “do not prevent a person who was a member of a police service board immediately before those subsections came into force from serving the remainder of their term.”

3.  Police service board budget matters and process

Currently, Subsection 39(1) of the Police Services Act provides that a police services board “shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipal council that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required,

(a) to maintain the police force and provide it with equipment and facilities; and

(b) to pay the expenses of the board’s operation other than the remuneration of board members” [emphasis added].

If the board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by council “is sufficient to maintain an adequate number of police officers or other employees of the police force or to provide the police force with adequate equipment or facilities,” the board may request that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determine the question “and the Commission, shall, after a hearing, do so” [Subsection 39(5) of the Police Services Act].

Subsection 50(1) of the new Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, provides that a municipality that maintains a police service board shall provide the board with sufficient funding to “comply with this Act and its regulations” and “pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of board members.”

Under Subsection 50(2), as amended by Bill 102, a police service board “shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipality that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required to,

(a) comply with this Act and the regulations, including the amounts required to provide the police service with required equipment and facilities, having regard for the various ways that the board can discharge this obligation; and

(b) pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of board members” [emphasis added].

Council is not bound to adopt the estimates provided by the board [Subsection 50(4)]. The existing inability for Council to approve or disapprove specific items in the board’s budget estimates continues under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019. If the police service board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by the municipality is sufficient for the purposes described in Subsection 50(1), Subsection 50(6) provides that:

a) the municipal board and the municipality may jointly apply to the Chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration and Adjudication Commission to appoint a conciliation officer to attempt to resolve the matter; or

b) the municipal board may give the municipality written notice referring the matter to arbitration. In this case, the board and the municipality may jointly appoint an arbitrator within 60 days after the notice is provided to the municipality [Subsection 50(9)]. If they do not jointly appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed period and the chair of the Arbitration and Adjudication Commission has been notified by either party, the Commission Chair shall appoint an arbitrator [Subsection 50(10)(a), as amended by Bill 102]. Note: Under Subsection 50(8), no arbitration is permitted while conciliation is underway.

With respect to arbitration findings, Subsection 50(11) provides that if the municipality demonstrates that the police service board could reasonably have entered into an agreement with another police service board, the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police or a prescribed entity, in accordance with the legislation and any regulations, “to have policing functions provided in a manner that meets the applicable standards for adequate and effective policing and at a lower cost than is set out in the estimates, the arbitrator shall not find that the budget is insufficient to the extent of the amount that could have been saved by entering into the agreement.”

Under Subsection 50(12), the municipality “shall amend the budget for the municipal board in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision.” Subsection 50(13), as amended by Bill 102, provides that the municipal board and the municipality shall share equally the costs and expenses of the arbitration and any prescribed types of expenses of the arbitrator.

4.  Police service board planning, reporting and information sharing

The Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 includes various requirements with respect to board reporting and information sharing with Council. It is anticipated that the Ottawa Police Services Board will review and address any new requirements and changes to existing policies and procedures relating to Council. Certain matters may be new, or may overlap or update existing requirements.

Provisions under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 include as follows:

• Under Subsection 39(1), as amended by Bill 102, and in accordance with any regulations, the police service board will be required to prepare and adopt a strategic plan for the provision of policing. The plan must address various prescribed matters, including how the police service board will ensure the provision of adequate and effective policing in accordance with the needs of the population in the area; the objectives, priorities and core functions of the police service; quantitative and qualitative performance objectives and indicators of outcomes relating to a number of matters; interactions with youth, members of racialized groups, and members of First Nation, Inuit and Metis communities; interactions with persons who appear to have a mental illness or a neurodevelopmental disability; information technology; resource planning; police facilities; and any other prescribed matters. In preparing or revising the strategic plan, the police service board is required to consult with the chief of police and various entities, including the municipal council in the board’s area of policing responsibility [Subsection 39(3)]. The police service board must also consider the municipality’s community safety and well-being plan in preparing or revising the strategic plan [Subsection 39(4)(b)].
• Subsection 41(1) provides that on or before June 30 in each year, the police service board is required to file an annual report with its municipality regarding,

a) the implementation of the board’s strategic plan and the achievement of the performance objectives identified in the strategic plan;

b) the affairs of the police service;

c) the provision of policing as it relates to any community safety and well-being plans adopted by the municipality; and

d) any other prescribed matters.

The board shall publish the annual report on the Internet in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister, if any [Subsection 41(2)].

• Subsection 41(3) requires a police service board to “make best efforts to negotiate and enter into a protocol with its municipality … that addresses the sharing of information with the municipality … including the type of information to be shared and the frequency for sharing such information.”

5. Community safety and well-being plans

Requirements with respect to these plans continue under the new legislation, as set out in Part XVI of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 as well as the new Ontario  Regulation 414/23: Community Safety and Well-being Plans – Publication and Review.

The new legislation adds a requirement to consult with individuals who had received or are receiving mental health or addictions services in preparation of the plan [Subsection 250(7)(b)]. The new regulation requires the municipality to review and, if appropriate, revise its plan within four years after the day it was adopted and every four years thereafter [Subsection 2(1)].

Matters applying to the Ottawa Police Services Board

1. Name change for municipal police boards

Under Subsection 31(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, municipal police boards shall be known as the “(insert name of municipality) Police Service Board,” rather than the current “… Police Services Board” [emphasis added].

Bill 68 includes a consequential amendment to the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 to amend the Ottawa Police Services Board’s name accordingly – an amendment to Subsection 6(1) of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 provides that the Ottawa Police Services Board “is continued under the name ‘Ottawa Police Service Board’ in English and ‘Commission de service de police d’Ottawa’ in French” [Subsection 9(2) of Schedule 4]. This change is to come into force upon proclamation.

2.  Open meeting and notice requirements

Under Subsection 43(3) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, meetings conducted by the police service board, or by a committee of the board, shall be open to the public. This is subject to updated closed meeting provisions that are similar to those in the Municipal Act, 2001 and more specific than those contained in the current version of the Police Services Act [see Section 44 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019].

A police service board is required under Section 43 to publish notice of a meeting that is open to the public, including the proposed agenda for the meeting, on the Internet at least seven days before the meeting, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Under Subsection 35(3) of the current Police Services Act, notice of board meetings and hearings “shall be published in the manner that the board determines.”

3.  Board member training requirements

Under Subsection 35(2) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, members of the police service board or of a committee of the board will be required to complete training approved by the Minister with respect to the following matters:

1. The role of a police service board and the responsibilities of members of a board or committee;
2. Human rights and systemic racism;
3. Training that promotes recognition of and respect for,

i. the diverse, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society, and

ii. the rights and cultures of First Nation, Inuit and Métis Peoples; and

4. Any other training prescribed by the Minister.

A new code of conduct regulation for board members has also been published and comes into force on April 1, 2024 (O. Reg. 408/23). The current code of conduct is set out in O.  Reg. 421/97.

Currently, Subsection 31(5) of the Police Services Act requires that, “The board shall ensure that its members undergo any training that the Solicitor General may provide or require.”

4.  Inspector General of Policing

Under Subsection 102(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint an Inspector General of Policing and may appoint one or more deputy Inspectors General.

Among other things, the Inspector General’s duties as set out in Subsection 102(4) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, include as follows:

• Monitoring and conducting inspections of police service boards to ensure they comply with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 and the regulations;
• Consulting with and advising police service boards regarding compliance with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 and the regulations;
• Monitoring and conducting inspections of members of police service boards to ensure that they do not commit misconduct;
• Developing, maintaining and managing records and conducting research and analyses regarding compliance with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 and the regulations; and
• Dealing with complaints regarding certain board member and policing matters.

5.  Duties and policy requirements

The Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 includes various updated provisions regarding duties and policy requirements (Section 37 addresses police service board duties; Section 38 includes various policy requirements). Under Section 37, as amended by Bill 102, a police service board shall,

(a) ensure that adequate and effective policing is provided in the area for which it has policing responsibility as required by section 10;

(b) employ members of the police service;

(c) appoint members of the police service as police officers;

(d) recruit and appoint the chief of police and any deputy chief of police and determine their remuneration and working conditions, taking their submissions into account; prepare and adopt a diversity plan to ensure that the members of the police service reflect the diversity of the area for which the board has policing responsibility;

(e) monitor the chief of police’s performance;

(f) conduct a review of the chief of police’s performance at least annually in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister, if any;

(g) monitor the chief of police’s decisions regarding the restrictions on secondary activities set out in section 89 and review the reports from the chief of police on those decisions;

(h) monitor the chief of police’s handling of discipline within the police service;

(i) ensure that any police facilities, including police lock-ups, used by the board comply with the prescribed standards, if any; and

(j) perform such other duties as are assigned to it by or under this or any other Act, including any prescribed duties.

6.  Directions to the chief

Currently, under subsections 31(3) and 31(4) of the Police Services Act, the board “may give orders and directions to the chief of police, but not to other members of the police force, and no individual member of the board shall give orders or directions to any member of the police force,” and the board “shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force.”

Under Section 40 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, the board as a whole (not an individual member) may continue to provide directions to the chief of police.

Under Subsection 40(2), as amended by Bill 102, the board “shall not direct members of the police service other than the chief of police, unless that direction is specifically authorized under Part XII (Discipline and Termination).”

Subsection 40(4), as amended by Bill 102, provides that the board shall not direct the chief “with respect to specific investigations, the conduct of specific operations, the discipline of specific police officers, the day-to-day operation of the police service or other prescribed matters.” That said, Subsection 40(4.1), which is added by Bill 102, provides that Subsection 40(4) “does not prevent a police service board from issuing directions that may affect operations.”

Other provisions provide limitations with respect to directions. For example, Subsection 40(7) provides that, “The police service board shall not direct the chief of police to do anything that would,

(a) contravene this Act or the regulations, or any other Act or regulation; require a member of the police service to do something or refrain from doing something where this would be inconsistent with his or her duties under this Act or the regulations; or

(b) prohibit a member of the police service from attempting to collect information for the purpose of investigating an offence or assisting with the prosecution of an offence.”

The police service board is required to publish any directions given to the chief on the Internet in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister, if any [Subsection 40(9)].

Other policing matters

1. Matters relating to special constables

Currently, Subsection 53(1) of the Police Services Act provides that, “With the Solicitor General’s approval, a board may appoint a special constable to act for the period, area and purpose that the board considers expedient” [emphasis added]. Other provisions of the current legislation set out other matters related to special constables.

Subsection 92(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 provides that, “A police service board … may appoint a person as a special constable” subject to certain eligibility criteria (e.g., age, employment offer, training, etc.). Subsections 92(6) and 92(7) provide that when appointed, a special constable is issued a certificate of appointment that sets out matters such as the name of their employer, the term of the appointment, the purposes for which they may act as a special constable, the powers of a police officer that they may exercise, and any other terms and conditions that the police service board considers appropriate.

Subsection 97(1) also provides that “A person, other than a for-profit entity, may apply to the Minister for an authorization to employ special constables.” The Act sets out duties for a “special constable employer” [Subsection 98(1)], and their authorization may be suspended or terminated if requirements are not met [Subsection 99(1)]. Among other things, special constable employees are required to investigate and address apparent misconduct by any special constable they employ [Subsection 98(2)].

Various transition provisions with respect to special constables are included in the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 [Subsection 92(12)]. O. Reg. 396/23: Matters Respecting the Appointment and Functions of Special Constables and the Authorization of Special Constable Employers has also been published, as well as other regulations relating to complaints about special constables and a code of conduct for special constables. 

2. Oversight regimes

Bill 68 and Bill 102 include as follows:

• Continuing the Office of the Independent Police Review Director as the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, headed by the Complaints Director. Under Section 132 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, the Complaints Director is responsible for various matters that include dealing with public complaints regarding the conduct of police officers. Under Section 133, the Complaints Director may also examine and review issues of a systemic nature that have been the subject of public complaints or investigations, or that may contribute or are otherwise related to misconduct.
• As noted above, the Inspector General of Policing, which under Section 102 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 has jurisdiction over matters such as monitoring and conducting inspections of police service boards, chiefs of police, special constable employers and police services to ensure they comply with the Act and its regulations; and dealing with complaints regarding board member misconduct (Section 106) and policing matters [Section 107 – matters such as adequacy and effectiveness of policing; compliance with the Act and its regulations (other than misconduct); policies of a police service board; procedures established by a police chief].
• Continuing the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission under the name of Ontario Police Arbitration and Adjudication Commission. The Commission has responsibilities with respect to various arbitration and adjudication matters (Part IX of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, starting at Section 147).

Transition provisions within Section 216 of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, as amended by Bill 102, provide that the Ontario Civilian Police Commission “is continued until the day on which it is dissolved, as provided for in the regulations” [Subsection 216(5)], with specific functions of this entity set out in Subsection 216(5.1).

Date: February 1, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David White, City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk 

The purpose of this memo is to outline for Members of Council the outcome of the additional consultation undertaken in respect of the potential changes to the City’s Community Partners Insurance Program (“CPIP” or “the Program”). As many of you may know, concerns were expressed by members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee in November regarding the adequacy of consultation with affected groups and therefore deferred further consideration of the item. Since then, staff have engaged directly with the Federation of Citizens’ Associations on behalf of their member organizations, and also independently with a number of other community associations. In an effort to provide the opportunity for as many groups as possible to take part in the engagement, staff also engaged a professional facilitator to host both an afternoon and an evening moderated consultation session. The robust attendance at these sessions is evidence of the significant interest in the Program, and also of the deep commitment of residents to community engagement and enrichment.

Throughout the course of the consultation sessions, attendees were asked to offer their views on what they considered to be the most important elements of a revised CPIP, the mandate of the Program, as well as on a variety of possible overall program options. The information gleaned from these sessions is summarized below.

One of the fundamental questions to be addressed for a revised CPIP is whether the Program should be structured around a “provision of insurance” model, whereby the City would procure an insurance package on behalf of participating organizations, or “provision of funding” model. In the latter case, the City would make funding available to eligible groups to purchase their own insurance coverage, in accordance with their particular needs. In response, participants voiced a clear preference that the City purchase and provide groups with a liability insurance package, citing convenience and the City's presumed purchasing power, as the principle factors in favour of this model. Many groups also identified their limited knowledge of the insurance market, and of the limited capacity of their volunteer members, to source their own insurance coverage and appreciated the City's expertise to take on this task. Appreciating always that such a model means that groups will not be able to customize an insurance package to meet their individual preferences in terms of such things as deductibles, it was also clear from the submissions that groups require clarity in terms of the scope of activities covered - and not covered - by their insurance, so that they can plan community activities accordingly.

While a “provision of insurance” model may continue to expose the CPIP to the risk that the City may not be able to source an insurer willing to underwrite the Program in the future, any concerns in this regard were clearly outweighed by the convenience of not having groups secure their own insurance coverage.

In terms of the scope or mandate of the program, staff heard from many groups that, while the contributions of groups centered around sports, leisure interests or culture, was valuable, the focus of a revised CPIP should be on supporting groups organizing and hosting community events and seasonal programming at the neighborhood level, and eliminating the prevailing disparity between those serving neighbourhoods grandparented on creation of the current CPIP in 2001, and those that have, to date, been excluded. While there were concerns expressed about the potential impact on groups that would fall outside the mandate of a revised CPIP, the preponderance of views expressed during the engagement was that other sources of City funding, such as through the Community Funding Framework, would be available to support the work of these groups.

Groups acknowledged that considerations of accountability and legitimacy would require that the City impose some eligibility criteria for participation in a revised CPIP, though encouraged the City to avoid criteria that would be unduly onerous or costly. As a result, requirements such as:

• Operating as a non-profit organization;
• Having an elected Board of Directors, an annual general meeting open to residents, as well as a constitution or by-laws; and
• Demonstrating good governance practices and remaining in good standing with the City;

were generally endorsed as reasonable and appropriate, while a requirement for incorporation was seen as costly and as a disincentive to groups participating in a revised CPIP.

While it was suggested by some that cost considerations associated with a revised CPIP should not be a factor, the weight of feedback received acknowledged that a new Program would need to have measures, through a targeted mandate, to limit the unconstrained growth of a revised CPIP, such as might jeopardize its future sustainability. To that end, the FCA has proposed limiting eligibility in the Program to associations from each of the neighbourhoods identified in the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study.

Taken together, the feedback received from those organizations that took part in the engagement sessions evidenced a clear preference for a revised CPIP that would preserve the format of the existing Fixed Program - in which the City purchases standardized liability insurance coverage for eligible groups - with a focus on supporting community groups delivering events and activities at the neighbourhood level, with reasonable criteria to ensure the legitimacy of those community groups.

While the Federation of Citizens’ Associations has also asked that the City extend Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance Benefits to all volunteers and not just those supporting the City’s Community Outdoor Rink Program, it should be noted that this is a program consideration outside the scope of the CPIP, and would require additional funding. Similarly, while there was discussion from some participants about the desire to expand the CPIP to include Directors and Officers Liability coverage, the principal focus was on general liability insurance, appreciating that this has been the scope of the CPIP to date, the need for expanded coverage is not universal and the cost of that expansion has not been accounted for in any consideration of options for a revised Program.

In closing, staff would like to thank Members of Council for their engagement in the CPIP consultation and are confident that the results of that consultation will further discussion, when the item returns to Committee on February 6^th.

David White
City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk

Date: January 5, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David White, City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk  / Karen Shepherd, Integrity Commissioner

This memorandum provides City Council guidance on the solicitation of voluntary contributions from developers during the planning process, further to a direction from the Planning and Housing Committee at its meeting of November 29, 2023.

Background

During consideration of Item 8.1 – Councillor Menard Motion – Memorandum of Understanding with Katasa Group at the Planning and Housing Committee meeting of November 29, 2023, a discussion arose with respect to the solicitation and receipt of voluntary contributions from developers and what the City could legally enter into under the Planning Act, as well as what was permitted under the Code of Conduct for Members of Council. As such, the Committee directed Integrity Commissioner and the Interim City Clerk to provide guidance to Members of Council on the provision of voluntary contributions. The Committee deferred Item 8.1 to the January 17, 2024, PHC meeting.

Legal Considerations

Staff can advise that a contribution agreement between the City and a developer, entered into voluntarily, is within the City's legal power, though the City has no statutory or legal authority to impose such a requirement as condition of Council’s approval of the planning application. Staff note that as the Planning and Housing Committee was considering the voluntary contribution after having previously approved the development application, the approval of the development application was not conditional on the approval of the voluntary contribution.

Application of the Code of Conduct for Members

The Integrity Commissioner is of the view that a determination on whether it is permissible for Members to negotiate voluntary contributions from developers is a policy matter, and therefore outside of the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.

The Integrity Commissioner is responsible for assisting Members in conducting themselves in accordance with the ethical standards set out in the Code of Conduct for Members of Council (“the Code”). As Members are aware, the Code requires Members avoid the improper use of influence of their office and sets out the expectation that Members perform their functions with integrity, accountability, and transparency.

General Adherence to Code Values

Should a Member enter into discussions with a developer about a voluntary contribution, the Integrity Commissioner recommends that the Member clearly communicate to the developer that any such contribution is completely voluntary. Members must not misrepresent the voluntary nature of the contribution in any way.

When Members seek consideration of voluntary contributions from developers, the Code continues to apply. If anyone believes that, in seeking a contribution, or in undertaking any other action, a Member has contravened the Code, they may file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner.

Transparency Mitigates Real and/or Perceived Impropriety

The Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that Committee and Council consideration of voluntary contributions provides vital transparency to the matter, which, in turn, mitigates the risk of real or perceived impropriety in connection with a developer’s provision of a voluntary contribution.

However, if discussions about voluntary contributions occur in a context in which the decision will not rise for Committee and Council consideration, concerns may arise regarding Members’ improper use of influence – in general, and in respect of lobbying relationships. The Integrity Commissioner strongly recommends Members seek advice in such a scenario.

Seek Advice as Needed

The practices and broad principles described in this memorandum are intended to assist Members properly use their influence on behalf of constituents and avoid the improper use of the influence of their office. With that said, each situation is unique, and this memorandum does not replace the Integrity Commissioner’s advice/opinion with respect to any specific scenario. Furthermore, this memorandum does not preclude Integrity Commissioner investigation of any complaint received in relation to this matter.

Members are encouraged to reach out to the Integrity Commissioner should they have questions about their Code responsibilities in relation to this matter broadly, and/or, going forward, as specific situations arise: integrity@ottawa.ca.

Date: November 8, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David White, City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk

The purpose of this memo is to provide Members of Council with a reminder of the budget process for Council with respect to the following:

1. A summary of overarching budget requirements and procedures under Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022;
2. Matters relating to three statutory boards: the Ottawa Police Services Board, the Ottawa Public Library Board and the Ottawa Board of Health; and
3. A summary of the statutory parameters of the budget process for taxes, fees and charges, including reference to the ability to recommend transit fares that are different for children and seniors.

Implications of Bill 3 and an Associated Regulation

On September 13, 2023, Council considered the staff report titled, “Proposed 2024 Budget Directions, Timeline and Consultation Process,” and approved various matters related to the 2024 budget process. Further to the staff report, Members are reminded of the following overarching legislative provisions that now govern the budget process and provide the Mayor with additional powers and duties under Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022, which received Royal Assent on September 8, 2022.

Bill 3 amended the Municipal Act, 2001 to provide that the powers and duties of a municipality with respect to proposing and adopting a budget are assigned to the Head of Council. As such, the City’s budget shall be brought forward by the Mayor and adopted in accordance with provisions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001 and the associated Ontario Regulation 530/22. Specifically, Section 7 of Ontario Regulation 530/22 sets out the following procedures and timelines that apply to the budget process:

• On or before February 1 of each year, the Mayor shall prepare a proposed City budget, provide the proposed budget to each Member of Council and the Clerk, and make the proposed budget available to the public. If the Mayor does not propose a budget by February 1, Council shall prepare and adopt the budget for the City [Subsections 7(1) and 7(2)].
• Within 30 days after receiving the proposed budget from the Mayor, Council may amend the budget. Council may pass a resolution to shorten this 30-day amendment time period. If Council does not amend the budget within the 30-day (or shorter) time period, the proposed budget shall be deemed to be adopted by the City [Subsections 7(3) to 7(5)].
• If Council amends the proposed budget:
  • Within 10 days after the expiry of the amendment time period, the Mayor may veto a Council amendment, in writing, in accordance with a process set out in the Regulation. The Mayor may shorten this 10-day veto time period, in writing [Subsections 7(6) and 7(7)].
  • If the Mayor does not veto a Council amendment within the 10-day (or shorter) time period, the proposed budget, as amended, shall be deemed to be adopted by the City [Subsection 7(9)].
• If the Mayor vetoes a Council amendment:
  • The Council amendment shall be deemed not to have been passed by Council [Subsection 7(8)].
  • That said, within 15 days after the expiry of the veto time period, Council may override the Mayor’s veto if two-thirds of the Members of Council vote to override the veto. The Mayor may vote as a Member of Council in a vote to override the veto. Council may pass a resolution to shorten this 15-day override time period [Subsections 7(10) to 7(12)].
  • If Council overrides the veto, the Council amendment shall be deemed to be passed by Council [Subsection 7(13)].
  • After the time period for Council to override the Mayor’s veto expires, the proposed budget is deemed to be adopted by the City [Subsection 7(14)].

As approved through the above-noted staff report regarding budget directions, the City’s 2024 draft operating and capital budget will be tabled on November 8, 2023. Council will consider the 2024 budget on December 6, 2023.

As Members may recall, on December 7, 2022, Council considered the 2022-2026 Council Governance Review report and approved amendments to the Procedure By-law that were intended to reflect the changes brought about by Bill 3, including setting out the process for the mayoral veto and Council override as it relates to budget amendments.

Statutory Boards

Ottawa Police Services Board

As a starting point for any discussion with respect to the budget submitted by the Ottawa Police Services Board (the “police board”), it is important to recall that pursuant to Subsection 4(1) of the Police Services Act, every municipality in Ontario is required to “provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs.” The Police Services Act goes on, in Subsection 4(2), to further define the minimum requirements for “adequate and effective police services” to include, at a minimum:

1. Crime prevention;
2. Law enforcement;
3. Assistance to victims of crime;
4. Public order maintenance; and
5. Emergency response.

Furthermore, Subsection 4(3) of the legislation states that, “In providing adequate and effective police services, a municipality shall be responsible for providing all the infrastructure and administration necessary for providing such services, including vehicles, boats, equipment, communication devices, buildings and supplies.”

In contrast, Subsection 31(1) of the statute provides that a police services board “is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality …” The Adequacy and Effectiveness of Police Services Regulation 3/99 requires that every police services board and chief of police “implement a quality assurance process relating to the delivery of adequate and effective police services, and compliance with the Act and its regulations.” To this end, a police services board determines policing priorities, establishes policies and generally operates as the civilian oversight of the service in accordance with the Police Services Act and regulations.

The statutory framework for establishing a police service’s annual budget is found at Section 39 of the Police Services Act, which is set out below:

Estimates

39 (1) The board shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipal council that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required,

(a) to maintain the police force and provide it with equipment and facilities; and

(b) to pay the expenses of the board’s operation other than the remuneration of board members.

Same

2. The format of the estimates, the period that they cover and the timetable for their submission shall be as determined by the council.

Budget

3. Upon reviewing the estimates, the council shall establish an overall budget for the board for the purposes described in clauses (1) (a) and (b) and, in doing so, the council is not bound to adopt the estimates submitted by the board.

Same

4. In establishing an overall budget for the board, the council does not have the authority to approve or disapprove specific items in the estimates.

Commission hearing in case of dispute

5. If the board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by the council is sufficient to maintain an adequate number of police officers or other employees of the police force or to provide the police force with adequate equipment or facilities, the board may request that the Commission determine the question and the Commission, shall, after a hearing, do so [emphasis added].

[Note: the “Commission” mentioned above means the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.]

In terms of the police budget process dictated by the Police Services Act, the legislation gives Council the authority to determine the period that the budget (referred to in the legislation as the “estimates”) covers and the timetable for its submission to Council. It is then up to the police board to come up with a budget that is sufficient to meet the two statutory requirements, namely to: (a) maintain the police force and provide it with equipment and facilities; and (b) pay the expenses of the board’s operation other than the remuneration of Board Members.

The police board then determines its estimates and submits them to Council.

Thereafter, the Police Services Act requires Council to establish the police board’s budget and, in doing so, it is not bound to accept the estimates submitted by the board. That said, what Council is not authorized to do is to approve or disapprove specific items in the police board’s estimates (i.e., Council cannot go line-by-line and direct what parts of the budget to increase or to reduce).

Once Council sets the budget for the police board, if the board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by Council “is sufficient to maintain an adequate number of police officers or other employees of the police force or to provide the police force with adequate equipment or facilities,” then the board can ask the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to rule on the question “and the Commission, shall, after a hearing, do so.” In such cases, the Council and the police board would generally be required to retain their own respective legal counsel for purposes of making submissions to the Commission. In making its ruling on the issue, the Commission will determine what level of funding is needed to ensure that the policing complement and associated equipment are “adequate” in light of the needs of the community, in accordance with the Police Services Act and Regulations. While, given the limited number of prior decisions, little guidance is available in respect of the timeline for such a hearing, it may be expected that a final determination of the police budget by the Commission would not likely be issued for six to 10 months from the date of the board’s request.

A referral to the Commission can only be done by the police board; there is no provision for any sort of “appeal” by the Chief or Council to any other body in terms of the budget.

Ottawa Public Library Board

The Ottawa Public Library Board (the “library board”) is subject to the provisions of the provincial Public Libraries Act. Section 24 of that Act sets out the statutory process for the approval of the estimates of a public library board. The library board is required to submit its budget estimates to City Council for approval. The amount of the library board’s estimates that is “approved or amended” shall be paid out to the library board pursuant to Subsection 24(2) of the statute.

Further, Subsection 24(4) states that Council may, “in its approval of the board’s estimates … authorize the board to apply a specified amount or percentage of the money paid to it … otherwise than in accordance with the items of the estimates as approved.”

Therefore, City Council has a fairly broad authority to amend the budget of the Ottawa Public Library Board as submitted. Finally, the Public Libraries Act does not provide for an appeal of the board’s annual budget decision by Council.

Ottawa Board of Health

On April 28, 2011, a new Board of Health was officially established for the City of Ottawa when amendments to the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, came into effect. Prior to that time, Council of the amalgamated City of Ottawa acted as the Board of Health; however, upon proclamation of the legislation, a Board of Health composed of six Members of Council and five members of the public, appointed by Council, took effect. Staff of the Board of Health is provided by the City of Ottawa and such staff remain employees of the City. Council also appoints the Medical Officer of Health, the Associate Medical Officers of Health and the auditor.

Briefly, the Board of Health has a legislative responsibility to deliver public health services in the broad areas of protection, promotion and prevention to residents of the City. Under provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act (“HPPA”), there are a number of mandated programs and services that must be provided in accordance with regulations and guidelines established by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The Province has also established Ontario Public Health Organizational Standards to promote organizational excellence, establish a foundation for effective and efficient program and service delivery, and contribute to a public health sector with greater focus on performance, accountability and sustainability.

The majority of the programs and services offered by the Board of Health are cost shared with the provincial government. Some programs receive 100 per cent of their funds from the Province.

Section 72 of the HPPA provides that municipalities shall ensure that the amount provided is sufficient to enable the Board of Health to provide or ensure the provision of health programs and services in accordance with the sections of the legislation related to mandatory services and programs, and its regulations and guidelines; and to comply in all other respects with the HPPA and the regulations. Since these guidelines and regulations, as well as the Public Health Accountability Agreement, provide the framework for the delivery of programs and services as well as procedures for funding and expectations for performance, there is little opportunity for Council to make changes to the Board of Health budget without potentially impacting the delivery of mandated programs and services and the required service levels established by the HPPA, any regulations and the guidelines. That said, under the provisions of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, City Council does have the opportunity to examine the effectiveness of service delivery, as the Board of Health must submit an annual report to Council for its review.

Finally, the HPPA does not provide for an appeal of the Board of Health’s annual budget decision by Council.

Budget Process Overview

Taxes, Fees and Charges

Generally, the City’s budget process with regards to policy decisions on program or service changes and the opportunity for public review has previously been addressed by Council in the 2009 budget process, which continues to provide guidance. In this regard, Motion 39/9, approved by Council on June 25, 2008, instructs that, for the purposes of the budget process with regard to program changes and public review, “the City work towards a process where proposals for significant service changes, program additions or reductions should first be presented to the relevant Standing Committee and Council for approval, subject to confirmation during the budget process.”

For the purposes of the budget, the City collects municipal property taxes which are levied upon the assessment of real property pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001.

Separately, fees and charges are imposed for the purposes of recovering costs incurred by the City and its local boards, or to provide a deferred benefit. From a legal perspective, municipal property taxes are different from fees and charges, as they are only intended to recover specific costs, whereas property taxes are collected for general budget revenue purposes.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a fee may be considered an “indirect tax” if it is established for the purpose of generating revenue rather than to recover costs related to a service or activity provided or to be provided [Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance)]. These principles apply in the municipal context and are reflected within the Municipal Act, 2001, which states the following with regards to fees and charges:

By-laws re: fees and charges

391 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to impose fees or charges on persons,

(a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;

(b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or any local board; and

(c) for the use of its property including property under its control.

Local board

(1.1) A local board may impose fees or charges on persons,

(a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;

(b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any municipality or other local board; and

(c) for the use of its property including property under its control.

Deferred benefit

2. A fee or charge imposed for capital costs related to services or activities may be imposed on persons not receiving an immediate benefit from the services or activities but who will receive a benefit at some later point in time.

Costs related to administration, etc.

3. The costs included in a fee or charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or local board related to administration, enforcement and the establishment, acquisition and replacement of capital assets.

Fees for mandatory services, etc.

4. A fee or charge may be imposed whether or not it is mandatory for the municipality or local board imposing the fee or charge to provide or do the service or activity, pay the costs or allow the use of its property.

Conflict

5. In the event of a conflict between a fee or charge by-law and this Act, other than this Part, or any other Act or regulation made under any other Act, the by-law prevails.

Transit Fares

With respect to transit fares, there are no legal impediments to having specific rates, fares, or charges to children, youth, or senior citizens while standard fares apply to others using both conventional transit services (OC Transpo) or special services (such as Para Transpo).

While differential treatment on the basis of age is generally prohibited, in this instance, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states in Subsection 15(2) that any law, program, or activity whose object is the amelioration of conditions for disadvantaged individuals or groups will not violate the protections enshrined in Subsection 15(1), including those based upon age.

Additionally, the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is applicable to OC Transpo as a federal undertaking, provides binding legislative Guidelines which state that the differentiation in the provision of services to the general public based only on a reduction of rates, fares, or charges with respect to children, youths, or senior citizens is reasonable and is not a discriminatory practice within the meaning of Section 5 of that statute. It is as a result of these Guidelines that various fare regimes across Canada are able to offer reduced rates based on age, including to seniors and youth.

I trust the above-noted overview is of assistance.

David White
City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk

Date: July 27, 2023

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the City Manager and General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development (PRED).

I can advise that the meetings have been scheduled for the City Manager and General Manager, PRED Hiring Panels as follows:

Following the above-noted meetings, the respective Hiring Panels will meet virtually for the purposes of receiving the results of the reference and background checks and identifying a recommended candidate for City Council’s consideration and approval. Members of Council will be advised of the new meeting dates once they have been confirmed.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: July 5, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the new City Manager.

I can advise that the next meeting of the City Manager Hiring Panel has been scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, August 15, 2023
9:00 am (In-person)
Details to be provided to the Hiring Panel members

• Interview candidates; and
• Identify a preferred candidate(s) and direct the executive search firm to conduct reference and background checks

Following the above-noted meeting, an additional Hiring Panel meeting will be scheduled for the purposes of receiving the results of the reference and background checks and identifying a recommended candidate for City Council’s consideration and approval. Members of Council will be advised of this meeting date and the anticipated City Council meeting when this matter will rise for consideration once dates have been confirmed.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O'Connor
City Clerk

Date: June 28, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

Further to my memorandum of June 12, 2023, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the new General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development (PRED).

I can advise that the General Manager, PRED Hiring Panel will hold an additional meeting, as described below.

Thursday, June 29, 2023
3:00 pm (Virtual)

• To interview candidates

Following the above-noted meeting, the Hiring Panel will meet on July 5, 2023, and July 12, 2023, to interview preferred candidates and to direct the executive search firm to conduct reference and background checks.

Thereafter, a further Hiring Panel meeting will be scheduled for the purposes of receiving the results of the reference check and background checks and identifying a recommended candidate for City Council’s consideration and approval. Members of Council will be advised of this meeting date, and the anticipated City Council meeting when this matter will rise for consideration once meeting dates have been confirmed.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O'Connor
City Clerk

Date: June 19, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

Further to my memorandum of May 29, 2023, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the new City Manager.

I can advise that the next meeting of the City Manager Hiring Panel has been scheduled as follows:

Wednesday, June 28, 2023
2:00 pm (Virtual)

• To interview candidates

Following the above-noted meeting, additional Hiring Panel meetings will be scheduled for the purposes of interviewing preferred candidates and directing the executive search firm to conduct background checks, receiving the results of the background checks and identifying a recommended candidate for City Council’s consideration and approval. Members of Council will be advised of these meeting dates, and the anticipated City Council meeting when this matter will rise for consideration, once dates have been confirmed.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O'Connor
City Clerk

Date: June 12, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O'Connor, City Clerk

Further to my memorandum of April 24, 2023, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the new General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development (PRED).

I can advise that the General Manager, PRED Hiring Panel meetings have been re-scheduled, as follows:

Following the above-noted meetings, an additional Hiring Panel meeting will be scheduled for the purposes of receiving the results of the reference and background checks and identifying a recommended candidate for City Council’s consideration and approval. Members of Council will be advised of this meeting date and the anticipated City Council meeting when this matter will rise for consideration once meeting dates have been confirmed.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: May 29, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

Further to my memorandums of May 17, 2023, and April 24, 2023, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members of Council with an update as it relates to the hiring process for the new City Manager.

I can advise that City Manager Hiring Panel meeting of June 2, 2023, is being re-scheduled. As such, the Hiring Panel does not anticipate reporting to City Council at its meeting of June 14, 2023.

Members of Council will be advised of the hiring panel’s next steps once meeting dates have been established.

As the matters described above relate to confidential personal information and job interviews, no additional details will be provided at this time, in keeping with the Council-approved Statutory Officer Recruitment, Appointment and Contract Administration Policy and Procedures and the personal privacy provisions established under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The policy and procedures include provisions to ensure fairness and confidentiality in the recruitment and appointment process.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: May 17, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

Further to my memorandum to City Council dated April 24, 2023, this memorandum reminds Members of the next steps in the hiring process for the new City Manager.

I can advise that the City Manager Hiring Panel continues to conduct a formal confidential process to identify a recommended candidate for Council’s approval, with the assistance of external search firm Odgers Berndtson. The hiring panel has not yet interviewed any candidates for the City Manager position.

On Friday, May 12, 2023, the City Manager Hiring Panel met to receive the confidential long list of candidates and confidential interview guide provided by Odgers Berndtson, and to direct Odgers Berndtson to make the necessary arrangements for the hiring panel to interview candidates selected by the hiring panel for the first round of interviews.

The hiring panel’s next steps in the hiring process are as follows, as set out in my April 24 memorandum and in the report to the hiring panel titled, “Process to Identify a Recommended Candidate – City Manager”:

• Friday, May 19, 2023 – Interview selected candidates (virtual) and identify preferred candidates for the second round of interviews.
• Friday, June 2, 2023 – Interview preferred candidates (in person) and direct the executive search firm to conduct reference and background checks.
• Friday, June 9, 2023 – Receive the results of the reference and background checks, and identify a recommended candidate to be brought forward for Council’s consideration and approval.
• June of 2023 (anticipated) – Report to Council with the recommended candidate. It should be noted that the identity of the recommended candidate will only be made public if and when Council approves the appointment.

As the matters described above relate to confidential personal information and job interviews, the hiring panel will meet in camera pursuant to Subsection 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and standard employment practices.

In addition, the Council-approved Statutory Officer Recruitment, Appointment and Contract Administration Policy and Procedures apply to the recruitment and appointment process, and require members of the hiring panel to sign confidentiality agreements with respect to their involvement in the process. The policy and procedures include provisions relating to matters such as fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, transparency and equitable practices, including the following statements from the policy:

“There shall be no acts of favouritism, bias, undue influence or discrimination in the statutory officer recruitment process. Individuals participating in the recruitment and appointment process shall not attempt to influence the hiring of any applicant in a manner that is inconsistent with this policy. Participants shall not engage in any behaviour that provides an unfair advantage to a candidate during the statutory officer recruitment process. This includes assisting any candidate by providing inside information including, but not limited to interview questions and suggested answers, presentation materials, information about other candidates, and/or any information gathered in meetings, conversations, email or any other form of communication or discussion.

All City staff and Members of Council involved in the recruitment process are required to hold in strict confidence all confidential information concerning matters dealt with by Council, the Hiring Panel and/or the Interview Panel. City staff must abide by confidentiality provisions of MFIPPA [the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act], the Employee Code of Conduct and applicable contract provisions relating to confidential and/or personal information. Members of Council are also subject to MFIPPA, as well as provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council relating to confidentiality.”

As Members of Council are aware, the general hiring process for the City Manager position was established by way of a Mayoral delegation under the Municipal Act, 2001, as updated on April 21, 2023.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: April 26, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

Mayor Sutcliffe and Members of Council,

Further to a request from the external search firm, the General Manager, PRED Hiring Panel meeting of May 24, 2023, has been moved to May 25, 2023, at 3:00pm. The attached memorandum has been updated accordingly, for your information.

Thanks,

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: April 24, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

This memorandum provides an update regarding the hiring process for the new City Manager and General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development, following the closing of the job advertisement period on April 14, 2023, including the meeting dates for the respective Hiring Panels.

The external search firm assisting with the hiring process, Odgers Berndtson, is currently reviewing applications received for each position. As described below, next steps in the process include as follows:

• The hiring panels for each position will meet in camera in May and June of 2023 to consider the candidate long list, conduct candidate interviews and select a recommended candidate.
• Staff anticipate that the hiring panels will report back to Council with a recommended candidate for the City Manager in June of 2023 and in July of 2023 for the General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development.

Hiring Panel meetings to consider the candidate long list, conduct interviews and select a recommended candidate

The search firm is now reviewing the applications received for each position. The respective hiring panels will meet to consider a confidential long list of candidates prepared by Odgers Berndtson, and to receive a confidential interview guide provided by them. In subsequent meetings, each panel will interview candidates and select a recommended candidate following the interviews. Meeting dates and times are set out below.

The forthcoming hiring panel meetings will be conducted in closed session under the relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, in accordance with standards in employment and administrative law, and as set out in the Statutory Officer Recruitment, Appointment and Contract Administration Procedures. Hiring Panel Members must attend all of their respective Hiring Panel meetings.

As the meetings are directly related to the hiring process and involve confidential matters with respect to candidates, attendance at the closed meetings will be limited to members of the Hiring Panels and the City Clerk’s staff who are supporting this process.

It is anticipated that the hiring panels will report back to Council with a recommended candidate for the City Manager in June of 2023 and in July of 2023 for the General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development.

Timelines

While each hiring panel established the overall general timeline for the process, the Mayor (Chair) and City Clerk have flexibility to schedule meetings as may be required. As such, the Mayor’s Office and Office of the City Clerk, in consultation with the external search firm, have refined the overall general timeline approved by the hiring panels to include the following dates:

Meeting materials will be provided to the respective Hiring Panel Members in advance of the above-noted meeting days.

Updated Mayoral delegation

An updated Mayoral delegation is attached to this memorandum and reflects updates to the hiring process that have occurred since the original Mayoral delegation regarding the process that was issued on December 21, 2022, such as the hiring panel names, membership and legal matters.

Given the considerable time commitments associated with the concurrent City Manager and General Manager hiring processes, and the requirement for hiring panel members to attend all meetings related to a hiring, the Mayor has advised that he will designate his role for the forthcoming meetings of the General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Hiring Panel as described in the updated delegation.

The delegation has also been updated to clarify that the hiring panels will have the responsibility to, “Recommend the terms of an employment contract with the approved candidate for execution by the Mayor,” rather than to finalize and execute the contracts themselves. This change is in keeping with statutory delegation requirements based on further legal review of this matter. It should be noted that this provision of the delegation overrides any Terms of Reference approved by the hiring panels.

Background

As Members of Council are aware, the City Manager Hiring Panel and the General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Hiring Panel were established to bring forward to Council a recommended candidate for each position in accordance with a delegation of statutory powers issued by the Mayor on December 21, 2022. The hiring process is being conducted in accordance with the Mayoral delegation as well as provisions of the Council- approved Statutory Officer Recruitment, Appointment and Contract Administration Policy and Procedures.

The hiring panels held their first meetings on February 3, 2023. The City Manager Hiring Panel considered the staff report titled, “Terms of Reference, External Search Firm, Overall Timeline and City Manager Job Description and Salary Range,” and the General Manager Hiring Panel considered a similar staff report. Among other things, each hiring panel approved the overall general timeline for the hiring process. Each panel also confirmed the appointment of an external search firm (Odgers Berndtson) to assist the hiring panel in undertaking an executive search.

As noted in my previous update memorandum to Council of March 8, 2023, Odgers Berndtson consulted Members of Council with respect to desired qualifications and attributes for the City Manager. Odgers Berndtson also consulted members of the General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Hiring Panel regarding desired qualifications and attributes for the General Manager. As a result of that consultation, Odgers Berndtson issued the job advertisements for each position on March 8, 2023. The advertisements closed on April 14, 2023.

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk

Date: March 8, 2023

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk

This memorandum provides an update with respect to the hiring process for the new City Manager and General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development.

Earlier today, the external search firm appointed to assist with the executive search for these positions posted advertisements on various platforms, as described below. Information is also provided below regarding next steps in the hiring process.

Background

As Members of Council are aware, two hiring panels were established for the above-noted positions in accordance with a delegation of statutory powers issued by the Mayor on December 21, 2022. The City Manager Hiring Panel and the General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Hiring Panel will bring forward to Council a recommended candidate for each position.

On February 3, 2023, the hiring panels held their first meetings. The City Manager Hiring Panel considered the staff report titled, “Terms of Reference, External Search Firm, Overall Timeline and City Manager Job Description and Salary Range,” and the General Manager hiring panel considered a similar staff report. Each panel:

• Approved its Terms of Reference;
• Confirmed the appointment of an external search firm (Odgers Berndtson) to assist the hiring panel in undertaking an executive search;
• Established the overall general timeline for the recruitment and appointment process;
• Received the job description and salary range for information; and
• Approved a motion that provided for staff identified by hiring panel members and senior staff to have access to confidential information related to the recruitment process, subject to provisions of the Council-approved Statutory Officer Recruitment, Appointment and Contract Administration Policy and Procedures.

Odgers Berndtson consulted Members of Council with respect to desired qualifications and attributes for the City Manager. Odgers Berndtson also consulted members of the General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development Hiring Panel regarding desired qualifications and attributes for the General Manager.

As a result of that consultation, earlier today, Odgers Berndtson issued the job postings/advertisements for each position.

Job postings/advertisements

The City Manager position is advertised with municipal organizations, the Odgers Berndtson Canada and international networks, and various publications/platforms including Municipal World, LinkedIn and the Aboriginal Job Board.

The General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development position is advertised with municipal and planning organizations, the Odgers Berndtson Canada network, and various publications/platforms including Municipal World, LinkedIn and the Aboriginal Job Board.

The postings will run until April 14, 2023. Members of Council may access the job postings at Odgers Berndtson – City Manager, City of Ottawa; Odgers Berndtson – General Manager, Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development, City of Ottawa.

Next steps

The hiring panels will meet following the conclusion of the job posting/advertising period in order to consider a confidential long list of candidates prepared by Odgers Berndtson, and to receive a confidential interview guide provided by Odgers Berndtson. As set out below, it is currently anticipated that the hiring panels will consider these matters in early May of 2023. Further to consideration of the candidates and subsequent interviews by the hiring panels, it is anticipated that the hiring panels will report back to Council with a recommended candidate for each position in June of 2023.

The current anticipated timeline is provided below. It should be noted that the staff reports considered at the first hiring panel meetings stated that while each panel would establish the general timeline for the process, the Mayor (Chair) and City Clerk have flexibility to schedule meetings as may be required. As such, the Mayor’s Office and Office of the City Clerk, in consultation with the external search firm, have refined the overall general timeline approved by the hiring panels to include the following tentative dates:

Any questions regarding the hiring process may be directed to Kiel Anderson, Manager, Policy and Business Operations, at kiel.anderson@ottawa.ca.

M. Rick O’Connor
City Clerk