Memoranda issued by the Office of the City Clerk

Date: December 18, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

Mayor and Members of Council,

Further to my memorandum of November 15, 2024, in which I advised that By-law 2018-306, which provides alternative mail delivery in the event of a Canada Post service disruption, was in effect, the purpose of this e-mail is to confirm that as Canada Post’s operations have resumed, the provisions of the By-law are no longer in effect.

That being said, Canada Post has advised that delivery delays are expected through the remainder of 2024 and into January 2025 as the service resumes. To that end, we have been advised that new commercial volumes of mail will not be accepted into the network until Thursday, December 19, 2024.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these matters.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

Date: December 13, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

This memorandum provides a reminder to Members of Council on the Elections-Related Resource Policy (ERRP) with respect to provincial and federal elections. In compliance with Subsection 88.8(4)5 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the Election-Related Resources Policy, public funds and resources are not to be used for election-related purposes including municipal, provincial, or federal elections.

In accordance with the ERRP, Members of Council and City Staff are prohibited from using City resources to sponsor any campaign-related material or promote/oppose the candidacy of a person for elected office at any level of government including municipal, provincial, or federal.

Ahead of a writ of election being issued, Members are encouraged to familiarize themselves with their obligations under the ERRP as it pertains to elections of other levels of government.

Background

The City of Ottawa, like all municipalities, is legally prohibited from contributing money, goods and/or services to an election campaign.

Section 1(1) of the ERRP states: “City resources shall not at any time be used to sponsor or produce any materials that promote or oppose the candidacy of a person for elected office, or that promote or oppose a campaign related to a question on the ballot.”

The ERRP applies to all Members of City Council, City employees, and Council-appointed members of the Built Heritage Committee in relation to municipal elections and any participation in federal and provincial elections that is partisan in nature.

On March 23, 2022, Council approved updates to the ERRP including expanded guidance on the black out period for the municipal election through the Election-Related Blackout Period Procedure, and the applicability of the ERRP to Members’ social media use when cross-posted with Member websites.

Parameters related to Members’ Communications

Members of Council and their staff, shall not use a website that is paid for, accessed, maintained, developed, or updated using City resources to provide an endorsement of a candidate at any level of government, or link to a website or social media account of a candidate at any level of government. This also applies to any and all links, widgets, or plug-ins to a Member’s social media account(s) that appear on a Member’s website that is paid for, accessed, maintained, or developed using City resources.

Should a Member intend to use their social media account(s) for election-related purposes (i.e. election related posts or sharing) at any time, including during a federal or provincial election, the Member shall ensure that any links or widgets to their social media accounts are removed from the Member’s website.

Further provisions and Code of Conduct reminder

Section 4(24) of the Election-Related Resources Policy states: “Members of Council shall not use City resources to host, promote, sponsor or otherwise organize or assist with any event that involves direct participation by candidates at other levels of government, given that there is potential for partisanship, real or perceived, to occur at, or in the organization of, any such event that directly involves candidate participation.”

As a further reminder, the Code of Conduct for Members of Council also states that municipal resources for election-related activity is strictly prohibited and applies not only to a Members’ personal campaign for office, but also other campaigns for municipal, provincial and federal office.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Council also states the following:

Election-Related Activity
14. Members of Council are required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 and the City’s Election-Related Resources Policy. The use of municipal resources, both actual municipal property and staff time, for election-related
activity is strictly prohibited. The prohibition applies to both the promotion and opposition to the candidacy of a person for elected office. Election-related activity applies not only to a Member’s personal campaign for office, but also other campaigns for municipal, provincial and federal office.

I trust this information is satisfactory. Should you have any questions, please do note hesitate to contact my Office for clarification and guidance by sending an email to errp@ottawa.ca.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

CC: Senior Leadership Team
Kiel Anderson, Manager, Governance, Elected Officials and Business Support

Date: November 15, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

Mayor and Members of Council,

Further to my memorandum of November 13, 2024, I can advise that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is now on strike.

The purpose of this e-mail is to advise that By-law 2018-306, which provides alternative mail delivery in the event of a Canada Post service disruption, is in effect until such time as the Canada Post service disruption has concluded.

Any by-laws of the City of Ottawa requiring the use of regular mail for notices or other communications are amended to authorize the use of the following alternative means:

1. by personal delivery;
2. by leaving the notice or communication at the last known personal or business address;
3. by facsimile or e-mail transmission; or
4. by printing in one or more daily or community newspapers, as approved by the City’s Director, Public Information and Media Relations.

Additionally, the City’s courier has been retained to assist with the delivery of essential mail within the City of Ottawa boundaries on an as-needed basis. Regular mail would be delivered to the address and dropped off with no proof of delivery, consistent with Canada Post standards.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these matters.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

cc:
Senior Leadership Team
Kiel Anderson, Manager, Governance, Elected Officials and Business Support Services
 

Date: November 13, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

As Members of Council may be aware, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has given a 72-hour strike notice to Canada Post. The Union will be in a legal strike position as of Friday, November 15, 2024, if negotiated settlements have not been reached.

Contingency Plan

In the event of a Canada Post disruption, the provisions of By-law 2018-306 would come into effect upon the issuance of a declaration by the City Clerk to City Council that a postal mail service interruption has commenced and would remain in force until a declaration to City Council that the postal mail service interruption has concluded.

As set out under By-law 2018-306, any by-laws of the City of Ottawa requiring the use of regular mail for notices or other communications on behalf of the City are amended to authorize the use of the following alternative means:

1. by personal delivery;
2. by leaving the notice or communication at the last known personal or business address;
3. by facsimile or e-mail transmission; or
4. by printing in one or more daily or community newspapers, as approved by the City’s Director, Public Information and Media Relations.

Additionally, the City’s courier has been retained to assist with the delivery of essential mail within the City of Ottawa boundaries on an as-needed basis. Regular mail would be delivered to the address and dropped off with no proof of delivery, consistent with Canada Post standards.

Background

At its meeting of September 12, 2018, City Council approved Motion No. 75/5, in anticipation of a previous potential postal service interruption affecting delivery of mail and registered mail.

Given that a number of the City’s by-laws required notices and other communications to be provided by mail or registered mail, City Council approved Motion No. 75/5 and enacted By-law No. 2018-306, which authorized the provision of notices and other communications by alternative means in the event of a postal service interruption.

In the event that a postal service interruption is commenced, a memo will be sent to Council to advise that the provisions of the By-law are now in effect.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these matters.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

cc: Senior Leadership Team
Kiel Anderson, Manager, Governance, Elected Officials and Business Support Services

Date: November 7, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk and Stuart Huxley, Interim City Solicitor

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 Service 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.

1. Implications of Bill 3 and an Associated Regulation

On September 18, 2024, Council considered the staff report titled, “Proposed 2025 Budget Directions, Timeline and Consultation Process,” and approved various matters related to the 2025 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 from the Mayor shall be deemed to be adopted by the City [Subsections 7(3) to 7(5)].
• If Council amends the proposed budget from the Mayor:
  • 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 2025 draft operating and capital budget will be tabled on November 13, 2024. Council will consider the 2025 budget on December 11, 2024.

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.

2. Statutory Boards

Ottawa Police Service Board

As a starting point for any discussion with respect to the budget submitted by the Ottawa Police Service Board (the “police board”), it is important to note that pursuant to Subsection 10(1) of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, (“CSPA,2019) the police board is required to “ensure adequate and effective policing is provided in the city in accordance with the needs of the population in the area and having regard to the diversity of the population in the area. The CSPA, 2019 goes on in Section 11 to further define the minimum requirements for “adequate and effective policing”, including the following functions:

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.

Furthermore, Subsection 50(1) of the CSPA, 2019 requires that the municipality that maintains a municipal police board shall provide the board with sufficient funding to comply with the Act and its regulations and to pay the expenses of the board’s operation.

The statutory framework for establishing a police service’s annual budget is found at Subsection 50(1) of the CSPA, 2019, which is set out below:

Estimates

50.  
    2. A municipal board shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipality that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required to,
       1. 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
       2. pay the expenses of the board’s operation, other than the remuneration of board members.
    3. The format of the estimates, the period that they cover and the timetable for their submission shall be determined by the municipality.

Budget

4. Upon reviewing the estimates, the municipality shall establish an overall budget for the municipal board for the purposes described in clauses (1) (a) and (b) and, in doing so, the municipality is not bound to adopt the estimates submitted by the municipal board.
5. In establishing an overall budget for the municipal board, the municipality does not have the authority to approve or disapprove specific items in the estimates.

Dispute

1. If the municipal board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by the municipality is sufficient for the purposes described in clauses (1) (a) and (b),
   1. the municipal board and the municipality may jointly apply to the Commission Chair to appoint a conciliation officer to attempt to resolve the matter; or
   2. the municipal board may give the municipality written notice referring the matter to arbitration. 2019.

Conciliation procedure

1. If the parties jointly apply to appoint a conciliation officer, subsections 226 (2), (3), (4) and (6) apply to the conciliation, with necessary modifications.

No arbitration while conciliation underway

1. After making a joint application under clause (6) (a), the municipal board shall not give the municipality written notice referring the matter to arbitration until a conciliation officer has been appointed, endeavoured to effect an agreement and reported to the Commission Chair and the Commission Chair has informed the parties of the conciliation officer’s report.

Arbitrator

1. The municipal board and the municipality may jointly appoint an arbitrator within 60 days after the notice described in clause (6) (b) is provided to the municipality.

Appointment by Commission Chair

1. The Commission Chair shall appoint an arbitrator if,
   1. the municipal board and the municipality do not jointly appoint an arbitrator within the time period set out in subsection (9) and the Commission Chair has been notified by either party; or
   2. the municipal board and the municipality jointly apply to the Commission Chair requesting the appointment of an arbitrator.

Findings

1. If the municipality demonstrates that the municipal board could reasonably have entered into an agreement under section 14 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.

Compliance

1. The municipality shall amend the budget for the municipal board in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision.

Costs and expenses

1. 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.

In terms of the police budget process dictated by the CSPA, 2019, 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) comply with the CPSA, 2019 and the regulations, including the amounts required to provide the police service with required 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 CPSA, 2019 requires Council to establish the police board’s overall budget and, in doing so, it is not bound to adopt 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 comply with the CPSA, 2019 and the regulations, including the amounts required to provide the police service with required equipment and facilities, and pay the expenses of the board’s operations, (other than remuneration of board members) then the board and the municipality can jointly apply to the Commission Chair of the Ontario Police Arbitration and Adjudication Commission to appoint a conciliation officer to attempt to resolve the matter, or alternatively, the board may give the municipality written notice referring the matter to arbitration.

At arbitration, the CPSA, 2019 provides that if the municipality demonstrates that the police board could reasonably have entered into an agreement under Section 14 of the CSPA, 2019 (to have policing functions provided in a manner that meets the applicable standards for adequate and effective policing and at a lower costs than is set out in the budget estimates, the arbitrator shall not find that the budget is insufficient to the extent that the amount that could have been saved by entering into the agreement. The municipality shall amend the budget for the police board in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision. The Act requires that the municipality and the police board share equally the costs and expenses of the arbitration.

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 changesto 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.

3. 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

1. Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to impose fees or charges on persons,
   1. for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
   2. 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
   3. 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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

Stuart Huxley, Interim City Solicitor

cc. Senior Leadership Team
Salim Fakirani, Chair, Ottawa Police Services Board
Councillor Matthew Luloff, Chair, Ottawa Public Library Board
Councillor Catherine Kitts, Chair, Ottawa Board of Health
Eric Stubbs, Chief of Police, Ottawa Police Service
Sonia Bebbington, Chief Executive Officer, Ottawa Public Library
Dr. Vera Etches, Medical Officer of Health

Date: November 1, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

This memorandum provides an update regarding timelines for City Council’s consideration of the 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review report. The Mayor’s Office and staff can advise that Council will consider this report in January 2025, due to the upcoming heavy legislative agenda that includes consideration of the 2025 Budget, as described below.

2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review report timelines

As Members are aware, staff conducted consultation for the Mid-term Governance Review during the summer, and it was anticipated that Council would consider the report this coming December.
However, due to the upcoming legislative agenda that includes Council’s consideration of the 2025 Budget at its meeting of December 11, 2024, the Mayor’s Office and staff can advise that anticipated timelines for the Mid-term Governance Review report are as follows:

• Wednesday, January 22, 2025: The 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review report is to be tabled at the Council meeting.
• Wednesday, January 29, 2025: Council is to consider the report.

Consistent with past practice, the 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review report will include the 2024 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these matters.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

cc: Senior Leadership Team
Kiel Anderson, Manager, Governance, Elected Officials and Business Support Services

Date: Thursday October 3, 2024

To: Mayor and Member of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

The purpose of this memo is to provide the Mayor and Members of Council with an update on the progress of the next City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP), which will be submitted to City Council in December 2024. This memo also includes updates on recent legislative developments with respect to the federal Accessible Canada Act and the provincial Design of Public Spaces Standard.

1. 2025-2029 City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP) Update

On May 15, 2024, City Council received and approved an update report on the 2020-2024 City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP) (ACS2024-OCC-GEN-0003). This report fulfilled a
regulatory requirement under the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2025 (AODA). Specifically, designated public
sector organizations, such as the City of Ottawa, are required to, establish, implement, maintain, and document a multi-year accessibility plan, which outlines the organization’s strategy to meet
its legislated obligations and prevent and remove accessibility barriers in its services, programs, communications and its public spaces. The report also served to launch public engagement on the development of the 2025-2029 COMAP.

The first engagement event on the next COMAP coincided with the City’s celebration of AccessAbility Day on May 30, 2024. Additional public engagements have also taken place, including three in-person consultations held across the city, including central, west end and east end locations and three virtual consultations. The Accessibility Office also held three targeted\ consultations with the Ottawa Disability Coalition, the Deaf/deafened/hard of hearing community and persons who are blind or have sight loss. Intersectionality was a key consideration in soliciting feedback, from people with diverse disabilities and other equity-denied groups. Consultation information and a survey were posted on Engage Ottawa, and a community toolkit was available for groups wishing to give feedback without City staff present. A number of promotional tactics were used, including posters, social media, newsletters, and printed information for clients of the Ottawa Public Library Homebound Program. The Accessibility Office is also grateful that Members of Council promoted the public engagement period through their newsletters and social media.

A total of 259 residents participated in the consultations, an increase from the consultations held in 2019, and over 1,800 lines of recorded feedback was collected and shared with departments ahead of the creation of new initiatives. A full consultation report, and the new plan is anticipated to be presented to Council later this year. Upon approval of the 2025-2029 COMAP, updates will be provided annually to Council.

2. Accessible Canada Act

As noted in the May 15, 2024, COMAP report to Council, the provincial AODA does not apply to the City of Ottawa’s conventional bus service, Para Transpo service and rail service, managed by the Transit Services Department, because these services are federally and independently regulated. These services do, however, provide annual accessibility updates through the COMAP report and have committed to meeting the “spirit and intent” of the AODA.

Since City Council’s receipt of the COMAP update report in May, the federal Accessibility Commissioner has advised the City of Ottawa is subject to certain provisions of the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), specifically, sections 69-71 of the ACA apply to OC Transpo. To confirm these requirements, the Accessibility Office consulted with Legal Services and reached out to other municipalities whose services are obligated by the ACA.

In summary, these sections of the ACA require that the City:

1. Establish an accessibility plan for its conventional bus service, Para Transpo service and rail service, which must be updated every three years. The City must consult with persons with disabilities to develop the plan and outline these methods in the plan.
2. Establish and publish a process for receiving accessibility-related feedback for its conventional bus service, Para Transpo service and rail service.
3. Provide an annual progress report on its accessibility plan. The City must consult with persons with disabilities in preparation of the progress report.

The Accessibility Office, in collaboration with staff in Transit Services and Legal Services, has consulted with persons with disabilities and the public as part of the broader consultations for the AODA-mandated City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan. Additionally, staff will consult the City’s Accessibility Advisory Committee, as well as the Transit Advisory Working Group, to support this new plan.

As previously stated, OC Transpo has demonstrated commitment to the “spirit and intent” of the AODA since the legislation came into effect. This includes compliance reporting as part of the City’s AODA Compliance Report, which includes adherence with all requirements under the AODA and its Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation. OC Transpo also contributes to the City’s COMAP. This includes providing information in both the multi-year plan and the annual update report to Council.

As part of our commitment to the Accessibility Commissioner, the new OC Transpo Accessibility Plan will be presented for Council approval alongside the 2025-2029 COMAP report, in November 2024. The Accessibility Office will lead in the preparation of an annual update to Council, with the next update due by June 1, 2025. OC Transpo’s accessible feedback process, already established, will also be reviewed to ensure it aligns with the obligations outlined in the ACA.

OC Transpo will continue to provide updates through the COMAP report in addition to this new plan. It is noted that there will be overlap of initiatives under these plans. OC Transpo will also continue to adhere to the “spirit and intent” of the AODA, including compliance reporting with the City, in addition to meeting the new requirements under the ACA.

3. Staff Response to the initial recommendations of the Design of Public Spaces Standards Development Committee

As referenced in the May 2024 update report on the 2020-2024 City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP) (ACS2024-OCC-GEN-0003), the AODA requires accessibility standards to be regularly reviewed and updated. In June 2024, the Ministry of Seniors Affairs and Accessibility (MSAA) launched a consultation on proposed revisions to the Design of Public Spaces Standard (DOPS). These requirements would apply to a broad range of City spaces, including City parks and outdoor eating areas, sidewalks and paths of travel, recreational trails and beach access routes, parking, and service counters and waiting areas. It also applies to maintenance standards for accessible elements at the City. Any legislated changes to this Standard could have large-scale implications for the City.

To support the creation of updated requirements under the DOPS, the Accessibility Office submitted a response to the draft recommendations of the DOPS Standards Development Committee to the Province on August 27, 2024. The response was prepared in consultation with staff across all departments, to reflect the operational considerations for City services. A copy is attached as Appendix 1 to this Memo. An update on the Design of Public Spaces Standard review will be provided in the next COMAP Update Report in the Spring of 2025.

Members of Council are encouraged to continue to direct general questions about accessibility, resident feedback and service requests, to the Accessibility Office, which provides advice and monitors matters of accessibility, disability and legislation across the City. In addition, questions about this interim update may be directed to Megan Richards, Program Manager, Accessibility, megan.richards@ottawa.ca.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

cc: Senior Leadership Team
Tyler Cox, Manager, Legislative Services
Megan Richards, Program Manager, Accessibility

Attachments: Response to the initial recommendations of the Design of Public Standards Development Committee 2024

Date: September 5, 2024

To: Mayor Sutcliffe and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

The purpose of this Memorandum is to advise Members of Council that, beginning today, Thursday, September 5, the City of Ottawa’s Elections Office is conducting public consultation regarding the electoral experience in Ottawa’s municipal elections.

Background

As outlined in the reports to City Council titled “Office of the City Clerk 2022 Annual Report” and “Office of the City Clerk 2023 Annual Report”, the Elections Office is seeking feedback from residents on a number of election-related topics including their experience participating in the 2022 Municipal Elections (if applicable), election-related communications, accessibility, and voting methods for future elections.

Staff will use the information gathered through this public consultation to inform processes and procedures for future municipal elections as well as upcoming outreach initiatives that the Elections Office will undertake to address the following action items in the City’s Anti-Racism Strategy: 

• engage with racialized communities to identify barriers when participating in municipal elections; and 
• determine the cost and feasibility of offering multilingual communications and election tools. 

Consultation process

The public consultation is being conducted by way of a survey on the City’s Engage Ottawa platform starting today, Thursday, September 5 until Thursday, October 3.

Participants can visit engage.ottawa.ca/vote to complete the online survey. If residents are unable or prefer not to fill out the survey online, they can provide their feedback to the Elections Office in the following ways:

• Email: elections@ottawa.ca  
• Mail: Elections Office, 1221 Cyrville Road, Unit B, Ottawa, ON
• Telephone: 613-580-2660

The Elections Office has worked with Public Information and Media Relations to develop a thorough communications plan to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the opportunity to provide feedback regarding municipal elections in Ottawa.

Results from the public consultation will be summarized in election-related report(s) to the Finance and Corporate Services Committee and Council in advance of the 2026 Municipal Elections.

I trust this information is satisfactory. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Krista Bressette, Acting Manager of French Language Services and Municipal Elections.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

Date: May 28, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk

Mayor and Members of Council,

This memo advises that the City of Ottawa’s Accessibility Office will begin consultations for the next City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP) in May 2024. The first consultation will be held at the City’s annual AccessAbility Day celebration on May 30 at City Hall. As part of the Integrated Standards Accessibility Regulation (IASR) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA), the City of Ottawa is obligated to create multi-year plans. The current Plan will expire at the end of 2024.

Section 4.1 of the IASR states that:

1.      “… designated public sector organizations… shall,
   1. establish, implement, maintain and document a multi-year accessibility plan, which outlines the organization’s strategy to prevent and remove barriers and meet its requirements under this Regulation;
   2. post the accessibility plan on their website, if any, and provide the plan in an accessible format upon request; and
   3. review and update the accessibility plan at least once every five years.”

Additionally, section 4.2 states that, “… designated public sector organizations shall establish, review and update their accessibility plans in consultation with persons with disabilities and if they have established an accessibility advisory committee, they shall consult with the committee.”

As previously communicated to Council as part of the COMAP Annual Update (2024), the Accessibility Office has developed a consultation plan to reach out to persons with disabilities and organizations that support persons with disabilities, to create initiatives for the next COMAP. Targeted outreach using the Equity and Inclusion Lens will help to ensure a wide variety of perspectives are included in the creation of the next COMAP. Consultations will be held both in-person at various locations throughout the city, as well as virtually to ensure a variety of accessible ways to participate. Additionally, an accessible online survey will be posted on Engage Ottawa for input from May 30 to August 5, 2024. A consultation toolkit is also available for groups wishing to hold a consultation without City staff present, by contacting the Accessibility Office.

You can assist by promoting and encouraging wide participation of your Ward residents in the consultations and survey through your office’s communications. Resident feedback is critical to ensure that barriers in our programs, services and facilities are identified. Innovative, creative or emerging accessibility initiatives will be developed in collaboration with City departments for implementation across City services, programs and facilities.

Residents can attend any consultation. The consultation schedule is as follows:

• May 30, 1:00-2:00pm in Council Chambers, City Hall
• June 12, 6:00-7:30pm in Chambers, Ben Franklin Place
• June 24, 1:00-2:00pm in Colonel By Room, City Hall
• July 3, 6:00-7:30pm in Room 340, Peter D Clark Place (255 Centrum Blvd.)
• July 9, 1-2:30pm, Virtual via Zoom
• July 17, 10-11:30am, Virtual via Zoom
• July 31, 6:00-7:30pm, Virtual via Zoom

Additional, targeted consultations will take place with community organizations and the Accessibility Advisory Committee.

A project page can be found in English and French. This includes all project information, the registration to attend an in-person consultation and the online survey.

The City is committed to ensuring the full participation of residents, and thus accessible formats and accommodations are available. Questions about the consultations can be directed to Megan Richards, Program Manager, Accessibility megan.richards@ottawa.ca.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
City Clerk

Date: May 10, 2024

To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, City Clerk 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to Members of Council on Motion No. 2022-03/29 with respect to the third-party review of the funding allocation for Members’ Constituency Services Budgets, pay scales and job descriptions for Councillors’ Assistants, and remuneration for Members of Council.

Background

During consideration of the 2022-2026 Council Governance Review report on December 7, 2022, City Council approved Motion No. 2022-03/29, as follows:

WHEREAS each Member of Council is provided with a Constituency Services Budget with which to operate their respective office, in accordance with the requirements of the Council Expense Policy and the Councillors’ Office Manual; and

WHEREAS the Constituency Services Budget is a global budget that covers Members’ staff compensation and non-compensation items such as community events, communications, donations and sponsorships, hospitality, and office supplies; and

WHEREAS the only increase to Members’ global Constituency Services Budgets is the annual cost of living adjustment (applied to the compensation portion of the budget only); and

WHEREAS the Councillors’ Office Manual was recently reviewed and updated for the first time since 2005 to incorporate updated policies and guidelines, enhanced office management processes and procedures, and improvements to the recruitment and hiring processes for Councillors’ Assistants approved by Council in July 2020; and

WHEREAS recent reviews have not included an examination of Members’ remuneration and budget allocation to ensure that Members have the support required to meet the demands placed on their offices and that compensation for Members and their staff is keeping pace relative to the organization and other peer groups;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct the Office of the City Clerk to retain an independent third-party, funded from the Council Administration Services Budget, to conduct a review of the funding allocation for Members’ Constituency Services Budgets, the pay scales and job descriptions for Councillors’ Assistants, and remuneration for Members of Council; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that recommendations further to that independent third-party review be included as part of the 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review.

Members will note that this work is taking place in the broader context of the 2022-2026 Mid-Term Governance Review, anticipated to be considered in Q4 of 2024.

Next Steps

Further to Council’s direction, the Office of the City Clerk has retained the services of MNP Business Consulting and Advisory Services LLP (MNP) to complete a review of the following matters:

1. The funding allocation for the Constituency Services Budgets of Members of Council;
2. Pay scales and job descriptions for Councillors’ Assistants and Members staff; and
3. Remuneration for Members of Council (Mayor and Councillors).

MNP will be conducting a comprehensive, independent third-party review of existing internal documentation, including budgets, pay scales, and job descriptions.

Additionally, MNP will conduct a custom market survey assessment to benchmark salaries and responsibilities for Members of Council against those of comparable municipalities across Canada. This will allow MNP to make a fair market comparison and assess the City of Ottawa’s competitiveness.

Members should anticipate being contacted by MNP representatives Melanie Fix and Daniel Kasun in the coming weeks to arrange individual interviews. Interviews will be conducted virtually and will be scheduled for 60 minutes throughout late May and early June and will provide Members with an opportunity to speak to all three objectives, as described above.

For Members’ awareness, Councillors’ Assistants and Members staff will be engaged separately on matters directly affecting them via an anonymous survey. This engagement opportunity is anticipated to occur in early summer 2024 and details will be provided once they have been finalized.

Finally, Members will receive a memorandum in the coming days with respect to the consultation process for the 2022-2026 Mid-term Governance Review report. While the above-noted MNP report and recommendations will form part of the Governance Review, Members will be consulted separately on a range of other governance-related matters.

Please feel welcome to contact Kiel Anderson or Danyelle Belanger with any questions about this Review.

Caitlin Salter MacDonald
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).

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

Mayor and Members of Council,

The purpose of this memo is to inform Members of Council on the City’s status regarding compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA), in advance of next Tuesday’s meeting of the Accessibility Advisory Committee.

On December 15, 2023, in keeping with my Delegated Authority, I submitted the City of Ottawa’s Accessibility Compliance Report to the Province of Ontario. This report was compiled with support from all City departments, including Ottawa Public Health and Ottawa Public Library.

While the City of Ottawa continues to be a leader in accessibility, continuous improvement will remain important going forward. In particular, the City of Ottawa has reported non-compliance in two areas: web accessibility and design of public spaces. We have also disclosed the barriers associated with the emerging issue of electric vehicle charging stations.

Since 2015 and continued in 2023, the City has reported non-compliance with section 14 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) under the AODA, related to Accessible Websites and Web Content. All departments participated in a robust assessment of City-controlled web assets. Though the City continues to report non-compliance, we also continue to demonstrate leadership in this area, which has been recognized by the Province, as they have invited two City staff to participate in their newly formed Web Accessibility Advisory Panel. Our continued improvement is important to ensure all residents can engage with City services.

This year, the City also reported non-compliance with the Design of Public Spaces Standard. Through the recent, inter-departmental Accessibility Requirements in Construction project, some compliance errors have been exposed, due to the lack of clarity between the definitions of maintenance and redevelopment in the IASR. As a result, it has been found that 97 All-Way Stop Control (AWSC), Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) or Adult School Crossing Guard (ASCG) locations did not include the accessibility features required by the Standard, including depressed curbs and Tactile Walking Surface Indicators (TWSIs). A proposed plan was submitted to the Province to remediate these issues by 2029 and ensure no barriers are created moving forward.

The City also submitted a letter informing the Province of implementation issues which have created barriers in the built environment in projects related to Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations, which are an emerging area that currently do not incorporate accessibility features. Again, a commitment has been made to remediate these barriers and ensure Policy is created to ensure accessibility in the future. As this is a matter of principle rather than non-compliance, this information has been passed onto the Policy Division of the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility.

In keeping with past practice, a full update on the City’s accessibility program, including information on the above-noted non-compliances, will be included as part of the legislated annual City of Ottawa Municipal Accessibility Plan update to Council, which will be brought forward on May 15. In the meantime, please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

David White
City Solicitor and Interim City Clerk

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.