Open Council

1st Meeting of City Council

Open Council

1st Meeting of City Council

December 19, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Franke discloses a pecuniary interest in item 3, clause 2.1 of the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee having to do with Farquharson Arena Amending Agreement, by indicating that her partner is employed by the Thames Valley District School Board.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation 

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to the Victoria Park Secondary Plan at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/1/PEC)

4.2 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 755, 765, 785, and 815 Wonderland Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.2/1/PEC)

4.3 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers and employees of the Corporation; the subject matterpertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals related to 3089 Singleton Avenue at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/1/PEC)

4.4 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of building by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/1/CSC)

4.5 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/1/CSC)

4.6 Litigation/Potential Litigation/Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation with respect to the expropriation of property located at 71 Wharncliffe Road South including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, Ontario Land Tribunal Case No.:  OLT-OLT-22-002704; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, in connection with the expropriation of property located at 71 Wharncliffe Road South; and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality regarding settlement negotiations and conduct of litigation or potential litigation in connection with the expropriation of a property located at 71 Wharncliffe Road South. (6.3/1/CSC)

4.7 Personal Matters/Identifiable Individual / Employee Negotiations A matter pertaining to personnel, financial, labour relations and potential employee negotiations in regard to the Corporation’s association or unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/1/SPPC)

4.8 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations A matter pertaining to the proposed acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality (6.2/1/SPPC)

4.9 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual 

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.3/1/1SPPC)

4.10 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.4/1/SPPC)

4.11 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations A matter pertaining to the proposed acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/2/SPPC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:11 PM to 1:32 PM.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 19th and 20th Meetings of the Municipal Council, held on November 24, 2023 and November 28, 2023 respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   Principles Integrity, City of London Integrity Commissioner - Recommendations Report to City Council: Complaints Against Councillor Stevenson

2023-12-19 Submission - Principles Integrity - Recommendations Report - Complaints Against Councillor Stevenson

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That, the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report regarding Complaints against Councillor S. Stevenson, dated December 8, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to amend by adding a part b) to read as follows:

b)         that in consideration of the Integrity Commissioner’s Findings regarding the breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the above noted report, that Councillor S. Stevenson formally BE REPRIMANDED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That item 6.1, as amended, BE APPROVED and read as follows:

That, with respect to the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report regarding Complaints against Councillor S. Stevenson, the following actions be taken:

a)         that the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report dated December 8, 2023 BE RECEIVED; and

b)         that in consideration of the Integrity Commissioner’s Findings regarding the breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the above noted report, that Councillor S. Stevenson formally BE REPRIMANDED

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to this matter, was received.

At 2:46 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:52 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That part a) and receipt of the communication from S. Stevenson BE APPROVED as follows:

a)         that the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report dated December 8, 2023 BE RECEIVED; and

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That part b) and preamble BE APPROVED as follows:

That, with respect to the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report regarding Complaints against Councillor S. Stevenson, the following actions be taken:

b)         that in consideration of the Integrity Commissioner’s Findings regarding the breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the above noted report, that Councillor S. Stevenson formally BE REPRIMANDED

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Item 6.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That, with respect to the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report regarding Complaints against Councillor S. Stevenson, the following actions be taken:

a)         that the Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report dated December 8, 2023 BE RECEIVED; and

b)         that in consideration of the Integrity Commissioner’s Findings regarding the breach of Council’s Code of Conduct in the above noted report, that Councillor S. Stevenson formally BE REPRIMANDED

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to this matter, was received.

6.2   Memo from Mayor J. Morgan - Special Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Meeting - Change in Meeting Location

2023-12-19 Submission - Special SPPC Memo from the Mayor - CM Selection

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in relation to City Manager recruitment:

a)     that pursuant to section 2.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in meeting location for a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be held in January 2024 from Council Chambers to an off-site location within the City of London, to be determined, BE APPROVED; and

b)    that the Municipal Council convene In Closed Session pursuant to s.239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001 in relation to City Manager selection.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.3   Councillor S. Trosow - Amendment to the Streets By-law (S-1) to Regulate the Display of Graphic Images on the Streets in the City of London

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the communications related to Amendment to the Streets By-law (S-1) to Regulate the Display of Graphic Images on the Streets in the City of London BE RECEIVED and REFERRED to the Community and Protective Services Stage for Consideration with item 6, clause 5.1 of the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2023-12-04 PEC Report 1

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, excluding item 11 (3.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lewis was appointed as Vice Chair to the Planning and Environment Committee by Mayoral Decision 2023-008

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.1) Inclusionary Zoning Review Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, NO FURTHER ACTION be taken with respect to the Inclusionary Zoning review;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will consider the findings of the Inclusionary Zoning feasibly analysis in related policy and program reviews to support the development of new affordable housing units, including but not limited to the review of incentive programs, policy reviews in support of the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) initiatives, and updates to the programs included in the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units; and,

it being further noted that Inclusionary Zoning is one potential tool to encourage the development of new affordable housing units; however, the financial feasibility analysis demonstrates that IZ is not a consistently viable mechanism to achieve this goal for all tenures of housing or for all market areas of the city;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D14)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.2) 12th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 12th Report of the Environmental Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 16, 2023:

a)    the appointment of K. Lee BE RESCINDED from the Ecological Community Advisory Committee due to lack of attendance; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.5, inclusive, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-E03)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.3) Building Division Monthly Report - July 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of July, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.4) Building Division Monthly Report - August 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of August, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.5) Building Division Monthly Report - September 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of September, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.6) Building Division Monthly Report - October 2023

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division monthly report for the month of October, 2023 BE RECEIVED for information. (2023-A23)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.1) 1350 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9611) (Relates to Bill No. 13)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes, relating to the property located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Urban Reserve UR6 Special Provision (h-17h-42UR6(1)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13(7)) Zone; Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13()) Zone; Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (hh-100R1-13()) Zone; Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (hh-17h-18h-100h-149R4-6(_)) Zone; and, a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-17h-18h-100h-149R6-5(_)) Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public participation meeting;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; and,

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Royal Premier Homes (File No. 39T-23501),  prepared by Stantec,  Project No. 16141212, March 17th 2022, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of three (3) medium density residential blocks, twenty-eight (28) single-detached lots, one (1) reserve block and one (1) road widening blocks servicing by the extension on Southbridge Avenue and a new Neighbourhood Street (Street A);

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Planning Fact Sheet with respect to these matters;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan;

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

  •    the proposed and recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, which promotes a compact form of development in strategic locations to minimize land consumption and servicing costs, provide for and accommodate an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of housing type and densities to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents; and,

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form and mix of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.2) 1680 Richmond Street (Z-9667) (Relates to Bill No. 14)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd., relating to the property located at 1680 Richmond Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision RSA1(1) TO a Regional Shopping Area Special Provision RSA1(1) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individual made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    S. McGaffey; WND Associates;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms with the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and the Transit Village Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would provide access to automobile sales boutique in a convenient and accessible location;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.4) 625 Mornington Avenue (1299 Oxford Street West) (Z-9589) (Relates to Bill No. 16)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Oxbury Centre Ltd., (c/o Westdell Development Co.), relating to the property located at 625 Mornington Avenue and 1299, 1303, 1307 and 1323 Oxford Street East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-*R9-7()*H45) Zone and a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA4(_)) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

i)    the recommendations of the Noise Study be implemented;

ii)    provide an adequately sized and centrally located outdoor amenity space, either at-grade or rooftop, or a combination of both;

iii)    details regarding garbage storage and collection be determined; and,

iv)    bird friendly design;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the special provisions to the CSA4 Zone relate to changes to existing conditions resulting from the recommended zone boundary and do not significantly alter the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Revised Application and Notice of Public Meeting;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    S. Rasanu, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

  •    N. Perzia; and,

  •    M. Bartouka;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Transit Village Place Type and Protected Major Transit Station Area policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of an underutilized site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.5) 488-492 Pond Mills Road (Z-9625) (Relates to Bill No. 17)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Willow Bridge Homes Ltd., c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 488-492 Pond Mills Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 4, 2023 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H15) Zone;

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through the site plan process:

i)    the possible addition of a public pathway/easement for pedestrian access to Pond Mills Road from Glenroy Crescent:

ii)    additional landscaping to be implemented along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Glenroy Crescent and to install a privacy fence around the parking area bordering the property; and,

iii)    enhanced tree planting;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    I. Klassen;

  •    R. Evans;

  •    N. Aikenhead;

  •    B. Martin;

  •    S. Shoeb;

  •    S. Hart; and,

  •    T. Staines;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies;

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a broader range and mix of housing options within the area;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List dated November 27, 2023 BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to update the Deferred Matters List to remove any items that have been addressed by the Civic Administration.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.3) 130 Southdale Road West (Z-9663) (Relates to Bill No. 15)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Alora Homes, relating to the property located at 130 Southdale Road West, the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(_)) Zone;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    P. McInnes;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application for the following reasons:

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and Key Directions; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of vacant residential lands within the Built Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development that provides choice and diversity in housing options;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2023-D04)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.2   1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2023-12-04 CSC Report 1

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 1st Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Cuddy was appointed as Vice Chair to the Corporate Services Committee by Mayoral Decision 2023-008.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.1) Demolition of City-Owned Property Buildings - 3243 Manning Drive

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned property located at 3243 Manning Drive, the following actions be taken:

a) the improvements associated with the subject City-owned property BE RECOMMENDED for demolition; 

 

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to demolish the buildings, including completing a request for quotation for work to be completed, obtaining a demolition permit and any other activities to facilitate demolition of the improvements on the sites detailed in the report; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council with the income opportunities for the interim use of this land;

it being noted that existing capital accounts and operating accounts will be drawn upon as a source of financing to carry out the subject demolitions.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.2) Report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Board of Directors - Virtual Meeting - September 14, 2023

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the communication from Councillor S. Franke regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors update on board activities from the virtual meeting held on November 21-24, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3   1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2023-12-05 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 3 (2.1) and 6 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that Councillor D. Ferreira was appointed as Vice Chair to the Community and Protective Services Committee by Mayoral Decision 2023-008.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.2) SS#2023-333 - Single Source Award – Life Stabilization Short-Term Counselling (Relates to Bill No. 4)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, related to a Single Source Award for Life Stabilization Short-Term Counselling (SS#2023-333):

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023, to:

i)    approve the Purchase of Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, for the delivery of specialized individual services to Ontario Works Participants, between The Corporation of the City of London and Daya Counselling Centre;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Purchase of Service Agreement;

iii)    delegate the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the City Manager the authority and power to:

A)    represent the City (City Representative) with respect to the Purchase of Service Agreement; and,

B)    approve and execute amending agreements and approve additional one-year terms to the Purchase of Service Agreement that are consistent with the requirements contained in the Purchase of Service Agreement and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all other administrative acts necessary in connection with this agreement. (2023-S04)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   WITHDRAWN - Winter Response Contract Between The Corporation of the City of London and London Cares

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that item 2.3, entitled Winter Response Contract Between The Corporation of the City of London and London Cares, was withdrawn from the agenda at the direction of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.1) Farquharson Arena Amending Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 3)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023, to:

a)    approve the Farquharson Arena Amending Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) and The Corporation of the City of London;

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written delegate, to authorize and execute any administrative actions in connection with this matter. (2023-R05A)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.6   (5.1) Councillor Trosow – Amendment to the Streets By-law (S-1) to Regulate the Display of Graphic Images on the Streets in the City of London

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a by-law amending the Streets By-law (S-1) to regulate the display of graphic images in the City of London with a report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee and a public participation meeting on the proposed by-law amendment by the end of Q1 2024; it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillors S. Trosow and H. McAlister and K. Dean, with respect to this matter, were received;

it being further noted that the following communications as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, was received:

  • A. Polizogopoulos, The Acacia Group

  • K. Dean, Co-Founder, Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition

  • N. Wakim, Co-Founder, View Discretion Legislation Coalition

  • J. Saunders (2023-C01)

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.4   1st Report of the Civic Works Committee

2023-12-05 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 1st Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:28 PM and reconvenes at 3:54 PM.

8.4.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Trosow was appointed as Vice Chair to the Civic Works Committee by Mayoral Decision 2023-008.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.1) 12th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 12th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on November 15, 2023:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the presentation, as appended to the Agenda, related to the Oxford Street West Municipal Class Environmental Assessment:

i)    that the above-noted presentation BE REFERRED to the Mobility Master Plan Sub-Committee, the Environment Sub-Committee and the Vision Zero Sub-Committee for review and a report back at the December meeting of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee; and,

ii)    the above-noted presentation BE RECEIVED;

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.2) RFP-2023-207River Road Pavement Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, related to RFP-2023-207 River Road Pavement Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration Appointment of Consulting Engineer:

a)    the proposal submitted by Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design, tendering, and construction administration services at an upset amount of $313,076.50 (excluding HST), as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this assignment;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-T04)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.3) White Oaks Complete Corridor Design from Wharncliffe to Exeter Road Consulting Services Award - Irregular Result

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, related to the White Oaks Complete Corridor Design from Wharncliffe to Exter Road Consulting Services Award Irregular Result:

a)    Matrix Solutions Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers in the amount of $499,445.00, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 19.4 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-M11)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.4) Emergency Procurement of Replacement Pumps for Hazeldon Pumping Station

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, related to the Emergency Procurement of Replacement Pumps for Hazeldon Pumping Station:

a)    the purchase order issued for replacement pumps at Hazeldon Pumping Station under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a projected total price of $54,594.00 (HST excluded) BE CONFIRMED;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2023-E08)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.5) Overflow Notification Website - Single Source Procurement

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated December 5, 2023, related to the Overflow Notification Website Single Source Procurement:

a)    supply and implementation of an online overflow monitoring and notification system BE AWARDED to Blue Siren Inc. for the total price of US$24,000.00 (estimated at CDN$35,000.00) (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    supply of hosting services for the website created in item a) for one (1) year BE AWARDED to Blue Siren Inc. for the total price of US$17,000.00 (estimated at CDN$25,000.00) (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    supply of wastewater flow monitoring equipment BE AWARDED to Blue Siren Inc. with a total expenditure approved under this report not to exceed the available provincial funding, in accordance with Sections 14.4 (e) and 14.4 (f) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; and,

f)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2023-M10)

Motion Passed

8.5   1st Special Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-12-06 SPPC Report 1

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 1st Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Recruitment, Retention and Accommodation of Planning & Development and Building Staff

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Planning & Development and Building Services area BE PRIORITIZED for workplace modernization subject to multi-year budget deliberation and approval of the Master Accommodation Plan;

b)    the source of financing for the additional staff accommodation costs BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”; and

c)    the report entitled Recruitment, Retention, and Accommodation of Planning & Development and Building Staff BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6   2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-12-12 SPPC Report 2

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, excluding items 6 (2.4), 7 (2.5), 8 (2.6), and 11 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.2) 2023 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report dated December 12, 2023, including the 2023 Resident Satisfaction Survey, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.3) December Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the December Progress Update – Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.7) 8th Report of the Governance Working Group (Relates to Bill No. 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on November 27, 2023:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the “Council Members’ Expense Policy”:

i)     the City Clerk’s Office BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to be introduced at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy as indicated in the staff report dated November 27, 2023; 

ii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on funding travel-related expenses for the annual general conference of Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for Members outside the annual expense account allotment; and

iii)    the revised “Council Members’ Expense Policy” BE REFERRED to the next meeting of Governance Working Group for consideration of community engagement expenses;

b)   on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Governance Working Group Meeting Schedule:

i)    the report dated November 27, 2023, entitled “Governance Working Group 2024 Meeting Schedule”, BE RECEIVED for information;

ii)   the following dates BE ESTABLISHED as meeting dates for Governance Working Group (GWG):

Monday, January 22, 2024;

Monday, March 25, 2024; 

Monday, May 13, 2024;

Monday, June 24, 2024; 

Monday, September 23, 2024; and 

Monday, November 25, 2024;

it being noted that the meeting times will be at 10:00 AM;

c)   clauses 1.1 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (2.8) 11th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on November 30, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.9   (2.1) 2023-2027 Implementation Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report dated December 12, 2023, including the 2023-2027 Implementation Plan, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.10   (3.1) Release of the Draft 2024 - 2027 Multi-Year Budget

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, including the Tax-Supported Operating, Capital, Water and Wastewater Treatment Budgets:

a)      the Draft Budget documents BE REFERRED to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process; and

b)      the overview presentation by the Deputy City Manager, Finance and Supports with respect to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget process BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the following document was provided to the Members, and is available on the City website: Draft Property Tax Supported, Water and Wastewater & Treatment 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budgets.

Motion Passed

8.6.6   (2.4) London Economic Development Corporation Purchase of Services Agreement 2024-2027 (Relates to Bill No. 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That items 6 (2.4), 7 (2.5), and 8 (2.6) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, in accordance with the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 Single Source, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023;

b)     a Purchase of Services Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (Corporation) and the London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) BE APPROVED; 

c)     the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement;

d)     the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, and their written designates, if any, BE AUTHORIZED the power to administer the Agreement; and

e)     a one-time allocation of $300,000 BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund to LEDC for 2024 for services to implement London’s Film Strategy, as set out in section 3(g) of the Agreement as appended to the staff report, noting that additional funding beyond 2024 is subject to the City of London annual budget approval and subject to the prior written annual request of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development as directed by Council.

Motion Passed

8.6.7   (2.5) Small Business Centre 2024-2027 Grant Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken:

a)   the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023;

b)   a Grant Agreement with the London Community Small Business Centre from 2024 to 2027 BE APPROVED; 

c)   the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement; and

d)   the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or written designate BE AUTHORIZED to act as the City Representative purposes of the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.6.8   (2.6) TechAlliance 2024-2027 Grant Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 7)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2023 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 19, 2023;

b)    a Grant Agreement with the TechAlliance of Southwestern Ontario from 2024 to 2027 BE APPROVED;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the Agreement; and 

d)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or written designate BE AUTHORIZED to act as the City Representative purposes of the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.6.11   (4.1) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Franke - Submission Regarding Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 13.3 of the Council Procedure By-law reconsideration of clause 4.1 of the 10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee regarding Health and Homelessness Summits - Proposed Whole of Community System Response, as approved at the March 7, 2023 meeting of the Municipal Council BE RECONSIDERED, in order to allow for alternate direction on reporting.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to adjust the frequency of the overall comprehensive “Progress Update - Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response” to quarterly; it being noted that Council, via the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, will continue to receive reports on matters for it’s decision-making related to the Whole of Community System Response as necessary;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated December 8, 2023 from B. Brock with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by S. Lehman

  1.    Lease of Office Space – Renewal Agreement – 1275 Highbury Avenue North – Northland Mall

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, with respect to the Lease Renewal Agreement, for the lease of office space at Northland Mall, the Lease Renewal Agreement between the City and Capital City Shopping Centre Limited (the “Landlord”) attached as Appendix “A”, for the lease of approximately 17,355 square feet of Rentable Area, located at Store No. 107 in the project known as the Northland Mall, located at1275 Highbury Avenue North, in the City of London, for an extension period of five (5) years commencing September 1, 2024 and ending on August 31, 2029 BE APPROVED.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1 to 4.11, as noted on the public agenda (6.1/1/PEC), (6.2/1/PEC), (6.3/1/PEC), (6.2/1/CSC), (6.3/1/CSC), (6.1/1/SPPC), (6.2/1/SPPC), (6.3/1/SPPC), (6.4/1/SPPC) and (6.1/2/SPPC).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 1 to the Added Bill No. 18, excluding Bill No. 3, Bill No. 5, Bill No. 6, Bill No. 7, and Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 1 to the Added Bill No. 18, excluding Bill No. 3, Bill No. 5, Bill No. 6, Bill No. 7, and Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 1 to the Added Bill No. 18, excluding Bill No. 3, Bill No. 5, Bill No. 6, Bill No. 7, and Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.3, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 5 to Bill No. 7, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 5 to Bill No. 7, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 5 to Bill No. 7, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 15, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

The following Bills are enacted as By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London

Bill No. 1

By-law No. A.-8438-1 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 19th day of December, 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 2

By-law No. A-50-24010 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-50 being “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law A-45” to reflect amendments to the regular council and standing committee meeting schedule and that no meeting of council or standing committee shall extend beyond 6:00 PM. (2.9/27/SPPC) (4.1/7/GWG)

Bill No. 3

By-law No. A.-8439-2 - A by-law to approve the Farquharson Arena Amending Agreement between the Thames Valley District School Board and The Corporation of the City of London. (2.1/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 4

By-law No. A.-8440-3 - A by-law to approve a Purchase of Service Agreement for Ontario Works Specialized Individual Services between The Corporation of the City of London and Daya Counselling Centre. (2.2/1/CPSC)

Bill No. 5

By-law No. A.-8441-4 - A by-law to authorize a Purchase of Services Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Economic Development Corporation; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.4/2/SPPC)

Bill No. 6

By-law No. A.-8442-5 - A by-law to approve a Grant Agreement with London Community Small Business Centre, Inc. (2.5/2/SPPC)

Bill No. 7

By-law No. A.-8443-6 - A by-law to approve a Grant Agreement with TechAlliance of Southwestern Ontario. (2.6/2/SPPC)

Bill No. 8

By-law No. CPOL.-228(d)-7 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-228-480, as amended, being “Council Members’ Expense Account” to update various provisions of the policy. (2.7/2/SPPC)

Bill No. 9

By-law No. S.-6298-8 - A by-law to permit James Alexander Loring to maintain and use a boulevard parking area upon the road allowance for 731 William Street, in the City of London.  (Manager, Licensing & Customer Service)

Bill No. 10

By-law No. S.-6299-9 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Gore Road, east of Veterans Memorial Parkway)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SP13-026561)

Bill No. 11

By-law No. S.-6300-10 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to James Street, west of Campbell Street North)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to SPA23-071)

Bill No. 12

By-law No. S.-6301-11 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Crumlin Side Road, north of Gore Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA23-012)

Bill No. 13

By-law No. Z.-1-243165 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1350 Wharncliffe Road South (3.1/1/PEC)

Bill No. 14

By-law No. Z.-1-243166 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1680 Richmond Street (3.2/1/PEC)

Bill No. 15

By-law No. Z.-1-243167 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 130 Southdale Road West (3.3/1/PEC)

Bill No. 16

By-law No. Z.-1-243168 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 625 Mornington Avenue and 1299, 1303, 1307 & 1323 Oxford Street East (3.4/1/PEC)

Bill No. 17

By-law No. Z.-1-243169 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 488-492 Pond Mills Road (3.5/1/PEC)

Bill No. 18

By-law No. A.-8444-12 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Renewal Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Capital City Shopping Centre Limited, for the lease of commercial office space, located at Northland Mall, 1275 Highbury Avenue North, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/1/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:21 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (3 hours, 14 minutes)

[14:28] Thank you, please be seated. So I get to call to order the first meeting of city council despite the fact that it’s not 2024 yet. As you know, we start our terms in November. So this is the first meeting of our second year.

[15:05] So I’m gonna start with land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Honoshone, Lene Peiwak, and Adewandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampumbell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron-Track Treaty of 1827, with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and the Haudenosaunee.

[15:42] Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to Lene are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Now we get to meet Kristin Renee.

[16:22] A genuine Londoner, a genuine London Ontario soul with a heart to turn the sweet cadence of country pop. Kristin started her professional journey as a session vocalist at EMAC Studios in her late teens. In 2020, she made waves in the industry with sixth sense, her enchanting debut alongside four city records. Kristin continues to captivate with her 2021 single, Sweet Piece, and the 2022 hit Good Ones. It wasn’t long before Canada’s Blackbird Records caught wind of her musical proudness, sealing the deal and launching her track, like the world’s gonna end into the prestigious airwaves of Sirius XM.

[17:05] In September 2023, Kristin revealed her latest creation, winning a testament to her evolution and stories collected along the way. As an independent spirit navigating the musical landscape, Kristin brings a fresh approach to listeners from every walk of life. Please rise and let us welcome Kristin Renee at this time to sing the National Anthem. (singing in foreign language) Okay, I’ll turn to disclosures of pecuniary interest.

[20:37] Councillor Frank. Thank you. I’d like to declare a conflict of interest for item 8.33 Farkison Arena Mending Agreement as my partner as an employee for the Thames Valley District School Board. Okay, other disclosures? Okay, thank you.

[21:17] That’s disclosures. Recognitions, Councillor Vameer-Wergen asked me if he could do a recognition, so I’ll turn it over to him. Thank you, Mayor. Early last week, I was on my way to work around eight o’clock in the morning, and I was on Exeter waiting at a red light at Wellington. So if you can imagine that, you know the traffic there and how voluminous it truly is. Now, in the middle of the intersection was a large green garbage bag, stuff full. You could just see it.

[21:51] And it was right in the middle of the intersection. It was causing havoc. It easily could have resulted in an accident. And along came a city of London truck. It was not a garbage truck. And sure enough, it stopped. A gentleman jumped out, picked it up, put it back in the truck, drove away seamlessly. And I don’t know who it is. I would like to give a very large shout out for the actions that took place that morning last week at that intersection.

[22:29] It speaks volumes to the character and the type of individuals that we have serving the city of London as staff at all levels. And so I didn’t want it to go unrecognized. Again, I don’t know who you are, but if you hear about this, we really appreciate it ‘cause it could have been something far worse. Thank you again. Thank you very much, Councilor Van Merbergen. Appreciate the comments. There are no review of matters to be considered in public.

[23:03] We have our confidential session colleagues. I’ll just let you know there’s a technical issue with the microphones in both committee room five and three. So we’ll be staying here for in-camera session, which means unfortunately we’ll have to ask others in the gallery and media row to leave once we’ve moved into in-camera session. But I just wanted to let you know that we’ll be reining here for this meeting because of those issues. But I’ll need a motion to move in-camera for the reasons that are listed on the public agenda. Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

[23:39] Councillors, close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, we’ll just take a few minutes to transition to closed session. Recording in progress.

[30:04] We’re back into public session. We’re gonna move on to item five with the confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We actually have two sets of minutes to deal with which we can deal with together. The November 24th and November 28th meeting minutes look. Anybody wants to deal with those separately? I’m gonna look for a mover of both. I’ll move both. Councilor Vameira-Rubergen moves both, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Any discussion or changes to the minutes? Okay, I see none. We’ll open that for voting. All your votes, yes?

[30:46] Present vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, next, communications and petitions. We have a series of them. Some are things that we’ve not dealt with before, this term of council. So I’m just gonna outline how we’re gonna deal with the communications and petitions ‘cause they will be dealt with in this part of the agenda for the most part. 6.1 related to the integrity commissioner will be an item that we’ll deal with first. The memo from me asking for special permission to meet offsite will deal with that after in this section.

[31:20] 6.3 relates to an item that is in the existing agenda. So when we get to that point, we’re gonna refer that piece to the existing part of the agenda as we normally do in this piece. But given the other two components don’t have other pieces of the agenda, they’ll be dealt with in this section. On 6.1, which we’ll deal with now, I’ve conferred with the clerk onto the process that we should follow for this. So what will happen is our integrity commissioners here, they’ll be able to give a presentation and overview of their report before council. And then we move into council consideration of any actions after that point, but they will have the opportunity to proceed with that.

[31:59] I know it is rare to have delegations at council, but this is a very special process. These things come directly to council. And so that is why the integrity commissioner has the ability to speak much like the other special processes that go directly to council under legislation or rules. We do have those presentations and delegations. So with that from principles integrity, we have Janice Atwood, who’s going to be presenting on behalf of our integrity commissioners. So I’ll turn it over to Ms. Atwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and good afternoon members of council.

[32:37] I am one of the two principles of our firm principles integrity and my partner, Jeff Abrams, who many of you have already met through council training this past fall is unable to join us this afternoon. So we’ve found it helpful to provide a general overview before getting into the detail of a report like the report before you this afternoon. It will help you as you carry out council’s discipline function, which is quite different from the usual legislative or policymaking role you play in chamber. We have also had media inquiries on this matter and it will help the general public through the media to appreciate what is about to occur this afternoon.

[33:20] On your agenda today is a report that represents the culmination of a process. It is a process established by the municipal act, one in which a complaint about an elected official is brought to the attention of the municipality’s integrity commissioner, who in an independent and confidential manner conducts an investigation and reports findings along with recommendations to a municipal council for a determination based on those findings and recommendations. Because of the obligations of confidentiality and such an investigation, it is beyond council’s jurisdiction to carry out its own investigation following an investigation of an integrity commissioner.

[34:02] Your role quite clearly is not to conduct an investigation. That has been done. That’s why you have an integrity commissioner. Council is also not sitting as an appellate body in regard to whether we, for example, as integrity commissioner, failed to apply the tenets of procedural fairness. Complaints and the other persons involved in an investigation are owed procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is a broad concept applied under administrative law. It includes that a respondent know the allegations against them and have an opportunity to respond.

[34:43] London’s complaint protocol stipulates that notice of a complaint shall be served. That’s the word that is used on the respondent within 10 days of receipt. The protocol then stipulates that that response is to be provided to the complainant within 10 days, presumably to enable the complainant to provide further argument. That is effectively turning an administrative investigation into a litigation between litigants, which is, which it is not.

[35:17] Recall that there were a total of 36 complainants of record in this investigation. It is difficult to imagine administering such a process as the protocol contemplates. Service is undefined in the protocol and begs the question, would notification by letter sent by email satisfy the protocol? It certainly satisfies the tenets of procedural fairness. And how could a 10 day timeline from data receipt be workable because quite frequently a complaint is often unwieldy or lacks precision and the integrative commissioner must restate it by narrowing or summarizing the concern.

[36:06] The case law confirms that narrowing and restating complaints is within the integrative commissioner’s purview. So how would this work if the complaint must be served? Presumably verbatim is filed on the counselor within 10 days. In such cases, the timeline is completely contrary to the efficient and effective investigation of complaints. As we noted during council’s training in September, Jeff raised, your complaint protocol is in need of updating and revision.

[36:40] We are in initial discussions with staff on a work plan for that. The protocol is prescriptive and unworkable in a practical sense, if read literally. It is born out of the world of litigation, which an integrative commissioner investigation is clearly not. Fortunately, the code does recognize the difference when it states in rule one under key principles and framework. The code is to be given a broad liberal interpretation in accordance with the applicable legislation, the definitions set out here in, and its general intent and purposes.

[37:24] The lack of formal service under a complaint protocol, such as using a process server, is a technical reference not fatal to the investigation. The meaning we take from the protocol is that Councillor Stevenson was entitled to know, as a matter of procedural fairness, what was at issue, and to be given an opportunity to respond. If her view was she did not have adequate notice, she certainly was given that opportunity before the investigation was completed.

[38:06] The in late July, we received 26 complaints. They were almost virtually identical, and by letter of July 27th to Councillor Stevenson, we advised her of the complaints, identifying the complainants as is expected, and summarizing the concern, asking her to provide us with her response by August 11th. On August 10th, we received an explanation from her of her position, her perspective, and her response.

[38:46] We had a further Zoom meeting with her on August 30th, and received a further email from her on September 4th. During the course of our investigation, there was a further series of complaints of approximately 10 complaints received on September 26th. The Councillor was in fact copied on a number. As Jeff Abrams was attending council for training on September 28th, two days subsequent, he took the opportunity of speaking with Councillor Stevenson in person while in London, providing the training for the Councillors.

[39:34] Councillor Stevenson was aware, and she acknowledged that she had attempted unsuccessfully to blur the faces, but had gone ahead and posted the photos anyways. She also suggested that the complainants would not have any knowledge of whether she had first obtained permission from the homeless persons to post these photos. The tenants of procedural fairness have been applied. The Councillor was aware of the particulars of the complaints that the posted photos identified the faces of homeless and had an opportunity to provide a response.

[40:14] During any investigation, as part of our process, before we issue our report, we provide the member with our complete findings in draft and provide an opportunity typically two weeks in which to provide comments, corrections, further submissions, or any other information the Councillor may wish to provide. In keeping with this practice on October 27th, we emailed Councillor Stevenson a copy of our draft findings report and asked her to provide any comments or further submissions to us by November 10th.

[40:53] On November 9th, the Councillor responded basically challenging our ability to proceed with the investigation by asserting our failure to serve the complaints on her as stipulated in the protocol. On November 10th, we replied, explaining our perspective and requesting any substantive response and/or further explanation from her by November 27th. You may have a copy of that correspondence before you, but I’ll just read three paragraphs from that.

[41:31] Our findings report is in regard to two sets of complaints. Those received July 20th to 25th, 2023 in regard to your reposting of the Simroconis article and those received September 26th, 2023. In regard to your post of photos with identifiable faces of homeless individuals, you were in fact copied on some of the emailed complaints regarding the photos you posted of the homeless. This was the basis of a conversation you had on September 28th, 2023 with Jeff Abrams when he attended to provide in-person training for London Council.

[42:15] We acknowledge that we take a less rigid and more purposeful approach to our investigations, whereas the City of London’s complaint protocol is quite prescriptive and legalistic. As noted by Jeff during training, the existing protocol is simply unworkable, requiring service of documents and suggesting complaints should review and respond to respondents’ responses more like litigation than an administrative investigation. That said, while we had understood that you were aware of the complaints regarding photos you posted, in which the faces of the homeless were identifiable, and that we had understood your response and explanation as communicated verbally in conversation with Jeff on September 28th, we invite you to take the time to provide us with any additional comments or input to this issue, as well as any further comments you might have in regard to our findings in their totality.

[43:18] As we have articulated on many occasions, we genuinely seek to achieve course correction and authentic acknowledgement by respondents who may be found to have strayed outside their ethical obligations. In this regard, we would appreciate receiving any additional thoughts from you by November 27th, and we would be happy to meet with you virtually should you wish. Our recommendation report was issued on December 8th to the Councillor and to the City Clerk, and as required under the Act and under procedural fairness, a copy of it was provided to each and every complainant.

[44:02] I’d like to say just a couple of words regarding the participation of Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Stevenson may participate in the deliberations on our report today, but she may not participate in the vote. This process follows a specific municipal Conflict of Interest Act amendment, allowing her to participate on these terms, and it is an extension of the concept of procedural fairness. Our report recommends the sanction of a reprimand. Councillor Stevenson is able to comment on how our recommendation relates to our findings presented in our report, and her conclusions respecting the process we followed, which we disagree with, can also be spoken to.

[44:53] However, she may not vote on whether or not there should be a reprimand. Council should appreciate that it is sitting in a disciplinary mode today, an independent investigation having been completed. Council is asked whether it accepts our recommendation to issue a formal reprimand and based on the findings, based on our recommendation and based on the findings. Council is not in a position, nor is Councillor Stevenson, nor any other member of Council, to conduct its own investigation and arrive at its own findings.

[45:32] So the discussion today, Mr. Mayor, is not in the nature of an appeal. It is not an opportunity to litigate the matter. Under administrative law principles, that work is done. It is our view that that work was fairly done, and Council should now consider our findings and recommendations. In regard to the findings, we often say, we believe the report that is before you speaks for itself. We trust that you all have read it. Essentially, there were two issues complained of.

[46:08] One, that by reposting the article written by Michael Smirkonich and commenting that London could be first, the Councilor breached the code of conduct. We find that retweet of the article with that comment is not to be interpreted as advocating for the arbitrary rest of the homeless and does not constitute a breach. It is nevertheless provocative, and we advise the Councilor to exercise sensitivity and care to distinguish legitimate critique of policy and operations from gratuitous comments, which may be insensitive to the plight of the more vulnerable.

[46:55] In the circumstances of that complaint, we make no finding a breach of the code of conduct with respect to the Councilor’s post. The second series of complaints alleged that the posting of photos of homeless, which allow their faces to be visible and recognizable, was a form of abuse or bullying and infringed the personal privacy of the individuals involved. We find that the photos reflected an invasion of the personal privacy of those homeless individuals. It disregarded the impact that publication of the photos on social media could have on the community and the individuals.

[47:37] Aligning the photographs with comments about criminal activity was inappropriate and provocative. Given that the Councilor has acknowledged that there was room for improvement in her use of social media to post photographs of identifiable individuals in the circumstances of the post complaint of, we believe a reprimand is the appropriate sanction. As a final remark, we wish to note that we take great care not to allow our role as integrity commissioner to become weaponized for collateral purposes.

[48:13] Councilors are entitled to take a position contrary to their colleagues on Council or to a prevailing opinion in the community. The number of form letter complaints we may receive does not influence our conclusions on a matter, though it may complicate the process of the matter. Councilors are however subject to the code. Your conduct is important to the public’s trust in Council. When complaints are made, their assessment includes the impact the alleged behavior might have had.

[48:49] Under all of the circumstances in the matters before you today, we recommend a formal reprimand for the posting of the images of vulnerable under housed individuals on the Councilor’s social media. Just as a reminder, as a matter of process, Councilor Stevenson should declare her interest in the report today as she is the respondent identified in it, but she is entitled to participate on the same basis as every other Council member in discussing the report’s findings in support of the recommendation, but she may not vote on the matter.

[49:26] Mr. Mayor, I trust my comments will be helpful as Council considers the matter. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, I’m just flipping my screen back. Thank you very much for the detailed presentation on your report. I’ll note to colleagues, should any motion be considered with this? I would ask that you include a number of things that the clerk recommends. One, we do need to actually receive the integrity commissioner’s report. We need to consider whether or not we proceed with any sort of reprimand or anything else. And we also need to recognize the communication that Councilor Stevenson put on the agenda.

[50:06] So anybody who wants to put a motion on the floor, I would just ask that you allow us to kind of entertain all of those items, which will allow for a full discussion of both the integrity commissioner’s report as well as any consequence that Council would like to consider or not. And of course, those things can be amended as there are options before us. So that’s what I’m looking for today. And you’ve heard the response. So I’m looking for anybody who wants to move any sort of action on this. Well, I don’t know about speaking first ‘cause there’s nothing on the floor at the very least.

[50:45] If no one wants to move a reprimand, we have to receive the integrity commissioner’s report. We gotta put something on the floor for people to have a discussion. So Councilor Ferra, which part do you wanna move? All of those things are what? Sorry, thank you Your Worship Through You. I will receive the report and to receive Councilor Stevenson’s communications added to the added report. So just receive the report and Councilor Stevenson’s like basically it being noted that Councilor Stevenson has written a piece of correspondence. Just that for now, yes, not.

[51:21] I would like to see what discussion is before moving anything further to that. I can’t hear you ‘cause I’m just looking to move to receive the report and receive the communication of Councilor Stevenson, any other further motions that I may put on the floor, I’d like to wait to see what the discussion is, is where it’s gonna go. Okay, so Councilor Ferra is just putting on with respect to the integrity commissioner’s report, regarding complaints against Councilor Stevenson, the following actions be taken, A, that the integrity commissioner’s recommendation report dated December 8th, 2023, be received. And then it being noted that communication was appended to the added agenda from Councilor S Stevenson with respect to this matter was received.

[52:01] So that’s all you’re putting on the floor for now. Okay, okay, is there a seconder for that? Councilor Frank is willing to second. So you’re moving a motion councilor, unfortunately, that means you get to stand to Council. So maybe that’s why everybody else was holding back ‘cause whoever moved this was gonna get to stand for a little while. Okay, so that’s all it’s on the floor now. This can be amended added to, well, I wouldn’t say you’re just ‘cause it’s received the reports, but I’ll look for any sort of debate or discussion on this particular item as it stands. Councilor Hopkins.

[52:37] Yes, thank you, Your Worship, maybe just to get the conversation started. Exactly what does formal reprimand entail? And I’m not sure I can answer that. I’ll answer that and then I can go to anybody else. But under the act, there’s a few consequences. A reprimand is a motion of Council that basically says, it’s basically as was worded in the integrity commissioner’s report that it’s a motion council passes that says the members reprimanded, that’s all. Thank you for that clarification.

[53:12] So the reprimand is made here a council with a motion and that is all. Yes, that’s not on the floor though. Councilor Frayer has just put received the report and yet being noted that there was correspondence so far. Thank you. Okay, other speakers, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I would like to take my time to address this report. In the added agenda, you will find the full correspondence between myself and the integrity commissioner from the beginning of this process.

[53:46] That correspondence, in its entirety, shows with absolute clarity and certainty that the complaint protocol was not followed by the integrity commissioner before issuing this report. Some major findings of this report are false. I had no opportunity to correct them before the integrity commissioner made his decision. I reject the findings of this report and I will be voting against it. I would like to briefly clarify what is in this report. This report submits the findings of two separate investigations. The first investigation pertains to an article I shared on Twitter about solving homelessness.

[54:23] While the second investigation pertains to photographs posted on Twitter that include individuals on the streets of Ward 4. These investigations were conducted completely differently and they’ve been lumped together in one single report. I fully accept the findings of the first investigation. I received an email from the integrity commissioner informing me there had been a complaint alongside the names of the complainants and a copy of their complaints. I was asked to respond to the allegations which I did. The integrity commissioner then reviewed my response and concluded that my conduct did not breach the council’s code of conduct.

[54:58] The complaint protocol was properly followed and I accept that conclusion. On the other hand, this report also includes findings of a second investigation which in no way followed our complaint protocol. I did not receive an email from the integrity commissioner informing me that he was investigating a complaint. I was not provided with a copy of the complaint. I was not provided with the names of the complainants and I was not asked to make a response. On last week’s episode of the Craig Needles podcast, Deputy Mayor Lewis stated the following and I quote, “I’m aware of what the process is.

[55:33] “I’ve been through it. “I’ve received the email from the integrity commissioner. “I’ve been asked to give my response. “I’ve provided that response. “I was given the chance to respond. “I was provided the complaint in an email “and then I was offered the opportunity to respond “in an email,” end quote. Let me be clear. I did not receive an email from the integrity commissioner informing me that he was investigating a complaint. I was not provided with the complaint and I was not offered the opportunity to respond. In the code of conduct for members of Council Complaint Protocol, it states, “The integrity commissioner will proceed as follows.” I repeat, the integrity commissioner will proceed as follows, “A serve the complaint and the supporting material “upon the member whose conduct is in question “with a request that a written response “to the allegation be filed within 10 business days.” Again, as the member whose conduct was in question, I was not served the complaint in supporting material.

[56:33] I was not requested to file a written response within 10 business days. This is not some technicality or loophole. There is a defined protocol written into the code of conduct itself that explicitly lays out how our integrity commissioner will investigate a complaint. That protocol is there for a reason to ensure that the public and councilors can have a full opportunity to make their case and find a constructive resolution.

[57:07] As you can clearly see from our full correspondence, the integrity commissioner did not follow that procedure. This report includes falsehoods that are demonstrably untrue, that unfairly besmirch my character and impune my reputation. No evidence is presented to support the claims made and no evidence exists that would support them as they are untrue. Had I been given the opportunity to review and respond to the complaint before the integrity commissioner reached his conclusion, I would have set the record straight and corrected those falsehoods, but I was not given that opportunity, which as councilors, we are entitled to, according to our complaint protocol.

[57:55] So based on the facts in front of us, I will not support the findings and recommendations of this report and I will be voting against it. If council joins me in voting against this report, I will view that as a gesture of good faith and partake in any potential review of this report or the complaint protocol in a forum of councils choosing. By voting against this report, we will be standing up for our complaint protocol and ensuring that all of us councilors have an opportunity to defend or rectify our actions before a breach in code of conduct is found.

[58:29] On the other hand, if council accepts the findings of this report and reprimands me, council would be setting a precedent that any councilor can wake up one day to discover that they have been found to have breached the code of conduct without any due process whatsoever. So if council accepts the findings of this report and reprimands me, I will be left with no choice but to defend myself from these defamatory falsehoods in a different forum. The time is up, councilor.

[59:05] Other speakers, the motion on the floor. Councilor Ferra? I just have a process clarification question. I was under the understanding that the integrity commissioner said that the councilor is unable to vote on a possible reprimand. Yeah, so there’s no reprimand on the floor. And also I’ll be very clear, irrespective of advice or guidance that integrity commissioner says, there is no mechanism for any member of municipal council to declare an interest on behalf of another member of council, nor bar them from voting.

[59:42] That is an individual decision of the individual members of council on how to proceed on each and every one of those matters. So if your question is, can a councilor vote? Councilors make their own decisions on whether it votes for something or not. And if they’re not voting on something, they have to declare an interest under the act to explain why. So that’s not a decision that UI or anybody else makes but each individual councilor makes of their own accord based on their own advice and their own guidance that they receive. Speakers on this? Councilor Ferra?

[1:00:22] Thank you, through you. I guess I’m the only one right now. So I didn’t put a reprimand on the floor right away ‘cause I do wanna hear what the councilor has to say. And I am looking for remorse or some kind of lessons that were learned. I’m frankly unhappy there. I’m in order. Yes. I recognize we’re at council looking to the chair to see what order. I know it’s a different issue. We’re going through this for some of this, maybe the first time.

[1:00:54] If you’re speaking to one speaker per item that’s on the floor and recognizing the councilors recognize that what he’s speaking to you isn’t on the floor. So let me be clear, the councilor put a motion on the floor but didn’t speak to it yet. So I’m letting the councilor speak to the motion. There’s, I don’t know where the councilor’s headed with this. So it’s generally within the parameters of the integrity commissioner report right now. I don’t know where he’s going to go.

[1:01:26] So I’m not gonna stop that at this moment, but I appreciate your caution. And I don’t think he’s talking about something yet that isn’t on the floor, but- So are you giving us, if he speaks, like I’m just looking to see if you’re giving us to our five minutes once only per item on the floor? That’s it. Yeah, this is the councilor’s chance to speak. He put the motion on the floor, he did not speak to you yet. He’s, let me make sure I’m not timing and while I’m doing this. Yes, I did pause the timer. The councilor can speak, this is his one chance to speak on this. Now, if someone moves an amendment, then it’s just like council, that would be a new motion.

[1:02:02] We would have a speaker’s list for the amendment. And then we would have, if it passed an as amended motion, we’ll be back to speakers list again. So the process that council’s following here is there’s a motion on the floor. People get to speak to this motion once, okay? So go ahead, councilor, I’ll continue your time. Thank you, through you. Basically, I’m just looking for, how do we avoid something like this in the future? How do we, considering what was the language in the report that is on the floor, I would like to know how do we just work together and not find ourselves in this position again?

[1:02:35] I see a lot of discussion to procedure, a lot of discussion from the councilor on the process, on how there’s issues that she finds with the process, but I haven’t heard anything specifically about the breach of the code of conduct itself. So that’s really kind of where I’m waiting to see on what comes about this council before anything further might be moved on the floor. So that’s what I’m saying. Okay, councilor. So that’s fine, but no one’s gonna answer your question. That’s, there’s no one to answer your question.

[1:03:11] We’re in a process here. Two councilors have now spoken to the issue. I’m gonna move on with the speakers list. So we’ll go to the, we’ll go to whoever wants to come next. Other speakers, it’s a front, go ahead. Thank you, yes. I’d like to make an amendment to add the motion that the integrity commissioner included to reprimand the councilor. Okay, so it would be to an amendment to what’s on the floor to add a B.

[1:03:51] Thank goodness the clerks do up language on this at a time. That in consideration of the integrity commissioners findings regarding the breach of council’s code of conduct, the above noted, in the above noted report ‘cause it would refer to A, the councilor as Stevenson be formally reprimanded. That’s what’s listed in the, okay. That’s what you want to say. Is there a seconder for that? Okay, Councilor Plosa, one second. New speakers list on the amendment now, which has moved and seconded, are you speaking now?

[1:04:27] Or, okay, go ahead and speak now on the amendment. Thank you. I too is interested to hear what conversation would appear before the reprimand discussion. And as such, moving forward with the reprimand motion, I have a couple comments. As elected officials, we have a duty to hold ourselves to a high standard. Posting photos of people experiencing homelessness and then making references that the people in the photos or people who are homeless in general are criminals, is in my opinion, not. Point of personal privilege, go ahead.

[1:05:00] Point of personal privilege. You can rise and make your point and I will consider it. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, that was not the case. No, outline your point of personal privilege so I can address it. Well, this is not the place for the investigation. So if we’re going to do that, then I’m gonna get the chance to defend myself. Otherwise, the assumptions are being made. I’ve said the assumptions in this report were false. So if we’re gonna double down on this, that the integrity commissioner was clear. This is not the place to determine, it’s to receive the report and to respond to what the integrity commissioner has said.

[1:05:38] It is not a place to go through the investigation again or make comments on it in details like that. I’ve said it contains falsehoods. Okay, Councilor, you’ve got a point of personal privilege. You can just stay up until I address it. Yes, so to Councilor Frank, we have a motion on the floor, which is structured around the integrity commissioner’s report, which the integrity commissioner has outlined.

[1:06:23] We have an amendment on the floor specifically to the reprimand, which is a recommendation in the report. So if you could keep your comments tight to the components of what’s before us in the report and not anything outside of that, I think that’s where we’re all trying to head. I do want to recognize what the integrity commissioner said about the role that Council plays here. Our job here is to take a report, accept it, and its recommendations or not. And if there is a matter of procedural fairness that needs to be addressed, it does not need to be addressed or defended here.

[1:07:02] There are other options that are before members of Council to pursue that in a different way. It is not Council’s role to address an issue of procedural fairness here. There are other avenues to do that. So I’ll recognize the point of a personal privilege and say, just turn it into a general caution that like, let’s keep this tight to the report and the role that we have as Councilor to address items in the report, consider the reprimand and tight to that. So that’s my general caution.

[1:07:36] I’m gonna say this is dealt with and I’ll let people continue with the discussion. Go ahead, Councilor Frank. Okay, thank you. I might need that again then, ‘cause I’m not sure when I will waver into that area and not. But I will continue on to my comments. In my opinion, the member has shown no remorse and has been many opportunities. So in my opinion, the reprimand is a way that we can hold ourselves accountable and being accountable for actions is something that comes with this role. There are very few means of holding ourselves accountable and other elected officials accountable in general and reprimands as one of those options.

[1:08:11] I think it is a reminder in this case to do our best and to continue to act with high standard. I personally am satisfied with the explanation on the process by the integrity commissioner and feel confident that we can make a decision today based on the code of conduct violation. And despite the Councilor’s opinion on the process, I’m not worried that by voting to reprimand the Councilor means I will wake up with the breach of code of conduct in the morning. So I look forward to moving past this issue so we can focus on more important work that we have to accomplish on behalf of the community. Other speakers to the amendment, Councilor Ferra, on the amendment, go ahead.

[1:08:53] Thank you, through you, on the amendment. So I also agreed that I do believe that the integrity commissioner found this credible conduct from the code of conduct as it’s written. And I once again, I’m looking for remorse. I’m looking for an acknowledgement of lessons that were learned. I’m looking for a course correction, a reorganization of morals if we need it and the values as they affect people of London. We are elected representatives and we are supposed to be representing the people who live here and I do see that there are some issues when it comes to this, when it comes, especially what we see in this report.

[1:09:27] I’ve heard the Councilor say that there’s, the report is not clear, there’s not truths there, but from what I see from the actual code breach rate that we’re speaking to, those posts are still on the Councilor’s social media account right now. There’s a continuation of this breach of code. And because of that, I did wanna come in here and see what the Councilor had to say, but I hear process, I hear procedural. I’m not hearing anything that has specifically to do with the breach of the code itself, which is why I would support a reprimand at this point in time.

[1:09:58] I need to see that we are not gonna be in this situation again in the future because I don’t wanna waste our time. I wanna still work together. We need to look like we’re working together. We need to work together. We need to be collaborative. And when we spin our wheels dealing with issues like this, I would really like to know that we’re not gonna see ourselves here again. Okay, other speakers to the amendment. Sir, Councilor Trossa. This is in the nature of a procedural question, not a comment as to the merits on the motion.

[1:10:34] And that is, it’s often the case in these proceedings that the evidence is weighed, and it turns out to be roughly equal, in which case the question of who has the burden of proof would be determinative. And I don’t wanna get hyper technical here. Should the Council feel it’s in a situation where there’s evidence on both sides that’s roughly equal? I’d like more guidance on the one hand. Go ahead. On the one hand, does the commissioner get deference? Or on the other hand, is there a requirement of a showing of proof, not beyond the reasonable doubt, but preponderance of evidence?

[1:11:12] And I don’t know who’s gonna answer that, but I’d like to answer that. Yes, so Councilor, I think it’s important for us to be clear and stay on topic. The integrity commissioner in the introduction referred to the role the Council has in this case. I’m being very cautious not to let us tread into a line of playing a role that we should not be playing. I know what the integrity commissioner said. I believe I could go to Ms. Pollat on this question about, what is our role here?

[1:11:44] The Councilor’s getting into the almost, a pellant type type relationship that we may find ourselves in in these sort of situations where there’s disagreement and so I’m looking for your, as our legal Councilor, your guidance on the role we should be playing and where those boundaries are for us. Thank you, and through your worship, the role of Council at this point is to determine the penalty it wishes to give or not. If there is an issue as to process or the result, that can be through other avenues such as judicial review through the Superior Court of Justice or the ombudsman.

[1:12:27] So, Councilor, it’s not our role here to weigh the evidence of the integrity commissioner’s report. What you’ve heard is both the integrity commissioner mentioned that there are components of their investigation and research that we do not have access to. You’ve also heard Councilor Stevenson say that there’s components of this, that she feels we don’t have access to. And so we are not in a position to weigh, I think the merits and the findings of the report. What we are in a position to is to say, given what is written in the report, do we believe that we should be taking an action beyond potentially receiving the report?

[1:13:04] So, that is the position that we’re in. I’ll let you continue with any sort of comments you’d like to make, Councilor, because you only get to speak once at Council. So, I know, well, once on the amendment I should say, you’ll have another opportunity after if you want to speak on the main. So, we’re on the amendment right now. I simply wanted to ask that procedural question because I think it could be determinative. Thank you very much. Yeah, I’ll consider that a point of order. Given we, I think that we want to be very much on focus here and not straying into areas that we shouldn’t be straight into which a few Councilors have mentioned. So, on the amendment to anyone else, on the amendment to add to this part B.

[1:13:42] Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. I understand the challenges with the procedural issues around this, however, looking at the page 88 and looking at the report provided. I can see that there was some back and forth between the integrity commissioner and the Councilor and on what they’ve listed as number 43, it says in this regard she has acknowledged that there is room for improvement in her use of social media.

[1:14:26] I do see that as an acknowledgement of some ability to make changes. And I think that with the reprimand that supports that finding and that ability to look for ways to improve. And I think that’s kind of the best we can do when we’re given direction by the integrity commissioner. It’s to try to address behaviors that obviously the community felt were an issue 37 in the same page.

[1:15:03] It says, well, none of the complaints were filed by any of the individuals photographed. There’s no doubt that this issue is a sensitive one. And we saw that. We saw that that was sensitive. I’m reading the report. This is the Councilor’s quoting from the report of which it’s before us as an item which the integrity commissioner has done. It’s perfectly fine to talk about components of the report. Fine. The comment was not an acknowledgement of guilt. I don’t stand by that comment. Okay, so that’s your point of personal privilege. You want, so your point of personal privilege is not an acknowledgement of guilt.

[1:15:37] I would say Councilor, it’s being interpreted that way. I may not have heard it the same way, but we’re not going to reflect deeper into the comments. And I would just ask that you, you know, just stick squarely to the components of the report maybe without any extended interpretation of the meaning that the Councilor may project on what that means from her intent. Thank you. I appreciate that you’re asking me not to editorialize, editorialize this report at this point. I’ll read part 40, the accompanying reference to criminal activity and vandalism are also gratuitous, editorial commentary, and although not specifically directed at any individual are unnecessarily provocative, particularly when targeting vulnerable individuals, it is for that reason I support the referendum.

[1:16:26] Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And the amendment to go ahead, Councilor Van Mierbergen. Thank you, Mayor. I will not be supporting this amendment. I will not support the reprimand. We have to keep in mind here that several Councillors on this particular Council are brand new. When these alleged indiscretions were made, it was well within the first year of the Councilor’s term. So I don’t see ill will here.

[1:17:05] Were mistakes made? Possibly, but clearly the process that has been followed thus far, the Councilor has had certainly her eyes opened to what can happen just without knowing the full consequences. So in my view, with all that said, I will not support the reprimand. We went through this in the last term of Council. I know it was a different circumstance, and we did not support a reprimand in that instance either.

[1:17:43] Okay, anyone else on the amendment? On the amendment, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, and through the Chair. What evidence has been presented to Council that I do not have permission or consent of the people in the photographs? So I mean, none of us are gonna answer that because it’s a rhetorical question. You’re speaking on the amendment. So I would ask that you make comments on the amendment, which is to happen. - Well, the, I said through the Chair, the integrity commissioners here. I’m not gonna allow that question of the integrity commissioner.

[1:18:30] That is absolutely getting into re, like the thing that even you yourself, Councillor Cautian, does against, and that is getting into relitigating the case because the integrity commissioner has done their investigation. They’ve produced a report. If there is a challenge of procedural fairness that you have with it, then there’s other recourses you have. Municipal Council’s role here isn’t the procedural fairness recourse. So it is our job to consider whether or not to add a reprimand or an action of some kind based on the results of the report.

[1:19:02] So I’m not, I think this goes down the path of getting into questions and answers and relitigating something that it is not our role to relitigate. And it’s very clear by everybody involved that that is not our role and what we should be doing. So that question is not gonna be answered by the integrity commissioner. That gets into that space very clearly, in my opinion. I understand that. And it is a concern when aspects of the report are being reiterated and reread. There’s no evidence to support them. So I just caution colleagues that I’ve said there are major, the major findings are false.

[1:19:40] And so I’m just cautioning colleagues then to stop reiterating them if they don’t have the evidence to support them. Councilor Pribble. Thank you. And again, I don’t know if there’s a, I have a question for either integrated commissioner or our legal advice. What I’m struggling here with again, in a democratic place as London and Canada is that my fellow colleague, she feels she didn’t get the opportunity to respond to those allegations. And I know it was stated that she did supposedly by November 10th and instead of on November 9th, she responded in terms of questioning the process that was undertaken.

[1:20:23] Is this the question to our legal or three integrity commissioner? Because I would like to make a decision based on really full report. Is there any way to defer this and actually give extension or opportunity to the councilor to respond to those allegations? So councilor, no, with respect, that is what we’ve heard time and time again. It is not our goal, our role as a council to be an appellant body for the integrity commissioner’s report. You can disagree or agree with things in the report.

[1:21:03] But the report is the report. It went through a process that the integrity commissioner runs. If someone has a challenge with procedural fairness, as Ms. Pulitzer said, they can complain to the ombudsman of Ontario or take it through a judicial process to get recourse for a judicial fairness. Our council’s role is read the report, decide whether or not we’re gonna take an action like a reprimand or anything else. That’s our role. As much as everybody wants to go in and get all the details and make decisions on the content of the report themselves, that is not our role here.

[1:21:38] We clearly do not have that role. We do not sit as an appellant body. We do not have all of the information, all of the components of the investigation that led to the conclusions of the report. I can’t say this with enough emphasis. Our solicitor said it, the integrity commissioner said it, councilors of caution against it. As much as people want to go down the path of weighing evidence and arguments and debating them, our only role here is, and all that’s on the floor is are we gonna issue a reprimand or not? Are we gonna receive the report or not?

[1:22:13] And are we going to receive Councillor Stevenson’s correspondence or not? That’s where we are. But the review of the details of the report is not the role that council has here. The report is the report. It’s the report that was generated. It’s the report that was for us. If a councilor has a problem with the report, they’ll seek other recourse today, but council is not the appellant body in this case. As frustrating as it may be for members of council who may want to go down that path. So I can have Ms. Pollard comment again, who did on our role, just for clarity, because she’s mentioned it once, and I’ll ask her to do it again.

[1:22:51] I would line our role here and the other avenues that a council would have to pursue procedural fairness if necessary. Thank you and through the chair. The role of council is to determine what action it wishes to take with respect to the recommendation made by the integrity commissioner. If there is some question as to procedural fairness or the findings of that sort of thing, the remedies are, as I said, to go to court and ask for a judicial review of the integrity commissioner’s report, or there’s an avenue through the ombudsman’s person as well.

[1:23:41] Councilor Preble, thank you for the response. And as your worship, as you said, it is very frustrating and based on this information, and again, the place where we live in, and even though maybe my fellow council did miss the deadline, or I don’t know, there was a miscommunication, but bottom line is, it is very difficult for me, and I will not be supporting this motion if I don’t have the full response from the councilor. And yeah, it is frustrating, no doubt, and I wish we had all those things to really make a 100% fair decision.

[1:24:22] And I’m not saying how guilty, not guilty, that’s not the point. My point is that both sides, certainly the side should have the opportunity to state what he/she has to state, thank you. Other speakers to the amendment, Councillor Palazzo. Thank you, your worship. I recognize that some of council about half is new, and this is, we did deal with this as Councillor Vamberg and said in the last term of council, and it is an uncomfortable process, absolutely. And for me, it’s about the public accountability piece.

[1:25:02] We saw it independent advice for a public report coming forward, that’s what’s before us. We won’t be privy to all their behind the scenes investigations that took them months in doing so. I seconded the reprimand, I will be voting for it, as this is the only public recourse outside of an election process that the public has to raise questions and their concerns. As we don’t investigate each other, we look for independent advice.

[1:25:35] A reprimand, I would say, is the lowest barrier one. It could have been financial loss to the Councillor, which wasn’t recommended, nor is it moved. It could have been removal and stripping of appointments to either committees or agency boards and commissions, not what’s before us. It’s a reprimand based on their findings. That’s why I’m supporting it. And I know we’re never gonna, we always have questions of who said what, when, what was the date stamp, but not what’s before us, this is a report, 10 pages.

[1:26:10] I’m accepting the reports, and I will be supporting the reprimand as the public is holding us accountable. They’ve raised questions, apparently 37 questions on this topic, so I do believe it’s in order, thank you. Thank you, other speakers to the amendment. Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you. I understand we’re not here to find a guilt or innocence. That’s been done by the integrity commissioners.

[1:26:46] We’ve been reminded we’re to pass judgment on repercussions. In that vein though, I do have concerns with the report as follows, the integrity commissioner stated a couple of times, and both in the presentation report, there are serious misgivings about the London complaint protocol that they’re operating with, and I think we’ve seen the Councillor express her concerns there, I commend the Councillor for willing to address this at a proper place in time.

[1:27:30] The integrity commissioner says that it needs updating, and I’ve seen what’s gone on today in this report. I couldn’t agree more. As far as repercussions on what this council’s job is, I look at the findings number 49, and it says Councillors are entitled, in fact, expected from time to time to express controversial views and opinions without fear of contravention of the code of conduct. And we all have to do our job with that spirit.

[1:28:13] We can’t have, we can’t stifle voices. However, there are times when lines are crossed, and it goes on to say in 50, nevertheless, we admonish the Councillor to exercise greater sensitivity and care, avoiding provocative and gratuitous comments, insensitive to the plight of the more vulnerable, and her public comments posted on social media. So from my perspective, where I’m gonna leave that is the admonishment for me will suffice in my direction on this.

[1:28:53] Councillor, I’ll just caution, just because you referenced item 49. There is the integrity commissioner’s report that was submitted to council, which is titled December 8th. In Councillor Stevenson’s correspondence, there is a preliminary report dated October 27th. I believe you made a reference to 49 in that. It is not the same 49 in the actual report. I wanna make sure colleagues are considering the actual report, not the draft report before us today, ‘cause it’s really important that you’re on the right one. And I know we’re flipping between pages, but I just wanna make sure everybody’s looking at the right report, not the report in term that Councillor Stevenson provided us, but the final report is the only matter before us and a matter that is a component of our motion.

[1:29:38] So just make sure you’re looking at the December 8th report as you consider your comments. I would appreciate that. Councillor Stevenson, you’ve spoken to the amendment already. Well, it depends if the amendment passes, ‘cause if there isn’t, then there’s not an amended motion and you’ve spoken to the original, but if it’s an amended motion and it passes, then yes, people would have a new set of speakers, so. Okay, any other speakers? So this is on the amendment to add the Part B language around the reprimand as worded.

[1:30:21] I believe it’s up on colleagues screens. So we’ll do this in the system. We’ll open this for voting now. Councillor Hill, you’re voting no. Mr. Chauce, absolutely.

[1:31:28] Councillor Chauce votes no. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay, so that is now part of the overall motion. I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. Moved by Councillor Palazzo, seconded by Councillor Frank. So new speakers list on the as amended motion, which is all of this together. Good news, Councillor, you’re allowed to, you’re allowed to sit down now. There’ll be its Councillor Palazzo moved it, so you get to be standing for the motion now. Okay, so speakers on the as amended motion.

[1:32:05] Councillor Ferra. Thank you, through you. I’ll be quick. I’m just still looking for that odd, it seems very rare chance that we can get some type of words from the Councillor to show that we are not gonna be in this position again. That is really what’s gonna affect my vote. I see what the integrity commissioner’s report says. I do appreciate that the Councillor acknowledged there was room for improvement. I really like that. Okay, I’m gonna go back to let’s not project what other members of council are not doing with components of the report.

[1:32:45] I think that that’s just gonna lead us down a path where we’re gonna have lots of points of personal privilege and discussions. So Councillor, if you could keep this, we have an integrity commissioner’s report before us that includes a motion to issue a reprimand. And if you keep your comments tied to that, that would be phenomenal, thank you. Thank you. At this moment, it looks like I’m gonna be voting for the reprimand. I, like I said, I have seen the Councillor on the news. I’ve seen the reports. I am not seeing anything coming from the council that will show that we will not be put in this position again.

[1:33:19] I am not appreciative to be in this position, to be voting on a reprimand for a colleague of mine. I don’t like that at all. I haven’t seen that up to this point. I tried to ask again and again and again. I will be supporting the reprimand as it stands right now. Other speakers, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I haven’t spoken to this. So these are going to be my comments. Yeah, this is the as amended motion. So only Councillor Faire has spoken. So you’re number two, so go ahead. And I would like to explain the reasons why I’m supporting the integrity commissioner’s recommendation for a reprimand.

[1:34:02] For me, it’s very simple. I haven’t heard anything here from any of my colleagues that would support not having a reprimand. I’ve heard Councillor was new. I’ve heard the process was not followed. But I think what is more important is that as elected officials, that we hold ourselves to a higher level of accountability and we need to do that and we need to hold ourselves accountable. Yes, we make mistakes.

[1:34:38] We have many challenges. But for me, I think it’s really, really important that we hold ourselves to the highest esteem. And this reprimand is part of that, the acknowledges that we can and should be held at a higher level. So I am going to be supporting it. I don’t want to really ramble any more than really, I have not heard any reason why I would not support the integrity commissioner’s recommendation.

[1:35:13] Thank you. Okay, other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I too believe in a higher standard. I believe in the integrity commissioner process. I believe in this. There needs to be integrity in this process as well. I’m entitled to procedural fairness. I did not receive an email from the integrity commissioner informing me that they were investigating a complaint.

[1:35:48] I was not provided with a copy of the complaint. I was not provided the names of the complainants, and I was not asked to provide a response. Let me be clear. I did not receive an email from the integrity commissioner informing me that he was investigating a complaint. I was not provided the complaint, and I was not offered the opportunity to respond. In the code of conduct for members of council, complaint protocol, it states, the integrity commissioner will proceed as follows. A, serve the complaint and supporting material upon the member whose conduct is in question.

[1:36:31] With a request that a written response to the allegation be filed, my conduct was in question. I am entitled to a request for a response to the allegation, and that was not given to me. This is not some technicality or loophole. It’s not like it was the 11th day or it was the 12th day. There is a defined protocol written into our code of conduct itself that explicitly lays out how our integrity commissioner will investigate a complaint, and it is also in their report, this report, the one that was present given to council.

[1:37:15] That protocol is there for a reason to ensure that both the public and the councilors can have a full opportunity to make their case and find a constructive resolution. I was not given the opportunity to make my case prior to receiving an email saying that I was found in breach. There was no offer of any constructive resolution. I’ve provided the full correspondence.

[1:37:55] You can see how it was followed on complaint one. It was not followed on complaint two. There is a complaint three that I have not heard about, and based on our code of conduct protocol, I should be unconcerned about that. But given what’s happened with complaint two, I’m left not knowing. I could any day now receive an email on that too. There should be peace in the fact that we have a protocol that lets me know that within 10 days, I will know whether it is being looked at or not.

[1:38:33] This report includes falsehoods that are demonstrably untrue, that unfairly besmirch my character and impune my reputation. No evidence is presented to support the claims made as no evidence exists, that would support them as they are untrue. Had I been given the opportunity to review and respond to the complaint before the integrity commissioner reached their conclusion, I would have set the record straight and corrected those falsehoods. But I was not given that opportunity which as counselors duly elected counselors, we are entitled to according to our very own complaint protocol.

[1:39:16] So based on the facts in front of us, I will not support the findings and recommendations of this report, and I will be voting against it. If council joins me in voting against this report, I will view that as a gesture of good faith and partake in any potential review of this report or the complaint protocol itself in any forum of councils choosing. By voting against this report, we will be standing up for our very own complaint protocol to ensure that all of us counselors have an opportunity to defend or rectify, defend or rectify our actions before a breach in the code of conduct is found.

[1:39:56] It should be a big deal to be found in breach of the code of conduct. On the other hand of council accepts the findings of this report and reprimands me, council would be setting a precedent that any counselor can wake up one day to discover that they have been found to have reached the code of conduct without any due process whatsoever. So if council accepts the findings of this report and reprimands me, I am left with no choice, but to defend myself from these falsehoods in a different forum. I’m gonna be left with no choice.

[1:40:29] Good times up, council. Okay, I put myself on the speakers list too. I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Ray Lewis. I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. So thank you colleagues. I appreciate the discussion. And I would say I certainly understand the difficult position that many colleagues are feeling on this particular item. Given the strong temptation to try to support a colleague’s call for procedural fairness, the challenge we have is like, that is not our role as a council.

[1:41:10] We have contracted an integrity commissioner to do the investigation, to produce a finding and to recommend or not a sanction. And in every previous integrity commissioner report, I have supported both the work that they’ve done, as well as the results that they have recommended. And I’ll be doing the same again today. Now, I do believe in everything that has been said about the right to procedural fairness. And I think that Ms. Pollett and the integrity commissioner outlined the avenues under which a full and robust review of procedural fairness can occur.

[1:41:52] As tempting as it is for us to want to be a part of that, it is not our role here. Our role is to say whether you agree with the components of the report or not, whether you accept, and I think we’ve gone down the path a little too far on weighing evidence and relitigating the report, the report is the report. The findings of the report are what we render the next step on. If the report is flawed in any sort of way, that has to be determined through the ombudsman or a superior court, or the avenues that the legislation sets up to actually achieve that procedural fairness.

[1:42:30] Otherwise, if we start to put ourselves in a position of being the appellant body, or the judge on the components of the report, well, then this could be like a very long term, if that’s the position we’re gonna put us in, because it is not the role we have. As tempting as it is to want to go down that path, it is not the role we have. It’s not what we have to do as a council. We have to be very clear what our role is in this step. And so in my opinion, there is a report, it has a recommendation.

[1:43:05] Like every other time an integrity commissioner has put a report before us, I’m gonna support that process. And I do hope that we can, I do hope we can do what Councillor Ferrer said, and that’s, let’s move on to the next step of the good work that we need to do as a council. We can put this behind us. If the council pursues some procedural fairness, she has every right and every avenue to pursue that through the proper bodies. And I always respect someone’s right to pursue those fairness. But the precedent we would be setting, if we started to deviate and make decisions, not based on what’s before us, but based on what we think or what we’ve heard, or what we could suspect, or perhaps believe to be a procedural fairness issue, we’re gonna put ourselves in a very awkward spot.

[1:43:57] So we have to take the report as is, the Councillor has recourse if she has challenges with that report, and then we decide whether or not a punishment. And if people say, no, that’s our right, we could say no, we could say, you know what, the report’s the report, and there should be no reprimand, or there should be a pay suspension. We have, that is a role that we get to play on that end of things, but we do not get to relitigate the report. And so I’m not going to make any decisions based on any of that extenuating circumstance or evidence. I’m going to just look at the report, just look at the consequence.

[1:44:30] If the consequence lines up the report, that’s how I’m gonna vote. But I wanted to be clear with my colleagues on why I’m proceeding the way that I am with my vote tonight. Point of privilege, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I didn’t want to interrupt you there. I’m not asking for a relitigation. I’m not saying they did an investigation, and I disagree with the findings, ‘cause then this course of action would be the course of action. I’m saying we have a code of conduct protocol that was clearly not followed. Council does have a right, I believe, to expect that the contractors will follow the protocol, and that I do believe is a consideration of council.

[1:45:12] You’re right, the relitigation, right, wrong, all that kind of stuff, that is for another day. This is the fact that it was not, and I’ve presented clear evidence, that it was not followed, not to the letter, it wasn’t followed at all. That should be a consideration of council, in my opinion. Thank you, Councillor, and I’m gonna rule that you are responding to the mayor’s comments there, so I’m not looking for any further response on that. I think that was a legitimate point of personal privilege on your part.

[1:45:47] I will return the chair to the mayor now. Okay, other speakers on the as amended motion. Councillor Vameira, you can go ahead. Yes, if you could, and thank you, Mayor, if you could call A and B separately, please. So we can call them separately, even though we voted to amend to add it in, but we don’t do, when we call them separately, you don’t get to speak to them all again, so we’re just calling the vote separately at that point, and yes, I can do that. Yes, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, I’m gonna try and be very brief.

[1:46:25] I don’t want to get into procedural fairness questions. Councillor feels that she has a concern of procedural fairness, and I think that she has presented evidence that would suggest that she has a reason to pursue that, and that will come where it may. Like you, Your Worship, I have supported the integrity commissioner reports that have come before council during my time here. That includes the report that was received in the last term of council.

[1:46:57] I supported it then, and I’m gonna support it now, because I come back to the code of conduct piece, and what’s in the report with regard to that. And I do note in the councilors added communication that, well, a preliminary report was provided I think that there was an opportunity at that point to respond, and that opportunity was not taken, but I’m not going to get into whether or not that that’s something that may have not let us here today or not, I think that that’s something that the councilor may wish to pursue with the ombudsman through a process review, if that’s the case, if that’s the route she chooses to go.

[1:47:39] But I come back to the content of the report, as you underlined, and for me, if this was recommending, as was suggested, if this was recommending a 90 day pay suspension, I would not be supporting it. If this was recommending removing a member of council from a board or commission, I would not be supporting it. I think that that would be our crossing the line in a different way, but I think on a reprimand on this to say we’ve recognized that this has perhaps gone one step further than it perhaps should have in terms of social media commentary.

[1:48:14] I can accept that. I know that I’ve certainly had some social media battles myself in my time here, sometimes to the point where myself and another member of council have deleted posts that we’ve made and retracted them and apologized to each other. There are different ways for people to approach and be expressed differences of opinion. I agree with both the entirety commissioners comments and Councillor Layman’s comments that Councillors do need to be able to express differences of opinion. I think that that’s perfectly legitimate, but I think it is important that we do so in a way that’s careful and thoughtful as best we can.

[1:48:56] So I just wanted to explain where my head is at in terms of the report itself, not necessarily the question of the procedural fairies. No. Well, it’s a point of privilege again. If you call a point of privilege and say point of personal privilege. Point of personal privilege. Okay. Can you outline your point of personal privilege please? That it was stated that I had a chance to respond. Which I did, but it wasn’t before I was found in breach. And I asked, how was the protocol followed?

[1:49:33] The response wasn’t, oops, can we do this? It was, our protocol is unworkable. Okay. I was at a, no, but I was at a point then where I get to decide, do I just move along and then it’s about me and I can make this go away? Or do I address the fact that the contractor has said the protocol is unworkable? Yes, Councillor, so I have to address the point of personal privilege. So let me recognize that what you’re saying can be true and also what the deputy mayor saying can be true that there’s a preliminary report that you could have responded to.

[1:50:04] You’ve outlined your reasons why you didn’t, but we’re not gonna get into litigation. So on the point of personal privilege, both things can be true and I think both are not, you’re not suggesting that the other is saying anything. Yes, no, I’m not. So it’s dealt with. Yes. Okay, on the as amended motion, any other speakers before we vote. Okay, then we’re going to divide this. Let me just make sure I know how we’re gonna do this. So the integrity commissioner’s report is for receipt.

[1:50:45] We don’t approve these, we just receive it. It’s the report is the report. So that’s A, B is the reprimand part and then there’s an it being noted piece about just recognizing that correspondence from Councillor Stevenson came in. So I’m hoping maybe we could deal with A and be it being noted and then B separate. Is that satisfied the division that people are looking for? Okay. What we’ll deal with first is A and the it being noted. So receiving the integrity commissioner’s report and it being noted that Councillor Stevenson provided some additional correspondence. That’s what we’re voting on first. Not gonna be any more debate now.

[1:51:18] We’re just gonna vote on that. We’re gonna vote on the next one. So that piece is gonna open for voting. Councillor Hill, your vote’s yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. And on part B, which is the component about the reprimand. We’re gonna vote on that piece now by itself.

[1:51:53] So I’m gonna open that for voting. Councillor Hill, your vote’s no. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries nine to six. Okay, thank you. That matter has now been dispensed with. That was item 6.1. We’re on to item 6.2, which is a letter from myself. I’ll just outline it.

[1:52:27] And then I don’t need to leave the chair. I’ll ask a colleague to make a motion on this, I hope. As you know, we’re conducting interviews for the city manager selection. In the past, when we have moved to in-person interviews for this part of the process, we’ve done an off-site from City Hall, mainly to give people the protection and privacy. It still starts as a public meeting. It moves into an in-camera meeting. And then we conduct the interviews. This is the phase that involves all of SPPC, but to host a meeting off-site, we require permission of council to not have a meeting in this chamber.

[1:53:04] So I would ask if a colleague, and if no one’s willing to give up the chair and do it, but if someone could move the recommendation as I’ve outlined in the letter, Deputy Mayor Nalous is willing to, Councillor Stevenson is willing to second that. Any discussion on giving ourselves permission to have those interviews off-site? No, okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Councillor Hillier, second call.

[1:53:50] Councillor Hillier, this is on part B. No, Councillor, this is on, we’re past that. Now we’re on to giving ourselves permission. Our permission to host an off-site meeting for the purpose of interviewing city manager candidates. That’s what we’re voting on now. Yes, yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, the next item is an item with a number of pieces of correspondence related to it. It relates to an item in the community and protective services committee.

[1:54:27] So I look for a motion to refer these components to that item, Deputy Mayor Nalous, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. No discussion on that, no seeing none. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting, just referring this to the appropriate part in the agenda. Councillor Hillier votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. We’re on to item seven, which is a motion so which notice is given, we have none.

[1:55:08] So that moves us into the report stage of the agenda. We’re gonna start with the first report, item 8.1, which is the first report of the new planning and environment committee. I will turn it over to Chair Layman to present that report. Thank you, I’m pleased to present the first report of planning and environment committee. I’ve had no request to pull any of the items, Chair. Anybody want anything dealt with on planning committee separate? Councillor Vameer-Briggan, Michael. Thank you, Mayor, yes, if we could vote on 11 to, sorry, 3.3 separately, thanks.

[1:55:52] We sure can. Anybody else with something separate? Okay, Councillor, I’ll let you craft a motion. Thank you, so I’d like to move all items excluding number 11, which is 3.3. Okay, we have all planning committee items on the floor with the exception of number 11, which is 3.3 from the committee’s report. Any discussion or comments on these? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting as soon as it’s ready.

[1:56:34] Councillor Hill, your votes, yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, I’d like to put number 11, 3.3, 1.30, south, the over on west. Why that? Move by the Chair, any discussion on that? To request a vote separately, so we’ll open that for voting.

[1:57:21] Yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, that concludes the first report of the planning and environment committee. Great, thank you very much. On to the first report of Corporate Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to Chairman Callister to present the report. Thank you, I’m pleased to put the first report of the Corporate Services Committee on the floor. I’ve had no request to call any items.

[1:57:55] Anybody want anything dealt with separately at the Corporate Services Committee? Okay, the Chair’s put all items on the floor. I’ll look to see if there’s any discussion or debate on them. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Includes the first report of the Corporate Services Committee. Thank you.

[1:58:27] Pretty good job first time. Thank you. Next is the first report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Oh, and I’ll just note that Councillor Frank declared on item three or item 2.1. So we’ll have that dealt with separately, but I’ll turn it over to the Chair to present the report. Thank you, Worship. As noted, item three needs to be pulled due to a Councillor conflict, and I’ve been asked to pull number six, looking to see if there’s anything else. Okay, so so far three and six are being dealt with separately, anything else?

[1:59:07] Okay, I’m putting all the items with the exception of three and six on the floor and thinking and recognizing Councillor Ferrer for remaining on as vice chair. Item five was withdrawn and we’ll come back at a future date to committee. I’ll leave the comments there until we get together items. Okay, any comments on the items that are before us? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes.

[1:59:56] Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I’m putting item three on the floor. This is the focus and arena amending agreement as Councillor Frank declared a conflict publicly. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair, any discussion on this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Thank you, I’m now putting item six on the floor.

[2:00:30] This was the letter from Councillor Troso for amendments to the streets by-law for the regulation display of graphic images in the streets of the city of London. I’ve been asked to pull this item. In addition, I’ll preface it as the chair as this motion would say is the work staff was already doing as council direction from the prior council and work that we did there. It was believed that it was in the same spirit and alignment. So staff is already well underway on doing it and Mr. Katolet confirmed that a report will be back within Q1 of next year. And this work was already underway.

[2:01:06] Leave my comments there as chair. Okay, and there’s an item of correspondence that we referred to this. I look for the staff, the committee’s recommendations on the floor by the chair. I’m looking for any other direction or comments that people want to make on this. Go ahead, Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. It was a little confused by this. I understand it’s, you know, the by-law has worked on this and it’s, and I wasn’t sure why it was brought forward and where it’s going in. And I understand now it’s been referred.

[2:01:39] So I won’t be supporting it, but I am confused by why it was even brought up and I was a little surprised. So thank you. I’ll see if the chair can comment on that briefly and then we’ll— Yeah, thank you. As chair, as someone who have been through this conversation the last time of the council, I think it could have been also equally a motion just to receive the information as staff was already doing it. Just said this is committee’s direction this time around. So the work is already being done and is in alignment with the prior direction, which also meets what the council has brought forward.

[2:02:16] I would say is chair to realizing you could always check with staff beforehand to see what they’re working on and how it flows in or other people mainly the committee chairs to see what works already underway. Follow-up. Go ahead. Thank you, through you chair. So is there some redundancy in this thing? Chair, you can try to answer that, but it’s a committee recommendation at this point. So— Yeah, my perspective on whether there is or not. Yeah, my perspective on what I think, I would say yes, but the mover of the actual or the creator of the motion might feel separate.

[2:03:20] I’ll just add from the clerk’s perspective, irrespective of his staff was working on something. This is a council direction to prepare the by-law. So, I mean, there might be a slight difference in that. Sometimes things will come before us of regular due course. Another time, a committee makes a recommendation. Council approves, and it’s a council direction that can reinforce work that’s already been done. But certainly, I would say it’s an item before council now. Council decides yes or no on this.

[2:03:54] We’re creating a new decision point for council. So something just to be aware of it. Regardless of whether you think it’s redundant or not, there may be some consequences to voting. No, if it was already being worked on, that could be interpreted as, don’t work on this anymore. So I think maybe it’s redundant in the positive, but I would say it certainly has some implications if you go in other direction as a decided matter of council, that I would have to get more information on if you’re looking to understand that. Your worship, thank you, and now I’m really confused. So, by-law is working on this, and we’ve given further direction of by-law, is that what I understand is happening?

[2:04:34] And I mean, no disrespect to the chair, but I’m really confused. I don’t know what is going on here. And I’m not sure, I don’t think I’m alone in my colleagues. I think there’s some others that may be equally confused. So let me provide, I’ll let the chair comment. Let me provide this context. Your respective of something was on the path to be worked on, whether it be from the strategic plan or previous direction some time ago or a work plan of staff or committee direction.

[2:05:20] If what we have before us now is a committee approved direction. So if you approve it, staff are going to proceed. Even if they’re proceeding generally in alignment with the way they were before. If you vote against it, and then you want a couple months from now to bring a motion that says, tell staff to prepare by-law, I would have to consider whether that’s counter to what is a decided matter of council to vote down the direction to do that. So it’s a little bit nebulous in the way that the motion is worded, which is why I think it’s reasonable to have some level of confusion and questioning about this.

[2:06:04] I would just say we have a committee recommendation before, as regardless of how it got here, we have to dispense with that committee recommendation. However, we see fit. Voting against it would be council deciding not to take this action. So if this action were to come forward under a certain timeframe, I would have to look at the reconsideration procedures of council to decide whether or not we would pursue that. Like, it doesn’t mean the work can’t continue, but it, again, because this is direct staff to prepare by-law to regulate these things.

[2:06:43] If a council were to want to go through committee and say, I wanna direct staff to prepare by-law to do these things two months from now, and we’ve voted it down now, I would probably have to do some consultation with clerks to say, you can’t bring the exact same motion that we voted down at council. Can you add to committee? For sure you can, like committee doesn’t get to council. So that’s my only caution here is, you know, you can vote for it, you can refer it back to committee for some sort of consideration, but I would say we wanna be very cautious about right voting against it without getting some very clear advice from the clerks on the consequences of that, given council makes decisions, and there’s a very clear direction to staff.

[2:07:21] If we voted down, we’re actually saying something, we’re actually saying something with that. Thank you, worship. Now I’ve caused a bunch of speakers, I’m sorry. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then I’ll go to Councilor Trossaab. Yes, so thank you, worship. I did have a little bit of confusion on this myself, because as Councilor Plow’s alluded to, she and I worked on this in the last term of council. There was already a direction to staff to come back to us.

[2:07:55] I believe with some options, and I’m not sure I couldn’t in this morning’s rush with other meetings, pull up the previous direction. So I’m not sure what the previous direction was. My thought would be that that previous direction would still stand, actually, if this was not approved, but I don’t want to not approve this, because I also support the spirit in which this was brought forward. However, I have to share caution with colleagues, and I don’t mean this to be picking on anybody in any way, shape, or form, but when a previous direction on something’s already given, it would be helpful to know what that previous direction was and where it is in the process before adding an additional layer of direction on top of that.

[2:08:43] Not having that past direction in front of me makes it difficult for me to determine what’s actually different in terms of what we’ve already asked staff to do. Now, the timeline might be relevant, and I would accept that completely as a legitimate reason to bring forward a new motion to put a timeline on things. I will say that I’m a little bit concerned that we’re directing preparation of a by-law and a report back with a public participation meeting when I’m not sure that a single by-law option is necessarily going to resolve this.

[2:09:27] I’m not sure if we need options rather than a draft by-law and then start trying to amend a draft by-law on the floor after a PPM. So, I’m trying to see if either through our legal counsel or if Mr. Catolek’s online or Mr. Mathers, if we can get some clarity on what the previous direction was. Sure can, Mr. Mathers, go ahead. Through your worship. So, just what we intend to bring forward and then we’ll talk about the two directions here.

[2:10:02] So, we intend to bring forward different options. It may include changes to series of by-laws, one by-law, but that’s what we want to bring forward to counsel. And then we would have a public meeting related to that just because we know this is going to be a matter that is a public interest. Just to highlight the differences, the previous resolution that was brought forward and it was July 26th, 2022. It speaks very similarly in the language as far as what you’re trying to achieve, but speaks to the sign by-law, a change to the sign by-law.

[2:10:35] This one speaks to a change to the streets by-law or intention is to look at whatever options counsel would want to consider that achieves that goal of regulating these images. So, either way, we will bring forward a report that highlights all the options, whether it’s the sign by-law or the streets by-law. That’s the intent. So, your worship and just for counsel’s information as the committee that regardless with any by-law, there would always be a PPM.

[2:11:11] So, it doesn’t need to be in the motion, it is just automatically triggered. Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you, your worship and thank you, Mr. Mathers, for that explanation, very helpful. As I said, I didn’t want to oppose this because I appreciate the spirit in which it’s brought forward. Understanding now the clarity from our staff that there may be multiple changes, there are going to be a couple of different options brought forward that we can consider and debate. I’m much more comfortable supporting this moving forward now. And again, not that I wasn’t before ‘cause I appreciate the spirit that it was brought forward, just that the process made it a little muddy for me.

[2:11:48] So, I just wanted to express that. I will be supporting this. I do look forward to this coming back. I know it continues to be a concern in the community. What our options will be, I don’t want to prejudge. I know that we received some in-camera advice in the last session of counsel. I’m sure we’ll receive an in-camera portion again when this comes back to this counsel. And we’ll look to see what that says as well. But in terms of moving this forward and getting something back in Q1 of 2024 and looking at what our options are, it can be supportive.

[2:12:21] Councilor Trossam. Thank you very much through the chair. The intention of this motion was to add some clarity. Add some helpful suggestion in terms of drafting. The suggestion that this come forward in the next quarter was something that is very much wanted by the community since this is out there. And quite frankly, I think the definitions that we suggested while there no means binding because we haven’t passed the by-law yet, I think are very helpful.

[2:13:01] We spent a lot of time, you spent a lot of time. I wasn’t knowing the council. But the previous council spent a lot of time dealing with the definitions. And I felt that just coming right out and saying that let’s use the same definition of graphic image and not go through that whole thing again. And then number two, give a helpful suggestion for the definition of display. That further limits this, not the all displays, but only certain types of displays. Now that was given in the spirit of the understanding that since this is a measure that is going to have an impact on expression, it’s very important that we carefully follow the prescriptions of the Oakes test.

[2:13:45] And one of those, perhaps the most important one in this case is to be as narrow as possible. So by eliminating any suggestion that we’re asking to regulate what goes on on people’s private property, I thought it was helpful. I thought it moved it along. And I’m very worried that voting this down will just sort of be a decided matter of council that we’re not proceeding with this. So this was offered in the best spirit of trying to move this forward in a very, very thoughtful and legally consistent way.

[2:14:21] And of course, staff will give their report if they disagree with this. Thank you very much. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the hard work that the past council did on this. To Councilor Troso’s point, this was meant as a complimentary piece. Just to reinforce the work that was already underway, acknowledging that staff have almost completed it. We’re looking at Q1 of 2024 to have that back. So from our point of view, we are just trying to reinforce the work that was already underway.

[2:14:56] I’m sure both the sign and street bylaw were considerations and I’m sure we’ll see that in the report. In terms of the question that Councilor Cuddy raised as to where this was coming from, I just wanted to reiterate what we previously said at committee in terms of Councilor Troso, I believe it’s the near campus neighborhood. I’d also heard from some students as well. And for my ward, I also have Victoria Hospital. So I had heard from healthcare providers. So I just wanted to provide that context in terms of where we were having that come from. Thank you. Councilor Van Mierbergen.

[2:15:30] Thank you, Mayor. It goes without saying that we have to be very careful on how we approach this. That’s why we took so much time and care in the last term of council. The motion that came forward from Councilor Hillier and myself was that a warning wrapper be wrapped ‘cause we were dealing mainly with flyers at that time. A warning wrapper be attached and that worked because that allows each side, if you wanna call it that, in this debate to be heard.

[2:16:05] Now, in this case, we’re talking about placards. Well, I can’t think of a way to wrap a placard. So we’re gonna have to be very careful. I feel like we’re getting ready to step on a constitutional landmine in terms of freedom of speech. And I’d like to ask Ms. Paulette, is that a possibility? Could we end up with some type of court challenge? Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship, it is possible.

[2:16:42] These items tend to be sort of hot button issues that do attract court challenges. Thank you, and thank you, Mayor. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on this. It’s moved by the committee chair. There’s no more speakers, so we’re gonna open them for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[2:17:27] Councillor Palosa. Thank you, that concludes the first report for our community protective services. I’m gonna see if we can get through one more report, and then I know there’s a number of items before us, and I might take a break after this.

[2:18:03] So let’s see if we can squeeze through Civic Works Committee next. So item 8.4 is the first report of the Civic Works Committee. Councillor Hopkins, if you wanna present. Thank you, your worship. I’d like to put the first meeting of Civic Works Committee on the floor. I’ve not heard from anyone wanting to pull, any of the items. Anybody want to deal with anything separately from Civic Works Committee? Seeing none, Councillor, you put them all in the floor. Go ahead.

[2:18:35] Yeah, I’d like to take a few comments about our meeting, first of all. Thank you for my appointment as chair of CWC. Very excited to do that, and congratulations to Councillor Tresault for the appointment of vice chair. 2.1, we received the 12th report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. 2.2, River Road, pavement rehabilitation detail design and construction administration. The committee accepted the recommendation. These upgrades are needed.

[2:19:09] River Road has poor pavement conditions. Really pleased to see these improvements coming forward. And look also forward to future improvements through assessments. And of course, we have funds allocated. 2.3 is the White Oaks Complete Corridor Design from Warren Cliff to Exidore Road. We awarded the award. The project will redesign the tributary channel of White Oaks Drain to convey the regulatory flood events which we now use as 250 years.

[2:19:48] The meeting, it will also look at the corridor for movement of people in wildlife and storm water, by integrating the storm water management protection and enhance the natural heritage features. 2.4 was the emergency procurement to replace the pumps for Hazleton Pumping Station that needed to be replaced. And 2.5, the overflow notification website, we approved funding for 35,000 and 25,000 to supply hosting services for the website.

[2:20:26] And this money is coming from provincial funding. It will enable us to support informed decisions regarding growth services. And also giving information to the public. I look forward to working with the committee members. That is my report. Okay, thank you. That the whole things on the floor, any debate or discussion from colleagues? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting. Yes. Providing the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:21:08] Okay, I know we have a couple of SBPC reports. We’ve got a bunch of bylaws. I know where we feel close to done possible that we are, but I, given it was our last council meeting, I did, they get some hot food. So it’s ready now. So if you wanna take a 15, a 20 minute break now that we’ve been at this for a couple hours and a half, I’d look for a motion to do it 20, 20 minute. Councilor Plosas is 20 for our second set. We’ll do this by hand. All is in favor of a 20 minute, 25? What?

[2:21:40] No, it’s 20, it’s sorry. The motion carries for 20 minutes. Okay, so I’ll give you 22. Given we’re very close to the 330 mark. So back at 350 at the latest. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[2:47:49] So we’re back in session. And we’re gonna go to the first special report of SBPC. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that. Thank you, Your Worship. The first report of SBPC 8.5 on your agenda. This is a short one. Two items, disclosure to be carried interest and the recruitment retention and accommodation of planning development and building staff from our meeting. We’re gonna put that on the floor.

[2:48:25] Okay, we have that committee’s report on the floor discussion or comments on this. Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. And the second report of SBPC. For the second report of SBPC, I have had request to pull items.

[2:49:02] So I am going to move the report excluding. This will be items six, seven and eight. The grant agreements with the London Economic Development Corporation, the Small Business Center and Tech Alliance. And I’ll also pull item 11 as that’s the item from Councillor Frank and myself that will require Council’s reconsideration. So I will move the balance of the report. That will be one, two, three, four, five, nine and 10. Does anybody want anything else dealt with separately?

[2:49:36] Out of that, okay, seeing none, then that’s a good motion. We’ll open that for voting. Comments? Oh, sorry. Jumped again and no one was ready. Comments on that. I appreciate an expedited process. So ever so briefly just on the item 10, a comment is the multi-year budget, realizing a lot of you is going to be using it for some winter reading. Just a reminder that as you discuss business cases or whatnot with each other, that those all count towards quorum issues. So just find a way that you want to track who you’re talking to about what as with 87 business cases in a process, it can become a little bit overwhelming.

[2:50:13] So that was just a note from the budget chair. It was like a big spreadsheet everybody needs. Okay, great. Comments on the items that are before us? Well, that’s moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis. So we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead.

[2:50:47] Thank you, worship. Items six, seven and eight. Councilor Pribble requested that I pull these. However, he did indicate to me that he is comfortable with us voting on all three at the same time. So I am prepared to put six, seven and eight on the floor now. We’re just going to need a second to do that.

[2:51:43] Okay, we’ve done that. Items six, seven and eight are on the floor moved. And I look for any comments on this. Go ahead, Councilor Pribble. Thank you. And as you know, I pulled this last week at our SPPC meeting. I did have four points to address these agreements, these three agreements. And I do realize that they came to us quite late, but I did ask for one year extension to the current agreements or these three organizations would be, they wouldn’t be stuck without no funding. But one point that even though I raised four of them, one I’m really still struggling with.

[2:52:20] And that is we are asking community organizations, social agencies to come up with specific targets in their agreement, the deliverables that we can hold them accountable for. And in these three agreements, we really don’t have any. At the best, there are certain, there are certain matrix, but again, matrix without any targets, you cannot really hold organizations accountable. We have three great business organizations. And I really thought these points should have been included. It’s a four year agreement.

[2:52:52] It would have given us one month extension. And I’m quite sure these three strong organizations will be able to come up with certain specific targets within a month. So I voted no last week and I will be voting today again. And this is the main reasons why. Thank you. Any other speakers on this? We’re gonna open that for voting. Yes.

[2:53:30] Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, Your Worship. Moving on, the last item on this SPPC agenda is item 11. This was with regard to the reporting progress updates, the health and homelessness below community system response and the frequency of those reports. This will be, we have to deal with this in two parts. We want to draw out a colleague’s attention that the frequency was not adjusted to place annually as was listed in the original communication, what was amended to quarterly at the meeting.

[2:54:07] However, it is a recommendation to reconsider. So first thing we have to do is pursuant to section 13.3 of the council procedure by law, we have to move reconsideration of clause 4.1 of the 10th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee regarding the health and homelessness summits proposed poll of community system response as approved at the March 7th, 2023 meeting for reconsideration. That council that does require a recorded 2/3 members vote. And that’s all members of council, regardless of whose presence it requires 10 votes, irrespective of how many people are here and participating.

[2:54:48] Reconsideration, now that it’s recommended from committee is not up for debate. So we vote for the reconsideration motion first, which can be put on the floor by Deputy Mayor Lewis given he was on the winning side of the original vote. So we’re gonna have that on the floor. If reconsideration fails, then we’re done. Through the previous decision of council stands, there’s no alternate recommendation. If reconsideration passes, then it will be the committee’s recommendation that we consider next on the floor, which is the alternative suggested motion from committee.

[2:55:22] But reconsideration will occur first. There’s not any debate on reconsideration and it requires 10 positive votes to reconsider. And I just wanna make sure that the clerk reads out the wording of the motion. It’s as described or it’s basically, oh, it’s up in the, okay, perfect. Okay, all right. So we’ll everybody just read the motion first and then we’re gonna open that for voting. Councillor Cuddy, Councillor Hillier, Councillor Cuddy.

[2:56:33] Yeah, I think you both spoke at the same time. So we didn’t hear you, we heard Councillor Hillier only. Yes. Thank you very much. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. I’m not sure what this requires a seconder. So you can put the alternative recommendation on the floor. I’m gonna look for a seconder just to cover the basis ‘cause it’ll take a second in the procedure by-law, but better to be covered than not. So here, are you willing to put the alternate recommendation as approved at committee for the quarterly reporting?

[2:57:06] Sure. Seconded by Councillor Frank. So we can have discussion on that now. Any discussion on the quarterly reporting piece? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I won’t be supporting this amendment. I, if the reports, the monthly reporting is onerous, the previous, but what is currently in play is a monthly progress update. That’s all it says. No stipulation as to what’s included there, how long it is, anything like that.

[2:57:40] So I would prefer to trust the senior leadership team to amend that report to something that’s doable each month rather than not hear about such an important topic on a monthly basis. Okay, thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, we’re gonna open that. Sorry, Councillor Peruzza. Yeah, go ahead. You made it. Good. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. The comment that was just made from my fellow Councillor, any comment from the staff in terms of monthly certain updates, bullet points, top points, thank you.

[2:58:19] Councillor, can you just ask a specific question? Like not, I usually don’t say it’s a staff, just hey, comment on what another Councillor mentioned. So just ask the specific question. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. Would it be possible to have still monthly reports and they would state the topic such as topic discussed, timelines, deliverables and accountability, these four points, would it be possible that it wouldn’t take as much time? Thank you.

[2:58:51] So first, Councillor, that’s not really what’s before us. Before us today is the reconsideration of the timeframe. If like staff basically does whatever council directs within their capacity to actually achieve that and do it given their resources. So I think I understand your question, but like the matter before us is really the frequency of the report. There can be a discussion and committee about the content of the reports, but I think path you’re going down is the path from committee that council’s made a decision and our committee’s made a decision to put before this council.

[2:59:27] And I just, I don’t think that that’s relevant to the piece about the frequency of the reports. And as was mentioned at the committee, we can talk about the content of the reports. And I think people mentioned that, but that’s a discussion for the next piece. This is about the frequency. So if you wanna keep the monthly, vote against this. And if you want, and then we can, we could talk about the content at a future meeting. And if you want to go quarterly, vote for it. And if we can still talk about content at a future meeting. So, okay. All right.

[2:59:59] Other speakers? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Yes. No trust or votes, yes. (indistinct chatter) Thank you.

[3:00:39] Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to two. Go ahead. And that concludes the second report of SPPC. Okay, so there are no added reports. There’s no deferred matters. Any inquiries? Have any flag for me? Nope, okay. My mistake, given our work in camera, there is an added report. I just need a volunteer to present that report.

[3:01:13] I’ll tell you it short. So, it’s not one of those really long ones. All right, Councilman, no one volunteered. So you get to do it. So you get for sitting close. If you could present the closed session report, please. I am extremely pleased to present the first report of Council closed session. One, a lease of office space renewal agreement, 1275 Highbury Avenue North North one mall that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance supports on the advice of the director of Realty Services with the concurrence of the deputy city manager of social and health development with respect to the lease renewal agreement for the lease of office space at Northland mall, the lease renewal agreement between the city and capital city shopping center and limited the landlord for the lease of approximately 17,355 square feet of rentable area located at store number 107 in the project known as Northland mall located at 1275 Highbury Avenue North in the city of London for an extension period of five years commencing September 1, 2024 and ending on August 31st, 2029 be approved.

[3:02:30] That progress was made with respect to items 4.1 to 4.11 as noted on the public agenda, 6.1 slash one slash PEC on the 6.2 slash one slash PEC on the 6.3 slash one slash PEC on the 6.2 slash one CSC comma 6.3 one CSC 6.1 slash one slash S PPC one or comma 6.2 slash one slash S PPC comma 6.3 slash one slash S PPC comma 6.4 slash one slash S PPC and 6.1 slash two slash S PPC.

[3:03:15] Thank you. You get to you’re presenting the report so you get to you to stand Councillor Layman and you’re moving that motion. Is there any debate or discussion on that motion? Okay, well, we’re going to open that for approval. Yes, closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0. Thank you very much for presenting that report, Councillor Layman, it’s much appreciated.

[3:03:52] No deferred matters, no inquiries, no emergency motions. We’re on to bylaws. How I’m going to do this given the way the meeting went. Councillor Pribble wants the granting agreements dealt with separately, I assume. Yes, okay, so we’ll deal with those separately. Councillor Frank, I believe, has a conflict on one. Councillor Van Merebergen, do you want that planning item? Bylaw pulled separately that you, there was an item in planning committee that you voted against. Do you want that separate? Yeah, okay, so we’ll do that one separate. Okay, so we’re going to pull out granting agreements.

[3:04:30] Councillor Frank’s conflict. Councillor Van Merebergen’s alternate vote on that. Otherwise, everything else is in. Does anybody want anything divided further than that? Okay, so we’re going to deal with everything, except those exclusions first, and then we’ll deal with the exclusions after. So I’ll look for a mover, Councillor Van Merebergen, go ahead, and a seconder, Councillor Stevenson, on first reading of those slates of bylaws, so there’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting.

[3:05:15] I’ll just note before you finish voting, the added bill related to Councillor Layman’s comments is also in this set. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, mover and seconder for second reading of that grouping. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[3:05:52] Third reading. I look for a mover and a seconder of third reading. I see Councillor Stevenson and Councillor ramen. No debate on third reading, so I’ll open third reading for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next item we’ll deal with is bill three.

[3:06:29] Councillor Frank, bill three is the one that you declared on, so we’re doing that one now. Mover and seconder for bill three, moved by Councillor Stevens and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We’ll open first reading for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[3:07:06] Second reading of bill three, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. Any debate on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[3:07:48] Third reading of bill three, and Councillor Layman, Councillor Hopkins, we’ll open third reading for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[3:08:31] Okay, next we’re gonna do bills five, six and seven, which are the three granting agreements for the different agencies. We’ll do those all together. We’ll look for a mover and a seconder for those. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll open first reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:09:07] Second reading of those three bills, moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Frank. Any debate on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, third and final reading of those three bills together.

[3:09:44] Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Raman. We’ll open third reading for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, the next is bill 15. That’s the Southdale Road one.

[3:10:17] So we’re gonna look for a mover and a seconder for first reading of bill 15. Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We’ll open first reading for voting one, Charlie. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, I look for mover and seconder for second reading on that same set of bills, Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

[3:11:00] Any debate on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Third and final reading of that bill. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. We’ll open third reading for voting.

[3:11:42] Yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. All right, colleagues, that completes the bylaws. Before we adjourn, just wanna let you know, earlier this year, during the air show, I had a group of students through my office and I was talking about how we have to give permission to the air show to fly at low-level altitudes within the city.

[3:12:18] And at the time, I was asked if we do that for Santa at Christmas. And my response was, of course we do. And so, earlier today, I wrote to the first Canadian Division headquarters, the clerk and I, to authorize permission for low-level flights over the city from late on December 24th, to early on December 25th. And so, permission has been given for low-level flights across the city during that timeframe, much to the delight of, I hope, children in our city. So, be kind with cookies and milk and all those things that you’d like to leave out for those celebrating the holidays in as many ways as you celebrate with the diversity of all that is our community.

[3:12:54] Since we may not see each other before the break, I hope all of you and each of you have a wonderful break. I hope you have the chance to recharge, reflect, connect with family friends and loved ones. Certainly, reflecting on the past year, you know, I appreciate all of the work that each and every member of Council has done, both around this horseshoe as well as your individual and often unappreciated work in your wards, representing your constituents each and every day on all of the many, many, many, many questions that you get in email, by phone, or even when you’re out at the grocery store.

[3:13:29] We appreciate all that you do on behalf of this community, to the staff of the city of London. Thank you so much for all that you’ve done to support the directions that Council has provided over the past year. I know that we ask a lot of you often so much that it’s hard to imagine fitting it all in, but somehow you do that each and every day. And so not just to those who serve in this room, but to those all across the corporation, we wish you and all of your family members, you know, a very wonderful time of year. And as we close out 2023, a great level of appreciation on behalf of municipal Council and the citizens of London for the work that you do.

[3:14:06] To our friends in the media, in the back row, I know we don’t often comment on you, but thank you for spending the course of the year reporting on what we do in this chamber and making sure that Londoners are well-informed about the work that’s being done. And again, I wish you all a happy holiday season and a look for a motion to adjourn. Boved by Councilor Vamier, bring in seconded by Councilor Frank, all those in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. We’re adjourned.