January 12, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 PM; it being noted Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.10 BE APPROVED with the exception of items 2.3 and 2.8.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Items 2.3 and 2.8 in Stage 2, Consent, to be considered before Stage 3, Scheduled Items.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   Old East Village Business Improvement Area 2026 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2026-01-12 Staff Report - OEV BIA-Municipal Special Levy

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Old East Village Business Improvement Area proposed 2026 budget submission in the amount of $376,095 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2026 fiscal year for the purposes of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $42,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1, as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026.

Motion Passed

2.2   Hyde Park Business Improvement Association 2026 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Hyde Park-Municipal Special Levy

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association proposed 2026 budget submission in the amount of $876,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2026 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $741,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-1519-490 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026.

Motion Passed

2.4   London Downtown Business Association 2026 Proposed Budget - Municipal Special Levy

2026-01-12 Staff Report - LDBA-Municipal Special Levy

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Downtown Business Association:

a)    the London Downtown Business Association proposed 2026 budget submission in the amount of $2,447,363 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026;

b)    the amount to be raised by the Corporation of the City of London for the 2026 fiscal year for the purposes of the London Downtown Business Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $2,128,863;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law CP-2 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the London Downtown Business Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026.

Motion Passed

2.5   Argyle Business Improvement Association 2026 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Argyle BIA-Municipal Special Levy

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Argyle Business Improvement Association:

a)    the Argyle Business Improvement Association proposed 2026 budget submission in the amount of $416,000 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026;

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2026 fiscal year for the purposes of the Argyle Business Improvement Association and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $345,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law A.-6873-292 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Argyle Business Improvement Association BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026.

Motion Passed

2.6   Assessment Growth for 2026, Changes in Taxable Phase-In Values, & Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessment

2026-01-12 Staff Report - 2026 Assessment Growth

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Assessment Growth for 2026, Changes in Taxable Phase-in Values, and Shifts in Taxation as a Result of Reassessments report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

2.7   Expropriation of Land to Facilitate Placing Certificate of Requirement on Title - Condition of Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for Expanded W12A Landfill

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Expropriation of Land to Facilitate Placing Certificate

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN for the expropriation of land as may be required to comply with Condition 18 of the Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the expanded W12A Landfill, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)     application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the administrative title cleanup associated with the Expanded W12A Landfill;

b)     The Corporation of the City of London serves and publishes notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)     The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Ontario Land Tribunal any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed

2.9   Middlesex County Connect Inter-Community Transit Service Funding Agreement

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Middlesex County Connect

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Funding Agreement - Middlesex County Connect Inter-Community Transit Service with the County of Middlesex:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026 to:

i)    approve the funding agreement between The Corporation of the County of Middlesex (the “County”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Funding Partner”);

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement and any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations; 

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or delegate) to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter.

Motion Passed

2.10   Appointment of Drainage Superintendent By-Law Update Under the Drainage Act

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Appointment of Drainage Superintendent By-Law Update

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of the Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990:

a)    Siyomack (Mack) Aziz, C.E.T. BE APPOINTED to be named as the Drainage Superintendent for the City of London to carry out the duties imposed upon Siyomak (Mack) Aziz pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026, to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17, and to repeal By-law No. A.-8454-22 entitled “A by-law to appoint a Drainage Superintendent pursuant to the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17;

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

    

d)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

2.3   Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area 2026 Proposed Budget – Municipal Special Levy

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Hamilton Road-Municipal Special Levy

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area:

a)    the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area proposed 2026 budget submission in the amount of $247,500 BE APPROVED as outlined in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026;

 

b)    the amount to be raised by The Corporation of the City of London for the 2026 fiscal year for the purposes of the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area and pursuant to subsection 208(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE FIXED at $70,000;

c)    a special charge BE ESTABLISHED for the amount referred to in part b), above, by a levy in accordance with By-law C.P.-1528-486 as amended; it being noted that the special charge shall have priority lien status and shall be added to the tax roll pursuant to subsection 208(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026 as Schedule “C”, with respect to Municipal Special Levy for the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on January 20, 2026.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.8   Contract Award: RFT-2025-224 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3A East - Dundas Street

2026-01-12 Staff Report - Contract Award-East London Link

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the contract award for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3A East project; it being noted that in accordance with Section 12.4.1 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Request for Tender (RFT) contract awards greater than $6,000,000 require approval of City Council:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $19,977,204.46 excluding HST, for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3A East project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,397,828.95 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii) (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated January 12, 2026, as Appendix “A”;

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within this project;

f)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2025-224); and 

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

Motion Passed (4 to 2)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Not to be heard before 1:05 PM - Tribunal - Development Charge Appeal

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That, after convening as a tribunal under section 26 of By-law C.P.-1551-227 to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, by Paula Lombardi of Siskinds LLP, with respect to the property municipally known as 763–773 Dundas Street, regarding the calculation and application of development charges for the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre – Doorway to Dreams Project (Permit 24-028071), and as detailed in the attached Record of Proceeding, the complaint BE ALLOWED, and that pursuant to s. 4.2 of the Development Charges Act the correct amount of development charges owing is $0 as the proposed development is a non-profit housing development.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee now convene as a tribunal under section 26 of By-law C.P.-1551-227 to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 and provide the complainant an opportunity to make representations.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, after convening as a tribunal under section 26 of By-law C.P.-1551-227 to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, by Paula Lombardi of Siskinds LLP, respecting the property municipally known as 763–773 Dundas Street, concerning the calculation and application of development charges for the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre – Doorway to Dreams Project (Permit 24-028071), and as detailed in the attached Record of Proceeding, on the recommendation of the Tribunal, the complaint BE DISMISSED, on the basis that the Tribunal finds the amount of the development charges applied was correctly determined and that no error occurred in the application of the Development Charges By-law.

Motion Failed (3 to 3)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting of the Tribunal, under Section 26 of By-law C.P.-1551-227 BE ADJOURNED and the meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE RESUMED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Provided to Members only.)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Stevenson

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.1    Land Acquisition / 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; 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    Land Acquisition / 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; 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.

6.3    Land Acquisition / 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; 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.

6.4    Land Acquisition / 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; 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.

6.5    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 lease of commercial space 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.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 3:04 PM to 3:14 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:17 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 (2 hours, 26 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. We are going to get started on the second meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. We’ll start first with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawik, and Adwondron.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Maytean, and you at today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I want to just recognize that we’re joined today by members of the committee, myself as a chair, Councillor McAllister, we have Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Van Mirbergen, and Councillor Pribler joining us online, and Mayor Morgan as well as a member of the committee.

So just secondly, just want to remind anybody that if you need alternate formats of communication support for meetings, you can get that upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact ICSC at London.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. First, I will look at committee to see if there’s any disclosures of a pecuniary interest. Hey, seeing none, we’ll move on to items for consent.

There are 10 items on our agenda for consent today. I’ve had requests to pull 2.3 and 2.8. Any other requests for items to be pulled? Okay, seeing none, I will look to move for a mover and seconder for the consent items that remain, which is 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3, 2.7, and 2.9, and 2.10, looking for a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Van Mirbergen, thank you, and we will open up for a vote. So if you’re on, sorry, any discussion on the items? I know Councillor Pribler, you had some comments for 2.6, if you’d like to get us started, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, Chair, to the staff.

In last year’s report under this section, there was a confirmation that we received on November 1st, 24, a letter from the province and it stated confirmation that the proper task passes for aggregate sites, there will be no changes. And also, it identified the tax policy priorities from the province. And I just want to confirm from the staff, if we received this letter last year as well, or if we have not, and if we are expecting this letter, thank you. Thank you, I will look to Mr.

Collins. Thank you for joining us, and please go ahead. Through the chair to the committee, the city did receive, as we do, from the province letter, from the dictating or identifying property tax decisions. That was received back on December 10th, 2025.

The biggest take away from that letter in 2025 was that the government does not expect a reassessment for the 2026 taxation year. That was outlined on page 58 of the committee report. Thank you. Councillor Per beble, Councillor Per beble, go ahead.

You’re all sorry, it froze for me, but anyways, no more questions. Thank you for your response. Thank you. I’ll look to other members of committee for any questions on the items in front of us.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Just a couple of the audit fees for the BIA’s. I just noticed that many of them are upwards of $10,000 a year, which seems high for some of the small amounts and limited expenditures that some of these groups do.

I just wondered if there was any information from staff on what the amounts are per year and any extra charges. Thank you. I will go to Mr. Collins on that item.

I wanted to first say thank you to the BIA’s that are joining us today. We have a number of them here. Actually, all of them represented in some way as we discuss their budget items. So I’ll go to Mr.

Collins to answer that question. Go ahead. Through the chair to the committee. As part of the procurement process that the City Mayor takes to identify the city’s external auditor, which would hold true for the boards and commissions.

The proponent does provide a schedule of fees for the four year or in a five year term, in which case audit fees for all the BIA’s were outlined, which commenced at about approximately $5,000 for the first year of the contract, increasing incrementally by a couple hundred dollars each year. That is predicated on a clean audit where both the city as well as the board’s commissions, anyone that the auditor is auditing is ready and no additional work or instances occur where further work is required by the auditor. For example, the inclusion of new changes to accounting standards. We’ve had a number of reporting standards that have come into play over the past couple of years, be it the revenue standard, financial instruments that additional work would have to have been undertaken by the auditor as part of their annual audit, which may drive those costs to be slightly higher than what was set out in the request for proposal that was done a number of years ago.

Thank you. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate that. And yet the amounts that we see in here are 10,000, which is like almost twice what the original amount was at the 5,000.

I noticed Argyle even budgeted for 20, 25, $10,000. So what’s the process when there’s additional charges and what’s required at both the BIA level and at committee council? Thanks, Councilor, can you tie it back to that budget? Specifically, that’s in front of us in the special levy, ‘cause if you’re on the levy.

Yep, well page 50 of the Argyle BIA says that audit fees, well actually it’s audit and bookkeeping is 10,000. But for the amounts going forward, hear what you’re saying. And yet it does tie into the budget in that if we’ve got overages in the previous years, as we do in the Old East Village and Hamilton Road, I believe, maybe it’s only Old East Village. But I do think that it’s relevant here as to what we’re budgeting if we know that they could be substantially higher.

Hey, thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Collins for any further comment. I know this is an issue that has been raised by BIA’s and could be dealt with as a separate matter, but any that ties back to the tax levy.

So who’s a chair to the committee? So aside from the flat rate that is identified within the contract with the auditor, there is also an hourly rate associated with additional work that has to be, that may have to be undertaken by the auditor to inform their opinion based on the work that comes out. So the price could or the actual cost could vary from year to year based on the additional work that may or may not be required or the auditor to come up with their opinion. I would suspect that as a board or even the city budgets for the following year, they would take into consideration the cost associated with the prior year and plan accordingly as well as they have the option or the opportunity to ensure that come the following audit that all of their accounting records and their coordination between the auditor is undertaken well in hand.

What drives the cost of the audit is outlined in the audit planning report that the auditor sits with management at the onset of the audit to ensure that everything is aligned and things are scheduled and people are ready to undertake the audit in a timely and efficient manner. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just one last follow up on that bit and is that are any increases they need to come through the audit committee at all or they reported out as to what the additional overcharges are, Mr. Collins?

Through the chair to committee at audit committee, often you’ll see what some of these additional audit costs relate to a lot of the findings that may come through or the observations that are reported out as part of the audit report to committee. So using the city of London’s audit as an example as part of the audit letter or the opinion letter that the city receives from the auditor, there are a number of items or observations that the auditor would make regarding the audit of the books of the respective organization. Those items are either identified as corrected or uncorrected misstatements. Councillor Stu.

Okay, thank you. I’ll follow up on the specific issue that I have in mind offline. For Old East Village, I noticed that there were some changes or I think there were some changes to the budget that I see here versus the one that came through the board. So again, what’s the process as the budgets come through?

Are there changes made or what would be the approval process there if there were to be changes? Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Murray. Thank you, three, Madam Chair.

So there may have been some changes in presentation format only in order to comply with how we present the budgets in this committee report. The figures themselves, I understand, are unchanged from what went to the board. Mr. Stevenson.

Okay, thank you again, I’ll follow up offline. So I’m coming. Thank you, I’ll look to any other questions from members of committee before going to visiting Councillors. Okay, seeing none on the items that we have under consent all but 2.3 and 2.8, I will look to open the vote.

Sorry, Councillor Ferriero. Thanks Chair, I was waiting for the Visitor Council, Visiting Councillors call. I just wanted to, I guess, recognize the downtown BIA, Steve Vicki Smith, our interim director is here. And it’s obviously looking at just the consent item that we have here for the 26-budget submission and the special charge, just recognizing that charges is low.

And we did that just because we recognize what the business community is calling for in the downtown area. But I do want to say 26 for the downtown BIA is going to be a big year for us. And you’re going to see some really good movement coming from the downtown BIA. And I just wanted to make a shout out to the interim director, your staff and the board that there’s some big things to come.

And I do appreciate the work that we’ve done so far and we can navigate anything that comes towards us. So that’s what I want to say, keep those comments tight and have done, thank you. Thank you, any other questions, comments, visiting councilors, members of committee? Okay, seeing none on these items, I will look to open the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Thank you, Councilor McAllister, I know you were looking to move a change of order for items that were pulled from consent. I’ll let you do that at this time. Thank you, and I’d like to have us dispense with the remaining consent items because I don’t want the folks who are waiting on those to have to wait till the end of the tribunal.

So we get dispense with those now. Thank you, so you’re looking to move a motion to change order, okay, so I have a motion moved, looking for a seconder to change order. Councilor Stevenson, thank you. Any discussion on this item?

Oh, sorry, there is no discussion on this item, so we will look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, thank you, so that will take us to item 2.3, which is the Hamilton Road BIA’s 2026 proposed budget municipal special levy. I will look for a mover and seconder on this item, so we can begin the discussion.

I have Councilor McAllister and I have Councilor Frank and looking to committee for discussion on this item. Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I did have a question regarding the cybersecurity incident of the 111,000. I believe this is the only time or the first time this has come to committee and council.

And I was just wondering, it seems to me, given the taxpayer dollars and the significant amount of this that it would be beneficial to have a report detailing what happened and what is being done to prevent this kind of thing in the future. So I just wondered through you to staff, if you could confirm this is the first time that this has been publicly brought to committee council and is there going to be some kind of a reporting out on that? Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Murray.

Thank you, three, Madam Chair. So yes, this was a matter that did make the news a number of months ago but has not been reported through a committee or council report up to this point. I will note that it is a matter that specifically impacts the Hamilton Road BIA themselves. And so any measures that are being taken by that organization probably would be best responded to specifically by that organization as it relates to this specific incident.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and I’m happy to do that but I’m also wondering from a bigger perspective, we throw a lot of, we flow a lot of money through to our boards and commissions. And if there’s vulnerabilities there, they potentially end up, it’s the taxpayers who are the ones that end up losing there. And for me, I was just really surprised to see this happen given I’m assuming most of our BIA’s require two signatures and I’m assuming there’s best practices in place around double security and that kind of thing.

So in terms of councils, governance piece in this, I’m wondering when something like this happens, what are we doing as a city to protect the assets across the city in terms of announcements going out and to the other BIA’s but to the other boards and commissions as well in terms of an update and potentially what we are maybe changing or doing in terms of our policy or oversight in terms of governance or accountability, our commissions and boards change over every few years. And so maybe there needs to be some checklist to make sure certain things are in place as banks change or boards change. So I’m just wondering from that higher level, what we’re doing to protect the taxpayer dollars. Go to Mr.

Murray or Ms. Bourbon. Thank you, through you Madam Chair. So I’ll start and then I may pass it over to others to carry on but what I will say in general as it relates to BIA specifically is that we do have a working group I suppose is the best term for it that meets regularly that is an opportunity to share information specifically amongst the BIA’s in terms of issues that are commonly being experienced and perhaps learnings that can be shared between the organization.

So that mechanism is in place specifically as it relates to the BIA’s. As it relates more broadly to cybersecurity in general, perhaps I’ll turn it over maybe to Mr. Parity if he wants to speak in general terms about cybersecurity noting of course that we can’t get into specific details of measures that are in place due to security considerations or at least that would have to be a closed session discussion Mr. Parity.

Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Parity and again, just wanna stay clear on what we’re here for and I understand your point because it is in the report but I know we could stray into all sorts of areas with cybersecurity. So just on this particular matter, thank you.

Through the chair. So like Mr. Murray said, we can’t get anything operational just saying high level, anything involving the BIA’s so side the scope of what we provide for IT on the cyber side but we are more than happy to meet with BIA’s or the larger working group that Mr. Murray indicated to share best practices and help them out with any type of information or assessments that they need to help them find a more secure way going forward.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and I guess I’m still trying to keep it at a higher level and just using this as an example but had the news not covered that. This would be the first time that Councillors or the public potentially are aware of something and in this case, it’s 111,000. If it was downtown London, it could have been a million dollars.

So I think there’s questions arising just for peace of mind for taxpayers to know that best practices are in place or to the best of our knowledge. Again, maybe there needs to be some kind of a checklist or something or an accountability piece that Council would be advised of an issue so that we have an opportunity to put in whatever policies might go into play. I personally am confused how this happened. I feel like with double signatures and other things, I have questions around this from the representing taxpayers that it’s 111,000 of taxpayer money that disappeared and I think details are warranted given that it’s public money.

So I’m going to leave it here for now, but I may bring forward an amendment for Council or through committee, maybe even through audit committee, I’m not sure. But I don’t think we just go, oh, well, 111,000 disappeared and they’re making it up within their budget and so we don’t need to talk about it. I think that some answers are required as to where that money went and what was done about it and what we’re learning about it that we can implement across all of our boards and commissions. Thank you, I’ll go to members of committee first and then I’ll move from there to visiting Councillors, Councillor McAllister, go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. I just first want to say, I’m very appreciative of the Hamilton Road Board, you know, we’ve gone through a situation. I really appreciate it in terms of the work we’ve done to present a budget for 2026, which I think reflects, you know, what we went through, what we’re trying to do to rebuild our organization. In terms of the Councillor’s questions of disclosure, this is something obviously we had to disclose with our AGM, it impacted our budget first and foremost so we had to discuss that as an organization with our business members.

Yes, we can be reported on this in the fall, there have been subsequent stories. I don’t know what more I can provide in terms of what we already discussed. I mean, if you have questions, our frustration was directly with Scotia Bank, as we discovered, there’s a gray area in the banking act in terms of mirrored sites. People can gain access to accounts.

It’s just the world we live in, unfortunately, as Mr. Parity has described, I mean, all organizations go through this. The library had an unfortunate incident. I understand in terms of the loss of the money, we’re doing the best we can in terms of recouping that.

I don’t think we’re doing anything wrong. We’ve been very honest in terms of what happened. If there’s more questions, our board is more than welcome to speak with anyone, but this is something that was unfortunate. We’ve presented a budget which I think is fair.

We’re not asking for any additional money, so I’ll leave it there. But again, I just wanna thank my board, really do appreciate them stepping up. It’s a tough situation and Mr. Gardner is in the gallery because our treasurer, so I really appreciate the board and all the work that’s gone into presenting a budget for next year, thank you.

Thank you, I have Councillor Stevenson, and then I’ll go to Councillor Trosto as a visiting counselor, go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and I appreciate Councillor McAllister’s update there, and maybe if he’s willing, he could give more of an update as to what came to the AGM for the general public here, because these are taxpayer funding, right? It’s not even the tax levy. 100,000 comes from the tax base.

And if it’s a mirrored site, I’m still curious as to how the money left, because with requiring two signatures, which I’m assuming all the BIA’s require, you wouldn’t be able to transfer money out. So I don’t understand how money left. When I hear about it with other cities, it’s, there’s been confusion about a vendor payment, but the money leaving the account has left in an appropriate way. So I don’t understand how if somebody got access to the Hamilton Road BIA bank account, how they were able to take money out when two signatures are required.

And so if answers are available to be provided now, that would be great. Okay, thank you. I don’t want to engage in cross debate on a topic. I understand the question that you have, and wonder if those could be, or you could be helped to get those answers also offline.

But I’m wanting to know whether or not the representative from the BIA, Mr. Gardner would like to comment at all on this matter. Just wanted to give him the opportunity. If, thank you so much.

So I will look to you as we have before in the past with these submissions. And we do go to members of the BIA in case they want to add anything. And I just thought it would be appropriate at this time. Okay, thank you.

Councilor Stevenson, I agree wholeheartedly with what you were saying. Our whole BIA was so upset over this happen. We looked at it, how could this happen? And to quickly summarize our executive director, somehow allowed her banking information to get scammed.

Scotia Bank, again, I don’t want to get specifics because I want you to know that the BIA is looking into what legal repercussions we have against the financial institution. But here we are, a nonprofit BIA, and chunks of money are going out in 25 and 15,000 chunks at three o’clock in the morning. No red flags. I had a meeting with the bank manager, totally non-committal.

Luckily, one of our board members is a IT professional, Western IT. And he drove through the scenario for us exactly, very complicated, but how he feels the scam happened. And I want everyone here to know that we were, we were devastated. Some of the measures we took to counteract this is we immediately closed our accounts with Scotia.

We switched to another financial institution. We’re getting legal advice on what we can do to Scotia. The executive director is no longer with us. She’s been terminated.

And what I’m proud of is our voluntary board has taken upon it to do the management of the BIA until this year, 2026. Our predominant aim is the safety, the security, and the cleanup of our area. And we have canceled all the extraneous stuff. We’ve canceled the flower baskets, Christmas, everything.

Just kept the safety and security. We’ve taken to answering the phone, doing the mail. We’ve had a great landlord through Rick Panero, another board member knew that landlord. He suspended our rent payments.

We’ve just cut everything to the bone to get through this. We are instituting through Western IT and our new financial institution, TD, upgraded security that this hopefully can never happen again. So I just want you to know if we know this is taxpayer money, we are really ticked off this happen. The employee is no longer with us.

We are all now two signing everything. And I should mention too that we really appreciate the support the city and Councilor Halleg has given us. I’m a callister, we are in a bit of the depressed area of the city. My own business, we’ve been in London over 100 years now.

And we moved to Hamilton Road in 1999. And I’ve noticed the change. And I have to say without the city support, I don’t think a business could do it. I’m happy with the way it is.

I’m happy with the way it’s running. And I’m not going to keep going on and on and on, but we’re really ticked off it happen. And God willing, it won’t happen again. And thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gardner. So Councilor Stevenson, you have 30 seconds left. I’ll go to you and then I have Councilor Perble before Councilor Trossa.

Okay, I just want to say thank you. And I do appreciate the willingness and what you guys have stepped into to not be asking for more money. It’s very impressive and I wish you guys all the best. I do want through you to staff just want to ask, are all of the BIA’s required to have two signatures and did Hamilton Road have two signatures prior to this?

Thank you. I’ll go to Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the chairs.

So just maybe at a higher level, the BIA’s are a separate corporation. They have their own systems. They have their own board for which are the governance of the organization. They have a bylaw that is accountable and set by the Council when it is created.

And that sets out through the municipal act, all of the things that a board is responsible for. Their accountability and the day-to-day operations are approved and run by the board, just as all of our boards and commissions are. The funding that is set out through this budget setting process that is in accordance with the BIA regulations is what sets out their budget and then they deliver. So because it is separate corporation, they report they are responsible for their own audited financial statements that is ultimately prepared and provided to the city that is part of our consolidated financial statements.

But the extent to which their operations are governed is very, very limited because they have their own board to which they are accountable. So they have their own finance, they have their own board that ultimately dictates how the organization is run. The city of London provides support to them when there are questions and assistance wherever possible. But we do not have jurisdiction to go in.

That is where the external audit occurs each and every year. If there are concerns with the controls, that would come through their external audit and be reported through just as it is at the audit committee. If there are concerns that are raised, the auditors would raise that from a control perspective. The city also relies on that information and on those audited financial statements in order to prepare our consolidated financial statements which subject to materiality govern the extent to which the city’s impact, their financial statements are impacted.

So at a really high level, we don’t have the information of exactly what their policies and procedures are. Those would be subject to the organization ultimately. Certainly if there are concerns and things where we’ve been able to come in and assist, through that working group that Mr. Murray referenced, we provided advice and expertise at any opportunity throughout the year when we can be useful.

But subject to high level advice, going in and looking and auditing all of the processes and policies, we would not, at a council city of London level, be able to set out those requirements because the board has that accountability and jurisdiction. Councilor, you have about 10 seconds. Sorry, okay, so first you directed that question to staff. So you’re asking the BIA, the same question?

Well just around two signatures, was that in place prior to? Okay, so you’re asking on EFTs? I’m asking on the bank account, does it require two signatures? Did it prior to the incident?

Thank you, I will go to Councilor McAllister ‘cause he’s offered to provide a response just with respect to that. But Councilor, we’ll note that Mr. Gardner explained that the circumstances and being aware of the circumstances, we’re not talking about cutting checks at the bank, we’re talking about electronic transfers. So electronic transfers wouldn’t require signatures.

To authorize a transaction. Okay, so I will go to Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Yes, to what you just said, Councilor ramen, these were all done through EFTs.

The accounts did have dual signatures. We actually have three now as a requirement and there are current policy that we’ve changed. But I need people to understand that once it was breached, they did nothing in terms of stopping these transactions. We literally got a report from Scotia Bank that details, these amounts were going out.

There was nothing in place, like that Scotia even admits in their own report that they did not stop these things. We were only notified the day after. And in our discussions with Scotia Bank, Mr. Gardner mentioned our board member who’s an IT specialist was absolutely shocked in terms of Scotia Bank and just their lack of any sort of notification whatsoever.

They tried higher amounts, which were stopped, and then smaller amounts, Scotia Bank allowed. So, I mean, these are reports that the board have, these are reports that we discussed at our AGM. More discussions want to be out of that, but really this comes down to Scotia Bank. Again, as Mr.

Gardner said, we had meetings with the branch itself. And so a lot of those issues came from once that initial breach happened, the board was not able to do anything at that point. It was outside of our control. Okay, thank you.

So I’ve got a couple other members of committee and visiting Councillors on this item. I have Councillor Preble next followed by Councillor Trasso and I see Councillor Ferrera. Go ahead, Councillor Preble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Ms. Barvona, to answer most of my questions, having said that I do want to reiterate that even though it is independent corporations, but there is a municipal money taxpayers involved, I do think that we should be there for BIA so they reached out. She mentioned the working groups and I’m just encouraging the BIA’s if it comes to the internal controls to reach out to these working groups or to the city and ask for a potential advisor second opinion on the internal controls.

Can you through the chair to the staff, what I just said because my internet is not stable, can Ms. Barvona confirm what I just said that the BIA’s would be able to reach out to the city or through the working groups and discuss their internal controls, even though it’s a separate corporation, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Barvona, are you able to respond?

Thank you. Thank you through the chairs. So as with all boards and commissions, we regularly are in contact with the staff there and providing advice and support whenever is required. We aren’t there obviously doing the day-to-day work, but we are always happy to provide support and ensure that there are base levels of consistency and provide assistance whenever we can.

We have some formal checkpoints throughout the year, but certainly in January to tip at the end of the month is typically one where we usually start off when we look at your end, but at any point during the year, we have regular conversations with them, particularly if they have questions and reach out, we’re always happy to help. Thank you, Councillor Pribble, anything else? Thank you very much for the complete answer and just last comment, encouraging the BIA if not 100% sure, do reach out, thank you. Thank you, I will go to Councillor Trossa.

Thank you for being patient and welcome to the committee and go ahead. Thank you through the chair. My comments are gonna be very limited. If this comes up again at council, my comments will be not so limited, but what I do wanna say is I think we have to be very careful in circumstances like this, not to use these public meetings as an opportunity to talk about things that are better not talked about in public at this stage of this dispute.

And I would become very concerned if I felt that members of this committee were using this unfortunate circumstance. And I’m sure it’s nobody’s intent, but we should go out of our way not to throw any potential blame on the victim here. And some of the things that I’m hearing are really starting to bother me. So I just think that we’ve discussed this.

I don’t think more questions need to be answered. And I think I have a lot of confidence in the board of this agency. This is a complicated area of privacy law. And I just think that let’s just stop.

We’re going way beyond what’s on the table. So let’s just stop, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to Councillor Ferrera.

Thanks, Chair. My comments are very similar. I like what’s the purpose here of this discussion? We are supposed to be talking about levy charges.

It was mentioned in the report, but this has been the focus and I’m kind of concerned about that. It’s like beating a dead horse here. This was a mirrored scam. It’s a digital world.

Things are very complicated when it comes to this. There are many parties that were involved. A mirrored scam can be something that occurs by mistyping a URL or clicking on something. The wrong item at the top of a Google search.

There is way more down, deep down, to what would lead to something like this than a couple of signatures. So I think making a show of this, especially when we’re talking about someone who’s an agency that’s already gone through this, has already made mitigative actions to correct this, something that we can all learn from. We shouldn’t be bringing these issues to a point where I hear the downtown has been a potential agency that’s been brought up that could be also someone who could be involved. I’m not appreciative of that at all.

I think that when issues like this come up, direct conversations with our digital security teams are the ones that we have to have that conversation with. Making a show of it here, and just going on and on and on, especially deviating from the report itself, is not what this item should be about. It was an unfortunate situation. The BIA has made a lot of actions to correct.

We have learned these, we have learned from the lessons that came from this. I think that this conversation should end here. We heard what they have done. We’ve heard what the counselor has done to help.

And I think that anything more is just a whole other show for a whole other purpose. So I really think that we should just practice good governance here and focus on the issue at hand and not beat the dead horse again and again and again. I think we’ve had this conversation to the full exhaustion that it can go. Thank you.

So just looking for any final speakers on the special levy for Hamilton Road. Seeing none, I will look to open the vote on that item. Close in the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Thank you.

We will now deal with 2.8, which is the contract toward RFT 2025-224 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements, Phase 3A East Dundas Street. I will look for a mover and seconder on this item. Councilor Frank, Councilor McAllister, thank you. And I will look for any discussion.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. On this one, I’ll be voting no as I have throughout this term of council on anything related to the BRT. I did send an email to staff and I appreciate the information that I got back regarding the contractors and some of the issues that we’ve had on the East London Link from a resident perspective, at least that it seems to take a long time.

There’s been delays, there’s been that kind of thing. And I just wondered as a follow up to the email, if there are delays that are like outside of this sort of as a general question, if there are delays that are not unforeseen or not that are attributed to the contractor, do we ever use the ability to suspend or put a suspension on a contractor to say we don’t wanna deal with this one anymore outside of litigation? ‘Cause I heard that we do that if we have litigation with the contractor, but if we’re just unhappy with the performance, is there a way to suspend them so that they’re not able to win a tender if that were the case? So I’m just wondering as a general question.

Yes, and through the chair, under our procurement calls, before I do, I did notice a few of our BIA had to leave BIA’s, had to leave so I just wanted to say thank you for the BIA’s that attended today, thank you for your work, thank you for going through this annual submission, and we look forward to continuing working with you all as we go, but I’ll go to Ms. Dan, thank you, thank you. And through the chair, so under our procurement policy, contract performance is monitored and administered through our standard contract, so whether it’s being administered through the major projects team or construction administration team, we monitor performance throughout, we do performance evaluations at the end, some of those are just an internal exercise for our own tracking, some of those are shared with our contractors if we’re having larger performance issues that we wanna have a conversation about. We haven’t really gotten to the point where we’ve had performance issues that met the escalation or disqualification thresholds under our procurement procurement policy, so at this point, typically, unless there is something that were to disqualify them or to non-compliant bid, we usually go with a low compliant bid that’s submitted.

Thank you, go to Councillor Stevenson. Thanks, are the thresholds for that issue, are they publicly available? Ms. Dan, I believe that those are included within the procurement policy in terms of speaking to exactly what those thresholds are, I might pass that back to finance, I know there is also work about trying to look at vendor performance management as something going forward.

Ms. Fairbone. Thank you, Chair, so the new procurement policy does speak to evaluation and tracking, it’s still fairly general. The threshold to purely disqualify someone is litigation, everything else would be a little more subjective and obviously has many parts to it, subject to getting to a level that would be sufficient enough to be able to support a disqualification, has to be fairly egregious and very, very clear.

So there isn’t a very, other than the litigation that purely disqualifies someone, the levels that are outlined in the procurement policy speak to more generalities and starting to do that and starting to document that and maintain it over time, but I would not suggest that what’s in the procurement policy would be objected enough to be able to point to a disqualification to anything other than a litigation. Go ahead. Okay, thank you for that. That does make sense that the line would be that high.

So I guess just, again, just from a, advocating on behalf of the residents, are there things in our contracts that ensure projects are done on time or that they are prioritized or that there’s some kind of compensation that maybe the city gets if there are delays? Yes, through the chair. So with all change orders or any schedule impacts that happen, we review them on a case-by-case basis. Within an in-given project, there’s usually multiple things that we’re dealing with.

So it’s not really just one smoking gun that might drive a project over its schedule time, but what we do is we have to work within the terms of the contract. And so if there is language in there around how we address delays, we would follow those terms. Also, if there’s any terms around penalties for liquidated damages, if they go over their allotted construction schedule, then those are things that we would look at. If the cause of the delay or the change is attributed to the performance of the contractor or is within their control, then those costs are borne by them and there’s not an extension to the contract.

We do encounter things like unforeseen issues underground, coordination with utilities and whatnot. In those cases, we look to see if this is outside of the control of the contractor. We account for that, work within the terms of the contract to see whether contract extensions are appropriate. Councilor?

Thank you, I appreciate the information. Thank you, I have Mayor Morgan next. Yes, so I will be supporting this item before us. I would say if you look at the details of it, as with a number of our projects across the city, this also includes improvements of intersections, dealing with aging water main storm, water and sanitary sewers, private during connections.

You know, the rapid transit projects are not just the rapid transit piece on top, but they are important components of infrastructure upgrades across the city. And I certainly will be supporting this as I’ve supported the others. Not supporting these means you’re leaving a gap in the BRT network. There’s components that are built before this.

There’s components that are built after this. So I would strongly encourage colleagues to support this segment of the rapid transit system, not just for the rapid transit components, but for all the other good work that’s associated with this type of infrastructure project under the ground at intersections and for all modes of transportation across the city. Thank you, looking for other members of committee or visiting counselors on this item. Okay, seeing none, I’ll have to open the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries four to two. Okay, thank you. Everyone, that deals with all of our items that were under consent as well as those items that we pulled. We are now moving on to item 3.1, which is our scheduled items, which is the Tribunal for the Development Charge Appeal.

This is a formal procedure. So please bear with me as I read some formal remarks and take us through this process. So the first is I will look for a mover and seconder to the following motion. Through the chair, that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee now convenes a tribunal under section 26 of part four of by-law CP1551-227 to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act 1997 and provide the complainant an opportunity to make rep presentations.

Thank you, I will look for a mover and a secondary of Councilor Stevenson and Councilor McAllister, thank you. And I will look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries six to zero. Thank you.

So this is a hearing of a complaint made by Siskins LLP on behalf of London Cross Cultural Learning Center under part four of by-law CP1551-227 as amended the Development Charges By-law in respect of the Development Charges imposed by the Corporation of the City of London in connection with the development at the property situated at 763, 773 Dundas. I will look to members of the tribunal. Are there any declarations of pecuniary interests? Okay, seeing none, I will now ask who is representing the complainant.

Good afternoon chair. McFalls, first initial L here as a Council for the Complainant London Cross Cultural Center. Thank you, Ms. McFalls.

I would look to civic administration to share who is representing civic administration. Thank you chair. It is Kyle Wilding, the Senior Manager of the building department. Thank you, Mr.

Wilding. With that, I’d like to advise the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee and the parties to the hearing that the lawyer from the City Solicitor’s office is here to answer any legal questions of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee in camera. So I just wanna go over how this hearing will be conducted. The hearing shall be conducted as follows.

First, we’ll deal with certain documents that will be identified for the record. Second, we will look to have oral evidence received any further documentation and hear any submissions on the matter in public. Next, the order of the proceedings is as follows. The complainant first, the civic administration second, and then the complainant responding to any new issues raised by civic administration.

Just again, to keep everybody on the same page with where we are, there is no party to the hearing may cross-examine or question the other party on either any of the written documentation or the oral evidence. The city clerk acts as the registrar in this process and will keep a written record of the hearing. The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee may decide to go in camera to receive legal advice, and that will be without the complainant nor civic administration except the city clerk acting as the registrar may be in the room if the committee receives legal advice in camera. If the committee convenes in camera to receive legal advice, it will reconvene in public to deliberate the merits of the complaint and make its recommendation.

After hearing the evidence and the submissions, the committee will either adjourn the hearing or make a recommendation with reasons to municipal counsel on the merit of the complaint. And the last, municipal counsel make the final decision on the complaint under section 32 of the by-law. That is, municipal counsel may do one of the following, which is dismiss the complaint or secondly rectify any incorrect determination or error that was subject of the complaint. So those are my explanations of their proceedings.

I’ll ask the clerk to identify and mark the following documents for the record. Exhibit one, the notice of hearing, and I’ll let you read them. Through the chair, the exhibits are as follows. Exhibit one, notice of hearing dated December 15th, 2025.

Exhibit two, the written complaint from Paula Lombardi, partner and Laura McCall’s lawyer, Siskins LLP, dated December 9th, 2025. Exhibit three, staff report dated January 12th, 2026 from the deputy city manager housing and community growth. Exhibit number four, submission dated December 23rd, 2025 from Paula Lombardi, partner and Laura McCall’s lawyer, Siskins LLP. And exhibit number five, the added agenda submission dated January 12th from Paula Lombardi, partner and Laura McCall’s lawyer, Siskins LLP.

Thank you. I will ask the representative, Ms. McCall’s, for the complaint and to do the following. First, identify the written documents that it is relying upon in addition to exhibit number two, number four and number five, the written complaint and the submissions on the agenda and provide copies of those additional documents to ICSE infrastructure and corporate services committee, which shall then be entered by the clerk into the record and numbered as exhibits.

Are there any of those? There are no additional documents other than what’s already been mentioned by kind of registrar. Thank you. So I’ll give you the opportunity to provide your oral evidence and any submissions on the complaint.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are before you today to speak to the complaint filed by the London Cross Cultural Learner Center, which I’ll refer to as throughout my submissions as CCLC as it relates to the development charges required by the city for its door-weighted dreams housing project, which is being constructed, 763, 765 and 769 Dundas Street in the city of London. CCLC is requesting that the committee exercise its discretion under section 20 sub six of the development charges act, also section 32 of the by-law, to rectify the incorrect determination of development charges to the door-weighted dreams housing project and further to confirm that CCLC qualifies as a nonprofit housing development and is exempt from the payment of development charges under section 4.2 sub two of the development charges act. Section 20 sub six of the development charges act reads, “After hearing the evidence and submissions of the complainant, council may dismiss the complainant or rectify any incorrect determination or error that was the subject of the complaint.” This complaint was made under section 27 of the city’s development charges by-law, which provides the following three grounds.

First at the amount of development charges was incorrectly determined, whether a credit is available to be used against the development charge or the amount of the credit or the service with respect to which the credit was given was incorrectly determined, or that there was an error in the application of this by-law we are proceeding under the first and third ground today. The development charges imposed by the city against CCLC for the door-weighted dreams housing project has been incorrectly determined. Instead, CCLC qualifies for a full exemption as a nonprofit housing development having the primary purpose of housing. There are three simple issues raised by CCLC as it relates to the imposition of development charges on the door-weighted dreams housing project.

First, the city staff report, which begins at page 101 of the agenda, adopts an overly restrictive interpretation of what is defined as primary purpose of housing. As said in the development charges exemption, this interpretation is incorrect as it frustrates the legislative intent behind the exemption. Second, there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in terms of the purposes of the services provided by CCLC. The primary purpose and in fact, one of the most important purposes of CCLC is housing.

Finally, while the city has already provided the limited affordable unit exemption under Section 4.1 of the Act, this exemption is inadequate as the market units are not there for profit, but for financial sustainability of the project. I’ll now provide a brief overview of the project itself. The door-weighted dreams project is a development for newcomers to the city and also Londoners who are in need of safe and affordable housing. The project has 247 one, two and three bedroom units, which will include 102 affordable units and 54 accessible units.

It will be comprised of two buildings being a six-story building and a 24-story high-rise tower with energy-efficient design. Residents will also have access to 24/7 supports, underground parking, on-site laundry and gym facilities, meeting rooms, spaces for community-based projects, commercial space and a health and wellness center. The location is also important as it will encourage activity along the Dundas streetscape and contribute to the residential intensification of the area. The location also provides transit supportive housing along a high-order transit route.

While as a staff report notes that the only development charges currently before you relate to the 24-story tower as a building permit has not yet been applied for the six-story building, the 24-story tower needs to be put into proper context. And it is important to consider the development as a whole when considering CCLC’s exemption request. CCLC has been met with great support for the Der Waited Dreams Project, having received funding through a contribution agreement in the amount of $3,468,405 in funding. That’s in the contribution agreement, page 175 of the agenda that is in Exhibit 4, as well as through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is at page 253 of the agenda, also in Exhibit 4, which is with CMHC.

That is approximately $108 million. The Affordable Housing Fund provides capital to partnered organizations for new and affordable community housing as in a mix of repayable and forgivable funding. As we go through our submissions today, I would like you to put yourselves in the shoes of a newcomer to Canada or someone in our city who is in need of housing. You’re likely leaving the only country you’ve ever known for the promise of the better future, but this future has many unknowns.

You may not know anyone London, you may not have a strong understanding of the language, you don’t know yet what you’ll do for work or where you’ll live, or due to unforeseeable circumstances, you’ve lost your housing in the city. All these unknowns, the first thing you look for is somewhere to sleep at night. Without a safe place for you to lay your head to fill the most basic needs of survival, everything else becomes extraneous and unnecessary. Once you find a house, you’re given the opportunity to thrive and to contribute to a new country and city.

It is only then that you can start looking for a job and start making your home and community. CCLC already helps newcomers to London thrive through the resettlement assistance program by fulfilling that first but most basic component of survival. In that case, somewhere to live for their first six weeks in Canada. These are also Londoners who are in need that they assist.

The success of this program is great. Each year, CCLC provides accommodations and assists in securing permanent housing for approximately 1,000 government assisted refugees. This accounts for over 30,000 nights per year. You’ve read about all the other amazing CCLC services that are provided employment assistance and language classes just to name a few.

But these other services are secondary to the primary purpose, which is the provision of housing. Simply put, without housing, the rest of the services don’t pack the same punch. Without housing, many people will not even look at getting these services. This isn’t new.

Housing is a key social determinant of health and well-being. Housing is a fundamental right for all persons, including those individuals who may have unique supportive housing needs and accessibility barriers. The MHC, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has recognized this in providing conditional approval for approximately $108 million in funding through the Affordable Housing Fund. And this is at page 253 of the agenda.

Important to receiving this funding with CCLC’s provision of 24/7 supports for all tenants of the door-weighted dreams projects. CMHC did not consider these other services provided by CCLC as separate and distinct from the housing project, but is intertwined and pivotal to its success. However, this funding is contingent on waiver of development charges, as we’ve never contemplated that the door-weighted dreams project would not qualify for a full exemption. This is why we’re here today.

The success of this program may very well depend on your decision. The payment of $100 million in repayable and forgivable funding and the door-weighted dreams project significantly impacts and places at risk the project’s continued viability. I’ll now move forward to the test for the primary purpose as said out in the development charges exemption. The staff report incorrectly interprets what constitutes a nonprofit housing development.

If CCLC’s project is not a nonprofit housing development, we are not sure what would qualify. The city staff report applies an unduly narrow interpretation of section 4.2 of the Development Charges Act implying that nonprofit housing development to qualify for the exemption, housing must be their only purpose. That interpretation is incorrect and overly restrictive. A nonprofit housing development is defined in section 4.2 of the Development Charges Act as follows.

It needs a development of a building or structure intended for use as a residential premises and developed by either a corporation which the Not-For-Profit Corporations Act applies that is in good standing under the Act, whose primary object is to provide housing, a corporation without shared capital to which the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act applies, and that is in good standing under the Act and whose primary object is to provide housing, or a nonprofit housing cooperator that is in good standing under the Cooperative Corporations Act. Any of the above items are met, then the exemption from the payment of development charges as said out in section 4.2 sub-2 applies. Importantly, and as the staff report points out, the term primary object is not defined in the Development Charges Act. Where a statutory term is undefined, reports have confirmed that it must be interpretive purposefully in a manner consistent with legislative intent.

A narrow or technical interpretation is inappropriate. In this case, the city’s definition of primary object would exclude established nonprofit service providers who deliver housing as a core, but not their only function, simply because their mission includes related settlement and social services. Such an interpretation is incorrect, frustrates the purpose of the exemption and undermines provincial housing objectives. One only needs to review the hamster debates to confirm legislature’s content of this exemption.

These are transcripts of debates which occurred when the bill, which would later become the more homes built faster, Act of 2022, was going through the legislative process. The excerpts are included in our December 23rd letter starting at page 124 of the agenda. I quote Mr. Sean Meager, the coordinator for Ontario for all who noted that there are a lot of nonprofit housing developments that teeter on the brink, that just a little bit more money, a little bit more investment, or a little bit of a break on land costs, or whatever it might be, and they can go ahead.

I think that’s very valuable, but it’s valuable because it’s an investment that we’re making. We know what the return on investment is. We’re investing some development charges that would otherwise probably not be collected ‘cause those projects wouldn’t go ahead and we’re getting affordable housing. If you review the hands or debates relating to development charge exemptions, there’s full support for reduction of costs from both sides for nonprofit developers.

The only heated debate relates to the affordability timeline for that more narrow exemption that applies only to the affordable units themselves, often used by not for profit developers. This exemption is available for only those that maintain their affordability for at least 25 years. That debate surrounded how long the affordability of the timeline ought to be with some proponents arguing that it should be 99 years or even indefinite at the end of the 25 year timeline was determined. The city’s interpretation of what is considered a not for profit corporation’s primary object is to provide housing has not been applied consistently either.

We understand that the society of St. Vincent de Paul of London who was recently announced an affordable housing project called St. Vincent’s on Huron is confirmed to be exempt under section 4.2. CCLC and St.

Vincent de Paul are very similar. Like CCLC, St. Vincent de Paul also provides other services apart from housing such as the operation and administration of thrift stores. However, this is insularity to their primary purpose of assisting the impoverished.

CCLC should not be treated any differently. The fact that a nonprofit provides many services to assist an individual and this often occurs through the provision of housing should not exclude them from a development charges exemption. As well, the fact that CCLC has the ability to provide these full services was instrumental in obtaining support from CMHC through the Affordable Housing Fund. Supportive housing is rare and when possible it should be encouraged.

I’d now like to go through what we see as a miscommunication and misunderstanding that is shown in the staff report of CCLC’s current operations. The staff report before you recommends that this development charges complaint be dismissed. The city, however, makes this recommendation based on a mischaracterization and misunderstanding of CCLC’s current housing operations. As noted on page three of the staff report, which is at page 103 of the agenda, the dispute is whether CCLC qualifies as a nonprofit housing provider in accordance with section 4.2 of the DCA or the Development Charges Act.

This is a factual determination based on the actual function and activities of the organization. As noted, that page 102 in the staff report, primary object is to provide housing is not defined. The way to determine the primary purpose is to assess the true function of the organization. When determining whether CCLC met the legislative test of having a primary object to provide housing, staff reviewed information from the Articles of Incorporation and you will report strategic plan and website to identify the object.

This is problematic as the staff report identifies the provision of housing and housing services as a new CCLC program. And I’ll quote this exactly. It is one of many programs that the organization offers and appears to be a small component of the organization’s activities. Other objects and programs include organization of seminars and workshops and other educational activities, support services to immigrants and minority groups to assist in community integration and problem solving, printing and publishing articles, books, newsletters and other resources to develop, organize and implement programs, seminars and workshops for immigrants, refugees and newcomers to assist the basic needs, orientation, language learning, employment, community integration and the development of cultural and social awareness.

Respectfully, this is inaccurate. The materials identified in the staff were do not adequately describe CCLC’s current operations. CCLC operates a government assisted refugee reception center, which is intentionally not advertised to the general public. It is not a service available to the public upon request.

Refugees housed there are referred by immigration, refugees and citizenship Canada and ultimately selected by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The absence of local advertising is therefore not evidence of marginal activity. This long-term program with CCLC has a primary objective of providing housing. As set out in our December 23rd letter, which is exhibit four at page 125 of the agenda, CCLC already provides extensive assistance in housing, which we will review in more detail shortly.

We further note that CCLC is Articles of Incorporation, which were written in 1980, predate CCLC’s housing operations. Do not necessarily represent the current evolved function of CCLC, which is primarily housing. CCLC has an organization with a very long history, had them been around since 1969. In the beginning, CCLC was nomadic, not having a permanent base of operations.

It wasn’t until 1987, which 38 years ago, when Global House, which is now known as Jeremiah’s House, was a team that a shift occurred and CCLC started to focus on resettlement on the front line. This is seen in the John Hamilton paper entitled CCLC History, which is part of the added agenda, and it is exhibit five in this proceeding. All of this to say, to the contrary of what is alluded to in the staff report, housing services are not new to CCLC. They have been an integral component of the organization since 1987, 38 years.

That’s only grown since then. The Doorway to Dreams project is just an evolution of what already exists. In defining CCLC’s housing operations as a small component of the organization’s activity, the staff misunderstands the operational reality of CCLC and further reflects a misunderstanding how certain housing services are delivered and communicated to those in need. Indeed, housing represents 90% of CCLC’s capital assets.

And that is at page 173 of the added agenda. You’ll see a balance sheet of all of the capital assets of CCLC. CCLC is a resettlement assistance program funded by immigration refugees and citizenship Canada, provides a government assisted refugees with six weeks of housing when they first land in London. As part of that program, CCLC no longer is required, is not only required to provide that housing for the first six weeks, but is also required to help assistance find more permanent housing within 21 days of landing.

This program is certainly not small. CCLC assists over 1,000 government assisted refugees through its resettlement program annually, equating approximately 30,000 stays each year. Currently, there’s three different housing programs within CCLC. The first is Jeremiah’s house, which was originally Global House, which began 38 years ago in 1987.

This is that government assisted refugee program, providing temporary accommodations within the first six weeks in Canada. CCLC will either house clients at Jeremiah’s house, or when overflow is necessary at hotels. Joseph’s house, which is not part of the resettlement assistance program, provides transitional accommodations for refugee claimants, and has been running this program since 2024, when it purchased it from St. Joseph’s housing.

Now, just to put this into perspective, they provide between April and March, April 2024 to March 2025. There was 2,656 night stays, and this has already increased since it was purchased by CCLC from April to November 2025, 1,828 nights days. It currently operates with the lodging house license from the city of London. CCLC resettlement house provides permanent housing to single newcomers, so this is already long-term housing that CCLC provides.

And now we have the door-weighted dreams project, which will be the fourth housing site that will bring a significant amount of affordable housing to the market in London. All four of these programs, with primary purpose of housing, provide participants with ancillary services, life skills, referral CSL classes, supportive counseling, and assistance and finding employment. Additionally, if for whatever reason, this committee does not think that the current operations we’ve just described qualify CCLC for the exemption by virtue of the city approving the door-weighted dreams development, and this was through the site plan agreement, this project has clearly brought the provision of affordable housing to the forefront. The true primary functioning of the organization cannot be said to be anything other than housing.

As the doorway to dreams project is already part of CCLC’s purpose. It may be new, but it does predate the fixing of any development charges. As we mentioned earlier, and as noted in the staff report, city has already provided CCLC with a limited exemption, but the affordable housing units only under section 4.1 sub eight of the Development Charges Act. This provides an exemption from development charges if the residential unit is intended to be affordable for a period of 25 years or more from the time the unit is first rented.

This is available to for-profit developers as well as an incentive to provide affordable housing. It’s a great incentive for for-profit developers to create mixed housing. They get a break on development costs in exchange for positively contributing to the community and fostering social inclusion, but an exemption like this does not come without risk, which is why an affordability period was created. This 25 year timeline was a subject of significant debate when passing the amendment as there were concern that for-profit developers would create affordable housing units to lower the development costs.

And so the period was included as a safeguard against terminating affordability prematurely for the sake of profit. This debate has no application in the nonprofit contacts as market units are not there for profit but for financial sustainability of the housing project. As a result, this exemption is not appropriately applied to CCLC. There should be no concern that CCLC will change the affordability status of the units.

Frankly, it cannot as it must continue as a nonprofit. And in fact, if you read the bylaws of CCLC, it’s very clear that the corporation is of a charitable purpose and is currently coming registered as a charity. The city has also applied this exemption to mixed income communities, Village Soho, which is a mixed income community proposal. We understand has been granted the full exemption from payment of development charges by the city.

To conclude, CCLC respectfully requests that this committee overturn the decision made by staff under the bylaw and confirm that CCLC is entitled to a full exemption from development charges for the entirety of the door-weighted dreams project. It is clear that housing is the most important and primary aspect of CCLC’s current operations as it should be. Without housing, people do not have the ability to thrive and have little need for other services provided by CCLC. Housing has to be the core and most important function.

CCLC should not be penalized because they do many great things and do not limit service to those who also need housing. Those services are only available because of the housing. CCLC already ensures that the first six weeks of housing is provided to a newcomer to our city through the federal sponsored program. It also provides a place for you to make a home and create community.

Housing is provided through CCLC’s Jeremiah’s house. Again, this is not new. This has been ongoing for 38 years. This underscores the importance of the doorway to dreams development to all of London and the opportunity the city has here.

The requirement for CCLC to pay development charges is inappropriate, not consistent with the legislation, does not reflect the legislative intent and places CCLC’s overall project at risk. CCLC properly qualifies for the full exemption as clear that it is a not-for-profit whose primary object is to provide housing. Subject to any questions, those are my submissions. Thank you.

I will look to members of the committee, those in here to see if there are any questions of the complainant, sorry, Mayor Morgan. Yes, just one question to the complainant. What is the scope of the size of the Doorways to Dreams project compared to the rest of the organization? I’m trying to gauge the extent, should this actual item come into the CCLC’s portfolio?

Like, how big is it within the organization? Like, is this one of the largest projects that they have? Because they’re doing other housing projects and other things, but just wondering if you can articulate the scope of this particular project? Of course, do you mean monetarily in terms of how staff, how many staff would be dedicated to the project?

Just wanna make sure I provide you with the correct analogy. Yeah, I would say that staff are not the only way that you have the scope of a size of a project within the organization. There’s time, there’s financial components, there’s the number of units, you can share whatever your perspective is on that, because I think each organization would define this a slightly different way. So I’ll leave it relatively open-ended, but I’m looking to see, generally, the magnitude that this impacts the organization, if this comes into it, how much, how much a part of the organization does it need not be financial, though, in your answer?

I’ll also go through financially, staff-wise, in terms of how much tension would be to this program. It’ll certainly be the largest housing program that we have, as should this go through. To put it into perspective, for capital assets, the capital assets that are currently being dedicated to the Doorway to Dreams project, it’s sitting at a point about a value of 5.6 million. Total capital assets are just under 7 million.

So it’s 90% of the capital assets for CCLC. In terms of how much staff time and other resources would be dedicated to this, we already see about 25% of CCLC’s workforce being dedicated to the Resettlement Assistance Program on its own. There would be overlap in the supports, the ancillary supports, that would be provided, as they’re already provided under the other programs, it would just be expanded. We would need significantly more staff, I understand, in order to assist 247 units, ‘cause that’s not just 2247 people.

Many of these are one, two, three bedrooms. We’re seeing families. This would be a massive expansion of CCLC’s housing provision. Thank you.

I’ll look to other members for any questions to the complainant. Okay, seeing none at this time online or here, I’ll go to the representative of civic administration, Mr. Wilding, to provide his first to identify, sorry, the written documentation that is relying upon in addition to Exhibit 3, its report, and provide copies of the additional documents to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, which shall then be entered by the clerk into record and numbered as exhibits. Are there any of those submissions?

Through the chair, no, there are no additional submissions. Thank you. I provide you the opportunity to provide oral evidence at this time and any other submissions that you have. Perfect, thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, members of committee.

I’m here today on behalf of administration to address the Development Charge Complaint brought forward under Section 20 of the Development Charges Act in Section 27 of the City’s Development Charge By-law, related to the development at 763— or, yes, 763, 773 Dundas Street. The complaint alleges that the development charges were incorrectly determined and that there was an error in the application of the by-law. By way of background, the subject to development consists of a 24-story residential building with 213 residential units. Of those 75 units, representing approximately 35% are secured as affordable rental units through the registered 25-year affordability agreement.

In accordance with Section 4.1 of the Development Charges Act, those 75 units were fully exempt from development charges. The remaining 138 units are market rental units and were charged development charges with the appropriate legislative rental housing discount supplied. The central issue in this complaint is the applicant’s positions that the entire development should be exempt from development charges on the basis that the proponent is a nonprofit organization. Upon review of provincial legislation, Section 4.2 of the Development Charges Act permits a full exemption for market units only where nonprofit corporations primary objective is the provision of housing.

Administration undertook a fact-based review of the organization’s governing documents, public materials, and program activities. Based on that review, the housing was determined to be one of several program areas, but not the organization’s primary objective as required by the act. As a result, administration applies maximum exemptions permitted by legislation. Staff does not have the authority to extend a full exemption beyond those parameters.

I would also note that the development charges were calculated in accordance with the timing provisions of the act and the lowest applicable rate was applied at development permit or building permit issuance. Accordingly, it was determined that no errors were made in the calculation of the DCs on the development. Administration is recommending that the complaint be dismissed, and thank you, Chair, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you, are there any questions that you have a civic administration?

Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor McCallister first. Thank you, and through the Chair, as I previously mentioned, in terms of how this project might compare to other organizations, was there any comparison made? Mr. Wilding.

And through the Chair, we did view this in terms of some other organizations within the industry. We do have other organizations that have gone through and are currently doing housing projects that were in similar situations where the DCs, regarding the affordable units were refunded, but additional development charges were levied on top of that that weren’t related to actual affordable units. Councillor McCallister. Okay, other questions?

I had from, sorry, I was looking for members of committee first from visiting Councillors, Councillor Periargot. Thanks, Chair. Just stop me if I’m doing something wrong. I’m not familiar with the tribunal standing on the committee.

I guess this question would be for staff, and it would be, so I see the main reason for the refusal is because CCLC for the doorways to dreams is specifically the primary object is not housing alone. And I do see those references that CCLC has other areas that they provide other services that they provide. So the primary object language is really the reason why we are having the recommendation the way it is, correct? I’ll go to Mr.

Wilding. Please, on your submissions and your information provided. And through the chair, yes, Councillor, that is correct. The primary or the main objective of the organization is why the development was passed.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, and how’s that determined? I did hear the legal representation for CCLC speak to 90% of the capital assets are with respect to housing specifically. So how is that determined where the primary object is it have to be one in itself housing only and nothing else, or is there like a scale of determination where if 90% or 80% is determined towards housing, that can be incorporated into the decision?

Mr. Wilding. Through the chair, unfortunately, that information wouldn’t necessarily be provided as to like what kind of organize, like the percentage based, like the percentage breakdown of what the organization would be doing. So we would be looking for that primary objective to be the function of housing.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. Here’s a question. If CCLC were to incorporate a new entity specifically for the doorway to dreams, to build that project and that entity would only be doing the housing project as it is, would we look at, would we cite section 20 and section 27?

Saying that that primary object is for housing for that specific organization if they incorporated that way? Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. May.

There’s on this one. Through the chair, I don’t want to get too far down to like guessing what might look like for other type of organizations. But as mentioned, it very much is key that it, that the primary object is for housing. So if that new organization that was created, if the legal team that was setting that up was very mindful of being very clear that the primary object was housing, that this would be a very clear decision to make administratively.

Thank you, Councillor Ferrer. Okay, my last question. Just going through the documents, does council have discretion to make a decision here and go against the staff recommendation? If we decide, if we see that we do see that this is a primary object, or we do see to waive the DSC fees, do we have discretion there?

Councillor, I’ll just take you through the different options that are available in our decision making today, if that’s helpful to you. And so when we hear all the submissions go through this full process with the tribunal, we have the opportunity to look at this matter from the perspective of dismiss the complaint, or we can then choose to rectify any incorrect determination or error that was subject to the complaint. So do you need any further clarification on that or is that? That’s perfect, I have comments, but I don’t think this is the time to do that.

So I think I’m done with my questions and then I guess when the time comes just let me know, but I appreciate the answer that does help me. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Frank next. Thank you, I think my question is answered, but I’m gonna ask it in a different way through the chair. So if CCLC was considered 100% unaffordable housing charity without being their primary objective, then this project, even though it has mixed rents, included 100% of the DCs will be waived.

Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Wilding. Sorry, I was trying to say that. Yes, that is correct, they will be waived.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, just looking online to members online, getting to those in the room? Okay, just a moment, I’m just gonna consult my notes. So I will now go to the representative for the complainant to provide oral evidence, if any, and to make any submissions and reply to any new issues that were raised by the submission made by civic administration.

Of course, thank you, Chair. I only wanted to clarify that section 4.2, the full development charges exemption, it only creates one obligation. It says that if it’s primary, you have to, the municipality must provide a full waiver. It’s not the only scenario in which they can provide a full waiver, that would be based on how the bylaw is set out.

And of course, we do say that the primary purpose here is housing, I think, as my civic administration did say, they’re taking the position of primary. Primary’s not defined. Primary does not necessarily need to mean the majority, and it could mean the most important. And CCLC, you know, implicit in the name of resettlement means you’re settling someone in another area, housing is the most important component of settling someone.

So it’s our position that this is clear, that housing must be the primary purpose, because when you’re resettling someone, they have to have somewhere to live first and foremost. That’s my only note. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I’d like to look to the committee now, sitting as a tribunal on how they’d like to proceed. Councilor McAllister. I will move the staff recommendation, put that on the floor.

Thank you. I will look for a seconder to the staff recommendation. I’m happy to second that to get that on the floor, as we prepare. Through the chair, the motion reads as follows, that after convening as a tribunal under section 26 of bylaw CP 1551-227, to hear a complaint, under section 20 of the Development Charges Act, LaPaula Lombardi, Siskins, LOP, respecting the property municipally known as 763-773 Dunnash Street, concerning the calculation and application of development charges for the London Cross Cultural Learning Center, Doorway to Dreams Project Permit, number 24-028-071, and is detailed in the attached report, attached record of proceedings on the recommendation of the tribunal, the complaint be dismissed that the tribunal finds the amount of development charges applied was correctly determined, and that no error occurred in the application of the development charges bylaw.

Thank you. Okay, I will look to members of committee for any comments or questions on this item. I have Mayor Morgan and then Councillor Stinson. Yes, I’m not supportive of the motion that’s been put on the floor, and I’ll articulate my reasons why.

First, I do think it’s very reasonable to take different pathways to several different conclusions on the primary object of the organization. I think that the path that our staff took of looking at the organization’s corporate structure and the information that is available to them is a reasonable way to come to a conclusion. I also will say that the information provided by the complainant is an alternative path to a reasonable conclusion to say that this is one of the primary, if not the primary objective of the organization being housing. And I’ll say in my reading of the additional commentary that it was provided today, it’s my opinion that I lean towards not dismissing the complaint, but accepting the complaint, and so I’m opposed to the motion on the floor.

I believe that a solid case was made to say that if this project were to proceed, it would be one of the most significant projects that the organization would be taking on. Their capital assets would be heavily weighted towards providing housing in a variety of formats. And they have publicly stated at a tribunal, a public or tribunal, that housing is their primary and most important objective and function. So to me, that sort of public declaration is helpful for me to get to the position that I could get at up supporting the complaint.

I would also say that during the debate, there was a discussion to say, some or the other organizations have been able to set up just a subsidiary and offer profit, and just say that this is the primary objective, and then operate and achieve a full development charge waiver. In this case, this organization, who again, I do believe that made a good case to say it already is their primary objective, could do that. There would be significant consequences to the timing of the project, the funding, and the cost of the project by moving it over to another organization, particularly from a land transfer tax burden and a few other things. So I don’t see that as a viable pathway forward here, and this was articulated in some of the documents that were submitted to the tribunal.

So it is my position to be against, and I will be voting against the motion on the floor for the tribunal because I do think the case has been made that the primary object of this organization is to house people and housing. And I think it will only become a greater or more evident with the completion of this project and the path where they are down. Like if you think about it, they are committing to 25 years of affordable housing and housing individuals in this community. This will be a significant and important part, if not the most significant and important part of their purpose for decades to come in this community.

So I’m inclined to support the complaint, and I say that with the utmost respect for our staff because I think there was a reasonable path to coming to the conclusion they did, but I think the testimony today is compelling and the public statement that this is their primary object is important to me to support an alternative path to what is on the floor before us. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much. I agree with everything that the mayor just said, and the fact that primary object is not defined and that the courts have said that when it’s not properly defined that you wanna fulfill the legislative intent, I think the complainant did make a compelling argument today.

I do believe that their primary object is housing and that accepting the dismissal that’s before us right now would frustrate the purpose of the exemption of the DCA. So I will not be supporting this and if this fails, I do have an alternate motion that I’d like to put forward. Thank you. I have Councillor Frank next.

Thank you, I’ll be quick. I won’t be supporting the motion that’s on the floor right now. I’ll support the motion perhaps that comes after if it does, as I’m convinced that given the discussion we’ve heard today, the primary objective for CCLC is housing. So I will not support this one and support potentially a different option.

Thank you. I have Councillor Ferrera. It’s all about Councillor Trossa. Thanks, Chair.

I fully agree with the last three comments that I heard. You know, I do believe that the primary object here, especially considering the sheer mass of capital assets is 90%. I think that is a pretty determinative point right there. Now I will say staff did a great job.

Staff have to follow the regulations and the rules that they have before them. They don’t have the discretion that we are able to have here. So this is the way the process works. So I do appreciate the work the staff have done.

You have the guidelines that you have to follow and we have the ability to make the determination. So I am gonna be one that would not be supporting the speed dismissed and I will hope to see, I guess, another motion that comes forward to allow CCLC to move on with their project. I don’t wanna see any delay with that. I think it’s gonna be something that is really gonna bring the area alive again for that aspect.

It’s obviously gonna provide housing to newcomers. And that’s gonna be something that’s a great thing. I see that the compelling arguments from Ms. McFalls with respect to Village Soho with respect to St.

Vincent DePaul on Huron is a clear example of how we have seen this in the past. And I want to just make note that because we have that discretion, this is our job, what we should do. And I believe that I believe the case was quite compelling. So I do agree.

The last comments that I saw, I will be supporting, I guess, whatever comes. If we go that way, how this committee determines it, that will allow a path for CCLC to build their build and I guess have those development charges waived. Hopefully we see that, but that comes at council. I’m not a voting member here, so I can’t make that vote.

But I appreciate the comments that I heard. Thank you, Councillor Trossam. Yes, so through the chair, I’ll be very brief. I agree with the Mayor, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, Councillor Ferrara.

I do wanna add a few things though. I think that this organization, which by the way, styles itself as a resettlement organization, first and foremost, which to me suggests that there’s a special residential element to everything they do. And furthermore, I think given everything that this city has been through, in terms of the discussions that we’ve had about how under a housing first approach, we are not just looking at the tenancy of a tenant in their unit, but we’re looking at the broad variety of services that they receive for which they need in order to properly enjoy and be successful in their housing occupation. We do this all of the time.

I don’t think there’s, I don’t think many of the things that this Council has talked about over the course of this term, in terms of our hubs, in terms of other supportive housing, doesn’t have a component where we talk about the importance of services, but these are not separate and apart from the right to occupy a unit. I think we have a lot of discretion here. And I think we would be making a big mistake if we took the path of saying, we are going to take a technical interpretation of these laws in order to frustrate the purposes. And by the way, the purposes of this organization and moving forward with this housing project comes as no surprise to us.

We’ve known this is what it was about at the beginning. We also know that unfortunately, as much as we would like to have 100% of the units be deemed affordable, we understand that given the economics that that’s just not possible and that we see often the need to have a mixed approach. To take the position that this mixed approach somehow disturbs or ousts the purpose of the primary purpose here in my mind, which is to provide very special units under very special conditions to very special persons who have very special needs is quite reasonable. So in the end, I think that, and I don’t want to get too technically legal here.

I know that people don’t like it when I do that, but I do want to say that this ultimately, for me, comes down to a question of legislative intent. And if there’s any ambiguity here, and I’ve heard some of my colleagues say, there are two reasonable approaches here. We could go in different directions. I think when you have, I disagree with that, by the way, I think there’s only one reasonable direction here.

We can go, but I’m not going to argue that. Whenever you have an honest fundamental difference of opinion about what a piece of legislation needs, and it’s not specifically laid out in the governing of legislation, which I think is the case here, or very reasonably could be the case here, you then resort to what are known as rules of construction, rules of statutory construction, and the need to look at legislative intent. And looking at the legislative intent is what’s modernly characterized by courts as a purposeful, as a purposeful approach to legislative interpretation, not a doctrinaire or technical approach. If we are going to engage in a purposeful approach to the legislative interpretation here, we have the opportunity, I would argue, we have the obligation given the reliance that this organization has— 30 seconds.

  • How much? 30 seconds. - Okay. So I think we have the obligation based on the reliance that this organization has placed on this for us to exercise a broad purposeful approach to legislative interpretation.

And accordingly, I would make the determination that the appeal is well-founded, and it should be granted. And I’ll reserve my comments on the text of that motion for a later motion. So that’s what I have to say. Thank you.

Do I have any other speakers on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will look to open the vote on the dismiss motion. That has been run out by the clerk. Mr.

Van Miobergen, the vote motion fails, three to three. Okay, so I’m in committee’s hands. I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’d like to put forward an alternate motion. I can read it out. Thank you, please do. That after convening as a tribunal, under section 26 of by-law CP 1551-227, to hear a complaint under section 20 of the Development Charges Act 1997, SO 1997C27, by Paula Lombardi of Siskins LLP, with respect to the property municipally known as 763 to 773 Dundas Street, regarding the calculation and application of development charges for the London Cross Cultural Learner Center, Doorway to Dreams Project, permit 24-02-8071, and as detailed in the attached record of proceeding, the complaint be allowed, and that pursuant to section 4.2 of the Development Charges Act, the correct amount of development charges owing is $0, as the proposed development is a non-profit housing development.

Thank you. I have a seconder, Mayor Morgan, and I will look for speakers on this item. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just looking forward to committee’s support on this as the word Councillor for this area, and after listening to the tribunal, I do feel that this motion fulfills legislative intent and allows an appropriate definition of primary object, and it also supports the purpose of the exemption as laid out by the DCA Act.

Thank you, other speakers on this item? Councillor Ferrer, I’m just gonna look and see if I have any members of committee before I go to this in Councillors. Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you.

Just wanna say I will support this motion at council. I think this is the right direction to go, and I’d also make mention that this project “Dories for Dreams” is for newcomers, and this is something that is something that we should definitely be doing. I don’t know how to say this, but we have a lot of things going on in the world right now, and for all you know, we might be newcomers somewhere as well. So I hope that doesn’t happen, but just paying it forward and getting it back is the way to go, and I totally appreciate the motion from the mover and the seconder, and I will be supporting this at council.

Okay, thank you. I will look for other speakers on this. I will hand the chair over to Councillor McAllister, so I may speak on this item. Okay, just one moment, just let me get my timer set up here.

Go ahead, Councillor Rong, I have the chair. Thank you, and through you, I just wanted to speak to the recommendation that’s on the floor at this time. So I do appreciate the information that’s been prepared, both by staff and by Siskind, and the presentation of the documentation provided at the Tribunal, as well as communication provided by CCLC. While I understand the purpose of staff’s determination, I do understand why and from hearing the submissions today, I can understand why my colleagues and others may perceive this differently in terms of the determination of the ongoing use and the future consideration of this development.

One of the things that I’m challenged with in looking at this item is current submissions that are provided and the interpretation by our staff on those being for the purpose of other things other than just housing. I would say that that doesn’t in any way undervalue the work that CCLC does, it’s just a difference of opinion on what that work is. For me, what I think can sway me, what is making me think that I can support this in moving this to supporting what’s on the floor is that I think that the purpose as this is constructed changes and that the organization then has more of a footing in substantial housing in the area. And I think that’s the argument to be made.

Had this been moved to another separate corporation that was primarily for the purpose of housing, we had that consideration been given or been able to be given land transfer tax as a side. I think that would have been very clear cut and dry. And in this case, this seems like an administrative task to go through this determination, but I can see why this is in front of us today and I’m willing to support what’s on the floor in order to move this item forward. And I will go back to the chair.

Thank you and I return the chair to you. And I would like to be on the speakers next night. Thank you. Thank you for returning the chair.

I’ll go to Councilman Callister. Thank you and through the chair, similar vein as Councilor Robin. When I was reviewing this, I spent some time looking at both sides, similar to staff. I looked at CACLC, what they’ve done in the past.

For me, this was kind of a check in on the egg situation. I think if I had seen in terms of housing as the primary goal, I think there, again, the difference of opinion in terms of settlement services and what that entails, I view housing maybe more on permanency side. I think with settlement services, a lot of it’s more on a more temporary basis. So I think we’re just on a bit of a difference of opinion in terms of what that entails.

I would say, again, similar to Councilor Robin, support this just because I don’t want to be an impasse, especially with this, we do need to make a decision as a tribunal. But I will say in terms of the precedent this sets, I do think, obviously, we want more housing to be built, but I do think this is a lesson in terms of what we’ve discussed today. If other organizations are thinking of doing something like this, that it would be beneficial beforehand to start a project, to look at what services they provide, if they want to create a whole subsidiary that might look at housing. But as these cases come up, I do think that this one might be a precedent setting one for other projects we’ll see.

If other complainants come forward, we’d still have to weigh those considerations, but I do think this is something in the future that could potentially come up. And some other issues that we hadn’t necessarily anticipated. But at the end of the day, we do want housing built. I agreed with staff interpretation in terms of applying it to the 75 units.

But as there was a difference of opinion, I don’t want to hold this up and then stop the development. So I’ll be supporting this at this time. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I am happy to support this and thank the word counselor for bringing it forward and appreciate the work that staff had done as well.

But I’m just leaning in a different direction on this one. We do hand out millions of dollars a year for for-profit market rate housing. So I’m totally happy to have some development charges be waived for nonprofit housing. And again, appreciate the work that has gone into us, but I’m looking forward to seeing that building get built.

So thank you for doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you. I greatly respect the comments that my previous colleagues have made and the way that they’ve assessed the situation both in their previous votes in this one.

And I’m thankful for the support that sounds like this motion will have before us today. I want to say to a couple of comments made, I really don’t think we’re setting too much of a precedent here. The complexity and thorough details that were given as part of this tribunal made it very, very clear and strong case that the primary object of the organization really is housing. And I think that any other group that would be coming forward have to meet that same level of burden.

Now, I would say the easier path forward is two other ways. One is in the future for anybody thinking about getting into this work, create a sub-corporation first before you get too far down the path. And identify the primary object very clearly so that there is very little to dispute. And two, I actually believe the legislation at the provincial level could be cleaned up because the intent here, the intent is to support waivers for affordable housing projects and to have to get to the tribunal phase to create a what is a three million dollar decision based on the interpretation of two words in the act is not the greatest position to be in.

And so, I might take it upon myself to engage with the minister about as legislation is updated, perhaps clarifying some of this so that we’re not talking about precedents or whether we’re setting them, but a clear interpretation of the intent of the legislation as Councillor Trozal mentioned. So I want to thank our staff for the work they did. As I said at the start, I thought it was a reasonable conclusion to come to based on what was before us. The testimony today convinced me otherwise, but I greatly respect the work that staff does as well.

So thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers. Casing none in chambers and none online, I will look to open the vote. Close in the vote, motion carries, six to zero.

Thank you with that, I’ll ask for a motion that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee adjourn as an administrative tribunal and reconvene as the Infrastructure and Corporate Service Committee in open session. I have Councillor Frank and Councillor McAllister and I will look to open the vote on that. Close in the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Thank you, that moves us on to confidential matters.

We have five items that we’ll be dealing with in camera. Land? Excuse me, Madam Mayor, sorry, Madam Chair. Sorry, you had an item for direction.

I almost missed it. Yeah, number five. Thank you, sorry about that. Yes.

It’s good to over it. Thank you, yes. You had a deferred matters or additional business item. I will go to Councillor Van Mierberg and go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. It has to do with the apparent road salt shortage. And I’d like to ask Ms. Sher, if indeed there is an Ontario-wide shortage of road salt, are the roads in London being affected in a negative way in the sense that we’re not able to salt properly?

Ms. Sher, oh, sorry, one moment, please. I have to deal with the doors being shut one moment. Just a moment, we have to wait for security before we can proceed.

Thank you, sorry, Councillor. You have asked your question, and I will just have you go ahead again and ask your question, please. Yeah, so under additional business, apparently there is a province-wide road salt shortage. And I’d like to ask Ms.

Sher is London, or London roads and in the city of London being negatively affected by any sort of road salt shortage. And if so, what are we doing to try and mitigate that? Thank you, Ms. Sher.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The city of London is under contract with Windsor Salt, and we continue to receive our supplies as planned as they are prioritizing municipal service delivery. Private purchases and purchases from in for industry, private property have certainly been impacted, but no, we have not had to adjust or reduce any of our salting plans as a result of the shortage throughout the province. We continue to work with our supplier to ensure that we’re receiving the salt we need, stockpiling it for events.

I am happy to say, though, that we do have some less operationally challenging whether in the forecast and that is probably good news, not just for Londoners, but for the whole southwest part of the province. Thank you. So if I could follow up, Chair. Yes, go ahead.

According to Ms. Sher, we are in good shape for the remainder of the ice and winter season. Ms. Sher.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a contract that requires delivery from Windsor’s salt. I cannot predict what will happen weather-wise in terms of total demand and supply, but we are managing well at this time. We are meeting our service standards, and we’ll continue to work with them to ensure that we are replenishing our stockpiles for the rest of the winter.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other items under deferred matter to our additional business? Okay, seeing none, we will go to confidential.

We have five items and of those items, all are included on the regular agenda, an added agenda under 6.1 through 6.5, and they deal with land acquisition and solicitor client privilege advice, positions, plans, procedures, criteria, or instruction to be applied to any negotiation. I’m looking for a mover and seconder, Councillor Frank. Yes, to go into Councillor Frank and Councillor Stevenson, and I will look to open the vote. Wasn’t the vote motion carried six to zero?

Just a moment as we prepare. Thank you, I will go to Councillor McAllister to report it from in camera. Thank you, through the chair, reporting that if you’ve any went into closed session and the progress has made it all nice. Thank you, with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn.

Councillor Stevenson, Councillor McAllister, and by hand, all in favor, motion carries. Thanks, everyone.