 By Pepper Parr
November 29th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
We got a message from Kwab Ako-Adjei, the Senior Manager, Government Relations & Strategic Communications for the city – he reports directly to the city manager, James Ridge.
The message:
I want to bring your attention to an article published last week which indicated that a group of residents were “banned” from using a city hall room. The article went on to say that “banning seems to have become a bit of a practice at city hall…”
“I have spoken with city staff and no one is aware of a situation where residents were “banned.” Can you please provide further information on what took place, who was “banned,” and where they were “banned” from?”
 Someone at city hall said yes – then someone else said No. Kwab Ako-Adjei, the Senior Manager, Government Relations & Strategic Communications wants to know who they are. We got in touch with our source and asked for clarification and got a pretty blunt response. “No comment Pepper, I am not going to say a word. We don’t want anyone to get into trouble. And do not use my name.”
It took some effort to keep the person on the line to probe a little more. It “appears” that permission was given at one level but as the request moved up the food chain the Ok got turned into a no.
The word “banned” came the source – it was sent to us in writing.
Our source would not even mention which department at city hall they had talked with.
The source did say that the early conversations with city hall “were done in good faith”.
Many of the people involved with the Engaged Citizens of Burlington (ECoB) are fed up with city hall. They have had it with Council members that do not listen and they want staff to reflect what the citizens desire of their city.
We were asked recently – “Where do these people live?
Director of Transportation – Hamilton
City Clerk – Hamilton
Director of Finance – Milton
City Solicitor – outside of Burlington.
Director of Parks and Recreation – Oakville.
We are not sure any of the Director’s actually live in Burlington.
The city manager does live in Burlington – Aldershot actually.
City hall bureaucrats will tell you that they are professionals and that it is their skills and experience that matter.
Civic government is to a large degree city building. Hard to understand and respect the people you are serving if you are not amongst them.
Hard to have their kids playing with your kids, their kids in the same school yard as your kids giving them an identity with the city. Do any of the city manager’s Leadership Team belong to any of the service clubs?
The citizens of the city don’t ‘know’ the senior levels of government and in Burlington they don’t seem to trust them either.
Related news story:
 By Greg Woodruff
November 29th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington released it’s “official plan” recently; a 500 plus paged tome with a plan to pass it as quickly as possible. They may as well have called it “Hi-rises and traffic jams.” Believers in this plan have two precepts. 1) That they have found “good” and efficient ways for people to live. 2) It’s the government’s job to enforce it on the unwilling. The result will be a cost free infinite growth utopia. Here is the net effect of Burlington’s official plan:
 Greg Woodruff First it’s designed to make it difficult for future councils or citizens to limit the construction of high buildings almost anywhere. High-rises are encouraged in the “down town” in the “up town” (Appleby and Highway 5) around the Aldershot GO, Appleby GO, Burlington GO, Walkers GO (if province builds) and any “intensification zone” which is basically along any major road.
If you want to build higher then specified – don’t worry plenty of underlying “denser is better” principles are sprinkled through to allow you to win a OMB or tribunal at the provincial level. Placing new heights into the official plan this way effectively overwhelms the original zoning on thousands of properties by writ.
 Walking is going to be one of the options in the forthcoming Master Transportation Plan. Second it’s designed to create city wide grid lock. You can stay tuned for the “master transit plan”, but I can pretty much tell you what it says, “don’t drive anywhere.” Because if you do stupefying city wide gridlock will take place. The city’s solution will then mainly be to hector the population into busing, walking, biking or abandoning travel. Secondarily will be a push to remove parking around stores and GO stations (yes GO stations) with heroic investments into park benches, speed bumps, stop signs and traffic signaling. The theory being the faster the road system is unworkable the faster people will “come to their senses” and be hostages for city provided alternatives.
Third it bakes in the idea of “infinite sustainable growth”. Burlington is set on a vision to first looking like Vancouver, then Manhattan, then eventually like that episode of Star Trek where people were trying to escape population density via fatal disease. No limits or systems on when over building has occurred in an area. The formula for infinite cost free population growth has been found; people will just have to ration.
Even if this all seems great to you the manner in which this is going on should trouble us all deeply. You would think a city which represents it’s citizens should would want a long serious debate on all these plans.
Instead they are trying to rush this massive change through lest it become a long serious debate during the 2018 election. I remember this answer in 2014 when I ran; “The official plan is done” becomes the response when you question the judgement of those involved. That’s the purpose of the rush; to limit the scrutiny of the less involved citizen that might tune in for the 2018 election.
 East side of Brant Street weeks days before Christmas 2013. Not a lot of vibrancy here – not much height either. This city does not yet know what it wants. This is not an attempt to make Copenhagen or any other livable European city. Those places have mainly strict 6 floor limits and specific building specifications. The problem from a city planning overlord perspective is that those places can’t “grow forever.” At a certain density – that’s it. They don’t let you come back and bulldoze down the 6 floor buildings cut down all the trees put up high-rises, because that affects the livability of the city.
This official plan in not an attempt to create some higher form of density that enriches the lives of the population with choices. It not about creating sustainable green transportation options or there would be some concrete proposals to do that. It’s a just magic voodoo to allow infinite sustainable “cost free” growth to be the operational policy of the government. And we will be left with the problems when the snake oil salesmen have moved on to the next town.
Greg Woodruff is an Aldershot resident who comments frequently on city wide issues. He ran for the office of Regional Chair in 2014 and suggests aqt times that he will run for Mayor of Burlington in 2018
 By Staff
November 28, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Eva Amos is pleased and happy knowing that she did her bit to prevent the New Street diet from becoming a fact that would have changed the way traffic moved along one of the more important roadways in the city.
“My biggest complaint” said Amos “was with the stats. The comment I kept hearing over and over again was there was an increase of 33% in cyclists from 60 pre diet to 80 post.
 “Do 80 cyclists warrant changing the road configuration for 15,000 to 20,000 drivers?” This is now. What will the vehicular traffic be when all the intensification is complete. Had there been 10 cyclist’s pre diet and then 20 post would we say the cyclists have doubled?
“Also there was little mention of the cyclists on the sidewalk. How many were actually on the road or crossing from the Centennial path?”
“I guess the numbers made a difference – our numbers. The 3282 signatures on the online petition with accompanying comments. The 675 signatures on a hard copy of a petition.
Articles in the papers, letters to the editors and the calls to Council members made a difference. And the hour long television feature on The Issue helped.
“Maybe numbers in the end did win out.”, said Amos
 By Pepper Parr
November 29, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The battle lines are being drawn for a fight that will get settled in October 2018 when the next municipal election takes place.
 Meed Ward with Mayor Goldring: she is more comfortable with herself as a speaker. In that race at this point in time are Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, Rick Goldring, the current Mayor and Mike Wallace, a former city Councillor and Member of Parliament for Burlington.
The only candidate that has actually declared is the Mayor who seemed to have found a way around the rules. Nomination can’t be filed until May 1, 2018
 George Wale, Director of Programs at the Art Centre, on the right, thanks Burlington MP Mike Wallace for the funding from the federal government. Between now and then it will be a battle royal with Meed Ward screaming from the roof tops that the end of the Burlington she believes most people want is in sight
Councillor Meed Ward, in a recent Newsletter said: “If this plan goes through as is, it will fundamentally change downtown, replacing the low-rise character and historic buildings with modern tall buildings.
“The magnitude of changes represents over intensification and high rise congestion with no clear reason – since we can meet our growth targets under existing plan limits.
“We’re giving away height and getting nothing, like negotiating affordable housing, family units, public parking or heritage protection in exchange for more floors.”
There are many who don’t have a problem with additional height. Meed Ward’s support seems to be concentrated in the downtown core – the people in that part of the city don’t want their part of the city to change. Traffic congestion is a big concern and losing much of the retail and commercial space is a concern.
The 421 Brant Carriage Gate development will go to the OMB if the resolve that was displayed at a meeting of citizens who have been cheeky enough to use the COB that city hall types like to use and added an E to it to come up with the acronym ECOB – Engaged Citizen of Burlington.
They should be incorporated by the end of the week and have their OMB appeal papers filed with city hall shortly after.
During a two hour meeting in the Party Room of Buntin’s Wharf on Saturday they elected a set of Officers and raised $5000 on the spot.
There are some impressive people behind this effort.
Meed Ward sets out where the changes will take place in the downtown core and her take on the impact all this will have.
She focuses on the “added congestion, loss of small town feel, and loss of key retailers in some of our older buildings, like Kelly’s Bake Shoppe” Kelly Childs is in the process of becoming the ‘poster girl’ for downtown Burlington. We could do worse.
Where Meed Ward is absolutely right is the timeline the city is working to: “This process is proceeding far too quickly. She “will ask for an extension of time before approval”.
The Official Plan review started six years ago, half way through, a newly appointed Director of Planning changed what was an update to a total rewrite.
The downtown policies were made public at the end of September; the revised version was made public two weeks ago. The Area Specific Policies were made public in June.
 Suzanne Mammel, Executive Officer of the Halton Hamilton Home Builders Association is less then impressed with the way the Planning department seems to be rushing the new Official Plan. “Three weeks is not enough time to review and digest these documents, much less invite public comment” said Meed Ward. “ We cannot rush. The Official Plan is the most important document in the city, setting the stage for development for decades.”
Meed Ward plans to ask for several amendments, including revisions to height permissions and deferring approval till June “when we can consider all policies at the same time, and allow more time for public review and comment”.
The Halton Hamilton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) are threatening to take the Official Plan to the OMB –just as soon as it is passed. They tool feel the process is being rushed and have complained about the way the Planning Department has responded to their issues.
The new plan, with the downtown policies, staff reports and “track changes” version is over 2000 pages of reading to be ready for a committee meeting next week.
That is about as irresponsible and as unaccountable as a bureaucrat can be. It smacks of insolence on the part of the men and the women in the Planning department who let things like this happen. Surely there is a planner in the department who would ask if the public has been given enough time to read the documents.
The proposed downtown precinct plan will be discussed at committee November. 30 at 1:00 pm and in the evening at 6:30 pm. It appears there is going to be plenty of time to debate a document that few will have been able to re3ad in its entirety.
The plan is expected to be approved in January, with more detailed Area Specific Plans coming in June 2018.
Meed Ward provided a lot of graphics that help people see and understand where the growth is going to take place in each of the 13 precincts(up from 8) that have been created.
There are boundaries within boundaries and then precincts – each of which has its own zoning criteria.
Growth centre boundaries:
The downtown is divided into 13 “precincts” (up from 8 in the current plan) each with their own height and zoning permissions. Where heights previously ranged up to 14 storeys (excluding specific sites granted more height through an application), they now include as-of-right heights up to 25 storeys. More details on the precincts are below.
 Map with different boundaries – see Index
Brant St from Pine to southern edge of No Frills Plaza: (Brant Main St Precinct orange area on map) up from 8 storeys to 11, and 17/23 at Brant/James (thatched orange area on map) Existing permissions are 4-8 storeys, will now be up to 11. The South-East corner of Brant & James is a special policy area (thatched orange) allowed to go to 17 storeys. The North-East corner across the street has already been approved for 23 storeys.
 St Luke Precinct on the west of Brant and Emerald precinct on the right – both are solid residential communities – that don’t want development moving into their part of town. The downtown urban growth centre boundaries have changed to include parts of the stable low density neighbourhoods in the Emerald and St. Luke’s precincts. This is very serious as it will put pressure on these neighbourhoods to meet the growth centre’s target of 200 people or jobs per hectare. This change was apparently done by the province and region in 2006 and has not been reflected in our current OP, nor even come to light until now.
 Upper Brant – the part of the Downtown core where a lot of people think the height should be located. • There are a number of heritage buildings in the Downtown Core Precinct where heights are projected to go from 4-8 storeys to 17
Upper Brant Precinct (royal blue area), from 6 storeys existing, up to 25 storeys
Brant St at Graham’s Lane/Prospect/Ghent/Olga/Blairholm (Upper Brant Precinct) from 6 storeys to 25 (blue area)
• Existing permissions are 6 storeys, will now be up to 25
 Downtown core precinct – some are of the belief that every property is in the hands of a developer. John St, Lakeshore, Martha, Maria block: (Downtown Core Precinct) from 4-8 storeys up to 17 (light blue)
Existing permissions are 4-8 storeys, will now be up to 17. The block at Maria/Caroline/John/ Elizabeth has existing permission for a 17 storey condo (currently under construction), 6-8 storey parking garage and 6-8 storey medical centre.
There are a number of historic buildings in the Downtown Core Precinct, along James, Elizabeth Pearl, but heritage protection policies and site specific reviews won’t come till the Area Specific Plans are complete in June 2018. We’re giving height away without getting these protections in place, putting pressure on these sites to be developed to the max. It will be difficult to “downzone” development permissions after the fact where we want to protect heritage down the road.
 Cannery precinct – so named because at one point there was a tomato canning factory at the foot on the east side of Brant. Cannery Precinct, up to 22 storeys (salmon colour). Waterfront Hotel site marked with asterix.
This precinct includes two parcels: the existing Bridgewater Development at Lakeshore/Elizabeth/Pearl, currently under construction with a 22 storey condo, 8 storey hotel and 7 storey condo; and the foot of Brant/Lakeshore on the North East Side bounded by Brant, John, Pine and Lakeshore.
Understanding the scope and the scale of what the Planning department is proposing is close to mind boggling.
If what is being proposed had the enthusiastic support of at least half of the population this would be a great plan – it would indeed be Growing Bold.
But most people don’t even know what the city is planning. Those in the downtown core have begun to understand what is going on. Those north of Prospect are in the dark – getting little if any information from their city Councillors.
Whenever a developer asks for a change to the Official Plan people get upset and ask – ‘What is the point of having an Official Plan if all a developer has to do is assemble some land and trot over to the Planning department and propose a change to the Official Plan and the zoning’.
Now the public has a 1500 page + document that they are expected to read and absorb in a very tight time frame.
Someone has to show the leadership needed to explain what is happening and why – without that leadership the public will clue in at some point and vote in a council that listens.
Problem with this is that there isn’t exactly a line-up of people who have indicated that they want to be a city Councillor.
 By Pepper Parr
November 28th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The people who live along West Haven in Tyendaga will troop over to the Crossroads Centre for a third public meeting put on by Meridian Brick this Thursday.
As part of Meridian’s “good neighbour” policy they will update the community on the status of the many studies they have had done – the residents will ask questions and their environmental adviser will ask tough questions of the Meridian staff who will be out in force.
The Mayor may or may not show up. Same goes for the ward Councillor Rick Craven – they just want this issue to go away.
The issue for the residents is the shale mining the brick maker wants to do in the third piece of land – referred to as the eastern cell or Cell 3.
 Everyone knew how close the eatern quarry was going to be to the high end homes that were going to be built. Current owners claim the warning clause that was supposed to be registered on title doesn’t appear. They fear serious depression in the value of their homes and refer to an appraisers report that finds property value losses between 8% to 40% in proximity to pits and quarries.
The brick manufacturer has gone through several corporate mergers. Brick has been manufactured in Aldershot sine the early 1900’s. The current manufacturing plant was built in 2000.
 Meridian makes it very clear they are licensed to do what they do – the West Haven residents want to see limitations put on that license. The issue for Meridian is keeping the plant operational. To do that they will have to de-forest an area with a reported 9000 trees. Meridian points out that they do have a license (first issued in 1972) to mine for Queenston shale – that is used to make very good brick.
The residents point out that the community that exists today didn’t exist in 1972. It wasn’t until the end of 1998 that a development Plan was approved in principle by the Region.
The battle lines have been drawn.
The development was first put forward by Jannock Limited, a Mississauga based developer.
They sold their interest to Brant Haven Homes who built the high end residences.
Brant Haven has an excellent reputation for building fine high end homes.
In a 24 page Region of Halton document there are two references to a quarry operation that was yards away from where the homes were to be build
“The owner and the Region acknowledge and agree that this agreement shall be registered on title to the lands. To that effect, the owner hereby consents to the registration of this agreement on the title to the lands.”
The West Haven residents claim that the agreement is not registered on the title they have.
On the very last page of the agreement there is a second paragraph labelled as a Warning clause with the following:
“The following warning clause shall be registered on title and included in all development agreements and Offers of Sale and Purchase or Lease of all lots:
“The purchaser/ tenants acknowledge the presence of a future extractive industrial land use to the west and that extraction may take place during the day time only.”
Those were the words on the Application to Register Notice of Agreement Pursuant to Section 71 of the Land Titles Act that was signed by Jannock and the Region.
When the development was sold to Brant Haven were they aware of the Warning Clause? They should have been – they are not likely to get involved in the dispute – unless the Region begins to look into the matter.
This isn’t the kind of thing the Region does on its own; someone will have to delegate at the Region and ask some questions and then a member of Regional Council would have to ask some questions. Every member of Burlington city council is a member of the Regional Councillor; half of their income comes from the Region
 The residents close to the east quarry fear that the day the trees are cut down the value of their property could drop by as much as 40% When Brant Haven began to sell the houses – did they advise the purchasers that there was a warning clause? Not the kind of thing some real estate agents mention.
It is up to the lawyer who closes the purchase of the property to research the title and ensure that there are no liens or conditions involved.
None of the people involved in the dispute say that they were made aware of the warning clause and it appears that the warning was never entered onto the title.
Who is responsible for the oversight? Was it deliberate?
Where were the lawyers who did the closing for the buyers?
This all happened more than 18 years ago and no one remembers – or doesn’t want to remember.
It wouldn’t be difficult to look at the title document and get the name of the lawyer who did the closing paper work and collected a fee. Their name would be on the file.
Could be embarrassing for a number of Burlington based lawyers.
 By Staff
November 27th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
What do you do when you get one of these?
Maybe, just maybe I did have a distant relative who was Greek – Dad did get around.
Do I take the chance – what’s the upside?
What’s the downside?
Look at the link we have provided on a school teacher here in Ontario who came close to getting wiped out and faces years of fixing her credit status.
I work as the head of audit within our bank’s account management team. It has come to our attention while in the process to a new digital banking system that a late family member of yours still has an active account within our bank, containing a significant amount of funds. We are bound by law to transfer the funds to any surviving family member as the beneficiary of the deceased account. Please respond at your earliest convenience so I can send you the details to get this process in motion.
Regards,
The email address it came from looks like a Greek bank – Marinos S. Yannopoulos <5ll3964l@hellenicbank.com Take a pass on this one.
How a teacher has had to fight to get back her financial identity.
By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
For all of December you will be able to park your car at a city parking meter in the downtown core FREE.
City hall seems to feel that is the benefit.
The real benefit is we won’t have to squint into that little screen to read the instructions when the sun makes it all but impossible to reads the instructions.
It is a Free P – in downtown Burlington for the fifth year
The parking is free in city lots and on-street parking spaces.
 Parking meter wrapped for the month of December – parking is free for the month.  Brian Dean with Councillor Marianne Meed Ward the day the new parking meters were installed. Free P allows vehicles to park in on-street parking spaces for free for up to three hours. For vehicles parked in municipal parking lots or the parking garage at 414 Locust St., there is no maximum time limit. Overnight parking in municipal lots is also allowed.
Motorists with downtown parking permits are reminded to continue to park in their assigned parking lot throughout the month of December in order to maximize the number of parking spaces available for visitors.
The City of Burlington provides 1,500 municipal parking spaces in downtown Burlington and offers free parking year-round in the downtown Monday to Friday after 6 p.m. and all day Saturday, Sunday and holidays.
Brian Dean, Executive Director of the Burlington Downtown Business Association and Chair of the Downtown Parking Committee explains that the “goal is to keep downtown’s unique shopping and dining experiences top of mind for residents and visitors this holiday season. We want to encourage patrons to explore even more of the services downtown by removing a parking fee from the equation this December.”
By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
What might turn out to be one of those pivotal events took place on Saturday when 25 people meeting in the Part Room of Buntin’s Wharf decided to put their money where their mouth is and raised $5000 in minutes to take an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board asking that the 23 story tower that was approved by city council not be permitted to proceed as a tower that high.
The group took on the acronym ECOB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington and decided to incorporate and create a city wide citizen’s organization to keep city council both transparent and accountable.
 Do the citizen’s of a city like Burlington have it within them to create a city wide movement that will holds the men and women they elect to council accountable? Within hours of the news story published in the Gazette two comments were posted. The first wanted to know where to send money.
#1
Congratulations to this group for attempting to restore both democracy and planning/development sanity to Burlington. Once your group is legally incorporated, please let everyone know where we can send financial support. I applaud you for doing what our elected councillors (MMW excepted) refuse to do–represent the people of this city.
The second wanted to join.
#2
How can one join (and/or contribute to) this group?
 It will take some time to determine whether or not the group can achieve what it has set out to do. They are working within a very short time-frame.
Assuming they do manage to get all the paper work done – incorporate, get their bylaws in place, open the bank account, draft the first version of the OMB appeal and file it at city hall – the development of the tower comes to a screeching halt and will be in one of those OMB limbos waiting for a hearing to take place.
Something to watch.
Original news story:
By Pepper Parr
November 26th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Will the meeting in the Party Room at Buntin’s Wharf Saturday afternoon be seen as the event that changed the way Burlington citizens relate to their elected officials?
 Jim Young chairs the founding meeting of ECOB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington. Just 25 people – but they are determined to make a difference, Just over 25 people met in a building that changed the way the downtown core looked 15 years ago. Buntin’s Wharf, a 14 storey condominium was completed in 2004 – it is part of a collection of condominiums that changed Lakeshore. The people in those buildings – there are five of them don’t want to see much more in the way of high rise development in the downtown core – they would like to see it take place a little further up Brant Street.
It was a chilly afternoon with the Festive Season lights up in Spencer Smith Park. Many of the people who attended were there to find out if this group was real. “I’m here and will be reporting back to my friends who care about what happens downtown”. The people who attended take great exception to the city saying that they truly engage the citizens – they see what the city does as “something of a disgrace”. “When we delegate they just sit there and listen – and seldom ask questions of us. It’s insulting was the way one person described what she had gone through.
 The wrong height and in the wrong place was the view of a group – ECOB – that plans to appeal the 5-2 city council approval of a 23 storey tower opposite city hall. It didn’t take long for the direction this group wanted to go in – they had named themselves Engaged Citizen of Burlington – took on the acronym ECOB – elected a set of officers – there will be seven of them.
Resolved to be incorporated by the end of the week, open a bank account and deposit the $5000 they raised on the spot in less than ten minutes.
They put in place a social media pro who headed up the very successful drive Central high school parent drive to keep their school of the to be closed list.
They set up three sub committees – one to take the 421 Brant Street development to the OMB – they expect to file papers at city hall for that initiative very soon – they are fully aware of the ticking clock.
The ECOB people have a bigger agenda – they want to create a city wide residents association that wants to change the way city hall makes development decisions and be a force that holds city council accountable to the people that elected.
This group has had it with this council. “They don’t listen” was the refrain heard again and again.
This is not a group of wild eyed NIMBY types.
There was some very smart talent in the room. When discussion on the incorporation was going on – one of the participants was on the phone to a local lawyer – “he’s in” she said and with that the process of incorporation had begun.
They had financial commitments before they had a treasurer in place. One participant said he came to the meeting with a cheque in his pocket – he just wanted to know who to make it out to.
One of the team briefed them on the “Bay Street lawyer” who was in the process of doing a “conflict review” to ensure that they could represent the group before signing on.
What is it going to take financially – they seemed comfortable with raising $100,000. One of the sharper minds in the room told the group that money wasn’t the issue – that will come – setting out what it is we want is where the attention has to be paid.
Another participant asked: What is it we want the OMB to do – no point in taking our argument to them until we are focused on the objective.
“We can’t just ask the OMB to stop the development” said one participant.
The developer has a 12 story approval on one piece of the properties assembled – “we aren’t going to see anything less than that.
Mediation got talked about – arbitration got talked about. They all realized they had a tough row to hoe – but they were in for the long haul.
The ward Councillor who was not in the room – they didn’t want here there. They don’t want their organization to be seen as a front for a member of council.
There were some very savvy people in the room – they asked that they not be individually identified at this point.
The discussion between the 25 people was a model that city council could emulate.
 Jim Young – the man who did one of the best delegations this city has ever heard. Jim Young, an Aldershot resident chaired the meeting, filling in for Susan Goyer who appears to be the one who got the ball rolling a number of weeks ago. She was in Florida.
Assuming these people get their OMB appeal filed within the deadline – development decisions downtown are going to be different.
By Staff
November 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
An entire Grade 9 class spent the day handing out kindness cards in Burlington, spreading smiles throughout their school and neighbourhood.
You had to see it to believe it and to pick up on the delighted comments that come across on the video.
Look carefully at the students in the high school handing out the cards to their fellow students.
And look carefully at the school – it is scheduled to be closed in June of 2018.
The Halton District School Board voted to shut down two high schools – Pearson is one of them.
The parents have asked for and were given the opportunity for an Administrative Review to take place. That review is ongoing and a report will be made to the Minister of Education on whether or not the process used by the board was in accordance with Board policies.
Margaret Wilson, the independent Reviewer brought in to look at all the documents and to listen to the parents cannot order that the School Board change its decision – but she can say if the process met all the provincial requirements.
If the process was flawed the Ministry could order that the School Board revisit the Program Accommodation Review (PAC) and maybe hold that PAC a second time.
The video of the students is a delight; click on the link.
By Staff
November 26, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tony Brecknock, a parent with children who graduated from Pearson high school, the school he once attended came out of the gate swinging at the Administrative Review meeting held to hear the views of parents on a school board vote that closed the high school. He didn’t choose to thank the chair for allowing him to speak – he went straight to his main point.
“The HDSB policy clearly states that “There must be no fewer than ten (10) business days between the public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees” , this simply did not happen on June 7, 2017.
 Tony Brecknock, male figure in the centre, attended the PARC meetings and delegated the evening the vote to close the schools was taken “I was notified of my delegation on June 6th, the day before I was expected to present and it was received and presented on the same day of the vote, June 7th, which means there was a failure of the board’s own policy, namely to provide the Trustees with the sufficient time needed to fully process any and all information before voting.
“This lack of due process, negatively and directly impacted the final decision to close two schools in Burlington.
“My delegation was to be a strictly timed, one shot presentation – I had submitted over 13 pages full of data – so I made sure to include the documents as attachments in my submission, of which a receipt was confirmed by the Board – at noon on the day of the vote.
“There is simply no way that all of my information was clearly ingested.
 It became painfully clear that Chair Amos, on the left and the vice chair, Kim Graves did not know how to manage the confusing flow of motions that were before the meeting. “On the night of the vote it was also apparent there was a lack of understanding of how to proceed.
“It seemed that the possibility of not being done, prior to a summer break, pressured decisions to be made ad hoc – not because of clear judicial thinking, but because of the clock ticking,
“During the meeting, the Trustees constantly bounced back and forth amongst specialists in the room, trying desperately to decipher the rules of engagement that they should have studied in advance.
“From that chaos, random recess’ started to happen – one of which was conducted, strategically prior to the final vote.
“The meeting should have been stopped right there, with everyone regrouping.
 The vote was taken to close two of the city’s seven high schools so late in the evening (after midnight) that the electronic vote software had shut down. The trustees voted by a show of hands. “This decision was made during the very late evening hours, after listening to an overabundance of information – it was a vote made under mental, emotional and physical duress, that in the end was pushed through.
“The prudent course of action would have been to wait 10 business days, as policy dictates, to allow for a period of reflection before a final vote.
“It needs to be mandated at a higher level, that the Boards are fulfilling their due diligence. They need to ensure they are delivering the best educational experience to ALL students.
“A Provincial moratorium on school closures, was put into effect, just two weeks after the vote for a reason – the realization of a flawed process.
“Had the Board adhered to their own policy, this vote would have been deferred to a time of better and calm understanding.
“This committee and by extension the Board, needs to take this review and adhere to the many key components within their own guidelines.
“They need to listen to those that continue to express dissatisfaction with the result, and re-vote to pause the closures – until they have fixed the process.”
By Staff
November 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The next scheduled meeting of the Halton Regional Police Services Board will take place on Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Resource Room 305/307 at Burlington City Hall.
 Ward 1 Councillor Craven is Burlington’s representative on the Police Services Board. Copies of the agenda and reports are available from the Board office and on our website at www.haltonpolice.ca.
The Police Services Board oversees the role of the Regional Police – they approve the police budget and are the group that interviews and makes a recommendation to Regional Council on who should be hired to serve as Police Chief.
Community members are encouraged to attend meetings, make a presentation to the Board, or invite a member of the Board to an event.
By Pepper Parr
November 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It was dramatic!
Diane Miller, a parent with children in both Lester B. Pearson (LBP) high school and the Robert Bateman high school stood before Margaret Miller, the provincially appointed Reviewer to conduct a review of the process the Halton District School Board used to decide to close two of the seven high schools in Burlington.
“I was going to use my three minutes to stand in complete silence” she said.
“Why you might ask given the importance of our time with you and this Accommodation Review?
 Diane Miller, a Lester B. Pearson high school parent, reading her delegation to provincially appointed Reviewer Margaret Wilson. “Because I wanted my silence to represent how much weight, importance, and consideration that I felt my correspondence to the HDSB, Trustees, Local MPP, Ministry of Education & Premier meant. No matter what came out of my mouth or via email, I felt it wasn’t heard or listened to.
“No matter how much research, how many logical facts, how many ideas either myself or our LBP group or Bateman group presented, they were discarded. The five minute delegation, which I spent hours on, was discounted and forgotten by the time the next person came up to speak. I might as well have said nothing at all. That is how I felt.
“Today I am hoping you will hear me and that this terrible flawed decision, based on a flawed process, will result in a call for this decision to be revisited.
“Communication by definition is an of exchange of ideas. It is a means of connection between people.
“During the Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) review process there was no direct communication between the PARC representatives and the school trustees. The information was filtered or directed to/from the HDSB. While the trustees could attend PARC meetings or public meetings there was no discussion or Q & A with them.
“The public is unaware if there was ever a time when the trustees met to discuss the ideas presented other than at the public HDSB meetings. Trustees seemed to be discouraged from engagement.
“How is this meaningful?
“As delegates we were given five minutes to rush through our presentations. If the trustees had questions then one had the ability to expand on their topic. If not, that was all. No feedback. Nothing.
“The trustees indicated they read through 700 emails (so someone – HDSB? perhaps) was keeping track of that number. Good to know as only two or three trustees ever responded to my correspondence and then only one or two provided more than the automated, I have received your message response.
 During the first public meeting in December 2016 parents were asked to answer questions put up on a screen using hand held clickers. The school board was gathering data – the parents thought they were at a meeting where they could ask questions. “During the first public meeting in December, which most participants seemed to think was a Q & A meeting, the discussion, led by the consultant, appeared to be one way. The audience was given clickers, very slanted questions were put up on a screen and the audience was instructed to click on one of the answers.
“Any questions were met with either silence or that the information was being collected. It was highly frustrating. The process got off to a very bad start.
“It was difficult to get information about the PAR / PARC process to the general public who were not online.
“The information on the HDSB took a bit of searching for some to get updates. It wasn’t until the second PARC meeting in January (2017) that the LBP PARC representatives contact information went up on the LBP website. Principals were under the impression that meeting space and other resources were to be made available. In fact, when I called to ask if a student council meeting, where our trustee would be attending, would allow for Q & A, the principal said she did not know and for me to contact the trustee.
“Community members, at their own cost, and during their own time distributed literature, held meetings, and tried to get information to the students that someone was fighting for their school and for them. It was difficult. The HDSB had all the contact information; the resources to disseminate their information. It was a tilted playing field.
“Is this what the board determines is “communication”?
“Community members were not the only ones who were led to believe that their input would be of value. Students also had that impression.
“In December, before the 1st PARC meeting, a student survey was sent out. The PARC members had no input into the questionnaire. The results of this survey were shared with parents, with the PARC members.
“However, while it is an appendix in Mr. Miller’s report, the contents do not appear to have shaped the decisions made. For example, LBP students marked the fact that teachers knew them; they were there to help them by a large percentage. They were known.
“That is important and impacts learning. It impacts social interactions and mental wellness. LBP is a smaller school. Yet at a HDSB meeting, when asked if he had considered a smaller school within the HDSB parameters moving forward (and I paraphrase here) Mr. Miller said, “no he had not considered a smaller school”. Students were told there would be interaction, yet none seemed to appear during the execution of the PARC phase.
 Survey stations were set up at one of the public meetings. “Question – Why do a survey if you are going to ignore the data? Especially by the group that you say you are most interested in – the students.
“Teachers who have first hand knowledge into the learning behaviours of their students and interact with them the most had no seat at the PARC table. A survey to capture teacher input was done but with seeming reluctance by the HDSB. The information was given to the trustees but not to PARC members. The rationale was that much would have to be redacted as there would be personal identifying factors. Yet, even redacted, it was not made available to the public. One wonders if the responses did not fit the HDSB narrative.
“The PARC members met seven times yet it was just at the end they felt a positive discussion on innovative ideas was happening. The public, some of whom felt this was a done deal, was left wondering with a variety of both rumours and facts, as to what was going on.
“In a city that is growing why were two schools being targeted for closure? Given that LBP was on 12 of the proposals for closure is it any wonder that the population felt targeted. One still wonders if this process was done in good faith. Why do I ask that?
“a) Our school population, along with Bateman was left to starve of students with the reduction in the number of feeder schools
b) During the PARC a boundary review of a new build happened without LBP (the closer school) even being considered
c) Rumours abound that LBP is to be the home of the HDSB Administrative buildings – I have yet to hear an out and out denial of this rumour. If true, one wants to know when this decision was made. If made prior to the PAR/PARC review or during the review then this process was not entered into in good faith.
e) Bateman is a one of a kind school – yet was put on last minute as a closure and is slated to cost $12 M to replicate at Nelson (everyone knows this figure will balloon)
 The PARC consisted of two representatives from the seven high schools; a trustee representative and a city of Burlington representative. The debated issues on one side of a room while the public sat on the other side. There wasn’t any “PARC was going to be an island. Only selected participants were going to be allowed onto the island. Communications were to be minimal if non-existent at best. The HDSB wanted to meet the “minimum” requirements to say they went through the process.
 “On June 7th, delegations were heard, prepared speeches were read, a vote was held. Two schools were to close. Tell me did those delegations mean anything at all? Especially given the prepared statements that were read that night of why trustees were voting in favour of closure. Did the 10 day between delegations and a vote violation mean anything to the HDSB or the trustees?
“Communication is actively listening, speaking, considering, answering and responding. It is two way. This did not happen.
“The end result. The closing of two schools in a growing community. Schools that are overpopulated; schools that will be thrown into overcapacity with the two school closures.
“A flawed process resulted in flawed decisions.
“Revisit this decision.”
Margaret Wilson listened carefully – took copious notes and at the end of the evening, after listening to everyone who wanted to speak she said the the audience: “I have heard what you had to say.”
By Pepper Parr
November 24th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The process of being heard for parents who have students at Lester B. Pearson high school and the Robert Bateman high school began last night at the Gary Allen high school on New Street.
Margaret Wilson, the provincially appointed Facilitator who was tasked with meeting with all the parties involved and preparing a report for the Ministry of Education on whether or not the Board Program Accommodation Review (PAR) policies were followed, set up a series of public meetings at which parents could delegate. The large room certainly wasn’t filled but the comments made were what parents needed to say – and last night they were heard.
The process put in place allowed for three delegations from each school. The speakers had a set amount of time to speak – but Wilson found she was able and prepared to extend those time slot to let people finish their delegation.
 George Ward being interviewed by Cogeco TV George Ward, one of the Pearson high school delegations, was direct – at times almost pugnacious in his comments.
Ward argued that delegations at the Halton District School Board (HDSB) were in some cases refused, that the Board would send email notifications late in the evening on the night before the delegation day, requesting a 250 word description of the delegation. Ward charged that this was done to “deflect” delegations.
“There is no Board policy requirement for a 250 word outline to be presented prior to delegation” said Ward who added that “in spite of providing the last minute 250 word outline I was still refused to delegate on two occasions May 17th and June 7th.”
There were, said Ward 65 delegations presented over four evenings – 95% of the delegations indicated that it was totally inappropriate to close two Burlington high schools.
Ward pointed out that Board policy states: The Director’s Final Report will include a community consultation section that would include:
• Feedback from the public delegation will be compiled and included
• The Director will present the Final Report, including the compiled feedback from the public delegations
He added that the Director’s Final Report on community feedback is only 5 lines on page 20 and includes only delegation dates with an incorrect number of delegations reported.
Ward took exception to the statement in the HDSB response to the Pearson Administrative Review request that said: “One local Burlington Councillor provided feedback on the closure of Robert Bateman …”. In fact there were four submissions from city Councillors expressing concern with the closing of Burlington high schools.
Ward maintained that the records are incorrect and do not comply with the Board’s policies.
 It was a tough meeting and the Chair, Kelly Amos didn’t always have have it under control. Ward pointed out that at the June 7th meeting, at which the trustees voted to accept the recommendation from Stuart Miller, HDSB Director of Education, the Board Chair, Kelly Amos, failed to competently manage the sequence of voting motions and amendments. Despite having both the Board’s legal counsel and a Parliamentarian in the room Amos was still unable to competently conduct the sequence in orderly fashion and as a result lost control of the meeting.”
Ward said that at that point in the meeting, the Director of Education, said to Amos: “Perhaps I may be of assistance” then proceeded to filibuster on the recommendations in his Final Report, then called upon Board Superintendents who continued to delegate.
“After this extended acquiescing of control and inappropriate delegations of over an hour, a recess was called where the Director, Superintendents and Trustees save one, went into a segregated closed door meeting. Upon their return a vote was held which resulted in the Trustees voting to close two Burlington High Schools” said Ward.
“Thus we have incompetent meeting control with an inappropriate hour long school board last minute delegation that is non-compliant to the Board’s “No fewer than ten (10) business day Policy between delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees.”
Ward didn’t detail the “No fewer than ten business days” concern that many had. The PAR policy required to HDSB to hear delegations and then allow a period of ten days to elapse before a vote was taken.
The HDSB was hearing delegations as late as 11:00 pm, taking breaks during which trustees, some Superintendents and the Director of Education met for close to an hour and then returning to vote on the recommendation.
The ten day period during which trustees could think about all the delegations, review what they had heard during a process that started six month earlier and reflect was lost.
The vote took place after midnight of a meeting that started at 7:00 pm.
Many felt the fix was in – that the trustees had no intention of doing their jobs – but had decided they were going to go with the recommendation that came from the Director of Education.
For the first time parents from schools that were scheduled to be closed had an opportunity to say what they felt in a public meeting.
By Pepper Parr
November 23rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The first of the public delegations made to the Administrative Review facilitator Margaret Wilson takes place this evening.
 Margaret Wilson Ms Wilson met with the members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) last night; not all of the 14 members showed up. Trustee Donna Danielli who was part of the PARC attended. James Ridge, Burlington city manager didn’t make it.
It was a private meeting – difficult to get much in the way of comment however there were people who attended who felt it was “cathartic” and that Wilson really listened and is reported to have said she watched a lot of Board meeting videos.
There was, apparently, good open dialogue between the PARC people and Ms Wilson. Tom Ward, a Ministry of Education official who is responsible for how the Halton and Peel Regions meet their obligations, sat in on the meeting and explained the procedure that will be followed.
Ms Wilson expects to have her report completed before Christmas.
Her report is given to the Minister of Education.
Her report is not public unless the Ministry decides to make it public.
The Ministry will then decide if the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) that the Board held was done according to the Ministry Guidelines.
 Observing, listening or praying? If it wasn’t – then the Ministry can direct the Board to hold a second PAR.
There was a rather significant point made during the private meeting having to do with the timing of the PAR meetings.
The Board has its delegation procedure; the Ministry had its own delegation procedures which trump those of the Board.
 Fourteen citizens, pulled together to serve as the communications channel between the Board of Education and the community, while a Program Accommodation Review recommendation was being debated by the trustees. There were, Apparently, a couple of significant Ministry policy violations – one relating to the number of days between the last of the delegations and when the trustees met to vote on the recommendation that had come from the Director of Education.
Was that violation significant enough to make a difference – many parents think so.
What most parents think is that the Ministry Guidelines were so flawed that a sound public review of the recommendations given to the trustees was not possible.
 Four of the 11 Board of Education trustees sitting in on one of the PARC meetings. What didn’t help was that the majority of the trustees were way in over their heads; they didn’t have the experience or the understanding to properly do the job they had taken on. I wasn’t an easy job.
 By Pepper Parr
November 23rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
What is wrong with this picture?
City hall tells a group of citizens they cannot use space at city hall for a community meeting organized by a group that is opposed to a decision city council made to approve a 23 storey tower in the downtown core.
A week earlier the city announced a workshop on Cultivating the Power & Possibility of Citizen Leadership: Creating Caring and Resilient Communities.
The fee for this workshop is $175.
There are currently two well organized groups challenging city hall on significant matters;
 The Tyendaga Environmental Coalition wants the city to step in and support their fight to prevent a shale mining operation from beginning to mine a quarry that is yards from their homes.
 The Plan B group wants a better deal for the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel.
Less than six months ago city council attempted to limit the amount of time residents could have to delegate at city council meetings. The residents won that battle.
There are a lot of people who want to see genuine community involvement and not just lip service from those elected to run the city.
Quite recently the city had staff congratulating themselves for an award they were given for the quality of the city’s community engagement.
It is difficult not to be cynical when all the evidence is looked at.
It wouldn’t take much to pull together a group of at least 500 people who would stand at say that their city does not listen to them.
The video the city posted on how engaged they think they are is like something out of a book written by George Orwell.
The only person who has said formally that they will be running for public office in the October 2018 municipal election is the Mayor – he wants a third term.
 By Staff
November 23, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Jim Young sent us a note earlier today – a group of people who are very unhappy with city council’s decision to approve a 23 storey tower on Brant Street opposite city hall want to find a way to appeal that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
 Jim Young Young is the Aldershot resident who took city council to task over their attempt to limit delegations to five minutes from the current practice of ten minutes.
 421 Brant – a 23 storey tower approved by city council by a 5-2 vote. He mentioned to us that the group, Engaged Citizens in Burlington, planned a meeting under very short notice – it was to take place at City Hall, but had to be hastily rearranged when city officials banned the group from using the city hall room.
Banning seems to have become a bit of a practice at city hall. It can only be described as an astonishing decision by people who have a limited understanding of what community engagement really means.
The group was able to pivot quickly and will hold their meeting on Saturday, November 25th at Bunton’s Wharf, Brant St. and Lakeshore, 1.00 pm to 3.00 pm. The entrance to the building is on the Brant Street side
Young describes the now approved tower as a “23 story monstrosity, so out of character, in conflict with city height bylaws and opposed by 1435 signatures on a petition collected over just one week, may be the final straw for people who are opposed to downtown development.
Both the Gazette and Spectator columnist Joan Little have written about the need for new forms of engagement in Burlington
Little suggested it may be time for the good people of Burlington to organize to fight back against their city council’s refusal to listen to their concerns. Citizens feel ignored on new street bike lanes, under funding for transit, lake shore hotels and condo developments and most recently on the 23 story tower on Brant Street just across from City Hall.
City hall has this annoying habit of thinking that if you say something often enough it will become true. In the comments made by the judges hat gave the reward they said:
- The city knows “How to make P2 a part of everyday practice in the city of Burlington, through the Burlington Community Engagement Charter adopted in April 2013. Engagement was included as a strategic direction in 2016 Strategic Plan.”
- “Employees now ask how to engage — not whether.”
- “Engagement is part of the annual budget, has a dedicated, full-time staff person, and communications personnel promote and coach on P2.”
- “Demonstrates an organizational long-term commitment to P2, beginning in 2013 and now enshrined in the 25-year Strategic Plan.”
Really!
Related article:
Young takes city council to task.
By Staff
November 18, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The provincial Ministry of Government and Consumer Services charged a Burlington contractor for unfair practices that took place in September of 2014 – a conviction was handed down in provincial court recently.
 Provincial Court – Burlington. Justin Smith, operating as D & S Electrical Contractors accepted a deposit to supply and install a generator at a consumer’s residence. Work commenced, but was not completed and the generator was never delivered or installed.
On September 21, 2017 at the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton by Justice of the Peace Paul Welsh imposed the following against Mr. Smith:
• Payment of $7,500 in restitution to the consumer
• Two-year probation with terms of restitution, a reporting requirement and reporting an address change
Consumer Protection Ontario suggests deposits should be no more than 10% of the estimated cost.
By Pepper Parr
November 22, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Notice of Meeting was sent to Scott Podrebarac chair of the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) and to members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC).
It was sent on behalf of Margaret Wilson, Ministry of Education appointed Reviewer of the Burlington PAR
The language was stiff and stilted bit it did set out clearly what was going to happen.
 Liz Sandals.ember of the Wynne government cabinet introduces Margaret Wilson. “Margaret Wilson has been appointed by the Minister of Education to examine the Burlington PARC process relative to the Halton District School Board Program Accommodation Review (PAR) policy.
“Ms Wilson has been charged with the responsibility to review the process and has no authority to change the decision of the trustees of the Halton District School Board
“The purpose of this communication is to provide the details of the private PAR committee members meeting which is to take place, Wednesday, November 22, from 7:00 to 8:30 pm in the Lockhart Room, New Street Education Centre.”
The Agenda starts with an introduction to the PAR process that will be given by Margaret Wilson followed by the introduction of the 14 members of the PAR committee members.
That is followed by feedback from the PAR committee members that will include brief remarks from each of the PAR committee members related to the PARC process – three minutes per presentation.
Then there is open discussion
The session ends with closing remarks from Margaret Wilson.
Neither media nor the public will be present at this meeting as it is private to members of the PARC.
On Thursday, the 23rd and on Tuesday the 28th parents from the schools get their chance to tell Wilson what they thought of the PAR process.
 PAR committee members in one of the seven public sessions they participated in – they were never able to reach a consensus. Time slots will be set aside for a spokesperson from the two schools that are scheduled to close; parents from any high school in the city are permitted to speak at these two meetings. Each speaker has three minutes to speak.
The presentation from the Bateman and Pearson high school parents get 10 minutes to make their point.
Wilson will not want to hear how unfair the decision to close a school might have been – she is there to review the process – did the HDSB follow the policy that was in place?
HDSB parents at PARC meeting looking less than impressed. This is a very difficult for many parents to get their heads around – they are arguing that it is the process that was faulty to begin with.
Board of Education staff were not forgotten in this process. Ms Wilson met with all the Superintendents to set out for them their role in the review process. She explained to them what they can do and what they cannot do.
Ms Wilson will have gone over literally every piece of information. She will meet with the Chair of the PAR.
 HDSB Director of Education at one of the many public meetings he took [part in. Stuart Miller got a call from the Ministry of Education that gave him his marching orders. The Review is a Ministry of Education initiative that came about when parents from Robert Bateman high school and Lester B. Pearson high school requested an Administrative Review of the process that was used.
The role of the Board of Education – both staff and trustees is to step aside and let the Review take place.
A number of school boards across the province requested Administrative Reviews – the Halton Board schools were the only ones that got a positive response.
There are all kinds of theories floating around the community.
Many feel that the Ministry now realizes that the procedure they put in place for the school boards to follow was flawed and as a result of the realization the Ministry ordered the no new PAR’s be put in place.
Will the Wilson report touch on that point or will she write a report that says the Board followed the rules – can she say that the rules were less than fair and couldn’t result in a fair decision?
Will the Ministry realize that their guide lines – regulations were flawed and first change them and then direct the school boards to hold new PAR’s?
 From the left: Trustees Papin, Reynolds, Ehl Harris and Grebenc observing one of the public meetings. Where do the trustees fit into all this? They are the elected leaders of the Board – they set policy and decide where a school is to be built and where a school is to be closed.
Those who paid close attention to the way the HDSB handled the issue quickly came to the conclusion that the Halton Board trustees were not up to the job.
Would a second PAR be under the same procedures that didn’t work the first time?
While Burlington works its way through the Review – the province looks months ahead to June when there will be a provincial election. If the public elects a new government and makes Patrick Brown the Premier expect a significantly different set of education policies to be put in place.
The Pearson and Bateman high school parent groups are taking much different approaches to the Review process. Pearson is using a data approach while the Bateman parents are using a human rights approach.
There was a time when the two parent groups worked together but that didn’t last very long. Now there are reported rifts between the parents in the Bateman group. Some describe the Bateman parent leadership as “obsessed”.
The better observers seem to be coming around to the view that the process was indeed flawed and that the Ministry of Education has admitted as much.
Choosing Margaret Wilson as the Reviewer for the HDSB situation and the consultant who wrote a stinging report on practices and procedures at the Toronto Board of Education, suggests to these observers that she will ferret out all the concerns and give the Ministry as report that will allow them to revise the PAR process.
 Pearson parents at a Board of Education meeting. Will that result in a decision to have the Halton District School Board to do a second PAR? And how long will that take – and what will happen to the work being done now to integrate the Pearson students into M.M. Robinson.
Pearson is scheduled to be closed in June of 2018.
Interesting times ahead.
By Staff
November 22, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
On November 21, 2017 at 9:50 am, two masked men entered the Royal Bank of Canada, located at 2025 William O’Connell Boulevard, Burlington.
They indicated they were armed and demanded money. The two men were unsuccessful in obtaining money and quickly fled that Royal Bank of Canada.
At 10:46 am, the same two masked men entered the TD Canada Trust, located at 2325 Trafalgar Road, Oakville.
This time, the two men received an undisclosed amount of money and fled to an awaiting Mazda 3 driven by a third culprit.
The Halton Regional Police Service quickly responded to the area and successfully followed the three culprits to a commercial plaza located at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road West and Creditview Road, Mississauga.
All three culprits were safely arrested. Officers recovered a replica firearm, the undisclosed amount of money, clothing worn during the robberies, the Mazda 3 and a small amount of marijuana.
All three were transported to the Oakville police station where they were held in custody pending a bail hearing. The three culprits are expected to appear for a bail hearing at the Milton courthouse on November 22, 2017.
Arrested and Charged:
1. Abdeljhafour HOUEM (19) of Mississauga has been charged with:
• Robbery (3 counts)
• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
• Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana)
2. Kadir AIDARUS (18) of Mississauga has been charged with:
• Robbery (3 counts)
• Wearing a disguise during the commission of an indictable offence (2 counts)
• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
A male youth (17) of Mississauga has been charged with:
• Robbery (3 counts)
• Wearing a disguise during the commission of an indictable offence (2 counts)
• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact Detective Constable Autumn Mills of the 2 District Criminal Investigation Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext: 2285. Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See something, Hear something, Say something” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS), through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca, or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (crimes).
The Regional police contact officer on this case is: D/Constable Autumn Mills, 2 District Criminal Investigation Bureau , 905-825-4747 ext: 2285
Be reminded that all persons charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
|
|
