News « Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community

Those Charged by Provincial Police as a result of the month long investigation.

By Staff

December 2nd, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Twenty seven 27 policing partners conducted 255 investigations, completed 168 search warrants and seized 1,032 devices during a month long investigation.

In total, 428 charges were laid against 107 people. During the investigations, 61 victims were identified and referred to appropriate community-based resources for assistance, while an additional 60 children were safeguarded. There are 175 ongoing investigations where additional charges may be laid.

The Police Services involved in project Maverick

The following information was released by the Ontario Provincial Police setting out the name, age residence, charges laid, Court Status and date.

A person charged with a criminal act is assumed to be not guilty until a Court determines and finds them not guilty.

A significant number of those charged are not named. We have asked the OPP why some are named while others are not. There is no response yet.

Adult Male: 49
Collingwood, Ontario
• Invitation to Sexual Touching x3 First Appearance on November 21, 2022 – Originally held for bail.

Adult Male: 54
Barrie, Ontario
• Possession of Child Pornography x2 First Appearance on November 30, 2022 – Originally held for bail

Adult Male; 28
Victoria Harbour, Ontario
• Luring a person under 16 x3 Court Date is First Appearance on December 5, 2022 – Originally held for bail.

Adult Male: 36
Chatham, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography x2
• Failing to Comply with Release Order Remanded in custody, no bail plan in place at this time.

Jordan SANDERSON- BROWN: 30
Cornwall, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Undertaking, First appearance November 29, 2022

Benoit BOURGUIGNON: 26
Cornwall, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Undertaking, First appearance December 13, 2022

Adult Male: 19
Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 31, 2022, First appearance November 14, 2022, Next date to be determined

Adult Male: 49
Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Remanded in custody, next appearance November 23, 2022

Adult Male: 20
Courtice, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 27, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male: 24
Pickering, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 13, 2022, next date to be determined

Young Person:
Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Form 11 November 1, 2022, next date November 29, 2022

Adult Male; 24
Bowmanville, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 28, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male; 22
Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 21, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male; 39
Courtice, Ontario

• Fail to Comply with Release Order Released on Form 11 October 20, 2022, First Appearance October 24, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male; 41
Oshawa, Ontario
• Fail to Comply with Release Order Remanded in custody, next appearance November 28, 2022

Adult Male: 25

Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography
• Fail to Comply with Release Order Released on Form 11 October 28, 2022, latest date November 14, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male: 51

Whitby, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography
• Making Child Pornography Released on Form 11 October 25, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male: 34
Whitby, Ontario

• Fail to Comply with Release Order Released on Form 11 October 25, 2022, next date to be determined

Adult Male: 44

Oshawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Initial held in custody for seven days, released on Form 11 with Bail supervision program conditions November 9, 2022, next date to be determined

Rick RANGER: 46

Greater Sudbury, Ontario

• Making Child Pornography (Written) 163.1(2) Remanded in custody, bail hearing December 22, 2022

• Fail to Comply with 161 CC Prohibition Order 161(1)(d)x3
• Breach of Probation Order 733.1(1) x3

Adult Male: 38

Guelph, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Agreement or arrangement — sexual offence against child (172.2)
• Counselling Offence not yet Committed (464a)

First Appearance December 9, 2022
Lance CRAWFORD
49 Burlington, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date December 7,
2022
Leigh YERXA
86 Georgetown, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date December 20,
2022

Matthew PHILLIPS: 32

Burlington, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x3
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Breach of Probation
• Voyeurism

In custody, remanded to December 8, 2022

Terry MANSLEY: 41
Milton, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Voyeurism x3 Released, next court date December 12, 2022

Daniel ZAI: 43

Burlington, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date November 30, 2022

Kyle DUNCAN: 47
Milton, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x4
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date November 28, 2022

Robert DERHAM: 73

Burlington, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date November 23, 2022

Gerald (Jerry) MATHIAS: 43

Georgetown, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date December 12, 2022
Kenneth MCCLYMONT
44 Burlington, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Released, next court date November 30,
2022

Joseph MACNEIL
30
Kingston, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x7
• Accessing Child Pornography x6
• Make Available Child Pornography x6
First appearance December 15, 2022

Tyler HUSSEY
42
Kingston, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x3
• Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography x2
First appearance December 5, 2022
Adult Male
25
Kingston, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography x2
To be determined

Christopher LAHAY

London, Ontario • Making sexually explicit material available to child
• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Distribution of Child Pornography
First appearance December 7, 2022

• Accessing Child Pornography
• Luring a person under 16
• Making Child Pornography
• Extortion
• Utter Threat to Cause Death

Michael BLUNTE- DITTMER

London, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Distribution of Child Pornography x2
• Making Child Pornography x2
• Luring a person under 16 x2
• Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images
• Indecent Act x3
• Mischief to Property Under
• Publish Obscene Material for Distribution
x3
• Sexual Assault
• Voyeurism
• Distribute Voyeuristic Material

First appearance, January 16, 2023
Ethan GILES
21
London, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography First appearance, November 30, 2022
Adult Male

Welland, Ontario • Voyeurism under 16
• Sexual Interference
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Making Child Pornography
In custody, next court appearance November 29, 2022

• Incest
• Sexual Assault on a Person under 16
Adult Male
38 Niagara Falls, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Next court appearance December 16, 2022

Adult Male
58
Welland, Ontario
• Possession of Child Pornography Next court appearance November 25, 2022

Adult Male
38 Port Colborne, Ontario
• Fail to Comply with Probation Order x2 Next court appearance November 30, 2022
Adult Male
57 St. Catharines, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography Next court appearance November 30, 2022

Adult Male

Grimsby, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography x2
• Making Child Pornography x2
• Personation to Avoid Arrest/Prosecution
• Public Mischief
• Fail to Comply with Prohibition Order x2
• Fail to Comply with Probation Order
• Counselling a Summary Offence Which is not Committed

In custody, next court appearance February 6, 2023

Adult Male
21
North Bay, Ontario • Make Available Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Fail to Comply with Probation x2
In custody

• Assault with a Weapon
• Uttering Threats
• Criminal Harassment

Adult Male
23
Mississauga, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
Warrant Issued

Adult Male
51 Mississauga, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Making Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending

Adult Male
41 Mississauga, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending
Adult Male 39 Mississauga, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2 Released on bail, court date pending
Adult Male
44 Mississauga, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending

Adult Male
61
Mississauga, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Making Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending
Adult Male 18 Brampton, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending
Adult Male 26 Mississauga, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending

Adult Male
32
Peterborough, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography Released on bail with conditions, next court appearance December 6, 2022

Greg PEARCE
31 Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario • Make Available Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography Released on conditions, court date pending
Joseph SCOTT
40 Thunder Bay, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography Next court date of November 25, 2022

Kelvin PELLETIER

Thunder Bay, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Making sexually explicit material available to child
• Luring a Child under 18 x2
• Communicate with Person under 18 to Obtain Sexual Service

Next court date of January 5, 2023

Connor JOHNSON

21
Thunder Bay, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Making sexually explicit material available to child
• Luring a Child under 18
Next court date of November 28, 2022

Adult Male
27 Thunder Bay, Ontario • Sexual Assault x2
• Voyeurism Next court date of December 12, 2022

Onur OZBEK
30
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography x2 Released on bail, court date pending
Brendan ECKSTROM
40
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2 Released on bail, court date pending

Tennyson JOHNSON
34
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Mahir KHADEM
22
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography x2 Released on bail, court date pending
Young Person
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending
Randy PAQUETTE
49
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Roman KOZAK

Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Crime with Individuals under 14

Released on bail, court date pending

Ian MELAMUD

Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Making Child Pornography
• Export Child Pornography
• Import Child Pornography

Released on bail, court date pending

Adult Male

Toronto, Ontario • Invitation to Sexual Touching
• Sexual Interference
• Sexual Assault
• Making Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending
Adult Female 35 Toronto, Ontario • Abandon/Expose Child under 10 years Released on bail, court date pending

Vishnu KRISHNA
26
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Import Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

John WILSON
55
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Joseph NUNES
69
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Ryan MORRIS
46
Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Alexander SCHNURR
22
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Fail to Comply with Probation
Released on bail, court date pending

Richard SPURLOCK

Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images
• Distribution of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Criminal Harassment

Released on bail, court date pending
James FRASER 53 Stouffville, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography Released on bail, court date pending

• Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography

Ahmed KARRAR

Toronto, Ontario • Luring a person under 16
• Invitation to Sexual Touching
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Sexual Assault x3
• Sexual Interference x3

Released on bail, court date pending
Yanshen HUANG
45
Toronto, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x4
• Accessing Child Pornography x3 Released on bail, court date pending
Young Person
Toronto, Ontario • Luring a person under 16
• Extortion Released on bail, court date pending
Nicholas DEMITRO
32

Toronto, Ontario • Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
Released on bail, court date pending

Adult Male
39 Cambridge, Ontario
• Possession of Child Pornography x2 Release order, next court date December 8, 2022

Adult Female

Cambridge, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Agreement or arrangement — sexual offence against child (172.2) x2
• Making Child Pornography
Release order, next court date December 7, 2022

Adult Male
33
United Kingdom • Taking Indecent Photographs x2
• Distributing Indecent Images x3 Initially remanded, current status unknown

• Sexual Activity with a Female Child Family member under 13
• Sexual Activity with a Male Child family member under 13
• Intentionally Encourage/Assist in Commission of an Offence
• Publish Obscene Article

Adult Male

Cambridge, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Making Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Agreement or arrangement — sexual offence against child (172.2) x3
Release order, next court date January 10, 2023
Adult Male
38
Kitchener, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography Release order, next court date December 12, 2022

Adult Male
25 Cambridge, Ontario
• Possession of Child Pornography x2 Release Order, next court date December 14, 2022

Randall FRICKEY

Windsor, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2
• Distribution of Child Pornography x2 Charged, next court date December 7,
2022

Adult Male
45 Amherstburg, Ontario
• Luring a person under 16 x4 Charged, next court date January 13,
2023
Kyle LAMBIE
27

Windsor, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x6
• Accessing Child Pornography x6 Charged, next court date December 1,
2022

• Distribution of Child Pornography x6
• Fail to Comply with Undertaking x2
Adult Male
26
Woodstock, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Release order, next court date January 10, 2023
Adult Female
34
Woodstock, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography Release order, next court date November 29, 2022

Kalin ARMSTRONG

Peterborough, Ontario • Make Available Child Pornography
• Distribution of Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
Next court date of December 14, 2022

Michael PILATO
65
Richmond Hill, Ontario • Make Available Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
Next court date of December 14, 2022

Nicholas COOPER

Aurora, Ontario • Distribution of Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Fail to Comply with Recognizance x3
Bail Hearing December 1, 2022

Mark O’DOWD

Vaughan, Ontario • Making Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
• Luring a Child under 18

First appearance, November 24, 2022

• Extortion

Dimitre FILIOS
20

Vaughan, Ontario • Make Available Child Pornography
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography
First appearance, December 14, 2022

Thomas HIGGINS
61
Beeton, Ontario
• Luring a person under 16 Orangeville Court to set date November 29, 2022

Adult Male
28
Sudbury, Ontario • Agreement or arrangement – sexual offence against child (172.2) x2 Sudbury Court to be spoken to December 21, 2022

William MCVITTIE
32
Huntsville, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography Bracebridge Court to be spoken to November 29, 2022

Mark V RICHARDSON
42
Barrie, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography Ontario Court of Justice First appearance December 8, 2022

David HOWARTH
59
Caledonia, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Accessing Child Pornography x2 Next court date January 10, 2023 to be spoken to

Adult Male

25
Sandy Lake, Ontario • Making Child Pornography x2
• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography

Remanded
Adult Male 48 Timmins, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2 Court date of November 29, 2022

Zachary PERROTT 24 Port Hope, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography x2 Court date of November 30, 2022
Ian BERGER 43 Trent Hills, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography Court date of November 23, 2022

Kristian LUCAS
29 Belleville, Ontario • Possession of Child Pornography
• Accessing Child Pornography First appearance December 22, 2022

Doric LATREILLE: 23

Ottawa/Cornwall, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Make Available Child Pornography
• Counsel an Uncommitted Indictable Offence
• Luring a Person under 18 years of age
• Distribution of Child Pornography
• Making sexually explicit material available to child x2
• Luring a person under 16

Out on bail, house arrest with GPS bracelet. Court date set December 8, 2022 for plea.

Jennifer LALONDE- MEDEIROS: 22

Ottawa/Cornwall, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2 Out on bail, strict conditions, no court date (adj)

Dennis George WOOD: 67
Ottawa, Ontario

• Possession of Child Pornography x2
• Making Child Pornography Out on bail, no court date (adj)

Adult Male: 37
Ottawa, Ontario
• Possession of Child Pornography Out on bail – next court date December 9, 2022 (to be spoken too)

Integrity Commissioner decides to close the file on a conflict of interest complaint filed by a constituent

By Staff

December 1, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

The following is the Integrity Commissioners disposition of a complaint made by Tom Muir against Councillor Kelvin Galbraith

Mr. Muir,

Re: Conflict of Interest Complaint against Councillor Kelvin Galbraith

We are writing in response to your complaint to us filed on October 25, 2022. You have complained that Councillor Galbraith had, on multiple occasions, participated in consideration of certain planning matters before Council and its committees while in a conflict of interest contrary to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (the ‘MCIA’). You have asserted that the interest arose because of four non-residential properties he owns, and have alleged as a result that the Councillor breached the MCIA.

The allegations particularized in your complaint can be summarized as follows:

during 2018, you specifically asked the Councillor how he would manage his potential interest (his ‘conflict of interest’) because of his ownership of several properties located within the Aldershot/GO MTSA area
the Councillor advised that he would seek guidance and advice from the Integrity Commissioner as required
in March 2019, the Councillor failed to declare an interest with respect to the Interim Control By-Law for the Burlington GO Station Study Area and opposed that By-law
between 2019 – 2022, the Councillor failed to declare an interest with respect to four separate planning applications for properties located with the MTSA, where development approvals on these properties would potentially influence future development decisions within the MTSA, and thus affect the Councillor’s other properties in the area
between 2019 – 2021 on the numerous occasions when the Councillor did declare an interest with respect to planning applications for properties within the Aldershot GO/MTSA, he only referenced proximity to his personal residence as the basis for his interest, and failed to identify that ownership of multiple properties within the MTSA which also gave rise to an interest
in declaring his interest, the Councillor characterized the nature of his interest as based on “proximity”, rather than identifying it as a pecuniary interest

Kelvin Galbraith being sworn in for his second term of office

As part of our review process, and in accordance with the tenets of procedural fairness, we forwarded your complaint to the Councillor for his response. We have now had an opportunity to obtain and review that response and your additional submissions and supplementary materials. We have conducted a detailed review of materials, Council minutes and archived meetings, the City’s Conflict Registry, and other relevant documentation.

Background:

In the circumstances of Councillor Galbraith, the 3 properties he owns (aside from his own residence) are adjacent and abutting, at the northwest corner of Plains Rd. West and Waterdown Rd. The Councillor has declared an interest each time there has been a planning matter before Council or its committees involving a property within 120 m of his residence and each time a planning matter involved a property located within 120 m of any of his Plains Rd. or Waterdown Rd. properties.

He did not declare an interest on planning matters before Council or its committees involving properties within the general vicinity in the Aldershot GO/MTSA area but beyond 120 m. of his properties

In February 2022 the Councillor sought our advice regarding managing perceived interests created by his ownership of the Plains Rd./Waterdown Rd. properties. Our advice can be summarized as follows:

if a matter before Council may potentially impact the Councillor’s property, this raises a pecuniary interest; the planning notice distance of 120 m can be used as a proxy (a rule of thumb) for when this interest arises
in the context of the Aldershot GO/MTSA discussions, in which the Councillor owns properties, a potential conflict of interest is triggered when proposed changes in land use come before Council which could affect the potential redevelopment of these properties

Analysis

While our analysis focuses on the MCIA provisions, we note that the Burlington Code of Good Governance quite properly also mandates Members to avoid conflicts of interest. Therefore, even though your complaint was filed beyond the 6-week statutory deadline under the MCIA, we have considered the matter in a robust and comprehensive manner, recognizing that conflicts of interest are appropriately prohibited by the Code. Given the recent public attention generated by this particular matter, it was important to give the matter due consideration and full explanation.

The relevant provision of the MCIA states as follows:

(1) Where a member … has any pecuniary interest … in any matter and is present at a meeting of the council … at which the matter is the subject of consideration, the member,
- shall, prior to any consideration of the matter at the meeting, disclose the interest and the general nature thereof;
- shall not take part in the discussion of, or vote on any question in respect of the matter; and

shall not attempt in any way whether before, during or after the meeting to influence the voting on any such question.

A pecuniary interest, although not defined, is understood to mean a financial impact. Any matter which has likely financial impact (positive or negative) on the Member’s own property constitutes a pecuniary interest to the Member.

The MCIA does not provide guidance on how to recognize an interest arising on planning applications in relation to the Member’s own properties. Each conflict of interest must be assessed on its own merits, and such assessment requires a close review of the facts. There is a significant body of case law which guides Integrity Commissioners on the proper interpretation.

One of the leading cases dealing with recognizing a pecuniary interest in circumstances of property ownership is Greene and Borins1.

Greene and Borins references the Planning Act notice distance of 120 m as a proxy for potential financial impacts on a Member’s property interest. In that case, the court found that where the Member’s father and family had been assembling properties for some years, in anticipation of redevelopment (along Yonge Street in North York), the Member’s participation on large and comprehensive development proposals in the vicinity – even beyond 120 m – triggered a conflict of interest for the Member for which he failed to obtain advice and failed to declare an interest.

The 120 m distance is somewhat arbitrary and although it is relied on as a ‘rule of thumb’, much depends on the particular facts of a situation: certainly, where a Member has a significant investment in a land assembly awaiting redevelopment (as in Greene and Borins), the potential affect of a large and comprehensive development application must be considered to extend beyond 120 m.

In Greene and Borins, the closest of the Member’s father’s properties to the developments proposed before Council was 220 m. The nine (9) properties acquired over the preceding years stood to be significantly impacted by redevelopment of the adjacent Yonge Street corridor.

By contrast, with respect to Councillor Galbraith’s three properties, one which is his fitness business, the distances to the planning applications in which he participated are well beyond 120 m and beyond the 220 m. which the court found significant in Greene and Borins:

40-70 Plains Rd. 240 m

53-71 Plains Rd. 350 m

92 Plains Rd.W. 450 m

1120 Cooke Blvd. 650 m

In our view, the Councillor did not breach the MCIA in participating on consideration of these planning applications. In our opinion, he did not have a conflict of interest merely because the

1 Greene v. Borins (1985), 1985 CanLII 2137 (ON SC), 50 O.R. (2d) 513, 18 D.L.R. (4th)

planning applications pertain to properties within the MTSA. As we advised, where matters before Council or committees pertain to changes of land use affecting his own properties (such as changes to land use designations applicable to his properties), his interest will be triggered. The planning applications in which he participated do not trigger his interest because Council’s decision regarding those applications does not, in and of itself, affect his own properties.

We also find that, though individual planning applications in the general vicinity might cumulatively encourage increased redevelopment in the area, individually, no single one of these planning applications raised a conflict of interest for the Member merely because he owns properties in the general vicinity. They are not sufficiently proximate to his properties to trigger his interest.

With respect to the Interim Control By-law for the Burlington GO Study Area, there was no conflict of interest when the Member participated in this matter. None of his properties are located within this study area. You have provided supplementary material to indicate that the Member’s failure to bring a motion (or indicate support for a motion) to extend the Interim Control By-law to include the Aldershot GO/MTSA is evidence of further conflict of interest. Given that no such motion was made, it is merely speculative. That said, in our view, the effect of such a motion being to pause all planning applications on every property within a large defined area, and given that no applications by the Member on any of his properties were in the works and ‘paused’ by such theoretical Interim Control By-law, it would be reasonable to consider the Member’s interest (in such circumstances) to be an interest in common, in which case he would not be precluded from participating.

Kelvin Galbraith

You have raised concerns alleging that the Member has not conducted himself with transparency. It is important to recognize that Members are not required to report to constituents when they have consulted with Integrity Commissioner or obtained advice, nor are they required to share advice provided. The Municipal Act encourages Members to obtain advice, and provides the assurance of confidentiality around that communications. The sole exception to that confidentiality occurs if a Member releases part of the advice, but not the advice in its entirety, in which case the Integrity Commissioner may release the advice.

We are satisfied that the Member conducted himself with integrity, sought advice when required, followed that advice, and in fact released a copy of our advice to him in its entirety.

Accordingly, we will be closing our file. Our disposition will be shared with the Member. Thank you nevertheless for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Principles Integrity,

Integrity Commissioner for the City of Burlington

Were developers tipped of about the plans to opening more Greenbelt lands for housing.

By Staff

November 30th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Reproduced from the Toronto Star

Ontario’s embattled Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, Steve Clark, insisted proper procedures were followed but refused to say “no” when repeatedly asked if developers were tipped to the opening of more Greenbelt lands for housing.

The question from New Democrat MPP Jessica Bell followed an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Narwhal that found eight of the 15 areas of the Greenbelt where development will soon be allowed have been purchased since Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives were elected in 2018.

A growing furor over the controversial plan to build more housing on protected lands prompted Green Leader Mike Schreiner to file a complaint with the provincial integrity commissioner seeking an investigation into the property deals.

“Over half the parcels of land being opened for development in the Greenbelt were purchased after Premier Ford was elected and some of those parcels of land were purchased as recently as September of this year,” Schreiner said.

“This doesn’t pass the smell test … we need to clear the air.”

Schreiner’s complaint came three days after New Democrat MPP Marit Stiles (Davenport) wrote the provincial auditor general requesting a probe of the land deals. Neither the auditor nor integrity commissioner have commented specifically on the requests.

Clark was under pressure in the legislature again Tuesday.

“I asked the minister very clearly three times if they talked to developers in advance and gave them a heads up,” Bell (University-Rosedale), her party’s housing critic, said after the daily question period.

Environmental Defence provides a map showing where the hot spots are.

Adi Developments to resume building and selling new homes: settlement reached with the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA)

By Staff

November 30th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Adi Developments announce today that a settlement of all outstanding regulatory issues has been reached with the HCRA. Tariq Adi, CEO of Adi Developments, said, “We are happy to have this behind us and look forward to completing our existing projects and bringing more high-quality homes and communities to the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) market.”

Adi Developments, a developer with a 15-year record of building successful housing projects in the GTHA, was notified of the HCRA’s intent to revoke Adi’s building and vending licences on August 25^th, 2022. Adi appealed this to the Ontario License Appeal Tribunal.

At the same time, Adi initiated discussions with the HCRA aimed at resolving the issues outside of the appeal process. Today’s announced agreement is the culmination of those discussions.

The settlement encompasses the following key elements:

(i) The resolution of all issues in the HCRA’s proposal to the satisfaction of all parties.

(ii) No findings or admissions as to any Adi entity having provided altered or false information or documents to the HCRA nor as to any Adi entity having obstructed any HCRA inspection or investigation.

(iii) An admission by one of the Adi entities, Adi Lakeshore, that it failed to return purchaser deposits within 10 days of cancellation as it was required to do under its licence and applicable legislation. As a result, Adi Lakeshore will be levied an administrative penalty of $60,000 which will also include an additional approximately $2,500,000 monetary benefit component to be returned to affected purchasers. This benefit component represents the total amount of interest that Adi Lakeshore had already begun paying to affected purchasers starting in May 2022.

(iv) The return of all deposits to affected purchasers, which Adi Lakeshore completed on November 14, 2022.

(v) Most importantly, all current and future Adi companies licensed by the HCRA can operate as builders/vendors subject only to mutually agreed upon conditions on their licences.

The Nautique: currently under construction

The Lakeshore project at the centre of the HCRA’s action was the first cancellation in Adi’s 15-year history, driven by a dramatic increase in construction costs which seriously jeopardized the project.

“These are unprecedented times for the development industry,” said Tariq Adi. “We were facing cost escalations in the range of $43M which the project simply could not absorb. As a result, we had to seek additional financing and reconfigure the project in order to be in a position to complete it. Regrettably, however, the situation forced us to cancel purchase agreements, which we hated to do because our customers are the most important part of our business.”

For purchasers who opted to stay with the Lakeshore project, Adi mitigated the impact of the cancellations by allowing them to re-purchase their units at approximately 20% below market prices and crediting them with $10,000 per unit in décor dollar upgrades. The project is currently 85% sold with construction actively underway and going strong.

For purchasers who opted not to enter into a new purchase agreement, Adi, as a gesture of goodwill, began paying them 6% interest on their deposits in May 2022, something Adi did not have to do. This will result in more than $2,500,000 being paid directly to affected purchasers.

Council corrects a mistake - mumbles an apology and takes 600 Brant off the Heritage Registry.

By Pepper Parr

November 30th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

I was a very short meeting – 27 minutes

And unless we misread the background of the room each member of council was sitting in – there wasn’t one member of Council sitting in the Council Chamber.
Councillors Nisan and Galbraith were reported as absent.

The Special Meeting of council was to: hear a report on the potential demolition of heritage registered properties at 600 Brant Street who had a demolition permit application and a site plan approval application for construction of a new 3-storey office building.

Staff cautiously estimated that 600 Brant Street could be demolished any time after November 29, 2022. Demolition can only be avoided if City Council first consults its municipal heritage committee then issues a notice of intention to designate the properties. Thus the emergency meeting of the Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee (the “HBAC”) and a special Council meeting.

The failure, and it was an abysmal failure on the part of the planning department, was in notifying the owner of the property that there were heritage issues.

That was compounded by the fact that letters sent to the owner of the property were sent via regular mail to an address where there was no one in the house.

The meeting this evening, Tuesday was to clean up the mess.

Unfortunately, no one, except for ward 2 Councillor Kearns offered an apology – she did mumble the words.

The Staff report read: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with analysis, background information and recommendations regarding the potential demolition of heritage registered properties at 600 Brant Street. The owner of 600 Brant Street has submitted a demolition permit application and a site plan approval application for construction of a new 3-storey office building.

Shahab Tabash

Shahab Tabash the business man who owned the property and wanted to demolish the building and build a three storey dental facility delegated to Council saying:

“So dear mayor and councillors. Thanks for having me back to delegate one last time hopefully.

“Tonight, I wanted to be present to ask directly that our property is 600 brain Street, be removed from the Heritage registry as per the recommendations of the Heritage landscape study. That would I assume we’re all in? We’re all holding. That was done on November 17 2020. To the 27th page report that was done since the last time we saw each other in the case of 600 brain does not meet the thresholds to be considered as a heritage site.

“And as you can see in I hope you’ve seen in the report it says quote unquote, based on the available information, it’s determined that 600 Brant Street does not sufficiently meet the criteria contained in the Ontario heritage act. It’s my understanding that the heritage Burlington advisory committee that met last week is also recommending that our property be removed from the Heritage registry.

“I want to speak just quickly about the impact of being placed on a heritage registry and want to speak just quickly about the impact of being placed on heritage registry and of the city’s protocol for doing so. And to drive home. What I hope is an important point. Mayor Mead Ward and the entire council your extraordinary power and your decisions have a very profound effect on local businesses and on local families. And to me it really seemed like that decision of July 2022 to add us to the registry would have would have been better done if the studies would have been done before the designations and as a property owner as someone who’s very diligent and following up and making sure that we met all of the requirements of the city.

“ It was quite shocking to be placed on that list without you know that there’s some debate as to how we were notified or if we were notified, but without any study. And I can’t overstate the extraordinary costs. And sleepless nights that this puts on the local business owners and local families. And Council Chairman wasn’t wrong when at the last Council meeting when he stated that one of the steps of the thing happens especially in the backdrop of a global recession, real estate issues increasing interest rates point in time where local businesses are under extraordinary pressure. Decision to heritage without a study being done is it was extremely stressful.

“And I hope that tonight with the recommendation of the heritage committee and the study that’s been done that you look at removing us from that list. As a local business we really have committed our time and our money and our futures to this and I just hope that in the future that communication can be better. So the local business owners and I understand that I’m a local person, I want appropriate heritage designation. I want appropriate growth. But I think that it could have been done better. I won’t take up too much more of your time. I thank you for the opportunity and I ask that you follow the recommendation of the Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee and the heritage study and removing us from the from the Heritage registry. Thank you for your time.”

The property can now be demolished and replaced with a three story dental facility.

The building located at 600 Brant Street was constructed in 1912, shortly after the subdivision of land in that area from farmland into a residential subdivision. While no known images or descriptions exist from the time the property was constructed, fire insurances plans for the area from 1924 provide details on the residence as it was originally built.

The Burlington Heritage Advisory Committee reported that:

The property is not a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method
The property was dramatically altered between 2009 and 2011, which changed the appearance of the central dormer and making it even less classifiable as a recognizable style
Within its historic subdivision, there are better preserved, and more architecturally distinguished examples of residential buildings from the early 20th century
It is not associated with any significant historical figures or communities

It is not a landmark and does not stand out in the street.

Council directed Direct the Director of Community Planning to remove the property from the Heritage Register.

In closing the meeting Mayor Meed Ward said: “I just wanted to again, thank our heritage staff for bringing this forward and allowing us the opportunity to have a fulsome conversation. They one tricky thing with heritage is that once it’s gone, it’s gone. And if we don’t have the opportunity to learn these stories, and determine if there is that cultural or architectural significance, then we can go back to almost like one of those Measure twice, cut once. And I think it’s really important that we somehow find a way to also preserve these incredible stories I found so much value and just learning about the history from this presentation of that particular property and its connection back to apple orchards and who lived there and so while it might not qualify, it still helped to shape our tissue hub.

You know, thank you for going through this process with us. It is the right process. And we thank you very much for your patience and apologize for the stress that might have caused you and your family. We’re always committed to process improvement and we will continue to do our very best to make make the heritage process something that you know our residents are well informed about. And that you know, we can help to standardize and make it a lot easier on our staff so that we can get that out in the right in the right manner. So thank you so much for going through that journey with us. Just wanted to say that I will be supporting the staff recommendation. And thanks again to him for everyone that has worked very hard to bring this into a quick turnaround.

Mayor appears to be using the air waves to get her points across

By Pepper Parr

November 29th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

An Aldershot resident sent the following email.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

“I was just informed that Mayor Meed Ward was reportedly “ranting” about the complaint, similar to the Spectator Opinion, on CHCH TV last Friday November 25.

“Once again she is using her political influence to involve herself directly in the public media about the conflict of interest complaint. I didn’t see it.

“She is usurping the credibility of the independence, no politics involved, of the Integrity Commissioner process, who knows that she can bury their recommendation report, and already looks to be trying to rig the Council vote before you have even done your investigations and prepared the report.

“I could say more, but I will say that this is looking like a big reason why the province passed conflict of interest laws for politicians, and regulations or whatever they are called, saying that every municipality must have independent Integrity Commissioners to investigate such complaints.

“This situation is a classic example for what can happen when the politicians are left to themselves.”

Related news stories:

The Integrity Commissioner told the Ward 1 councillor what he could and could not do.

What happens when there is a tie vote?

Rants seem to be what the Mayor uses regularly

Millions of records, a couple dozen hits - Trooper will be on Stage February 23rd - tickets available to non - members December 2.

By Staff

November 29th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

There is a reason for being a member of the Performing Arts Centre. You get to be in the ticket line before most people – and with shows like this – you want to be sure you will be able to get tickets.

It goes like this: millions of records, a couple dozen hits, a Juno Award (Canada’s Grammy) for Band of the Year and ongoing sold-out shows across Canada. Universal Music acknowledges them as “one of Canada’s top five selling bands of all time” and the Vancouver Sun has called them “Canadian rock heroes of the first order … the best performing band in Canada”.

And they are on their way to the Performing Arts Centre.

Thu Feb 23, 2023 at 8pm
Main Theatre
Regular: $79.50 – $99.50 (All-in)
Member: $74.50 – $94.50 (All-in)

“We’re Here for a Good Time (Not a Long Time)”, “Raise a Little Hell”, “The Boys in the Bright White Sportscar”, “Two For the Show”, “Pretty Lady” – just a few of the Trooper hits that, according to writer Ryan Sparks, “have woven their way into the fabric of this country like no other bands have been able to do.
Tune into any radio station from Vancouver to St John’s and you’re bound to encounter one of their dozen hit radio anthems that are still featured in heavy rotation to this day.”

Tickets on sale to BPAC Members only: Wed Nov 30 at 12 noon.
Tickets on sale to General Public: Fri Dec 2 at 12 noon.

Visit our Box Office at:
440 Locust Street,
Burlington, Ontario L7S 1T7

Box Office Hours:
Tuesday to Saturday from 12pm to 4pm, and one hour prior to a performance.

Payment: Cash, Interac/Debit, Credit Card (VISA, MasterCard, AMEX), Gift Certificate.
All ticket sales are final. No refunds or exchanges. Programming subject to change.

For those who wanted more about the volunteering opportunities - read on

By Staff

November 29th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

A Gazette reader read the piece about the city inviting people to serve as volunteers on boards and committees.

In the story we mentioned there were 18 boards and committees. We didn’t have the answers at our finger tips and put the request on the “things to try and get done”

Michelle Dwyer, Manager of Engagement and Volunteers: Corporate Communications and Engagement saw the comment and provided us with the following. Nice to know that Ms Dwyer has such an interest in what we do. We appreciate all the help you can give us.

Council-appointed advisory committees

The City of Burlington has nine Council-appointed advisory committees that provide feedback and input to Council.

Burlington has always had a small group of citizens who make a point of being involved. In that regard we are fortunate.

Accessibility Advisory Committee
Agricultural and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee
Cycling Advisory Committee
Downtown Parking Advisory Committee
Heritage Burlington Advisory Committee
Inclusivity Advisory Committee
Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee
Seniors’ Advisory Committee
Sustainable Development Advisory Committee

Boards

The Office of the City Clerk assists with recruitment to some of the following local boards, while others conduct their own recruitment process:

Art Gallery of Burlington
Burlington Economic Development
Burlington Hydro
Burlington Performing Arts Centre
Burlington Public Library
Conservation Halton

Transit Advisory meeting. This was a committee that city decided it no longer needed.

Joseph Brant Hospital
Museums of Burlington
Tourism Burlington

Other committees
Committee of Adjustment
Council Remuneration Review Working Group
Greater Bay Area Sub-committee
Joint Compliance Audit Committee

The City of Burlington, the Town of Oakville, the Town of Halton Hills, and the Regional Municipality of Halton have established a Joint Compliance Audit Committee.

Mundialization Committee

If you want to dig a little deeper and learn more about each committee click HERE

Political wisdom is out there for the taking; several quotations that should be in the reading list of every member of Council

By Pepper Parr

November 28th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

From time to time the Gazette has made reference to several well known quotes.

A favourite is that Lord Acton quote:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A week or so ago I came across another as I was reading my Sunday New York Times.

“Power reveals” Indeed is does.

A third one that strikes more than a chord:

“Politics changes politicians more than it changes society.”

Politics is power, used wisely it can and has brought about change.

Adapting to having power calls for more than the current city council has managed to display.

Few have taken to heart the words of Jim Young who said in a delegation that the power the Councillors had was given to them by those who voted. Young went further, adding that the power every voter has is given to those elected in trust and they are expected to be seen as trust worthy

Burlington 2022 – 2026 City Council. Councillor Stolte did not take part: Covid19 complications

There is still an opportunity for the seven to reflect and consider what they are doing and why.

When did four Councillors decide to focus on the interests of each other rather than the interests of the people they were elected to serve ?

By Pepper Parr

November 28th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

They did win – we have to give them that.

What we got out of the election exercise is a council where two members, Nisan and Galbraith, took a complaint against a third member, Stolte, to the Integrity Commissioner.

The Commissioner found against Stolte and docked her five days pay.
Then, Kearns “inadvertently”, spoke at a BDBA meeting about what has been budgeted for outside counsel to defend the city’s position on the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site.
Kierans was taking part in a Burlington Downtown Business Association meeting as the council liaison person.

Also taking part were two men who were candidates running against Kearns for the ward 2 council seat.

The Gazette has not been able to get a copy of the BDBA agenda and thus we do not know why the subject of the hotel redevelopment plans were discussed.

We do know that Kearns did say the city was budgeting $500,000 for legal expenses. One of the participants in the ZOOM call asked a question about the funds. Kearns panicked realizing that there were other people on the call during which she blabbed about how much the city has budgeted for outside counsel ($500,000.)

Knowing she was offside she ran to the city manager to explain the crime she had committed (speaking publicly about matters discussed in closed sessions of council is a Code of Conduct crime.)

She then apparently got herself in front of the Integrity Commissioner to tell her side of the story.

Then, days before the votes are cast for the 2022 municipal election it comes to light that Galbraith (one of the two that fingered Stolte) is himself before the Integrity Commissioner,

Four of the seven members of council have spent some of their time either registering complaints about other members of council or dealing with complaints about their own behavior.

This is what 27% of the population elected on October 24th ?

The story gets better. This is as good as that Energizer bunny – it just doesn’t stop giving.

In the Friday edition of the Hamilton Spectator there was an opinion piece written by Mayor Meed Ward, Councillors Galbraith, Nisan and Sharman taking offence to a column written by Spectator columnist and former city councillor Joan Little.

Quite why Councillor Galbraith having his signature on a letter that relates directly to his issues with the Integrity Commissioner is seen as appropriate is hard to understand. What is very clear is that the Mayor and three Councillors are going to do everything they can to ensure that he remains a city councillor.

It was always my understanding that Councillors were in place to look after the interests of the public and not the interests of each other

City Looking for Volunteers to Serve on Advisory Committees

By Staff

November 28th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Burlington Staff member Michelle Dwyer, second from left with Roland Tanner, second from right discussing the role of advisory committee members.

The City of Burlington is looking for community members to volunteer on a city committee or board. These volunteers play a key role in providing advice and feedback to City Council and staff on a variety of city issues. Applications are now being accepted online at burlington.ca/committees until Dec. 19, 2022.

Members of the public over 18 years of age, representing the diverse backgrounds of our community are encouraged to apply. Participating on a city committee provides a unique opportunity to:

Table Talk – an exercise where residents talk to staff about ideas they have.

Lend your voice and expertise to help shape decisions and services that impact our community
Expand your network and meet new people
Gain a broader understanding of how municipal government works.

Attend an information session Dec. 7
Individuals interested in learning more, can attend a virtual information session being held on Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 6:30 p.m. on Zoom. To register, please email clerks@burlington.ca.

The City of Burlington has more than 18 boards and committees that play a key role in providing advice and feedback to City Council and staff on a variety of issues, including heritage, accessibility, diversity and the environment.

Council approved a new Public Appointment Policy in November of 2021. The new policy provides an outline for the process of public appointments to advisory committees and local boards at the City and introduces provisions for diversity and inclusion. View the new Public Appointment Policy.

The positions different members of council have taken is a pretty sticky wicket

By Pepper Parr

November 27^th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

OPINION

A reader brought to our attention what might be what the British call a sticky wicket.

A member of Council is the subject of a complaint to the city’s Integrity Commissioner.

In due course the Commissioner will issue a report that will go to Council.

A few days ago four members of Council sent a Letter to the Editor of the Hamilton Spectator complaining about a column that had been written by Joan Little, a long time columnist and a former Burlington city councilor.

The letter that was sent was signed by four members of Council. It had been presented to all members of council – three chose not to sign it.

Councillors Stolte, Bentivegna and Kearns (on the right) chose not to sign a Letter to the Editor submitted to the Hamilton Spectator

Assuming the feelings and views the different members of council remain the same, when the Integrity Commissioner report goes to council and is voted on, there would be one of those traditional 4-3 votes – except that the Councillor who is the subject of the report, who also signed the letter, would not be able to vote and would have to recuse himself because he is the object of the report – which means there would be a 3-3 vote, which means it fails.

And nothing would be done.

Citizens could ask for a judicial review but that would call for people to come forward and bear the legal costs.

Not likely from a community where less than a third chose to bother to vote.

Insurrection in Ottawa: Prime Minister explains why he did what he did

By Ray Rivers

November 27th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

It was a rare moment for a prime minister to appear before a judicial commission like the Emergencies Act Inquiry. But Trudeau and his father before him had been the only Canadian Prime Ministers in recent memory to have officially declared a national emergency. Justin’s father used the War Measures Act to quell a powerful separatist insurgency in Quebec.

That Act had only been previously employed during the two great wars. But the government of Quebec had requested this action and Trudeau had received near unanimous support in Parliament. Still, there were objectors and concerns sufficient that the next PM updated and renamed the Act in keeping with Canada’s patriated constitution and the Charter of Rights.

Pierre Trudeau had been fighting a Quebec based separatist insurrection. For Justin it was the western separatists, anti-vaccine/anti-maskers and white supremacists. These insurrectionists referred to themselves as truckers, though they in fact, represented a tiny minority of the Canadian trucking community. And, though the vaccine and masking mandates were their war cries, it was clear that their real issues were political disaffection with current federal policy, energy and efforts to mitigate our carbon footprint, in particular.

Trucks descended on Ottawa from across the country

The convoy leaders had arrived in Ottawa equipped with a manifesto of sorts, demanding the federal government dissolve and allow them to rule the country with the governor general. Though their manifesto was laughable their intent had been to effectively shut down the nation’s capital until the results of the last federal election could be reversed in their favour; that is, a Conservative government.

It is no surprise that the presumptive wannabe leader of the Conservatives, Mr. Poilievre, embraced these folks, posing for selfies and so on. They were ideological birds of a feather, something that has become even more evident after he has been properly crowned opposition leader. One can only wonder how he would have handled the occupation crisis had he been PM. But then the occupiers would have had little reason to paralyze the city were their man in the driving seat.

There was a lot of bitterness and vitriol among the occupiers, whose trucks and placards, carried their main message F*** Trudeau. But why were they so angry? Was it only because of the impatience of the 10% of cross border truckers who had to show their vaccination certificates on the Canadian as well as the US side? Or was it because Canada’s fractious partisan politics had turned cooperation among parliamentary leaders into conflict? And how had mis-information, alternate facts and outright lies folded into creating this unpleasant environment?

In the mind of the PM and his minions the occupation of Ottawa’s streets and the ongoing traffic disruptions at border crossings virtually across the country posed a sufficient threat to pubic order such that he should trigger the Act to resolve it. Everyday policing lacked either or both the tools and leadership to effectively restore and maintain public order. And in the case of Ottawa, ordinary citizens’ lives had effectively been held hostage by the invading occupiers.

A large portion of downtown Ottawa was blocked by trucks from across the country.

aWhile Ottawa police and the OPP had jurisdiction, their failure to act for the several weeks of the occupation left little choice for a federal government. Trudeau was under pressure from the citizens of Ottawa, the business community plagued by the effects of border disruptions and even the President of the United States.

The Emergencies Act mandated an inquiry once it had been actioned. And all eyes were on Justin, the last witness, as he was sworn in and settled into the witness box for almost an entire day of questioning. It was Trudeau who made the final decision to activate the Emergencies Act and he needed to tell his side of the story.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifying before Emergency Act inquiry.

Trudeau answered all the questions put to him by both friendly and not so friendly intervenors. The responses were direct and friendly without any trace of rudeness or frustration. In short he defended his decision to invoke the Act without being defensive. He clarified the meaning of a public order emergency in the Act and justified it’s application.

Though a very credible testimony, he did stumble at one point, inadvertently appearing to conflate peaceful protest with occupation, before correcting himself. He explained away his refusal to meet the convoy leaders, in part because it was never clear who the leaders actually were. In any case, he had nothing to offer them and was not prepared to legislate on a public street instead of the halls of Parliament, and under threat of an illegal and potentially violent occupation – it would have set a powerful precedent.

Protesters facing police line at Ottawa convoy

The imposition of the Emergencies Act was sort lived. It compelled tow operators to respond to requests by the police. It froze funding for the insurrection and bank accounts for those supposedly leading the insurrection. Imposition of the Act removed the rights of the occupiers to freely leave the country. And it allowed the police to declare no-go zones so they could clear the riff-raff from the streets.

Most importantly once the streets were cleared of the rubbish, the good people of Ottawa could get back to business as usual. It was hardly a biggie in the overall scheme of life, and the rest of us might not have even noticed its implementation. The rights of the non-occupiers had not been diminished and our peaceful parliamentary democracy has been secured. The threat of insurrection and occupation is not how Canadians choose to settle political differences.

A majority of Council supports Galbraith; are they attempting to influence the Integrity Commissioner

By Staff

November 26th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

The following is a column written by Joan Little for the Hamilton Spectator. Following the column is a response from the Mayor of Burlington and three members of Council. The two pieces are indicative of how messy things are at the city council level

By Joan Little

Burlington hosted a splendid inaugural meeting of the 2022 to 2026 council, re-elected en masse, hitting several highs. Good, especially because voter turnout was so low — 27.6 per cent. I called it the worst in 50 years, forgetting an even worse stretch in 2000 and 2003 at 22.7 and 16.5 respectively. Worth forgetting!

Indigenous leaders played significant roles in the opening meeting. Chief Stacey Laforme, of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, offered opening remarks, and Elder White Eagle Stonefish offered hers.

The City council elected in October 2022. Shawna Stolte was self isolating.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward addressed the audience, which judging from the volume of applause, appeared sparse that cold night. She relayed promises kept, and issues facing council, including climate and budgetary ones, then zeroed in on planning. Burlington, she said, was on target to meet its growth allocations without the appointed OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) — usually one appointed person — overriding the elected council’s position.

She noted that Halton, other municipalities, and AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) have tried to get the OLT disbanded or curtailed. The province says red tape is slowing housing construction. It is, but the red tape comes from the industry itself.

It totally disregards city standards (ours and others) applying for outrageous exemptions municipal planners decry. Then it appeals, costing cities millions to defend, and delays construction by years because the OLT’s schedule is so backlogged. That, dear readers, is where millions in our local taxes go since Doug Ford took office. There were always appeals, but his rule changes and affinity with developers dramatically escalated them.

In my last column I mentioned conflict of interest, musing that a page listing conflicts would have merit. An astute reader emailed that a page now exists. I also mentioned that a voter was questioning whether Ward 1’s Kelvin Galbraith, who owns developable property, was following all rules on conflict of interest. The citizen will know in a few weeks, having launched a complaint to the City’s (outside) Integrity Commissioner (IC). An IC’s report goes to council, usually with a recommendation, which council can accept or alter.

The response from the four

Regarding ‘No change on Burlington council’ (Oct. 26): We expect more from The Spectator than to simply repeat allegations without attempting to first verify whether they have merit.

In this column, Joan Little repeats an allegation levelled by a constituent about potential violations of Conflict of Interest against recently re-elected Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith. The Spectator amplified this allegation in their Tweet.

The councillor sought and received both verbal and written advice from the city’s Integrity Commissioner on the matters raised by the constituent. The councillor followed that advice.

This advice from the IC was provided to the constituent who raised the concern. It was available to Ms. Little had she asked before simply repeating the allegation.

Additionally, the City of Burlington has an online Conflict of Interest Registry which lists every conflict declared by any member of council for the term, including the items raised by the constituent. https://www.burlington.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/conflicts-of-interest-registry.aspx

It is fully transparent, public and easy to find if one simply does their homework. Our clerks is office is also willing to assist in furnishing this information.

The constituent has now filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner on the matters for which the Councillor has already sought, received and followed the IC advice. It appears the constituent takes issue with the advice the IC provided to the Councillor. The IC will respond in due course.

Just what did the Integrity Commissioner give Councillor Galbraith in the way of advice and direction

The Gazette published the advice the Integrity Commissioner gave Councillor Galbraith six days before the election. It is our belief that had the public been aware of that advice the outcome of the election would have been quite different. We believe that Galbraith had a duty and a responsibility to make the information public when he got it back in March.

An Aldershot resident filed a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner that is now being investigated. The Gazette is aware of at least one additional complaint that is to be filed After what is certain t be a detailed response to the complaints the Integrity Commissioner will take a recommendation to Council. Council then has to decide what it wants to do with the recommendation

Councillors Stolte and Bentivegna did not add their signatures to the Letter sent to the Spectator

What has become quite evident is that Mayor Meed Ward is going to go to considerable length to protect Galbraith and has convinced two other Councillors to join her.

Combined the four members constitute a majority of Council, who, when the Integrity Commissioner does bring back a recommendation, will be in a position to disregard a recommendation.

Worth noting is that Councillors Kearns, Stolte and Bentivegna did not sign the Letter to the Editor sent to the Spectator

City issues a Redesign, adaptive re-use and costing plan proposed for former Bateman High School

By Staff

November 25th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

This document was released by the city at 4:45 this afternoon.

A comprehensive staff report for the redesign of the adaptive reuse of the recently acquired Robert Bateman High School (RBHS) incorporating the results of a recent cost estimate, prepared by a third-party cost surveyor, along with a multi-year capital financing plan will be presented to the City’s Environment, Infrastructure and Community Services (EICS) committee on Dec. 8.

The City is repurposing the existing Robert Bateman High School into a multi-purpose community hub that will contribute significantly to the City’s major community facilities to accommodate future growth and will also help meet our objective of being net-zero carbon by 2040.

The reuse and conversion of the former secondary school will be completed via interior renovations, enhancements and minor site plan modifications as part of Phase 1.

The total gross estimated cost of construction for phase 1 is $72.75 million, with a breakdown of costs below.

An aerial view of the site

Base Building
Phase 1 Base Building Construction $41,700,000
Design and Engineering/Other Soft Costs $15,000,000
Total Base Building Construction Cost $56,700,000
Recommended Energy Reduction Incentives $5,250,000

Total Recommended Base Building 61,950,000

Optional Enhanced Energy Incentives (subject to confirmation of Senior Government funding application) $10,800,000

Total Gross Construction Estimated Cost $72,750,000

Along with the construction costs, staff will also present a financing plan.

The financing plan proposes approximately $46 million in tax supported debt financing, with the remainder coming from non-tax supported sources which includes contributions from tenants who will be paying rent annually, and possible funding to be confirmed from the federal government.

Proposed Net Capital Financing
Tenant Direct Capital Contributions (Cash). $7,100,000

Non-Tax Supported Debt Financing
Tenant recovery $11,750,000
Special Circumstance Debt (SCD) Financing $4,000,000
Tax Supported Debt Financing $45,900,000

Senior Government Funding (subject to confirmation by Senior Government) $4,000,000
Total Proposed Capital Financing $72,750,000

The existing building is a two-storey, 212,000 square foot, brick-clad structure that was built in 1969, with additions completed in 1973 and 2003. The building contains community space and the Burlington Centennial Pool, which was recently renovated and will remain accessible to the community throughout the renovation.

What the conceptual thinking is about what will go where.

This is a multi-phase major community investment, which will see infrastructure upgrades to build up to modern building code standards and implement net-zero carbon technologies, as well as providing space that will support future tenants on both the first and second floors. The project also will include a second phase which is the development of approximately 40,000 square feet of new City community centre space as well as new future space for community partners. The estimated cost of Phase 2 is $15 million to $20 million with the facility design to be brought back to Council following completion of public engagement.

Design features for Phase 1 include:
• Brock University educational classrooms and administration spaces.
• New expanded Burlington Library branch and programs
• New front entrance, open collaborative corridors and seating connecting the front to the rear of the facility.
• New central staircase and elevator
• Meeting room spaces
• Refreshed City operated triple gymnasium
• TechPlace Office spaces
• Halton District School Board adult program classrooms and administration spaces

Public engagement will take place in early 2023 to seek community feedback.

How did Burlington rank on a parkland study?

By Staff

November 24th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

New research has revealed Canada’s greenest cities, with Prince Albert coming out on top.

The study by real estate site Calgary.com analyzed parkland data for Canadian cities and scored them based on how much parkland, green area and gardens they have.

The city of Prince Albert, located in Saskatchewan, came in first place. The city has 28.1 hectares of park per 1,000 people, and 20% of the city is made up of Parkland, which gives it a ‘Green Score’ of 100 out of 100. It’s built on a transition zone between the aspen parkland and a boreal forest, so the city is clearly embedded in nature.

Coming in second place is the Albertan city of Edmonton. It scored 80.26 out of 100 on the Green Score. While it may only have 6.2 hectares of park per 1,000 people and 8% of parkland, the city boasts a whopping 104 community gardens, the most out of any city in the study.

The Quebec city of Gatineau takes third place on the list, with a green score of 76.98 out of 100. The city has 17.2 hectares of park per 1,000 people, and 15% of the city’s land is made up of parkland. Additionally, there are 20 community gardens in the city.

Spencer Smith Park is very expansive but the city didn’t rank all that well with the amount of space and the size of the population

Toronto comes in fourth place, receiving a green score of 74.57 out of 100. 13% of the city land is made up of parkland, as well as there are 79 community gardens. Due to the city’s larger population, however, there are only 2.7 hectares of park per 1,000 people.

Rounding out the top five is Calgary, coming in with a green score of 67.67 out of 100. This is due to there being 7 hectares of park per 1,000 people in the city, 11% of the city being parkland, and 59 community gardens.

Burlington didn’t make the list but Guelph did.

Commenting on the findings, a spokesperson from Calgary.com said: “It’s great to see that even some of Canada’s largest and most populated cities still maintain lots of parklands to keep the area greener, especially in the case of Toronto. Using percentages as a representation of green space also highlights the efforts smaller cities are doing to keep nature at no more than a stone’s throw away from residents.”

City will require all staff to wear masks - effective November 28th

By Pepper Parr

November 23rd, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

There was nothing formal from the city. What we got was a screen shot of what a reader/reporter sent us

Screen shot of a city announcement sent out via Twitter

What is surprising is that if the wearing of masks is vital – why an announcement on the 23rd for something that doesn’t become effective until the 28th?

And why not an announcement that gets out to everyone and not just those who follow Twitter?

And why nothing from any of the city Councillors?

Troubling indeed.

The number of people seriously ill and away from their jobs for 15 to 20 days is increasing.

How much trouble are we in?

Three year olds get to test drive kindergarten - virtually

By Staff

November 22nd, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Exploring a classroom.

Starting school is a big step for children and parents/guardians.

The Halton District School Board wants to make the transition to a classroom as smooth as possible when the first year of kindergarten approaches.

. This fall, the HDSB is welcoming future students and their families to a virtual Kindergarten experience to learn more about making the ﬁrst school experience a happy one.

The HDSB has set up a part of its web site where three-year olds can explore a Kindergarten classroom to see what their future classroom might look like next September. There are videos to watch, pictures to view and fun activities for kids. Parents/guardians can learn about the Kindergarten program at the HDSB, play-based learning, community resources in Halton and before-and-after school care. Families can also sign-up to receive a welcome package from the HDSB including a free children’s book.

Registration for Kindergarten begins in January 2023 and will be by appointment only (in-person and/or virtual) through the school your child will attend.

Further information will be shared in the new year. To begin Kindergarten in September 2023, children must be four years old by Dec. 31, 2023 for Year 1 Kindergarten and must be ﬁve years old by Dec. 31, 2023 for Year 2 Kindergarten.

How does a referee control a football game? Dave Foxcroft: We don't 'we let the game come to us and keep it as calm as possible'

By Pepper Parr

November 22. 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

It was a cliff hanger of a game right up until the last few seconds.

Two teams that had played just once before in the season were on the field to decide who would take the Grey Cup home.

Recognition that the football field was on traditional treaty lands was read by RoseAnne Archibald, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

In the middle of it all is the senior referee, Dave Foxcroft, supported by a crew of seven plus a number of people who are in instant communication with him – that bud in his ear and the microphone at his mouth make the smooth running of a game possible.

How long has Dave been doing this? He will tell you that he referees because he was never a very good player plus the money is pretty good.
His first job as a referee was back when he was a 14 year old student at M M Robinson high school and was paid $25 a game which was very good money for an hours work. He worked basketball to start and moved into football when an opportunity came his way.

His Dad, Ron Foxcroft was an internationally recognized basketball referee. Dave was getting great mentoring.

Checking whether the coin to be tossed to determine who gets possession of the football first is something the players want to see first hand.

Dave can still remember that first football game in 2000 – Calgary was playing Edmonton. In 2010 he was made the Head Referee. He has been at it ever since and last weekend ran the 109th Grey Cup game during which the only time he ever felt nervous was during the official coin toss that was done by Assembly of First Nations RoseAnne Archibald.

“The coin I was given was something I had never seen before. I wasn’t sure which was head and which was tail” said Foxcroft.

“Everyone in the country was watching. I decided which was which, the coin got tossed and the game began.. That was a ‘sweaten it’ moment for me.”

This was tight game from beginning to end”, said Foxcroft.

A fumble and there is referee Dave Foxcroft right in the middle

There were a couple of calls I had to make, one on a fumble and another on un-sportsman like conduct.

“What cannot be tolerated is any abusive behaviour. What the audience sees on the field is what they take away and apply in their own local leagues” said Foxcroft

Asked how the referee can control a game Foxcroft said: “You can’t – you have to let the game come to you. The biggest job is to be a calming influence and let the players know you are going to be fair and expect a high standard of behaviour from the players.

Foxcroft works at not letting the sport consume him. “I work hard not to become obsessive. I have a full time job with Fox 40 where I managing Fox 40’s Global Sales, Marketing and Operations and oversee the development of the company’s diverse, innovative product base and strategic acquisitions.

The CFL has been around for a long time and now has leadership that thinks in terms of growing into an international organization.

The first Canadian to officiate at an NFL game

“We have a very decent following in the United States. And we play a different game of football – in Canada the kicking game makes us very different.
Foxcroft has the distinction of being the first Canadian to officiate at an NFL game
.
During the games Foxcroft is getting reports from a number of people. Everyone is plugged into “refcom” – the communications system that ties everyone together.

There is the instant play team member; there is the player injury team member and there is the person who sees the game at a different level. I see the game from a down on the field level. During the Grey Cup game two of those people were working from Toronto.

The two teams on the field last Sunday had only played each other once before during the season.

While the CFL is a national organization – sports and referring is still small town stuff for Dave Foxcroft. While he was in high school he referred a game in which Josh Ross was playing. Ross was part of the half time entertainment during the 109th Grey Cup game.

Dave Foxcroft treasures moment like that.

When a season comes to an end there are all kinds of events for the winners. Parades, dinners and award events.
Will Foxcroft attend ? No he said the folks in Winnipeg would not take kindly to seeing me in a parade held for the Argonauts.

Photographs courtesy of the Canadian Football League

Fifteen years ago - Burlington Green was formed - a commendable record of achievement.

By Staff

November 22, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

Burlington Green was formed 15 years ago.

A snapshot of what they have done in that time.

Pretty good.

How far along are we in changing the way we work at trying to save the climate we have…

A glacier breaking apart as the temperatures rise.

There is more work to be done.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: