By Pepper Parr
November 4th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Zohar Kan was speaking to a Motion that would have the City Auditor review the process that determined which swimming clubs would be given time at city swimming pools. The club pay the city for the use of the space.
“My name is Zohar Khan. I’m here as a swim parent, a volunteer for the growth in aquatic Devil Rays, and someone who cares deeply about our young swimmers and about the fair, transparent and about fair, transparent city processes.
“I appear today fully aware that under the Minutes of Settlement that the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays sign with the city, we are prohibited from speaking publicly about the RFP process or pool allocation.
I’m speaking carefully about facts that are already in the public domain.
“I’m not here to breach that. I’m speaking carefully about facts that are already in the public domain. To support this motion for an independent audit, I would be remiss and frankly negligent to stay silent when this committee is considering an audit of the very process that has affected public confidence in how Burlington governs community access to its facilities, while I respect confidentiality where required accountability should not be subject to a confidentiality clause, I also ask that my remarks not be used against the club or volunteers.
“My intent here is to be constructive, to help improve the process so no community organization finds itself here again.
“So how did we get here? In March of this year, the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays submitted a proposal for the city’s five year youth competitive swim program contract.
“The Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) has trained Burlington youth for decades, delivered excellence and complied with every term of the prior agreement. In 2020 the city’s RFP required bidders to submit a proof of nonprofit incorporation. The wording was clear and easily satisfied and BAD complied.
“In 2025 that clause was changed to require a current and valid certificate of incorporation as a nonprofit or not for profit organization. This phrase does not exist in Ontario law. A certificate of incorporation is issued once at the birth of an organization. It never expires. The only document that can be considered currently is the Certificate of Status, which is what BAD submitted. It is like requesting a birth certificate to understand if a person is alive and well. Nevertheless, BAD was disqualified for failing to submit a document that cannot be obtained.
“When the club questioned this, the city cited sections of the not-for-profit corporations act to explain what a certificate is, without acknowledging that the RFP itself introduced a non-existent requirement. That is not fairness, that is bureaucracy collapsing in on itself. At the same time, the Burlington residency requirement was communicated publicly as if it was a hard pre-award requirement, while BAD was excluded over an impossible paperwork standard.
“The winning Club was recognized for agreeing to meet an 85% Burlington resident threshold by the end of September 2025, months after the RFP deadline. It is important to note that had our proposal been reviewed and not disqualified on the technicality, BAD’s submission already included residency data for the past five years.
“Meeting this requirement in September, the city further shifted the goal post to define the 85% as swimmers swimming at Burlington pools, as opposed to 85% of your swimmers, which further affected us at this point because we had lost city hours BAD had to contract time at the YMCA, a private pool, just to keep our kids swimming.
My comments here today are simply about fairness.
“I do want to express my appreciation the marginal hours ultimately made available to our club kept many kids afloat, literally. City worked under pressure, and we recognize that effort. My comments here today are simply about fairness, about ensuring that Burlington’s process is clear, even-handed and trusted rules that feel unclear or uneven, erode confidence no matter who wins. For youth programs where hundreds of children’s training hours depend on continuity, the city applies zero tolerance to one bidder while allowing flexibility for another one. question the road, a non disparagement clause, limited discussion. This is the very definition of an uneven process, and exactly what this audit must address.
“Your motion rightly directs the city auditor to examine whether the definitions and requirements used in this RSP were consistent with the city’s procurement By law. This is critical, because section 270 of the Municipal Act requires municipal procurements to be clear, fair and transparent. Behind these policies are real Burlington families, children who lost training lanes overnight, parents now driving to Oakville, Hamilton and Milton, volunteer coaches and board members who spent the summer seeking basic clarity from the city they’ve partnered with for decades, for our families, the impact has been catastrophic.
“The long-term damage to a grassroots, volunteered, powered program is real, and it will take time to repair. This isn’t about lawyers and clauses. It’s about community. This is why this motion matters. The three outcomes listed in the motion, if answered clearly and publicly, will restore trust. That will give staff, clubs and families a shared playbook.
“Moving forward, this motion is about ensuring Burlington’s processes live up to Burlington’s values of clarity, fairness and honesty. When a city issues an RFP with ambiguous language, relies on technicalities and then communicates in ways that do not match the documents, public faith is eroded.
“You have an opportunity this afternoon to begin repairing that confidence. Please, let this audit bring the facts to the surface so that every swimmer, every parent and every resident can once again believe that Burlington plays by its own rules, openly, fairly and in good faith.”
The Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club also delegated. Their delegation will be the subject of a separate article.
Related news story:
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Audit Committee will hold in Council Chambers a special meeting on November 26th at 1:00 pm to discuss:-
Item 8.5 Motion memorandum regarding audit of space allocation for competitive swimming programs (COW-15-25) that was referred from the November 3 Committee of the Whole meeting.
I suggest you all attend to hear the discussion but in particular the positions taken by Committee members, Mayor Meed Ward and Councilor Sharman.
If you wish you can also delegate to the Committee
Cheryl – your analogy is not correct. The documents you’re comparing to have issue dates and expiry dates. It is easy to tell when a drivers license is expired etc. A Certificate of Incoporation is issued once, when the corporation is created. It has no expiry date listed. It tells you nothing about the current status of the corporation. You could fill Burlington City Hall up with the Certificate of Incoporations of thousands of corporations that have come and gone and no longer exist. If I presented the birth certificate of someone born lets say in 1990 – are you able to tell me if they are still alive?
Once an entity has ceased to exist (for example, through dissolution, amalgamation, or cancellation of its registration), its certificate of incorporation is no longer considered current or valid. The ONLY way to prove is through a Certificate of Status.
As for the 85% requirement – you are correct about what the city wants. The missing piece is that this is not what was communicated in the RFP.
Zach
First question of you. Have you seen and read the rfp document?
If you answer that question is “no”, then you, like me and everybody else who has commented on this matter are equally ignorant and our comments are assumptions, not facts.
My understanding regarding the incorporation is that the RFP called for documentation of valid and current incorporation. The original incorporation documents do that. Was there a requirement to provide another document to prove the validity or currency of that document.
But what you and I say or think is irrelevant because neither of us has seen or read the RFP document and so know for sure what was required.
As respects the 85% requirement you say “this is not what was communicated in the RFP document”. How do you know that? If you have not seen or read the RFV document, you cannot possibly say that as a fact. It is just your assumption.
Have a good day!
That is exactly what was communicated in the RFP on page 17.
” It is expected that priority will be given for serving City of Burlington residents, with a minimum target of 85% of Burlington residency in the youth competitive and development swimming programs delivered under this Agreement.”
That isn’t 85% of club members, It is 85% of people using the pools under the agreement.
Thank you Jim.
Nobody commenting on the Gazette’s various articles has been able to provide the RFP wording. What you have put forward only makes sense.
Jim, do you have any comment to make is regarding the current and valid incorporation requirement?
Ms Hall – the point is the City asked for something different in the 2025 RFP – they wanted proof that the not for profit was in good standing. The original certificate from 40 years ago doesn’t expire but the question about being in good standing is different one. I respectfully suggest your comments about insurance aren’t quite correct. Insurance can be cancelled before expiry for a number of reasons. Not for profits can exist but may not be in good standing. Anyway, that is the point – what the City asked for was different than in 2020 and impossible to meet without clarification and the original certificate proved nothing about being in good standing. Further the residency requirement was publicly stated by the City and GHAC was given until the end of September to comply — to be clear the 85 percentage of swimmers from Burlington is to be calculated as the percentage of their overall club numbers. Those are standard calculations that most communities use to ensure local clubs are protected from expansion minded regional clubs who have loyalties to a multitude of communities and enjoy unfair financial advantageous because of their scale. Most communities want to protect their 100% Community based clubs and set similar residency requirements and calculate them as I described — it also protects the healthy community to community rivalry that is at the heart of many competitive programs. It’s also simple swim club etiquette to respect community based clubs before pushing into their areas and then deeper and deeper into same – destabilizing 40 year legacies for no advantage to the swimmers and their families. If the rig is pulled out from any long term volunteer program every five years the kids’ development journey suffers, uncertainty prevails and no club or swimmers can be expected to face those challenges. Cdn you imagine is this happened to hockey teams – rink time awarded to clubs outside of Burlington whether they started gradually or full force. I agree the Audit is a must.
I disagree with you.
The incorporation papers remain valid and current unless the corporation is dissolved.
I don’t believe the phrase “in good standing” appeared in the RFP in this regard. I believe the criteria was “valid and current”.
A corporation might be delinquent on its tax filings or tax payments or other responsibilities, but that has no bearing on the validity of the incorporation.
You say “Further the residency requirement was publicly stated by the City and GHAC was given until the end of September to comply — to be clear the 85 percentage of swimmers from Burlington is to be calculated as the percentage of their overall club numbers.”
Where is that definition of the 85% requirement specified in the RFP. Please point it out and provide a copy of the verbiage here.
In the absence of you providing that excerpt from the RFP document, I suggest what you are saying is simply your assumption and wishful thinking.
I do not believe the RFP text referring to the 85% requirement is in the public domain. It certainly has not been published via the Gazette.
A couple weeks f questions for Mr Kan
Mr. Kan. Let’s say your driver’s licence has a term beginning in 2020 and which ends in 2030. The current year is 2025. Your pink slip proof of insurance has a term March 1st, 2025 to March 1st, 2026. Are your driver’s licence and insurance pink slip that driver’s licence both current?
Of course they are.
As you said in your delegation “A certificate of incorporation is issued once at the birth of an organization. It never expires.” If it never expires, it’s current.
Mr. Kan, as respects the 85% Burlington resident requirement, the City quite obviously has no interest in who uses pool time at pools which are owned either privately or by other municipalities. It requires that 85% of swimmers utilizing allocated pool time at City of Burlington owned pools whether it be GHAC or BAD swimmers are Burlington residents.
Oh and by the way, I wholeheartedly agree an independent audit be undertaken.