Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
August 12, 2025 - Special Council
Special Council Meeting Agenda Electronic Meeting August 12, 2025 - 03:00 PM Chair: Mayor Ashe Please be advised that in accordance with Section 10.04 of the Procedure By-law, the City of Pickering is holding Council and Committee Meetings in an electronic format until further notice. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website. How to Participate Individuals looking to make a verbal delegation for items listed under Section 7 of the agenda may do so in accordance with the City’s Procedure By-law. In lieu of a verbal delegation, individuals may also submit written comments to clerks@pickering.ca. To register as a Delegation, please submit a Delegation Request Form by visiting pickering.ca/meetings. For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca Call to Order/Roll Call Disclosure of Interest In Camera Matters Matters to be discussed relate to the following provisions under Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act: (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (Item 3.1); (f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Item 3.1 and 3.3); (i) a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations 1. 2. 3. information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization (Item 3.2 and 3.4); (j) a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial or financial information that belongs to the municipality or local board and has monetary value or potential monetary value (Item 3.2 and 3.3); and, (k) a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board (Item 3.3). Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Confidential Report LEG 05-25 Re: Potential Acquisition of Frenchman's Bay Consultant Delegation: Andy Gibbons, Partner, Torys LLP (Available for questions if needed) (Confidential attachment provided under separate cover) Presentation from Amanda Klein, President and CEO, Cynthia Chan, Chief Financial Officer, Stephen Vetsis, VP of Regulatory Affairs and Stakeholder Relations, and Jodi MacLean, Manager of Communications and Public Affairs, Elexicon (Confidential attachment provided under separate cover) Confidential Memorandum from the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Re: Elexicon Corporation – Corporate Matters Consultant Delegation: J. Mark Rodger, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and Usman Ejaz, Director, Infrastructure & Real Estate, Deloitte (Available for questions if needed) 3.1 3.2 3.3 Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 2 - (Confidential attachment provided under separate cover) Confidential Memorandum from the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Re: Economic Development Update regarding Ontario Power Generation Consultant Delegation: J. Mark Rodger, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (Available for questions if needed) (Confidential attachment provided under separate cover) Confidential Special Council - Public Report Delegations Correspondence Corr. 36-25 Page 8 Jeff Abrams, Co-Principal and Janice Atwood-Petkovski, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Re: Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report Regarding Mulitple Complaints Against Councillor Robinson - August 5, 2025 Opening Remarks By: Jeff Abrams, Co-Principal and Janice Atwood-Petkovski, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Recommendation: Council direction required. Matters for Consideration Request for Council Endorsement Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Committees 3.4 4. 5. 6. 6.1 7. 7.1 Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 3 - Councillor Nagy Recommendation: WHEREAS the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) represents the interests of member municipalities on policy and program matters that fall within federal jurisdiction; And Whereas, FCM’s Board of Directors is comprised of elected municipal officials from all regions and sizes of communities to form a broad base of support and provide FCM with the united voice required to carry the municipal message to the federal government; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: Endorses Councillor Mara Nagy to serve as a committee member on committees of FCM’s Board of Directors, for the period starting in June 2025 and ending at the end of the current Council Term on November 14, 2026; 1. That the City assumes all costs associated with Councillor Nagy attending FCM’s committee meetings or other relevant FCM Board-related meetings, and such costs shall be covered in accordance with Policy ADM 190, Council Compensation Policy; and, 2. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to FCM. 3. Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 06-25 Page 24 Amendment to ROFR Agreements (Employment Land – 2019 Parcel 3) With Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd., Amalgamation of Shirva Investment and Development Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. Recommendation: That Report ECD 06-25 from the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects regarding the proposed amendment to the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Agreements entered into pursuant to the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for: 5.28 acres sold to Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation (PIN 26402-0159); a. 1.12 acres sold to 10466921 Canada Inc. (PIN 26402-0158), both of which are now amalgamated as Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd., be received; b. 1. That Staff be authorized to replace the existing ROFR Agreements with the new ROFR Agreement attached to this report, provided that Unity Hub 2. 7.2 Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 4 - Industrial Park Ltd., executes and registers on title an Amending Agreement with His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure substantially in the form attached to this report; That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the attached new ROFR Agreement (Attachment 2) with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. with an additional 2.5 years to commence construction of new buildings on the said lands; and, 3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 16-25 Page 67 Detailed Design for Shoreline Improvements – West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road Recommendation: That Council approve retaining the services of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, as an Exception in accordance with Purchasing Policy 010, Appendix 1, item 8; 1. That the proposal submitted by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, in the amount of $150,096.00 (net HST) or $166,675.00 (HST included be accepted; 2. That Council authorize staff to execute a letter of agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, on such terms as are satisfactory to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Finance & Treasurer; 3. That the total gross project cost of $183,343.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $165,106.00 (net HST) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $165,106.00 as follows: The sum of $82,553.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2404 as approved in the 2025 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from Development Charges City Share Reserve Fund; a. The sum of $82,553.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2404 as approved in the 2025 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve b. 5. 7.3 Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 5 - Fund; and, That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 6. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 12-25 Page 73 Amendment to DC By-law 8190/25 - Demolition Credit Proof of Payment Recommendation: That Report FIN 12-25 regarding Amendment to Development Charges By- law 8190/25 - Demolition Credit Proof of Payment Requirement be received; 1. That Council approve an amendment to the Development Charges By-law 8190/25 to waive the requirement for proof of prior DC payment in the calculation of demolition credits, for demolitions occurring between July 1, 2025 and December 31, 2026; 2. That Council enact the Amending Development Charges By-law as set out in Attachment 1 of this report; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations. 4. Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 09-25 Page 78 Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 Recommendation: That Quotation submitted by John Bear Buick GMC Limited, in response to Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 for the Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments in the amount of $319,864.00 (net HST) or $355,195.00 (HST included) be accepted; 1. That the total gross project cost of $355,195.00 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $319,864.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $319,864.00 as provided for in the 2025 Capital Budget as follows: The sum of $319,864.00 to be funded from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund; and, a. 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4. 7.4 7.5 Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 6 - Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 10-25 Page 82 Supply & Delivery of Two Wide Area Mowers Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 Recommendation: That the quotation submitted by Turf Care Products in response to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 the amount of $542,483.00 (net HST) or $602,403.00 (HST included) be accepted; 1. That the total gross project cost including estimated tariffs of $602,403.00 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $542,483.00 (net HST) be approved; 2. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project of $542,483.00 as follows: That the sum of $225,000.00 as approved in the 2025 Capital Budget be increased to $271,241.50 and be funded from the Equipment Reserve Fund for the Wide Area Mower replacement; a. That the sum of $225,000.00 as approved in the 2025 Capital budget be increased to $271,241.50 and be funded from Development Charges – Parks and Recreation Reserve for the new Wide Area Mower; and, b. 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. 4. By-laws By-law 8199/25 Page 86 Being a By-law to amend By-law 8190/25, Development Charges By-law [Refer to Item 7.4 Report FIN 12-25] Confirmatory By-law Adjournment 7.6 8. 8.1 9. 10. Special Council Meeting Agenda August 12, 2025 - 7 - Principles Integrity 1 Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report Regarding Mulitple Complaints Against Councillor Robinson August 5, 2025 Executive Summary: [1]This report results from a series of 4 separate complaints filed against Councillor Robinson in relation to numerous videos posted to YouTube and other public statements made in which she disrespected and maligned municipal staff, falsely and maliciously harassing staff, accusing senior staff of corruption, and undermining public confidence in the City. [2]The complaints allege that the Councillor’s conduct breached her obligations under the Code to treat staff in a respectful manner, with dignity and without abuse or bullying, and to not act in a manner that would undermine public confidence in the City. [3]We find that the complaints are substantiated and that the Councillor’s conduct over this lengthy period, as demonstrated by the numerous examples, breached the Code of Conduct by disrespecting, harassing and maliciously maligning staff. [4]We are recommending a 90-day suspension of pay. [5]An Integrity Commissioner and Council cannot remain ‘seized’ of a matter, however, recognizing that an expedited approach is warranted to deal with breaches which are of the same type (sui generis) as fully investigated in this report –that is, disparaging and unsubstantiated remarks made toward staff in meetings of Council or one of its committees, or on Youtube - we are recommending a truncated complaint procedure which maintains procedural fairness while expediting reporting to Council. Process [6]In conducting this investigation, Principles Integrity applied the principles of procedural fairness and was guided by the complaint process set out under the Code. [7]This fair and balanced process includes the following elements: a.Reviewing the complaint to determine whether it is within scope and jurisdiction and in the public interest to pursue, including giving Corr. 36-25 - 8 - Principles Integrity 2 consideration to whether the complaint should be restated or narrowed, where this better reflects the public interest; b. Notifying the Respondent, and providing her with the opportunity to respond in full to the allegations; c. Reviewing the Code, all relevant documentation including watching the videos posted, and interviewing relevant witnesses as necessary; and, d. Providing the Respondent with the opportunity to review and provide comments to the Integrity Commissioner’s Preliminary Findings Report, prior to finalizing and submitting a Recommendation Report. Code Provisions [8] Relevant provisions of the Code are set out below: Policy Objective: 2. Attaining an elected position within one's community is a privilege which carries significant responsibilities and obligations. Members of Council are held to a high standard as leaders of the community and are expected to become well informed on all aspects of municipal governance, administration, planning and operations. They are also expected to carry out their duties in a fair, impartial, transparent, professional, and respectful manner. 3. All Members of the Council of the City of Pickering are committed to protecting and promoting the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct. This Code is an affirmation of this commitment It recognizes and is based on the following key statements of principle: (a) Members are committed to performing their duties of office, and arranging private affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of Member and respect for Council as a whole. (b) Members are committed to acting and being seen to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny. (c) Members are committed to serving their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner. (d) Members are committed to working with City officials and staff in a conscientious and respectful manner. […] 05 Interaction with the Public, Other Members, and Council/Staff Relations - 9 - Principles Integrity 3 05.01 Members have a duty to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. 05.02 Members have a duty to ensure that the City's work environment is safe, and free from discrimination and harassment. 05.09 Notwithstanding the provisions noted above, Members shall have regard for the following City Policies that outline further parameters pertaining to Council/Staff relations including….., Respect in the Workplace […] 26.04 Every Member shall comply with the requirements of this Code of Conduct, and shall act in accordance with its spirit and intent, in all matters pertaining to the performance of his or her duties as a Member. The Complaints [9] This report results from a series of complaints over several months filed against Councillor Robinson in relation to numerous public statements made in which she disrespected and maligned municipal staff by repeatedly accusing certain staff of lying, corruption and tampering with recordings of meetings, and falsely and maliciously verbally attacking and harassing staff. [10] The complaints allege that the Councillor’s conduct, as evidenced in numerous YouTube video posts demonstrate that the Councillor has repeatedly violated her obligations under the Code which require her to treat staff in a respectful manner, with dignity and without abuse or bullying, and to not act in a manner that would undermine public confidence in the City of Pickering: • In the September 24-30, 2024 edition of the Oshawa/Durham Central newspaper, in an article entitled “The Dirty Game”, the Councillor made claims about staff’s corruption, collusion, and perceived bribery. • On October 27, 2024 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Pickering’s democracy under siege see how council’s power grab could silence your voice forever”, in which the Councillor states asserts, in regard to the streaming and recording of meetings, that staff have manipulated the streaming and that they are tampering with the recordings. • On November 4, 2024 at the Executive Committee meeting, the Councillor made repeated claims that staff were tampering with and engaging in manipulation of the audio of Council and Committee meetings. - 10 - Principles Integrity 4 • On November 6, 2024 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Pickering Council Drama: Silenced Voices, Questionable Spending & Power Struggles Exposed!” in which the Councillor states that the CAO is manipulating the truth, and misleading the public. • On January 8, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Mayor Kevin Ashe’s Power Grab: Silencing a Female Councillor to Consolidate Control”, in which the Councillor states that the CAO is engaging in “…borderline extortion” to silence her, alleging that the CAO, the City Solicitor and other Directors are engaging in corruption. • On January 22, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Firefighter Survey Sparks Outrage: Is Pickering’s leadership ignoring Public Safety Risks”, in which the Councillor suggests that the City’s Fire Chief dismissed feedback from his own front line firefighters in regard to issues of fire safety. • On February 1, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Exposing More Lies & Corruption: The Truth About Pickering’s Municipal Accommodation Tax”, in which the Councillor alleges that the City’s Director, Economic Development is lying and providing false and misleading information in regard to the his report on implementing a Municipal Accommodation Tax, and alleges that he is engaged in a pattern of deceit, corruption, and lying to the public to manipulate outcomes. • On February 4, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Revealing the Truth About Feeling Pressured Votes on Land Expropriate and Fire Master Plan”, in which the Councillor claims to have been pressured with respect to the expropriation of a site for a new Fire Station, and impugned the professional reputation and ethics of the City Solicitor. • On February 7, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Mayor & Councillor Meltdown Over ‘Conspiracy’ as Another Laughs While I’m Called Names & Yelled At”, in which the Councillor provided misleading information and alleged that the City’s IT consultant had lied. • On February 28, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Pickering’s Virtual Sham: Exposing Lies, Cover-Ups & Political Intimidation”, in which the Councillor she alleged that the public were being lied to and deceived, and repeatedly alleged corruption by the CAO and Mayor. • On April 1, 2025 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Robinson’s Council Highlights – Millions Wasted, Power Centralized & Public Lied To – U Deserve Better”, in which the Councillor makes many - 11 - Principles Integrity 5 sensational and misleading allegations, and again repeats her allegations that the City’s Directors lied to Council. Evidence Analysis: [11] We have carefully reviewed each of the YouTube videos posted, considered all supporting documentation, and watched the Council meetings referenced in her YouTube posts. [12] We find that the Councillor has repeatedly made false claims that City staff have lied and that staff are corrupt. [13] The following selection of the incidents complained of sufficiently set out the basis for our findings, and for our recommendations. Streaming/Recording Meetings [14] The City’s processes in regard to streaming and recording its public Council and Committee meetings provides that they are broadcast unedited on the City’s livestream. The technology is not new and though there are occasionally challenges with static or interruptions, these are usually caught and corrected in real time. [15] The streaming process provides a direct feed, which means what is captured by the cameras and microphones is transmitted live to the audience without any alterations. [16] On October 7, 2024 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Pickering’s democracy under siege see how council’s power grab could silence your voice forever” in which she asserts, in regard to the streaming and recording of meetings, that staff have manipulated the streaming and that they are tampering with the recordings. [17] On November 4, 2024 at the Executive Committee meeting the Councillor made repeated claims that staff were tampering with and engaging in manipulation of the audio of Council and Committee meetings. [18] On November 6, 2024 the Councillor posted a video to YouTube entitled “Pickering Council Drama: Silenced Voices, Questionable Spending & Power Struggles Exposed!” in which she states that the CAO is manipulating the truth, and misleading the public. - 12 - Principles Integrity 6 [19] When asked directly to provide any evidence in support of her allegations, that staff have tampered with or manipulated the streaming or recording of meetings, the Councillor has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. [20] Having reviewed the evidence provided, we are satisfied that City staff have not, and do not, manipulate the content of streamed or recorded meetings in any way. Firefighter Survey [21] The Fire Master Plan was presented to Executive Committee on January 13, 2025 for consideration. [22] The 242-page Report was the culmination of a comprehensive review conducted in accordance with Provincial regulation by experts experienced in emergency response management and planning. [23] The review included: fire prevention, fire inspection, public education, training, fire suppression, apparatus, facilities and emergcency mangement, how services are currently provided, areas for improvement, and projected growth and development. [24] The work was conducted in consultation with senior Fire Dept staff and included an internal online staff survey. [25] Following a lengthy presentation of the report, Councillor Robinson drilled down on three particular points: 1.The failure to maintain smoke alarms potentially giving rise to Provincial Offence charges; 2.The use of 2021 census data to inform the Master Plan; and 3.Indications from the Fire Fighter survey that current service levels are not adequate. [26] It was explained to the Councillor by the Fire Chief and others that: 1. Provincial legislation requiring smoke alarms to be maintained already exists, because the consequence of fire deaths is largely preventable, and that no change to the potential for laying charges was recommended; 2. 2021 census represents the most recent reliable data available; and 3. The service level is currently adequate, and the survey of firefighters only generated a 27% response rate. - 13 - Principles Integrity 7 [27] On January 22, 2025 the Councillor posted a video YouTube entitled “Firefighter Surey Sparks Outrage: Is Pickering’s leadership Ignoring Public Safety Risks?” [28] In the video, she suggests that the City’s Fire Chief dismissed feedback from his own front line firefighters in regard to issues of fire safety. [29] In fact, the Fire Chief simply advised, when questioned by the Councillor at Council, that he couldn’t explain why they responded as they had to the survey questions. The Fire Chief also advised Council that the Master Plan was based on a number of inputs, the survey, such as it was, being only one. [30] She states: Almost 40% of anonymous firefighters felt that the community does not receive adequate fire protection and a staggering 84% of firefighters disagreed that the current response model is adequately staffed. [31] The Councillor’s statement is misleading and alarmist. [32] It fails to recognize that only 27% of the Fire Services staff actually responded to the survey carried out as part of the Fire Master Plan. [33] The Councillor, having had it explained to her that only 27% of fire fighters had responded, was blatantly misleading when she claimed that “a staggering 84% of firefighters disagreed that the current response model is adequately staffed”. [34] The Councillor also failed to recognized acknowledge that the Pickering Professional Firefighters Association has expressed support for the Fire Master Plan. [35] The Councillor’s claims in the YouTube video January 22, 2025 the Councillor posted a video YouTube entitled “Firefighter Surey Sparks Outrage: Is Pickering’s leadership Ignoring Public Safety Risks?” constitutes an intentionally misleading and alarmist misstatement of facts. [36] Reasonable queries with respect to the views of firefighters could have been undertaken, however by creating the videos, and by engaging in intentionally misleading and alarmist misstatement of facts, we find that Councillor Robinson has intentionally maligned and impugned the reputation of the City in regard to its Fire Services, undermining public confidence in the City and its professional staff. Municipal Accommodation Tax [37] In his Report ECD 01-25 Municipal Accommodation Tax and the Establishment of a Municipal Services Corporation - Implementation and Establishing Municipal - 14 - Principles Integrity 8 Accommodation Tax and Destination Pickering recommending consideration of a Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT), which would impose a 4% room tax on accommodation. [38] As noted in the Report, the City of Pickering has only 1 motel and 1 hotel (the Great Canadian Gaming Company’s Pickering Casino Resort). [39] The staff report states, in the second paragraph of the Executive Summary, that 50 other Ontario municipalities had implemented a MAT, to boost revenues in support of tourism: MAT is a local tax applied to the purchase of transient accommodations such as hotels and motels. Its primary purpose is to generate revenue to support local tourism initiatives. Currently, more than 50 municipalities across Ontario impose the MAT with the most common rate set at 4% [40] In response to a question from Councillor Robinson challenging why the Director of Economic Develop claimed “many municipalities” had the MAT, he reiteriated that 50 municipalities across Ontario have a such a room tax. [41] The question by the Councillor and staff responses starting at timestamp 1:36:08 in the recording of the January 13, 2025 Executive Committee Meeting make the point: Councillor Robinson: "So there’s 444 municipalities and I believe in the Report it says only 50 municipalities actually have this 4% tax which means that 394 municipalities don’t have the MAT on them. Is that correct? [42] It was explained that the 50 municipalities represent mostly cities and towns of comparable or larger size and represent more than 40% of the Province’s population. [43] Despite this, in her February 1, 2025 YouTube video, the Councillor makes the following strident claim: “only 15 out of 444 municipalities have adopted this [MAT] and this represents only about 3.4% of the total…which is far from what most people would consider many…it is not just inaccurate it’s a lie because it misrepresents the actual number in a way that could influence public opinion or policy decisions based on a false perception of widespread adoption. This is intentional distortion of the facts, which is corruption.” [emphasis added] - 15 - Principles Integrity 9 [44] Her statement is categorically false; in light of the statements in the report, and the further explanation sought and obtained during the Executive Committee meeting, it is clear that her statement is knowingly false. [45] On the strength of this false statement, she then maliciously attacked the credibility of the Director, baldly asserting that his statement was a lie and constituted corruption. [46] We find that Councillor Robinson’s allegations, statements and claims against staff are baseless, false and disrespectful. [see above re ref to code] Expropriation for Fire Station [47] In the YouTube video posted February 4, 2025, the Councillor claims she felt “pressured” into voting for a decision that she can no longer support. [48] During the YouTube video in which she made her claim, she played an excerpt of the Council meeting during which the City Solicitor was speaking about an expropriation for a new Fire Station. [49] In the video, she references “lies” surrounding the MAT issue, and proceeds to claim that she has “lost trust”, characterizing the expropriation process as “bullying or exploitation”. The adoption of a Municipal Accommodation Tax and the expropriation of specific lands are separate issues. [50] Expropriation is a legal process whereby public agencies are able to acquire lands which are required to serve public needs. [51] It is highly regulated under legislation, and does not constitute “bullying or exploitation”. Rather, it is a necessary means to accomplish municipal objectives when a traditional purchase and sale of land is not available. Importantly, expropriation process involves an assessment of fair compensation for expropriated lands. [52] While her statements may, taken on their own, be little more than a reflection of hyperbolie or ignorance, making such baseless statements in a YouTube video (“I won’t stand by while trust is broken and I certainly won’t let my voice be manipulated into supporting something I don’t believe in”) while the clip of the City Solicitor making his presentation to Council is running on the screen is an attempt to impugn the credibility and ethical reputation of the City Solicitor. [53] Her statements in the video give the clear impression that the City Solicitor has colluded in some improper, unethical and potentially illegal activity in which there was some undue pressure or influence brought to bear on her. - 16 - Principles Integrity 10 [54] There is no evidence of any kind to support her statements. [55] We find that she is intentionally maligning and impugning the reputation fo the City Solicitor and undermining public confidence in the City and its professional processes. Councillor Robinson’s Response to Complaints Freedom of Expression [56] When presented with the complaints, the Councillor did not deny her statements and, in fact, doubled-down on them. [57] Her position is that that she is fulfilling her role as an elected Councillor, “speaking the truth, holding staff accountable, and standing up for the residents”. [58] As in the past, she has again claimed the protection of the freedom of expression provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”): “Every single one of my videos and statements are protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is political commentary and oversight --- not harassment. I quote public data, Council proceedings, staff reports, and resident concerns. That is my role as an elected Councillor. Had the Integrity Commissioner simply watched the full, unedited videos cited in the complaint, a lengthy response would not be necessary. The context and facts are already on public record.” [59] Freedom of expression, while a fundamental freedom, is not unrestricted; indeed section 1 of the Charter qualifies its guarantee of rights and freedoms and specifically recognizes that the right to free expression is “subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society.” [60] Laws against defamation in all its forms are an example of such a limitation, as are laws and rules against harassment in all its forms. [61] City Council adopted a Code of Conduct to guide and demand a level of integrity, respect, ethics, and decorum necessary to allow efficient and effective governance and citizen representation. [62] The Councillor has voluntarily taken on this role; so long as she is a member of Council, she is subject to the Code and is required to conform to the standards of behaviour required by Council. - 17 - Principles Integrity 11 Political Retaliation [63] In her response to us, the Councillor claims that the complaints are not legitimate, but merely political retaliation. She continues to assert corruption at the City of Pickering, and characterizes her conduct as ‘asking hard questions’ and ‘speaking the truth’. [64] It should be noted that there is no Code of Conduct impediment to ‘speaking the truth. [65] Having carefully scrutinized the videos and the underlying Council meetings and/or reports referenced, the Councillor’s statements represent a mischaracterization of the truth, blatantly false statements, and an unrelenting attack on the credibility and reputation of senior City staff. [66] This conduct has a deleterious impact on staff morale. It also constitutes a pattern of disrespect and harassment. Findings: [67] Given all the foregoing, we find that the Councillor’s conduct as outlined above violated in a most egregious manner the fundamental principles enumerated in the Code to protect and promote the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct, and a breach of the specific duty set out at 5.01 to treat members of staff with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. [68] The Councillor’s statements on the numerous YouTube videos are intentionally strident and alarmist, and unsupported by the underlying facts. [69] We observe that her conduct at Council meetings is also often provocative, argumentative and vexatious. [70] Although we observe that staff are consistently deferential, accommodating and indulgent of her questions at meetings – which often are immmaterial, irrelevant or extraneous – she has a practice of carefully (almost surgically) splicing and editing excerpts of these meetings for her YouTube videos, in a manner which appears designed to impugn staff’s credibility and the City’s reputation. [71] We find that her conduct in this regard is contrary to the standards and expectations for members of Council articulated in the Code of Conduct. - 18 - Principles Integrity 12 [72] The Code requires members to treat staff in a respectful manner, with dignity and and without abuse or bullying, and to not act in a manner that would undermine public confidence in the City. [73] We find that she has disrespected and maligned municipal staff, falsely and maliciously harassed them, and repeatedly accused senior staff of lying and corruption. [74] She has demonstrated an egregious disrespect for her role as Councillor. [75] We find that she has breached the Code of Conduct, in particular, Policy Objective 2 and 3, and Rules 5.01, 5.02, 5.09 and 26.04. Recommendations and Concluding Remarks: [76] An Integrity Commissioner’s investigation report is not simply the conclusion of a technical exercise to determine whether there has been a breach of codified standards of behaviour. Our role is more than simply the task of bringing adjudication to grievances between individuals. As noted below, we see as our highest objective in concluding an investigation to be the making of recommendations that serve the public interest. [77] The integrity commissioner’s role is as much about education as it is about adjudication, so that municipal government can function better, and that members of the public are able to confidently conclude that members of their municipal council are acting with integrity. [78] We are of the view that the Respondent’s conduct represents a continued pattern of violating the provisions of the Code of Conduct. [79] In our view, a significant change in behaviour is necessary. As such, we believe that a significant sanction is warranted. [80] Under the Municipal Act, upon receipt of a recommendation report from the integrity commissioner, Council may impose a reprimand or a suspension of pay for a period of up to 90 days. Unfortunately, unlike Ontario school boards in similar circumstances, municipal councils lack the authority to suspend members from attending a meeting, or to impose other remedies that are intended to be curative and preventative but which are not clearly available under the Municipal Act. [81] Council is left with the blunt instrument of pay suspension. While a suspension of pay does not affect the Councillor’s ability to post disparaging content, or to make - 19 - Principles Integrity 13 hurtful statements at meetings, pay suspension is a relevant penalty for violation of the Code. [82] We note that this is the sixth time that we have had to report publicly in regard to conduct of Councillor Robinson that has been found to breach the Code of Conduct and on each occasion, a further suspension of pay has been imposed. [83] This particular report is in relation to four (4) separate complaints regarding statements made in an article published in print, at an Executive Committee meeting, and in statements made in nine (9) YouTube videos posted by the Councillor. [84] Although any one of the complaints might have been the subject of a stand-alone Recommendation Report, we have determined that, given the similarity of the conduct in question, it is appropriate to incorporate all of the allegations from the four (4) complaints into a single investigation, and this Report. [85] We are recommending a suspension of pay of 22.5 days for each of the four (4) complaints, for a total of 90 days. [86] We are limited by the permitted sanctions under the Act and the absence of clear authority for Council to impose other remedies that would be better suited to preventing further harmful misbehaviour of the type cited in this Report. [87] Recognizing that unlike a court, an integrity commissioner and Council cannot remain ‘seized’ of a matter, an expedited approach to dealing with the unsubstantiated and harmful remarks of the Councillor, whether in person or on social media, is still required. On the basis that any future application of Council’s power to remedy breaches of the Code must be procedurally fair, we also recommend that Council adopt the following process in respect of future allegations of breach of the Code of Conduct in respect of disparaging remarks made toward staff in meetings of Council or one of its committees, or on Youtube: • An allegation of breach is brought to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner by the CAO that Councillor Robinson, in either a meeting of Council or one of its committees, or in a posting on YouTube, has made comments about staff that fall into one or more of the following categories: a. is overtly harassing; b. is unjustifiably critical or disrespectful to identifiable staff members; c. impugns staff’s credibility, impartiality, or integrity. - 20 - Principles Integrity 14 • If the Integrity Commissioner forms a prima facie (‘on its face’) opinion that the allegation would, if the facts prove to be true, form a breach of the Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner will compile a Preliminary Findings Report (PFR) and share the PFR with Councillor Robinson, with the requirement that the Councillor respond within 14 days with a submission in respect of the findings made in the PFR, whether they constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct, and any comments she may have on a) a potential remedy to the breach, and/or b) the imposition of a monetary sanction • The Integrity Commissioner will consider the submissions, if any, of the Councillor and submit a Recommendation Report (containing the text of the PFR and any revisions, along with the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations and concluding remarks) to the next available meeting of Council if the conclusion remains that the Code of Conduct has been breached and a sanction is warranted. [88] The above-described process omits the initial notification and response in respect of a Code allegation. In our view the procedural fairness to be accorded a respondent in a Code complaint is not diminished, however, since the three categories of allegations have been fully examined previously, and it is only the factual circumstances set out in the allegation that are to be verified or justified. [89] The benefit of the above-described process is the saving of time, so that Council may more rapidly deal with serious allegations affecting its staff. [90] We therefore recommend: A. That the remuneration paid to Councillor Robinson be suspended for a total of 90 days; and B. That the following process be followed in the event the CAO forms the opinion that disparaging remarks have been made by Councillor Lisa Robinson toward staff in meetings of Council or one of its committees, or on Youtube, which warrant intervention by the Integrity Commissioner: 1. An allegation of breach is brought to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner by the CAO that Councillor Robinson, in either a meeting of Council or one of its committees, or in a posting on YouTube, has made comments about staff that fall into one or more of the following categories: a. is overtly harassing; - 21 - Principles Integrity 15 b. is unjustifiably critical or disrespectful to identifiable staff members; c. impugns staff’s credibility, impartiality, or integrity. 2. If the Integrity Commissioner forms a prima facie (‘on its face’) opinion that the allegation would, if the facts prove to be true, form a breach of the Code of Conduct, the Integrity Commissioner will compile a Preliminary Findings Report (PFR) and share the PFR with Councillor Robinson, with the requirement that the Councillor respond within 14 days with a submission in respect of the findings made in the PFR, whether they constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct, and any comments she may have on a) a potential remedy to the breach, and/or b) the imposition of a monetary sanction 3. The Integrity Commissioner will consider the submissions, if any, of the Councillor and submit a Recommendation Report (containing the text of the PFR and any revisions, along with the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations and concluding remarks) to the next available meeting of Council if the conclusion remains that the Code of Conduct has been breached and a sanction is warranted. [91] We will be available to introduce this report and respond to questions regarding its contents during the Council meeting at which this report is considered. - 22 - Principles Integrity 16 About Principles Integrity and the Complaint Process Principles Integrity was appointed the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering on November 15, 2022. We are also privileged to serve as Integrity Commissioner for a number of other Ontario municipalities. The operating philosophy which guides us in our work with all of our client municipalities is this: The perception that a community’s elected representatives are operating with integrity is the glue which sustains local democracy. We live in a time when citizens are skeptical of their elected representatives at all levels. The overarching objective in appointing an integrity commissioner is to ensure the existence of robust and effective policies, procedures, and mechanisms that enhance the citizen’s perception that their Council (and local boards) meet established ethical standards and where they do not, there exists a review mechanism that serves the public interest. The City has as part of its ethical framework a Code of Conduct which is the policy touchstone underlying the assessments conducted in this report. It represents the standard of conduct against which all members of Council are to be measured when there is an allegation of breach of the ethical responsibilities established under the Code of Conduct. The review mechanism contemplated by the Code, one which is required in all Ontario municipalities, is an inquiry/complaints process administered by an integrity commissioner. Integrity commissioners carry out a range of functions for municipalities (and their local boards). They assist in the development of the ethical framework, for example by suggesting content or commentary for codes of conduct. They conduct education and training for members of council and outreach for members of the community. One of the most important functions is the provision of advice and guidance to members to help sort out ethical grey areas or to confirm activities that support compliance. And finally, but not principally, they investigate allegations that a person has fallen short of compliance with the municipality’s ethical framework and where appropriate they submit public reports on their findings, and make recommendations, including recommending sanctions, that council for the municipality may consider imposing in giving consideration to that report. It is important that this broad range of functions be mentioned in this investigation report. Our goal, as stated in our operating philosophy, is to help members of the Pickering community, indeed the broader municipal sector and the public, to appreciate that elected and appointed representatives generally carry out their functions with integrity. In cases where they do not, there is a proper process in place to fairly assess the facts and, if necessary, recommend appropriate sanctions. In every case, including this one, the highest objective is to make recommendations that serve the public interest, if there are recommendations to be made. Our role differs from other ‘adjudicators’ whose responsibilities generally focus, to state it colloquially, on making findings of fact and fault. While that is a necessary component when allegations are made, it is not the only component. Our operating philosophy dictates the format of this report. The tenets of procedural fairness require us to provide reasons for our conclusions and recommendations, and we have done that. Procedural fairness also requires us to conduct a process where parties can participate in the review and resolution of a complaint. - 23 - Report to Council Report Number: ECD 06-25 Date: August 12, 2025 From: Fiaz Jadoon Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Subject: Amendment to ROFR Agreements (Employment Land – 2019 Parcel 3) With Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd., Amalgamation of Shirva Investment and Development Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report ECD 06-25 from the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects regarding the proposed amendment to the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Agreements entered into pursuant to the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for: a. 5.28 acres sold to Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation (PIN 26402-0159) and, b. 1.12 acres sold to 10466921 Canada Inc. (PIN 26402-0158), both of which are now amalgamated as Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd., be received; 2. That Staff be authorized to replace the existing ROFR Agreements with the new ROFR Agreement attached to this report, provided that Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd., executes and registers on title an Amending Agreement with His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure substantially in the form attached to this report; 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the attached new ROFR Agreement (Attachment 2) with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. with an additional 2.5 years to commence construction of new buildings on the said lands; and, 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval of a new Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Agreement with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. to replace the old ROFR Agreements with Unity Hub’s corporate predecessors, Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. These amendments relate to the City’s right to repurchase the lands if the developer fails to obtain the required development approvals and permits, and begin construction within five years of the original agreement (Attachment 1). The original Purchase of Sale Agreements were presented in Report CAO 02-20 and endorsed by Council on May 13, 2020 (Resolution #298/20). The former Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation purchased 5.28 acres of employment lands (PIN 26402-0159) for the development of an office building, while 10466921 Canada Inc. acquired 1.12 acres (PIN 26402-0158) for the development of a gas station and - 24 - ECD 06-25 August 12, 2025 Page 2 convenience store. Both properties are located on Part Lot 24, Concession 5 Pickering, identified as Parts 1, 2, 4 & 5, Plan 40R-30968, and are now held under the amalgamated entity Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. (Attachment 4). However, due to rising development costs and broader economic challenges during and following COVID-19 pandemic cited by the developers, construction on both projects have not yet commenced. In addition, the provisions within the existing ROFR Agreement have created barriers for Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. in securing the financing necessary to advance the developments. Staff recommends amending the ROFR Agreement to extend the construction commencement deadline by 2.5 years, allowing a total of 7.5 years from the original Agreement date. This amendment will provide Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. with the flexibility and support needed to advance their development plans. Importantly, having an updated agreement in place will enhance their ability to secure the necessary financing to initiate construction and complete projects that will generate new economic activity in the area. Staff recommends that Council approve the Amending Agreements with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. as outlined in Attachments 2 and 3. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation. Financial Implications: No financial implications are associated with this amendment of the ROFR Agreements. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval of a new ROFR Agreement with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. which will replace the existing ROFR Agreements previously entered into with its corporate predecessors, Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. These proposed amendments aim to address challenges related to project financing and development timelines, and to support the advancement of employment-generating uses within the Seaton Innovation Corridor. On October 22, 2019, the City executed an agreement with the Province of Ontario to purchase a parcel of employment land described as Part Lot 24, Concession 5 Pickering within the Seaton Innovation Corridor. The primary objective of this acquisition was to facilitate the sale of these lands to developers or end-users for projects that would generate business activity and employment opportunities. Under Section 2 of the Participation Agreement, the Province of Ontario included a clause to prevent land speculation and ensure the property is used for its intended economic development purpose. This clause grants the Province the right to either repurchase the property at the original sale price (plus verified capital improvements) or claim 100% of any profit if the developer attempts to sell all or part of the property during the agreement term. Additionally, if the developer - 25 - ECD 06-25 August 12, 2025 Page 3 fails to begin and continue using the property for its intended purpose within a specified timeframe, the Province may repurchase the land and require it to be restored to its original condition. This provision is designed to protect the public interest, discourage speculative resale, and ensure timely and appropriate development aligned with the Province’s objectives. The Province has since provided an Amending Agreement (Attachment 3), extending the construction commencement deadline by 2.5 years, resulting in a total of 7.5 years from the original agreement date. On April 7, 2020, 10466921 Canada Inc. entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the City for 1.12 acres of employment land (PIN 26402-0158). Shortly after, on April 30, 2020, Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation entered into a similar agreement for 5.28 acres (PIN 26402-0159), with the intent to develop an office building. However, due to rising development and construction costs, along with shifting market conditions in the post-COVID environment, both companies have faced challenges in relocating operations and securing end-users. As a result, construction has not commenced, and no development applications have been submitted to date. In response to these challenges, and in light of the City’s success in attracting major end-users such as Kubota Canada, SmartCentres, and FGF Brands, Unity Hub is now shifting its focus toward developing facilities tailored to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This strategic pivot is intended to support a more diverse and resilient economic base within the Innovation Corridor, while also advancing development activity on the site. Unity Hub has since initiated a pre-consultation process with City staff to explore development options and requirements for industrial condominiums. The existing ROFR Agreement pertains to the City’s “Right to Buy Back,” which allows the City to repurchase the land at the original sale price if the developer fails to obtain the necessary development approvals and commence construction within five years of the agreement date (Attachment 1). This clause mirrors a similar provision in the Participation Agreement with the Province of Ontario, which is intended to prevent land speculation and ensure timely development. If the City were to exercise its Right to Buy Back under the current agreement, Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. would be required to return the land to the City. However, by amending the ROFR Agreement to extend the construction commencement deadline by 2.5 years, resulting in a total of 7.5 years from the original agreement date, Unity Hub would be better positioned to secure financing and move forward with development (Attachment 2). This would support the creation of industrial condominiums and employment space for smaller businesses, contributing to economic growth and job creation in the area. The proposed amendments will enable Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. to proceed with their development plans, resume activity on the site, and create opportunities for small businesses to establish and grow within the Innovation Corridor. - 26 - ECD 06-25 August 12, 2025 Page 4 Staff recommends that Council approve the Amending Agreements (see Attachments 2, and 3) with Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. Attachments: 1. Old ROFR Agreements between the City and Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. (the corporate predecessors of Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd.) 2. Draft new ROFR Agreement between City of Pickering and Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. 3. Draft new Amending Agreement between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. 4. Map of Shirva Investment and Developments Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. property, now Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Hanif Thakor Fiaz Jadoon, Ec.D., CEcD, MPM, B.COMM Senior Officer, Economic Development & Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Strategic Projects HT:FJ Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 27 - Attachment 1 to Report ECD 06-25 - 28 - - 29 - - 30 - - 31 - - 32 - - 33 - - 34 - - 35 - - 36 - - 37 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first written above. 10466921 CANADA INC. Per:__________________________________________ Name: Title: Per:___________________________________________ Name: Title: I/We have the authority to bind the Corporation. I/ We have the authority to bind the Corporation. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Per:____________________________________________ Name: Dave Ryan Title: Mayor Per:____________________________________________ Name: Susan Cassel Title: City Clerk [Signature Page to ROFR Agreement – Part 2] - 38 - - 39 - ROFR AGREEMENT BETWEEN: SHIRV A INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION (the "Grantor") -and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (the "Grantee") WHEREAS the Grantor is the registered owner of the lands and premises described in Schedule "A" hereto (the "Property"); AND WHEREAS the Grantor has agreed to grant to the Grantee certain rights with respect to the Property on the terms and subject to the conditions of this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set out in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 INTERPRETATION Definitions In this Agreement, all capitalized terms shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto below: "Acceptance Notice" has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1 (b )(i). "Affiliate" has the meaning set out in the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16. "Agreement" means this agreement, as further amended from time to time, and "Article", "Section", "Sub-Section" and "Schedule" mean the specified article, section or schedule, as the case may be, of this Agreement. "Business Day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or statutory or civic holiday in the Province of Ontario. "Closing" has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1 ( c ). 38997-2005 30167320 - 40 - - 41 - - 42 - - 43 - - 44 - - 45 - - 46 - - 47 - - 48 - - 49 - Attachment 2 to Report ECD 06-25 ROFR AGREEMENT BETWEEN: UNITY HUB INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD. (the “Grantor”) -and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (the “Grantee”) WHEREAS the Grantor is the registered owner of the lands and premises described in Schedule “A” hereto (the “Property”); AND WHEREAS the Grantor has agreed to grant to the Grantee certain rights with respect to the Property on the terms and subject to the conditions of this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set out in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 INTERPRETATION 1.1 Definitions In this Agreement, all capitalized terms shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto below: “Acceptance Notice” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(b)(i). “Affiliate” has the meaning set out in the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16. “Agreement” means this agreement, as further amended from time to time, and “Article”, “Section”, “Sub-Section” and “Schedule” mean the specified article, section or schedule, as the case may be of this Agreement. - 50 - - 2 - “Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or statutory or civic holiday in the Province of Ontario. “Closing” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(c). “Closing Date” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(c). “Development Agreements” has the meaning ascribed to such term in the Original Purchase Agreement. “HST” means the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax payable pursuant to Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada), as such statute may be amended, modified or replaced from time to time, including any successor statute. “Offer Period” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(b). “Offeror” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(a). “OREA” means the Ontario Real Estate Association, together with its successors and assigns. “Original Purchase Agreement” means collectively the agreements of purchase and sale with respect to the Property accepted on April 21, 2020 and April 30, 2020 made between the Grantee, as vendor and Shirva Investment and Development Corporation and 10466921 Canada Inc. (the corporate predecessors of the Grantor), as purchasers, as may be amended from time to time. “Original Purchase Price” means the total of the purchase prices for the Property paid to the Grantee pursuant to the terms of the Original Purchase Agreement. “Property” has the meaning ascribed thereto in the recitals, and including all buildings, structures, improvements located thereon and appurtenances thereto. “Rejection Notice” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(b)(ii). “ROFR Notice” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(a). “Sale Interest” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(a). “Sale Price” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(a)(ii). “Third Party Offer” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Section 2.1(a). - 51 - - 3 - 1.2 Schedule The following Schedule is attached to and forms part of this Agreement: Schedule A -Legal Description of the Property 1.3 Interpretation (a) Headings and Table of Contents. The division of this Agreement into Articles, Sections and Sub-Sections and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. (b) Number and Gender. Unless the context requires otherwise, words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa and words importing gender include all genders. (c) Severability. If any provision contained in this Agreement or its application to any party or circumstance will, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to parties or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected, and each provision of this Agreement will be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (d) Time. Time will be of the essence of this Agreement. Except as expressly set out in this Agreement, the computation of any period of time referred to in this Agreement will exclude the first day and include the last day of such period. The time limited for performing or completing any matter under this Agreement may be extended or abridged by an agreement in writing by the parties hereto. If any payment is required to be made or other action is required to be taken pursuant to this Agreement on a day which is not a Business Day, then such payment or action will be made or taken on the next Business Day. (e) Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. - 52 - 2.1 - 4 - ARTICLE 2 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AND BUY BACK Right of First Refusal (a) If at any time, and from time to time, on or prior to October 15, 2030, the Grantor receives a bona fide written offer (a “Third Party Offer”) from any third party (the “Offeror”) to purchase all or part of the Property (the “Sale Interest”), which the Grantor is willing to accept, the Grantor shall, before accepting such Third Party Offer, deliver written notice thereof to the Grantee (the “ROFR Notice”) within three (3) Business Days following the date on which the Third Party Offer was received by the Grantor, which notice shall: (i) confirm that the Grantor has received a Third Party Offer which the Grantor is willing to accept; (ii) contain an offer to sell the Sale Interest to the Grantee on the same terms and conditions as those contained in the Third Party Offer save and except that the purchase price payable by the Grantee for the Sale Interest shall be: (A) either (i) where the Sale Interest is comprised of all of the Property, the Original Purchase Price; or (ii) where the Sale Interest is comprised of part of the Property, the amount determined on a proportionate basis calculated using the acreage of the Sale Interest multiplied by the amount per acre of the Original Purchase Price; plus (B) any amounts paid by the Grantor pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreements, less any amounts which the Grantor may have received by way of development credits or otherwise, during the period of the Grantor’s ownership of the Property. The purchase price at which the Sale Interest is offered for sale to the Grantee as determined in accordance with this Section is referred to as the “Sale Price”. (iii) contain a true and complete copy of the Third Party Offer signed by the Offeror; and (iv) be accompanied by a certificate of the Grantor stating that: (A) the copies of the Third Party Offer contained in such notice are true and - 53 - - 5 - complete copies thereof; (B) such Third Party Offer has not been amended, restated and/or supplemented; and (C) such offer constitutes a Third Party Offer in accordance with the terms hereof. (b) The Grantee shall have the right, exercisable by notice in writing given to the Grantor within fifteen (15) Business Days following receipt of a ROFR Notice (the “Offer Period”) to elect to: (i) purchase the Sale Interest (the “Acceptance Notice”) at the Sale Price and on the same terms and conditions contained in the Third Party Offer (except as set forth in Section 2.1(c)); or (ii) not to purchase the Sale Interest and to consent to the sale of the Sale Interest by the Grantor to the Offeror at the purchase price and on the same terms and conditions contained in the Third Party Offer (the “Rejection Notice”). (c) If within the Offer Period, the Grantee delivers an Acceptance Notice to the Grantor, there shall be created at such time, automatically and without any further action or documentation, a binding agreement of purchase and sale between the Grantor and the Grantee pursuant to which the Grantor agrees to sell to the Grantee, and the Grantee agrees to purchase from the Grantor, the Sale Interest at the Sale Price and on the same terms and conditions as those contained in the Third Party Offer, provided that, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions contained in the Third Party Offer, closing of the transaction of purchase and sale (the “Closing”) will occur on the date which is sixty (60) days after the Grantee delivers the Acceptance Notice (the “Closing Date”). (d) If no notice is delivered by the Grantee pursuant to Section 2.1(b), the Grantee shall be deemed to have delivered the Rejection Notice. (e) If the Grantee has delivered, or has been deemed to deliver, the Rejection Notice, the Grantor may sell the Sale Interest to the Offeror, at the purchase price and on the terms and conditions contained in the Third Party Offer; provided that if such sale of the Sale Interest to the Offeror does not occur on such terms within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the expiry of the Offer Period, the Grantor must again comply with this Section 2.1 in respect of any future proposed sale of all or part of the Property. (f) If a sale of part of the Property only is completed by the Grantor pursuant to this Section 2.1, the Grantee’s right of first refusal shall continue in full force and effect with respect to the remainder of the Property. - 54 - - 6 - (g) The Grantor and the Grantee agree and acknowledge that the Grantor shall be entitled to transfer the Property to an Affiliate without triggering this right of first offer and without consent of the Grantee, provided the Grantor provides the Grantee with fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such transfer. 2.2 Right to Buy Back (a) If the Grantor has failed to: (i) obtain and deliver copies to the Grantee, of all development approvals, building permits and other third permits or consents required to construct on the Property a new building (the “New Building”); and (ii) commence construction of the New Building, on or before the day that is seven (7) years and six (6) months from October 15, 2020 (the “deadline”), then at any time, and from time to time, after the deadline, the Grantee shall have the right, but not the obligation, upon written notice to the Grantor, to repurchase the Property, for a purchase price equal to: (A) the Original Purchase Price; plus (B) any amounts paid by the Grantor pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreements, less any amounts which the Grantor may have received by way of development credits or otherwise, during the period of the Grantor’s ownership of the Property. (b) If the Grantee delivers written notice of its intention to repurchase the Property in accordance with Section 2.2(a), there shall be created at such time, automatically and without any further action or documentation, a binding agreement of purchase and sale between the Grantor and the Grantee pursuant to which the Grantor agrees to sell to the Grantee, and the Grantee agrees to purchase from the Grantor, the Property at the price calculated in accordance with Section 2.2(a) and on the terms and conditions set out in the OREA form of agreement of purchase and sale (commercial) current (as at the date of execution of this Agreement), provided that, Closing will occur on the date which is sixty (60) days after the Grantee delivers the written notice in accordance with Section 2.2(a). - 55 - - 7 - 2.3 Closing The following provisions shall pertain to the Closing pursuant to Section 2.1 or 2.2 hereof, as applicable: (a) Closing shall occur at 12:00 p.m. on the Closing Date, or such earlier or later date as may be mutually agreed upon, in writing, by the parties to the transaction; and (b) on or before Closing: (i) the Grantor shall cause to be executed and delivered to the Grantee an electronic transfer(s)/deed(s) of land/registerable deeds of sale/transfers of land transferring the Sale Interest to the Grantee or as it may direct, and containing the statements of the Grantor and its solicitors pursuant to Section 50(22) of the Planning Act (Ontario); (ii) the Grantor shall certify that it is not a non-resident of Canada within the meaning of Section 116 of the Income Tax Act (Canada); and (iii) the Grantor shall execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered such other closing documents which are required to effectively transfer and convey the Sale Interest or the Property, as applicable, to the Grantee and which the Grantee or its solicitors have reasonably requested on or before the Closing Date. ARTICLE 3 GENERAL 3.1 Registration The Grantee may prepare and register on title to the Property, at the Grantee’s cost, a notice in respect of this Agreement (the “Notice”). Upon expiry of this Agreement, the Grantee shall arrange for the discharge from title to the Property of such Notice at the Grantee’s cost. 3.2 Planning Act This Agreement and the completion of any transaction of purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement are subject to compliance with Section 50 of the Planning Act (Ontario). - 56 - 3.3 - 8 - Further Assurances Each of the parties hereto shall promptly do, make, execute or deliver, or cause to be done, made, executed or delivered, all such further acts, documents and things as the other parties to this Agreement may reasonably require from time to time for the purpose of giving effect to this Agreement and shall use reasonable efforts and take all such steps as may be reasonably within their power to implement to their full extent the provisions of this Agreement. 3.4 Waiver, Amendment Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no amendment or waiver of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party to be bound by it. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision nor shall any waiver of any provision of this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided. 3.5 Successors and Assigns All of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement will be binding upon and will enure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement is intended to run with title to the Property and will be binding on the Grantor’s successors in interest as owner of the Property or any part thereof or interest therein. 3.6 Agreement Runs with Land The Grantor acknowledges that the provisions of this Agreement run with title to the Property, and the Grantor covenants not to sell, transfer or otherwise alienate the Property or any part thereof unless such transferee agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. 3.7 Notices (a) Addresses for Notice. Any notice, demand, statement, request or other communication (in this Agreement referred to as “notice”) required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently and effectually given if signed by or on behalf of the party giving the notice and personally delivered, sent by facsimile or email or mailed by registered prepaid post to the intended recipient addressed as follows: (A) in the case of the Grantor, addressed to it at: - 57 - 3.8 - 9 - Unity Hub Industrial Park Ltd. Attention: Facsimile No.: Email: (B) and in the case of the Grantee addressed to it at: The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering Ontario, L1V 6K7 Attention: Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor Telephone: (905) 420-4660 ext. 2048 Email: pbigioni@pickering.ca (b) Receipt of Notice. Any notice given as aforesaid shall be conclusively deemed to have been received on the date of such personal delivery or if sent by facsimile or email transmission before 5:00 p.m. (local time of the recipient) on a Business Day on the date of such transmission (and if not then on the next Business Day) or if sent by registered mail on the third (3rd) Business Day following the mailing thereof, as the case may be. If a notice is sent by facsimile or email, a copy thereof shall be sent on the same day by ordinary mail, postage prepaid or personal delivery. In the event of a labour dispute, postal interruption or a reasonable anticipation thereof, all notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sent by facsimile or email transmission or personally delivered. (c) Change of Address. Any party may from time to time change its address under this Section by notice to the other party given in the manner provided by this Section. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or by electronic delivery in portable document format (“.pdf”) shall be equally effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart thereof. - 58 - 3.9 -10 - Old ROFR Agreements Terminated Upon execution of this ROFR Agreement by both parties, the ROFR Agreements between (i) the Grantee and Shirva Investment and Development Corporation, and (ii) the City and 10466921 Canada Inc. are terminated and of no further force and effect. [Signature page follows] - 59 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first written above. UNITY HUB INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD. Per:__________________________________________ Name: Title: Per:___________________________________________ Name: Title: I/We have the authority to bind the Corporation. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Per:____________________________________________ Name: Kevin Ashe Title: Mayor Per:____________________________________________ Name: Susan Cassel Title: City Clerk I/ We have the authority to bind the Corporation. [Signature Page to ROFR Agreement] - 60 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION PINs 26402-0159 and 26402-0158 Part Lot 24, Concession 5 Pickering, being Parts 1, 2, 4 & 5, Plan 40R-30968, City of Pickering. - 61 - Attachment 3 to Report ECD 06-25 AMENDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made effective as of the day of April, 2025. B E T W E E N: HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE (the “Province”) - and - UNITY HUB INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD. (the “Owner”) WHEREAS: A. By Order in Council [NTD – IO to provide recitals from HMQ-MGCS to HMK-MOI] B. On October 15, 2020 the Province sold Part of Lot 24, Concession 5 Pickering, described as Parts 5 and 6 on Plan 40R-25010, City of Pickering (the “Property”), to the Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”); C. By a Participation Agreement dated October 15, 2020 between the Province and the City (the “Participation Agreement”), the City agreed to disgorge any Profit, as such term is defined in the Participation Agreement, should any part of the Property be sold and generate a Profit, at any time within ten (10) years of the date of the Participation Agreement, and further provided for a right of repurchase of the Property in favour of the Province for five (5) years from the date of the Participation Agreement if certain development milestones had not been met; D. The Participation Agreement was registered on title to the Property, and runs with title to the Property; E. The City has sold a portion of the Property, in two transactions, such that the Owner now owns a part of the Property, which is legally described at Schedule “A” hereto (the “Transferred Property”). The Transferred Property has an area of 6.55 acres, being 44.8% of the area of the Property; F. The Owner and the Province wish to amend Section 2 of the Participation Agreement with regard to the right of the Province to repurchase the Transferred Property as set forth herein; Amending Agreement - 62 - - 2 - G. The Owner and the Province wish to further amend the Participation Agreement as set forth herein with regards to the Transferred Property. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth and other good valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CONFIRMATION OF RECITALS -The parties hereto confirm that the foregoing recitals are true in substance and in fact. 2. The Owner and the Province agree that Section 2 of the Participation Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor: “It is the express intention of the Province and the Transferee that there shall be no speculation with respect to all or any portion of the Property. In the event of a sale or proposed sale of all or any portion of the Property by the Transferee or any affiliated company of the Transferee as that term is defined in the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.B. 16, at any time during the Term, at the option of the Province, either (i) the Province shall have the right to repurchase the Property at the same price paid by the Transferee to the Province pursuant to the Sale Agreement, plus the cumulative total of any and all capital improvements made by the Transferee to the Property from and after it acquired the Property (as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and to account for the depreciation of the capital improvements and any diminution in value due to damage, faulty workmanship, construction defects or other causes), or (ii) one hundred percent (100%) of any Profit as defined below shall be paid to the Province and the amount of such Profit shall be a charge on the Property in favour of the Province until paid. In determining the Base Amount and calculating the Profit for the proposed sale of any portion of the Property, the Base Amount shall be adjusted and calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the acreage of such portion being transferred, as shown by evidence (e.g. a reference plan) provided by the Transferee to the Province at no cost to the Province, to the satisfaction of the Province. At the request of the Province, the Transferee shall enter into a charge or other form of security, acceptable to the Province at its sole, unfettered discretion, to secure payment of the Profit. With respect to any capital improvement costs or other costs or expenses involved in the calculation of the Sale Price, Profit or the price at which the Province is to repurchase the Property in accordance with this Agreement, the Transferee shall provide all documents, records and invoices in sufficient detail, at no cost to the Province, to allow analysis and approval of such calculation(s) by the Province. For the purposes of this provision, the Transferee and the Province acknowledge that the purpose for which the Property is being Transferred is for general business and commercial purposes, including but not limited to offices and [NTD – City/Owner to provide details] (the “Purpose”). In the event that the Transferee has failed to commence construction of one or more buildings for the Purpose on or before the day that is SEVEN (7) years and SIX (6) months from the Closing Date, being October 15, 2020 which shall be evidenced by delivery to the Province of copies of development approvals, building permits and other third permits or consents required to construct such building(s) on the - 63 - - 3 - Property, then the Province shall have the right to repurchase the Property at the same price paid by The Corporation of the City of Pickering to the Province pursuant to the Sale Agreement and the Transferee shall return the Property to the Province in its original condition it was in immediately prior to the transfer of the Property from the Province to The Corporation of the City of Pickering and, if applicable, the Transferee shall have the obligation to restore the Property to such condition at no cost to the Province. The Transferee acknowledges that the Province may be required to obtain certain approvals to exercise any of the options under this Participation Agreement.” 3. The Parties agree that any amalgamation, continuance or change of control of the Owner shall be deemed to be a sale of the Transferred Property, and the Owner shall give a minimum of 30 days notice, in writing, of any such intended change of control. Should the Owner amalgamate, continue, or have a change of control, without notifying the Province and making a payment of the Profit to the Province pursuant to the Participation Agreement, then in addition to the Profit, the Owner shall be required to pay an additional payment equal to 50% of the Profit payable to the Province under the Participation Agreement. 4. GENERAL (a) The Parties hereby each confirm that the Participation Agreement remains in full force and effect, enforceable against each of the Parties. (b) Capitalized expressions used herein, unless separately defined herein, have the same meaning as defined in the Participation Agreement, as amended. (c) The provisions of this Amending Agreement shall be interpreted and governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. - 64 - - 4 - EXECUTED by each of the parties under seal on the date written below. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED Dated this _____ day of __________, 2025. HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE, AS REPRESENTED BY ONTARIO INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDS CORPORATION Per: ________________________________ Name: Title: Authorized Signing Officer Dated this _____ day of __________, 2025. UNITY HUB INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD. Per: ________________________________ Name: Title: Authorized Signing Officer - 65 - Attachment 4 to Report ECD 06-25 File: Description: © The Corporation of the City of PickeringProduced (in part) under license from: General Map Unity Hub - Subject Area 31-Jul-25 5,000Scale 1: Seaton - Innovation Corridor PIN 26402 - 0 1 5 9 5.28 acre s Unity Hub ( f o r m e r S h i r v a I n v e s t m e n t s ) PIN 2640 2 - 0 1 5 8 1.12 acre s Unity Hub ( f o r m e r 1 0 4 6 6 9 2 1 C a n a d a I n c . ) - 66 - Report to Council Report Number: ENG 16-25 Date: August 12, 2025 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Detailed Design for Shoreline Improvements – West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve retaining the services of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West ShoreBoulevard to Marksbury Road, as an Exception in accordance with Purchasing Policy010, Appendix 1, item 8; 2.That the proposal submitted by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to preparethe detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, in the amount of $150,096.00 (net HST) or $166,675.00 (HST included)be accepted; 3.That Council authorize staff to execute a letter of agreement with the Toronto and RegionConservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvementsfrom West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, on such terms as are satisfactory to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Finance & Treasurer; 4.That the total gross project cost of $183,343.00 (HST included), including the fee amountand other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $165,106.00 (net HST) beapproved; 5.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $165,106.00 as follows: a)The sum of $82,553.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2404 as approvedin the 2025 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds fromDevelopment Charges City Share Reserve Fund; b)The sum of $82,553.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2404 as approved in the 2025 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from theDevelopment Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; and, - 67 - ENG 16-25 August 12, 2025 Page 2 6.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actionsnecessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to retain the services of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road. In April 2024, the City retained the TRCA to perform a Shoreline Coastal Assessment Study through this area as part of an initiative to establish green space at the top of the bank for parkland development and the construction of the Waterfront Trail through this area. The study was completed in June 2025. Various shoreline protection options were presented, along with their advantages, disadvantages and order of magnitude costs. Staff have determined what the preferred option for coastal protection measures is and would like to proceed with the detailed design, in preparation for construction. TRCA have prepared a letter agreement, outlining the proposed scope of work, timeline, and projected costs to complete the detailed design phase of this project. Once the detailed design is completed, TRCA will submit a separate fee proposal for the implementation of the shoreline protection measures for review and consideration. In accordance with Section 19 and Appendix 1, Item 8, of Purchasing Policy PUR 010, the work or services to or from other government agencies, utilities, provincial or federal agencies, crown corporations, municipalities, public agencies or boards are considered an Exception and are excluded from the requirements of the Purchasing Policy. Exception procurements may be procured by obtaining one price, subject to the funds being available in the Current or Capital Budgets. Directors are required to provide details to the Treasurer and the CAO of any contractual arrangements under Appendix 1 with third parties that exceed $25,000 annually or are for more than one year. Such details will be provided prior to the commencement of the contract arrangement. Staff are recommending Council approval of the fee proposal submitted by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, in the amount of $150,096.00 (net HST) or $166,675.00 (HST included) and a total net project cost, including a 10% contingency, in the amount of $165,106.00 (Net HST). Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation and Resiliency. - 68 - ENG 16-25 August 12, 2025 Page 3 Financial Implications: 1. Proposal Amount Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Fee Proposal $147,500.00 HST (13%) 19,175.00 Total Gross Proposal Amount $166,675.00 2. Estimated Project Cost Summary Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Fee Proposal $147,500.00 Associated Costs Contingency (10%) 14,750.00 Sub Total – Costs $162,250.00 HST (13%) 21,093.00 Total Gross Project Cost $183,343.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (18,237.00) Total Net Project Costs $165,106.00 3. Approved Source of Funds – 2025 Parks Capital Budget Expense Code Source of Funds Funds Available Required C10572.2404 DC City Share Res $1,008,600.00 $82,553.00 DC P&R OB RF $1,013,005.00 $82,553.00 Total: $2,021,605.00 $165,106.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $1,856,499.00 The total budget of $2,092,200.00 includes the design, approvals and construction of shoreline improvements and the section of the Waterfront Trail with other parkland development amenities, of which $70,595.88 has been expended to date, leaving a balance of $2,021,605.00. The amount of $1,856,499.00 that remains available in account C10572.2404 will be required for the construction component of the project which is expected to commence in the Fall of 2026. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to retain the services of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to prepare the detailed design for the shoreline improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road. In April 2024, the City retained the TRCA to perform a Shoreline Coastal Assessment Study through this area as part of an initiative to establish green space at the stable top of the bank - 69 - ENG 16-25 August 12, 2025 Page 4 for parkland development and the construction of the Waterfront Trail through this area. The project assessed the near-shore coastal conditions, determined the 100-year erosion risk line assuming no shoreline protection and developed high-level concepts for shoreline protection that would reduce the rate of erosion and move the 100-year erosion risk line closer to the existing top of bank. The Shoreline Coastal Assessment Study determined that if no shoreline protection measures were taken, at the existing conditions erosion rate, the top of bank would erode back approximately 50m in 100 years. Several options were presented that would completely stop shoreline erosion for the life of the installed infrastructure; these include armourstone revetment work and cobble beach with groynes. These options would require a Class Environmental Assessment and would be very costly. The other options presented, that would not require a Class Environmental Assessment and that could be installed at a lower cost, involve the use of natural boulders that would be placed along the shoreline, both above and below the waterline. Based on the volume of stone installed, the erosion rate would be reduced to between 3 metres and 6 metres over the 50 year period. Staff have determined that the natural rock option that would limit erosion to approximately 3 metres over the 50 year period to be the preferred solution. TRCA have provided a fee proposal for the preparation of the detailed design for the selected option. Their scope of work includes the collection of background data (such as a topographic survey, archeology assessment, tree inventory, and geotechnical study), collaboration with City staff and external agencies, the development of detailed design drawings and a design report, preparation of detailed cost estimates, and securing the required permits and approvals in preparation for the implementation of the shoreline protection work. In accordance with Section 19 and Appendix 1, Item 8, of Purchasing Policy PUR 010, the work or services to or from other government agencies, utilities, provincial or federal agencies, crown corporations, municipalities, public agencies or boards are considered an Exception and are excluded from the requirements of the Purchasing Policy. Exception procurements may be procured by obtaining one price, subject to the funds being available in the Current or Capital Budgets. Directors are required to provide details to the Treasurer and the CAO of any contractual arrangements under Appendix 1 with third parties that exceed $25,000 annually or are for more than one year. Such details will be provided prior to the commencement of the contract arrangement. Staff are recommending Council approval of the fee proposal submitted by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to prepare the detailed design for the Shoreline Improvements from West Shore Boulevard to Marksbury Road, in the amount of $150,096.00 (net HST) or $166,675.00 (HST included) and a total net project cost, including a 10% contingency, in the amount of $165,106.00 (Net HST). - 70 - ENG 16-25 August 12, 2025 Page 5 Attachment: Location Map Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Arnold Mostert, O.A.L.A. Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Procurement Director, Finance & Treasurer AM:am Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 71 - Attachment 1 Attachment 1 to Report ENG 16-25 - 72 - ! ))B,;I$,?E<EA86I 6?0.B<?I 6;,;.0II*?0,AC?0?I !#) $ !) "&II #)C4CABII I $#):0;/:0;BIB<I I G9,EI II 0:<96B6<;I ?0/6BI'?<<2I<2I',G:0;BI(0>C6?0:0;B 690I I # ) *5,BI(0=<?BI "&I I?04,?/6;4I:0;/:0;BIB<I 0D09<=:0;BI 5,?40AI G9,EI I 0:<96B6<;I ?0/6BI'?<<2 <2I',G:0;BI(0>C6?0:0;BI-0I?0.06D0/ *5,BI <C;.69I,==?<D0I,; ,:0;/:0;BIB< B50I 0D09<=:0;BI 5,?40AI G9,EI IB<IE,6D0IB50 ?0>C6?0:0;BI2<?I=?<<2I<2I=?6<?I I=,G:0;BI6;IB50I.,9.C9,B6<;I<2I/0:<96B6<;I.?0/6BAI2<?I/0:<96B6<;A <..C??6;4I-0BE00; #C9GI I,;/I 0.0:-0?III,;/ *5,BI <C;.69I0;,.BIB50I:0;/6;4I 0D09<=:0;BI 5,?40AI G9,EI,A A0BI<CBI6;IBB,.5:0;BII<2 B56AI?0=<?BI,;/ *5,BIB50I,==?<=?6,B0I 6BGI<36.6,9AI-0I,CB5<?6H0/IB<IB,80IB50I,.B6<;AI;0.0AA,?GIB<I6:=90:0;B B50A0I?0.<::0;/,B6<;A '$#%)$ !() )#!#) #%)# ) $!)!% #)$! ) ) )# ") +56AI?0=<?BI?0.<::1;/AI,IB6:096:6B0/I,:0;/:0;BIB<IB50I 6BGAI 0D09<=:0;BI 5,?40AI I G9,EI B<IE,6D0IB50I=?<<2I<2I=?6<?I I=,G:0;BI2<?I/0:<96B6<;I.?0/6BAI2?<:I#C9GII I,;/I 0.0:-0?II I*50I=?<=<A0/I.5,;40I6AI6;B0;/0/IB<IAC==<@I?0/0D09<=:0;BI/C?6;4I,I=0?6</I<2I0.<;<:6.I A9<E/<E;I,964;IE6B5IB50I '?<D6;.0AI5<CA6;4I:,;/,B0I-GI0,A6;4I-,??60?AIB<I6;2699I=?<70.BAI,;/I6;.0;B6D6H0I.<;AB?C.B6<;I,.B6D6BGI*56AI,:0;/:0;BIA0?D0AI,AI,IB,?40B0/I=<96.GIB<<9IB<I=?<:<B0I5<CA6;4I ,;/IAB6:C9,B0I0.<;<:6.I,.B6D6BGI # " )# )#)! ) ! !#)#!#) )*50I?0.<::0;/,B6<;AI6;IB56AI?0=<?BI?0A=<;/IB<IB50I'6.80?6;4I)B?,B046.I'9,;I <?=<?,B0I%0GI !<</I!<D0?;,;.0 CAB<:0?I)0?D6.0I F.0990;.0 I ) # ") )" ) #)&#) # # )$ ") )!% #) #$ ) I.?0/6BAI,?0I<;9GI,==96.,-90IB<I ;0EI-C69/6;4I.<;AB?C.B6<;IB5,BI,?0IAC-70.BIB<I AIE50?0IB50?0I5,AI -00;I,I-C69/6;4I/0:<96B6<;I<;IB50IA,:0I=?<=0?BGIE6B56;I26D0IG0,?AI*50I26;,;.6,9I6:=,.BI6AI0F=0.B0/IB<I - 73 - - 74 - - 75 - FIN 12-25 August 12, 2025 Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Raghu Kumar Stan Karwowski Senior Financial Analyst, Development Charges & Director, Finance & Treasurer Capital Management Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer 2ULJLQDO6LJQHG%\ 2ULJLQDO6LJQHG%\ 2ULJLQDO6LJQHG%\ - 76 - Attachment 1 to Report FIN 12-25 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/25 Being a By-law to amend By-law 8190/25, Development Charges By-law Whereas Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 (the “Act”) provides for amendments to development charge by-laws. And Whereas the Council of The City of Pickering requires an amendment to By-law 8190/25. And Whereas Section 19(1.1)(c) of the Act allows for a by-law to be amended without the requirement for a development charge background study as well as the need for a public meeting if the only effect of the amendment is to decrease the amount of a development charge that is payable for one or more types of development in the circumstances specified in the amendment, and are therefore not provided in the amended By-law. And Whereas a public notice will be made available to inform the public that By-law 8190/25 has been amended. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Section 1 of By-law 8190/25, be amended to add a new Item (3)(e) as follows: Notwithstanding Section 1.(3)(c), no requirement shall apply for the applicant to provideproof that the building being demolished was previously subject to and paiddevelopment charges under a prior development charge by-law or that a lot levy underBy-law 3322/89 was paid, in respect of any demolition or redevelopment occurringbetween July 1, 2025 and December 31, 2026. By-law passed this 12th day of August, 2025. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 77 - Report to Council Report Number: INF 09-25 Date: August 12, 2025 From: Kevin Heathcote Director, City Infrastructure Subject: Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 File:A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Quotation submitted by John Bear Buick GMC Limited, in response to Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 for the Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments in the amount of $319,864.00 (net HST) or $355,195.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $355,195.00 (HST included), and that the total netproject cost of $319,864.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $319,864.00 as provided for in the 2025 Capital Budget as follows: a)The sum of $319,864.00 to be funded from the Vehicle Replacement ReserveFund; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 for the Supply & Delivery of various pick-up trucks with attachments. The Public Works Division, within City Infrastructure, currently utilizes various pickup trucks for a variety of work tasks. Two new ¾ Ton Pickup trucks with slide in salters and plows are being purchased to service new emerging communities in Pickering. One new mid-size pickup truck is being purchased for Municipal Law Enforcement Services as an addition to their Fleet. The replacement of a 2017 Ford F150 ½ Ton Pickup Truck for Fire Services (Vehicle #586) is required as it has reached the end of its useful life cycle. Funding for all vehicles has been approved in the 2025 Capital Budget. Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 was posted on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on April 25, 2025. Four companies responded by the closing date of May 16, 2025. John Bear Buick GMC Limited was the lowest compliant response with a price of $314,331.60 (HST excluded). In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11 (c), where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is over $250,000.00, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Finance & Treasurer, Chief Administrative Officer, and Council. - 78 - INF 09-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments Page 2 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: 1.Quotation Amount Quotation No. Q2025-7 $314,331.60 HST (13%) Total Gross Quotation Cost 40,863.11 $355,194.71 2.Estimated Project Costing Quotation No. Q2025-7 $314,332.00 Total Project Cost $314,332.00 HST (13%) 40,863.00 Total Gross Project Costs $355,195.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (35,331.00) Total Net Project Cost $319,864.00 3.Approved Source of FundsDescription Account Code Source of Funds Available Budget Required ¾ Ton Pickup Truck with Slide in Salter and Plow (2) – New C10315.2509 Vehicle Replacement Reserve $200,000.00 $212,375.00 Midsize Pickup 4x4 Full Four Door – New C10425.2501 Vehicle Replacement Reserve $65,000.00 $49,759.00 ½ Ton Pick-up Truck –Replace unit #586 (2017 Ford) C10700.2509 Vehicle Replacement Reserve $65,000.00 $57,729.00 Total Funds $330,000.00 $319,864.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $10,136.00 - 79 - INF 09-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments Page 3 It is staff’s understanding that these four vehicles are being purchased from the dealer’s existing inventory and therefore, there are no additional tariff costs. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 for the supply and delivery of various pickup trucks with attachments. Fleet Operations manages and assists with the procurement of the City’s fleet. As reflected in the 2025 Capital Budget, the vehicles listed above were approved for purchase. Pickup trucks are versatile pieces of equipment that can be used by various Departments within the City. In Public Works, they are used in the summer months to maintain roadways, assist with new construction and haul assorted materials. During the winter on-call season, they can be equipped with a plow and salter to meet the required Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) under regulation O. Reg. 239/02. Request for Quotation No. Q2025-7 was posted on the City’s Bids and Tenders portal on April 25, 2025. Four companies responded by the closing date of May 16, 2025. John Bear Buick GMC Limited was the lowest compliant response with a price of $314,331.60 (HST excluded). After careful review of all submissions received, City Infrastructure staff recommend the acceptance of Quotation No. Q2025-7 submitted by John Bear Buick GMC Limited, and that the total net project cost of $319,864.00 (net HST) or $355,195.00 (HST included) be approved. Attachment: None Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Matt Currer Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Manager, Fleet & Roads Operations Manager, Procurement Kevin Heathcote, P.Eng. Director, City Infrastructure Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer KH:nw Original signed by: Original signed by: Original signed by:Original signed by: - 80 - INF 09-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Various Trucks with Attachments Page 4 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original signed by: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 81 - Report to Council Report Number: INF 10-25 Date: August 12, 2025 From: Kevin Heathcote Director, City Infrastructure Subject: Supply & Delivery of Two Wide Area Mowers Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That the quotation submitted by Turf Care Products. in response to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 the amount of $542,483.00 (net HST) or $602,403.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost including estimated tariffs of $602,403.00 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $542,483.00 (net HST) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project of $542,483.00 as follows: a.That the sum of $225,000.00 as approved in the 2025 Capital Budget be increased to $271,241.50 and be funded from the Equipment Reserve Fund for the Wide Area Mower replacement; b.That the sum of $225,000.00 as approved in the 2025 Capital budget be increased to $271,241.50 and be funded from Development Charges – Parks and Recreation Reserve for the new Wide Area Mower; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 for the Supply and Delivery of two Wide Area Mowers to Turf Care Products. The Public Works Division, within the City Infrastructure Department, currently utilizes wide area mowers for maintaining City owned parks and property, including sports fields, boulevards and the Civic Complex. Equipment unit #788 (2016) has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date. Additionally, as reflected in the 2025 Capital Budget, one new wide area mower was approved for purchase to service new and emerging parklands. Second Stage Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10, was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on May 27, 2025. One company responded by the closing date of June 12, 2025. The quotation submitted by Turf Care Products complied with all the technical requirements and - 82 - INF 10-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Two Wide Area Mowers Page 2 received an acceptable score from the Evaluation Committee. Turf Care Products is a Vendor of Record with Canoe Procurement Group. In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, Item 13.01, the Manager may enter into arrangements with municipalities, local boards and other public bodies on a cooperative or joint venture basis where there are economic advantages and where the best interests of the City would be served. The policy of the government agency or public authority hosting the cooperative call for bids is to be the accepted policy of the City for the cooperative call and no other approval by the City is required beyond that of the Manager, appropriate Director and Treasurer, unless debt funding is required, then Council approval must first be obtained. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: 1. Quotation Amount Quotation No. RFQ2025-10 $433,100.00 Estimated Tariffs HST (13%) Total Gross Quotation Cost $100,000.00 $533,100.00 $69,303.00 $602,403.00 2. Estimated Project Costing Quotation No. RFQ2025-10 $433,100.00 Total Project Cost $433,100.00 Estimated Tariffs HST (13%) $100,000.00 $533,100.00 $69,303.00 Total Gross Project Costs $602,403.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) ($59,920.00) Total Net Project Cost $542,483.00 - 83 - INF 10-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Two Wide Area Mowers Page 3 3. Approved Source of Funds Description Account Code Source of Funds Available Budget Required Wide Area Mower – Replacement C10305.2503 Equipment Reserve $225,000.00 $271,241.50 Wide Area Mower – New C10305.2506 Development Charges Parks and Recreation $225,000.00 $271,241.50 Total Funds $450,000.00 $542,483.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by ($92,483.00) Estimated retaliatory tariffs valued at $47,738 per machine were provided by the vendor at time of submission. Actual tariff values will not be known until time of shipment which may be lower or higher. Vendor is required to provide third party documentation to support any tariff charges before they will be paid. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 for the Supply and Delivery of two Wide Area Mowers to Turf Care Products. The Public Works Division, within the City Infrastructure Department, currently utilizes wide area mowers for maintaining City owned parks and property, including sports fields, boulevards and the Civic Complex. Equipment unit #788 (2016) has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date. Additionally, as reflected in the 2025 Capital Budget, one new wide area mower was approved for purchase to service new and emerging parklands. The City is expecting to assume up to five new parks of various sizes through 2026/2027. Second Stage Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10, was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on May 27th 2025. One company responded by the closing date of June 12, 2025. The quotation submitted by Turf Care Products complied with all the technical requirements and received an acceptable score from the Evaluation Committee. Turf Care Products is a Vendor of Record with Canoe Procurement Group. Canoe Procurement Group is a collaborative agency which the City is a member of, and therefore, meets the criteria of a Cooperative Purchase as per Section 13.01 of the Purchasing Policy. In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, Item 13.01, the Manager may enter into arrangements with municipalities, local boards and other public bodies on a cooperative or joint venture basis where there are economic advantages and where the best interests of the City would be served. The policy of the government agency or public authority hosting the cooperative call for bids is to be the accepted policy of the City for the cooperative call and no - 84 - INF 10-25 August 12, 2025 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Two Wide Area Mowers Page 4 other approval by the City is required beyond that of the Manager, appropriate Director and Treasurer, unless debt funding is required, then Council approval must first be obtained. Upon careful review of the submission received, City Infrastructure staff recommend the acceptance of Quotation No. RFQQ2025-10 submitted by Turf Care Products, and that the total net project cost of $542,483.00 (net HST) or $602,403.00 (HST included) be approved. Attachment: None. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Matt Currer Kevin Heathcote, P.Eng. Manager, Fleet & Roads Operations Director, City Infrastructure Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Manager, Procurement Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer MC:nw Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by: Original signed by: Original signed by: - 85 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8199/25 Being a By-law to amend By-law 8190/25, Development Charges By-law Whereas Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 (the “Act”) provides for amendments to development charge by-laws. And Whereas the Council of The City of Pickering requires an amendment to By-law 8190/25. And Whereas Section 19(1.1)(c) of the Act allows for a by-law to be amended without the requirement for a development charge background study as well as the need for a public meeting if the only effect of the amendment is to decrease the amount of a development charge that is payable for one or more types of development in the circumstances specified in the amendment, and are therefore not provided in the amended By-law. And Whereas a public notice will be made available to inform the public that By-law 8190/25 has been amended. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Section 1 of By-law 8190/25, be amended to add a new Item (3)(e) as follows: Notwithstanding Section 1.(3)(c), no requirement shall apply for the applicant to provideproof that the building being demolished was previously subject to and paiddevelopment charges under a prior development charge by-law or that a lot levy underBy-law 3322/89 was paid, in respect of any demolition or redevelopment occurringbetween July 1, 2025 and December 31, 2026. By-law passed this 12th day of August, 2025. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 86 -