HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 13, 2021Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Due to COVID-19, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and
Committee Meetings.
Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream.
A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the
meeting.
Page
1.Roll Call
2.Invocation
Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation.
3.Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement
Mayor Ryan will read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement.
4.Disclosure of Interest
5.Adoption of Minutes
Council Minutes, November 22, 2021
(Confidential In Camera Council Minutes, November 22, 2021, provided under
separate cover)
1
Executive Committee Minutes, December 6, 2021 20
Special Council Minutes, December 6, 2021
(Confidential In Camera Council Minutes, December 6, 2021, provided under
separate cover)
Planning & Development Committee Minutes, December 6, 2021 31
6.Presentations
7.Delegations
Due to COVID-19, members of the public may provide a verbal delegation to Members of
Council via electronic participation. To register as a delegate, visit
www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email
clerks@pickering.ca. Delegation requests must be received by noon on the last business
day before the scheduled meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall
register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date.
28
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the
Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes
shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that
you wish to be contacted on.
Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will
be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes.
8.Correspondence
8.1 Corr. 58-21 41
Susan Cassel, City Clerk, City of Pickering
Re: Council Appointments to Fill Councillor Representative Vacancies on
Boards and Committees
-ADM 045 Council Appointments to Committees
Recommendation:
1.That Councillor Shaheen Butt be appointed to fill the Councillor
representative vacancy on the Pickering Public Library Board and
the Animal Services Appeal Committee for the remainder of the
2018-2022 Term of Council; and,
2.That the Councillor representative vacancies on the Site Plan
Advisory Committee and Civic Awards Selection Committee be
filled by the new Member of Council, to be appointed in January
2022, for the remainder of the 2018-2022 Term of Council.
9.Report EC 10-21 of the Executive Committee held on
December 6, 2021
Refer to Executive
Committee Agenda
pages:
9.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 25-21 1
Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment
-Summary of Public Engagement Process and
-Endorsement of the Beachfront Park Master Plan
Recommendation:
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
1.That Report ENG 25-21 regarding a summary of the Public
Engagement Process for Beachfront Park, as a follow-up to Report
ENG 21-21, be received for information;
2.That the Final Preferred Design Option that was prepared in
response to the input received through the public engagement
process, be endorsed as the Beachfront Park Master Plan; and,
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
9.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 04-21 30
Property Standards By-law
Recommendation:
1.That Report BYL 04-21 regarding the attached Property Standards
By-law be received;
2.That Council enact the Property Standards By-law attached to this
Report (Attachment No. 1); and,
3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 26-21 72
Proposed Community Safety Zones
-Fairport Road and Parkside Drive
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”,
Community Safety Zones to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the
regulation of Community Safety Zones on highways or parts of
highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering. The amendments specifically provide for the inclusion of
a Community Safety Zone on Fairport Road between Glenanna
Road and Strouds Lane, and on Parkside Drive between Aspen
Road (east intersection) and New Street; and,
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
9.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-21 80
2022 Interim Spending Authority
Recommendation:
1.That the 2022 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50
percent of the prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as
contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the formal 2022
Current Budget by Council; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
9.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-21 83
2022 Temporary Borrowing By-law
Recommendation:
1.That the temporary borrowing limit of $56 million be established to
meet 2022 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other
revenues for the period of January 1 to September 30, 2022
inclusive, and $28 million thereafter until December 31, 2022;
2.That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2022 be
established at $41 million;
3.That the attached draft By-law providing for the temporary
borrowing of monies be enacted; and,
4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
9.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-21 88
2020 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
Recommendation:
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
It is recommended that Report FIN 18-21 from the Director, Finance &
Treasurer regarding the 2020 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
be received for information.
9.7 Director, Operations, Report OPS 11-21 91
Diana, Princess of Wales Park
- Licence Renewal Agreement
Recommendation:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a license
renewal agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure – Hydro One
Networks Inc. for a further five year term, commencing January 1,
2022, and ending on December 31, 2026 that is in a form
satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions to give effect hereto.
10. Report PD 10-21 of the Planning & Development
Committee held on December 6, 2021
Refer to Planning &
Development Agenda
pages:
10.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 44-21 21
Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/17 (R)
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-03
Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2020-03
Brock Dersan Developments Inc.
Southwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street
(2540 and 2550 Brock Road)
Recommendation:
1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/17 (R), submitted
by Brock Dersan Developments Inc., to permit a residential
condominium development consisting of a mix of townhouse
dwellings for the lands located at the southwest corner of Brock
Road and Dersan Street, be endorsed subject to the proposed
zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 44-21, and
that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing
Zoning By-law to Council for enactment; and,
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
2.That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-03, submitted
by Brock Dersan Developments Inc., to establish a single
development block to facilitate a residential condominium
development, as shown on Attachment #7 to Report PLN 44-21,
and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix
II, be endorsed.
11.Reports – New and Unfinished Business
11.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 37-21 43
Accessibility Initiatives Update
-Service and Support Animals Initiative
-Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
-2021 Accessibility Compliance Report
Staff Delegation:
Sarah Douglas-Murray, Director, Community Services, and David
Wysocki, Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee, on Report CS 37-21
Recommendation:
1.That the Service & Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) Draft
Monograph prepared by the SSAI stakeholder group and endorsed
by the Accessibility Advisory Committee, as set out in Attachment 1,
be received;
2.That Council endorse Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-
2025, prepared by City staff and endorsed by the Accessibility
Advisory Committee, as set out in Attachment 2;
3.That Council endorse the City of Pickering 2021 Accessibility
Compliance Report prepared by City staff and endorsed by the
Accessibility Advisory Committee, as set out in Attachment 3, and
that staff be authorized to submit it to the Government of Ontario
Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
11.2 Director, Operations, Report OPS 05-21 159
Sole Source of Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order
Management System
-Implementation within Public Works and Facilities Maintenance
Recommendation:
1.That Quote 1494 for Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work
Order Management System software subscription, and
implementation cost for a five-year period, submitted by Go Evo in
the amount of $499,623.00 (HST included) be accepted in
accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 09.04 (d) and 09.08;
2.That the Year 1 of the five-year period in the amount of $50,487.00
(net of HST rebate) be approved for work related to 2022;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance
Year 1 (2022) of the MESH Work Order Management System in
the amount of $50,487.00 (net of HST rebate) from account
C10405.2007 by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve;
4.That financing approval for the remaining four optional years will be
provided for annually in the current budgets, from 2023 to 2026, for
a total amount of $399,439.00 (net of HST rebate);
5.That as per service agreement, all items on the proposal beyond
Year 1 are options and exercisable at the sole discretion of the City
of Pickering; and,
6.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary action to give effect hereto.
11.3 Director, City Developments & CBO, Report PLN 45-21 181
Envision Durham – Community Areas Urban Land Needs Technical
Report
Recommendation:
1.That Council endorse the Staff Comments contained in Section 2.2
of Report PLN 45-21 as the City’s formal comments on the Envision
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Durham Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report,
October 1, 2021; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
11.4 Director, City Developments & CBO, Report PLN 46-21 189
Proposed Fee Increases for Building Permit and Development Application
Fees
Recommendation:
1.That Council approve a 5% increase to the Building Permit
Application Fees and a 10% increase to the Planning Application
Fees, effective January 4, 2022;
2.That Council approve an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law
6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as
amended, by deleting the pages for City Development Department
–Building, and City Development Department – Planning, and
substituting the updated pages for City Development Department –
Building, and City Development Department – Planning, as set out
in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix I to Report
PLN 46-21;
3.That Council pass the by-law to update to the General Municipal
Fees and Charges By-law with new City Development Department
–Building, and City Development Department – Planning fees, as
set out in the Draft By-law provided as Appendix I to Report PLN
46-21;
4.That Council approve revising “Schedule B – Fees Payable for
Building Permits” of the Building By-law with the Building Permit
fees listed in the 2022 User Fee Schedule; and,
5.That City officials be authorized to undertake the necessary actions
to give effect to Council’s decision.
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
12.Motions and Notice of Motions
12.1 Dedication of Off-Leash Dog Area at Balsdon Park in Memory of
Councillor Ian Cumming
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
WHEREAS, Councillor Ian Cumming, City Councillor, Ward 2, sadly
passed away on November 1, 2021;
And Whereas, Councillor Cumming was a strong advocate for the
constituents of Ward 2 and the waterfront community;
And Whereas, Councillor Cumming was a renowned animal lover and a
proud owner of his beloved dogs, and led fundraising efforts for Pickering’s
first permanent animal shelter;
And Whereas, the Balsdon Park Master Plan, endorsed by City Council on
December 2, 2019, and the Park reconstruction approved on April 26,
2021, includes an off-leash dog area;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the
City of Pickering:
1.Directs staff, through the Office of the CAO, to dedicate the off-
leash dog area of Balsdon Park in memory of Councillor Ian
Cumming; and,
2.That staff be directed to erect a sign and picture, or an appropriate
commemorative display of the late Councillor Cumming, in his
memory, in an appropriate location within the off-leash dog area of
Balsdon Park.
12.2 Upgrades to Audio-Video Technology in Council Chambers to allow for an
Enhanced Hybrid Meeting Model
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Butt
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
WHEREAS, the Covid-19 Pandemic has resulted in the need for new and
increased measures to continue the operations of the City of Pickering,
including an electronic meeting platform to conduct Committee and
Council Meetings, to provide access for public participation and to comply
with the City’s open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act;
And Whereas, the implementation of new meeting platform technologies
has continued to provide a convenient and accessible service to the public
to participate in Committee and Council Meetings;
And Whereas, the use of livestreaming has provided the public with real-
time access to view Committee and Council Meetings without the need to
be physically present at a Meeting;
And Whereas, as the Covid-19 Pandemic evolves and public health
measures are lifted, municipalities will be looking to embark on hybrid
meeting platforms that provide the ability for Members of Council, staff and
the public to continue to engage either in person or electronically;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the
City of Pickering:
1.Supports the continued enhancement of electronic meeting
platform solutions and technologies to provide an ongoing,
accessible, and streamlined hybrid meeting model, to participate
and access Committee and Council Meetings for the public, staff
and Members of Council either in-person and/or virtually; and,
2.Directs staff, in conjunction with the Clerk’s Office, to investigate
and engage with technology consultant experts, to explore the
potential capabilities and enhancements that can be integrated with
the current technology in the Council Chambers to give effect to
such an enhanced, streamlined hybrid meeting model at such time
that in-person meetings are able to resume.
13.By-laws
13.1 By-law 7887/21
Being a by-law for prescribing standards for the maintenance and
occupancy of property within the City of Pickering and for prohibiting the
Council Meeting Agenda
December 13, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
occupancy or use of such property that does not conform with the
standards contained herein. [Refer to BYL 04-21 and page 35 of the
Executive Committee Agenda]
13.2 By-law 7888/21
Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of
traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of
highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and
municipal property. [Refer to ENG 26-21 and page 78 of the Executive
Committee Agenda]
13.3 By-law 7889/21
Being a by-law to authorize the temporary borrowing of monies to meet
the current and capital expenditures of the City of Pickering for the year
2022. [Refer to FIN 17-21 and page 86 of the Executive Committee
Agenda]
13.4 By-law 7890/21 195
Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General
Municipal Fees. [Refer to Item 11.4 PLN 46-21]
13.5 By-law 7891/21 209
Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing
Inspectors.
14.Other Business
15.Confirmation By-law
16.Adjournment
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Present:
Mayor David Ryan
Councillors:
K.Ashe
M.Brenner
S.Butt
B.McLean
D.Pickles
Also Present:
M.Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer
K.Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO
P.Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
S.Douglas-Murray -Director, Community Services
B.Duffield -Director, Operations
J.Eddy -Director, Human Resources
J.Hagg -Fire Chief
R.Holborn -Director, Engineering Services
F.Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects
S.Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer
S.Cassel -City Clerk
C.Rose -Chief Planner
D.Jacobs -Manager, Policy & Geomatics
R.Perera -Deputy Clerk
J.Litoborski - Supervisor, Licensing & Enforcement
C.Whitaker -Supervisor, Sustainability
J.San Antoni -Senior Advisor, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
K.Kilbourne -Principal Planner, Policy
1.Roll Call
The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating
electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20.
2.Invocation
Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation.
3.Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement
Mayor Ryan read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement.
- 1 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
4. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
5. Adoption of Minutes
Resolution #723/21
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
Special Council Minutes, October 21, 2021 – 1 p.m.
Special Council Minutes, October 21, 2021 – 7 p.m.
Council Minutes, October 25, 2021
Special Council Minutes, November 1, 2021
Executive Committee Minutes, November 1, 2021
Planning & Development Committee Minutes, November 1, 2021
Carried
6. Presentations
There were no presentations.
7. Delegations
7.1 Gary Muller, Director of Planning
Brad Anderson, Principal Planner, Policy Planning & Special Studies
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Re: Envision Durham Overview
Gary Muller, Director of Planning, and Brad Anderson, Principal Planner, Policy
Planning & Special Studies, the Regional Municipality of Durham, joined the
electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an overview of the Envision
Durham project. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Muller
discussed the planning policy framework in Ontario, engagement and outreach
conducted, and the discussion papers published in 2019 in relation to the project.
He added that through Regional Council approval, the framework for policy
direction in creating the Regional Official Plan was established, which included a
prosperous economy, healthy communities, supportive infrastructure, vibrant
urban systems, thriving rural systems, protected Greenland systems, and
connected transportation systems. He further discussed protected major transit
station areas, and the different phases of the Growth Management Study Process.
Mr. Muller concluded his delegation by discussing the next steps of the project.
- 2 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Mr.
Muller regarding:
•the Provincial decisions regarding designated intensification areas and
Pickering being designated an urban growth centre by the Province;
•concerns regarding whether the City would be able to accommodate the
designated intensification within the existing urban boundaries;
•whether other Durham municipalities were facing similar growth challenges;
•the need for the Region to be open to expanding the urban boundaries;
•how the potential growth areas would be determined if there are competing
interests regarding the expansion of boundaries;
•timeline of when the reports would be coming to Regional Council in 2022;
•how the Region plans to address the growing homelessness situation and
whether this would be included in the Envision Durham project; and,
•how the Region would create policy to maintain a balance between
residential and a non-residential tax bases.
7.2 Mark Mariano and Jim Kesselring on Behalf of the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex Tennis Members
Re: Corr. 57-21
John Singleton
Pickering Pickleball Petition
Mark Mariano and Jim Kesselring, on Behalf of the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex Tennis Members, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection to speak to the Pickering Pickleball Petition. Mr. Mariano discussed the
difficulty in securing space to play Tennis and noted that the allocation of one of
the Tennis courts to Pickleball would displace Tennis players. He stated that the
loud noise of Pickleball is also a significant disruption to Tennis players. Mr.
Kesselring noted that they had submitted a petition regarding this matter and
further asked Council that the summer usage of the indoor Tennis courts remain
status quo.
7.3 Gena Chang-Campbell, Chair, Pickering Anti Black Racism Taskforce
Re: Report CAO 08-21
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Youth Open Mic Night
Gena Chang-Campbell, Chair, Pickering Anti Black Racism Taskforce, joined the
electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to the Pickering Anti-Black
Racism Taskforce Youth Open Mic Night being held on November 27, 2021 from
7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the West Shore Community Centre. She noted that the event
was being hosted in collaboration with Shakkoi, a Pickering-based poet, author
and self-expression coach, and R.I.S.E., a grassroots organization dedicated to
empowering Black youth. She added that the event was the first of its
- 3 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
kind in Durham Region and aligned with the mandate of the Taskforce pertaining
to youth development. Ms. Chang-Campbell further spoke to the support of the
Youth Subcommittee and Staff in developing the event. She concluded her
delegation by asking for Council’s support for the event.
7.4 David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association
Re: Report PLN 41-21
City Initiated: Official Plan Amendment
Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas
Recommended Amendment 38 to the Pickering Official Plan
Recommended Informational Revision 26 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 20-004/P
David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association, joined the electronic
meeting via audio connection to speak to Report PLN 41-21. Mr. Steele asked that
Council consider implementing different zoning provisions for the different areas to
better match the characteristics of the area. He further questioned whether the
existing infrastructure was adequate to accommodate the intensification. Mr.
Steele concluded his delegation by encouraging Council to make Pickering unique
and emphasized the importance of employment space.
7.5 David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association
Re: Report CLK 06-21
Vacancy in the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2
-Declaration of Vacancy and Method of Filling Vacancy
David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association, withdrew his
delegation request regarding Report CLK 06-21.
7.6 Matt Bentley
Re: Report CLK 06-21
Vacancy in the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2
-Declaration of Vacancy and Method of Filling Vacancy
Matt Bentley joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and asked Council
to endorse Option A3 as outlined in Report CLK 06-21. Mr. Bentley noted that
Option A3 was the most transparent process given that a by-election would not be
feasible. He added that filling the vacancy behind closed doors would work against
inclusivity and noted that the runner up had only received 800 votes in the 2018
Municipal Election which amounted to only 4% of the population of Ward 2. Mr.
Bentley concluded his delegation by asking Council to select Option A3.
7.7 Janice Frampton
Re: Report PLN 41-21
City Initiated: Official Plan Amendment
- 4 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas
Recommended Amendment 38 to the Pickering Official Plan
Recommended Informational Revision 26 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 20-004/P
Janice Frampton withdrew her delegation request regarding Report PLN 41-21.
7.8 Janice Frampton
Re: Report CLK 06-21
Vacancy in the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2
- Declaration of Vacancy and Method of Filling Vacancy
Janice Frampton, 1810 Post Drive, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection to speak to Report CLK 06-21. Ms. Frampton asked Council to support
Option A3 and added that a by-election would be costly. Ms. Frampton concluded
her delegation by noting that option A3 was the most transparent method to fill the
vacancy.
7.9 Garry Winsor
Re: Report CLK 06-21
Vacancy in the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2
- Declaration of Vacancy and Method of Filling Vacancy
Garry Winsor, 600 West Shore Boulevard, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection to speak to Report CLK 06-21. Mr. Winsor asked Council to approve a
by-election to fill the vacancy and added that the residents of Ward 2 should have
a say in the individual who would be representing them. He concluded his
delegation by noting that creating an individual as an established councillor
through appointment would not be fair for other candidates running in the 2022
Municipal Election.
At the conclusion of delegations, Mayor Ryan spoke to the recent passing of
Councillor Ian Cumming on November 1, 2021 and extended Council’s
condolences to his family. Mayor Ryan called for a moment of silence in honour of
Councillor Cumming.
8. Correspondence
8.1 Corr. 54-21
Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Re: Free Menstrual Products at Region Facilities
Resolution #724/21
- 5 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
1.That Corr. 54-21, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative
Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated October 27, 2021,
regarding the Free Menstrual Products at Region Facilities, be received;
and,
2.That Corr. 54-21 be referred, through the CAO, to the Director, Community
Services and Director, Operations, for consideration in the Draft 2022
Budget deliberations for all public facilities.
Carried
8.2 Corr. 55-21
Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade
Clarington Board of Trade
Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce
Whitby Chamber of Commerce
Re: Toll equity and Highway 413
Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding the need for toll
equity as Highway 413 was being underutilized due to the high tolls, the potential
for toll equity to relieve traffic congestion, and a letter being issued by the
Regional Chair to speak to the lack of equity amongst the toll highways.
Resolution #725/21
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Ashe
1.That Corr. 55-21, from the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, the Clarington
Board of Trade, the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce, and the
Whitby Chamber of Commerce, dated November 1, 2021, regarding the
Toll equity and Highway 413, be endorsed; and,
2.That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to The Honourable Doug Ford,
Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of
Transportation, all Durham MPP’s, the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, the
Whitby Chamber of Commerce, and the Clarington Board of Trade.
Carried
8.3 Corr. 56-21
Kevin Narraway, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk
- 6 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Town of Whitby
Re: Proof of Vaccination for all Participants in Organized Sports
Resolution #726/21
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
1.That Corr. 56-21, from Kevin Narraway, Manager of Legislative
Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of Whitby, dated November 3, 2021,
regarding the Proof of Vaccination for all Participants in Organized Sports,
be endorsed; and,
2.That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to The Honourable Christine
Elliott, Minister of Health, all Durham MPP’s, all Durham Regional
Municipalities, John Henry, Durham Regional Chair, and Dr. Robert Kyle,
Medical Officer of Health & Commissioner, the Regional Municipality of
Durham.
Carried
8.4 Corr. 57-21
John Singleton
Pickering Pickleball Petition
Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding Staff’s efforts in
addressing the issue to date, the lack of facilities, solutions in the short term, and
the need for the different clubs to be considerate of one another.
Resolution #727/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
1.That Corr. 57-21 from John Singleton, dated November 8, 2021, regarding
the Pickering Pickleball Petition, be received; and,
2.That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to report back to Council by
January 24, 2022 regarding the options available to accommodate indoor
Pickleball along with the associated financial obligations.
Carried
9.Report EC 09-21 of the Executive Committee held on November 1, 2021
- 7 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
9.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 02-21
Waterfront Parking
-Current and Proposed Actions
Council Decision:
1. That Council approve the implementation of paid parking at the City’s
waterfront parking lots (Liverpool Road, Beachpoint Promenade, and
Progress Park), and paid permit parking on one side of waterfront area
streets (see Attachment No. 1 – maps) from May 1st to October 1st
annually;
2. That Council direct staff to communicate with residents on Park Crescent
and Cliffview Road to determine if it is advisable to apply similar restrictions
in these locations;
3. That Council approve a no charge permit for all Pickering residents who
pre-register, which will allow use of the waterfront lots and on-street permit
parking by City residents at no charge;
4. That Council approve an hourly parking rate for City waterfront parking lots,
and on-street parking areas at a rate of $5.00 per hour, setting a maximum
parking time of six hours;
5. That Council authorize staff to develop a permit system for each waterfront
street household to accommodate guest parking;
6. That Council approve free parking for accessible parking permit holders
and vehicles bearing v eterans’ plates;
7. That the City continue to investigate options to create additional parking in
the waterfront areas;
8. That Council provide pre-budget approval of $75,000.00 to award a
procurement process yet to be conducted to solicit bids for software and
hardware options;
9. That staff be directed to include in the draft 2022 current budget the
additional staffing set out in this report to support the implementation and
administration o f the foregoing R ecommendations; and,
10. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
9.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 03-21
- 8 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees
Vehicle for Hire By-law
Council Decision:
1.That Report BYL 03-21 respecting a deferral of the implementation of the
Accessible Service Supplement enacted in the Vehicle for Hire By-law
7739/20 be received;
2.That the implementation and collection of the Vehicle for Hire Accessible
Service Supplement be deferred until January 1, 2023; and,
3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
9.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 29-21
Community Association Lease Agreement
-South Pickering Seniors Club
Council Decision:
1.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease
Agreement with the South Pickering Seniors Club set out in Attachment 1
to this Report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the
Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City
Solicitor; and,
2.That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
9.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 23-21
Streetlighting on Regional Roads
-Proposed Study of Current Policy/Practice
Council Decision:
1.That Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference for a study of the
Region of Durham’s current policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on
Regional roads;
2.That, through the Office of the CAO, appropriate City staff be selected to
represent the City of Pickering on the study working group consisting of
Regional and Local Area Municipality staff;
- 9 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
3.That staff report back on the results of the procurement of consulting
services and seek Council authorization for a financial contribution to the
study; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions indicated in this reports.
Resolution #728/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That Report EC 09-21 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on November 1,
2021 be adopted.
Carried
10.Report PD 09-21 of the Planning & Development Committee held on November 1,
2021
10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 16-21
1232548 Alberta Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2435
-Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
-Lots 1 to 5, Plan 40M-2435
-File: 40M-2435
Council Decision:
1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan
40M-2435, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated
to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto,
including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be
accepted and as sumed for maintenance;
2. That 1232548 Alberta Inc. be released from the provisions of the
Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-
2435; and,
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
Resolution #729/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Butt - 10 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
That Report PD 09-21, save and except Item 10.2, PLN 41-21, of the Planning &
Development Committee Meeting held on November 1, 2021 be adopted.
Carried
10.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 41-21
City Initiated: Official Plan Amendment
Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas
Recommended Amendment 38 to the Pickering Official Plan
Recommended Informational Revision 26 to the Pickering Official Plan
File: OPA 20-004/P
Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of
Council and Staff regarding:
•the official plan being a visionary document and the need for the
intensification to take place in a cautious manner to meet the needs of
future generations;
•addressing the concerns raised during the November 1, 2021 Planning &
Development Committee meeting;
•intensification crises including climate, housing, public health,
infrastructure, and equity;
•the Official Plan being a tool for planners and the need for a supplementary
report in plain language for public consumption to eliminate the uncertainty
in the community and the development community;
•the supplementary report being brought forward to Council in the first
quarter for 2022 and ensuring that the Region receives all documentation
from the November 1, 2021 Report and the supplementary Report
collectively at the same time; and,
•ensuring that the implementing By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment
38 was brought forward for enactment at the same Meeting of Council
where the supplementary Report and recommendations are brought
forward.
Resolution #730/21
Moved By Councillor Brenner
Seconded By Councillor Butt
1.That Report PLN 41-21 be approved;
2.That staff be directed to build on the contents of PLN 41-21 by providing
the following:
- 11 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
i.A plain language document that the Public can understand,
explaining the reason for the Official Plan Amendment;
ii.Identification of the process to further review building heights and
massing of site specific properties on the North side of Kingston
Road abutting residential, as well as properties on the South side
that are not gateways;
iii.A work plan, that will include Economic Development staff engaging
with the businesses that will be impacted by future development
along Kingston Road;
iv.Identification of measures and/or holding provisions that will ensure
that the vision for the future of Kingston Road is secured;
v.Identification of means to address the cumulative impacts to existing
infrastructure, including roads, and green space;
3.And that this information be reported back to Council within the first quarter
of 2022; and,
4.That the implementing By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 38 be
brought forward for enactment at the same Meeting of Council where the
supplementary Report and recommendations will be provided to Council in
the first quarter of 2022.
Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote
11.Reports – New and Unfinished Business
11.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report BLD 01-21
Designated Substances and Building Permits
Resolution #731/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That BLD 01-21 from the Director, City Development & CBO regarding
Designated Substances and Building Permits be received for information;
and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.- 12 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Carried
11.2 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report CAO 07-21
RFP2021-8 Economic Development Strategy to EBP US Inc.
Resolution #732/21
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Butt
1. That Proposal No. RFP2021-8 submitted by EBP US, Inc., dated
September 15, 2021, to undertake a corporate Economic Development
Strategy in the amount of $87,499.57 (HST included) be awarded as per
section 10.04 (c) of the Purchasing Policy;
2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net
project cost of $78,751.00 (net of HST rebate) from property taxes, account
(502230.10000); and,
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
11.3 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 08-21
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Youth Open Mic Night
Resolution #733/21
Moved by Councillor Butt
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
1.That Council authorize the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce to host a
Youth Open Mic Night at West Shore Community Centre on Saturday,
November 27, 2021 on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director,
Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
11.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 06-21
Vacancy in the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2
- 13 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
-Declaration of Vacancy and Method of Filling Vacancy
A question and an answer period ensued between Members of Council and Susan
Cassel, City Clerk, regarding:
•the cost of a by-election and the timeframe for the next Municipal Election;
•allowing the certified applicants to be invited into the electronic WebEx
meeting to allow video capabilities;
•the requirement for the successful candidate to provide proof of vaccination
against COVID-19;
•the requirement under the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) being for
candidates to be eligible voters at the time of submitting their application;
•applicants not requiring a nomination to submit an application form;
•soliciting for applications providing Council with the opportunity to promote
inclusivity and being the most democratic method to fill the vacancy after a
by-election;
•the requirement under the MEA for applicants to reside in the City of
Pickering or be the owner or tenant of land there, or the spouse of such
owner or tenant; and,
•soliciting applications providing a fair chance to everyone and being an
opportunity to find the right person for the job.
Resolution #734/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.That Report CLK 06-21, pertaining to the vacancy in the Office of City
Councillor, Ward 2 be received;
2.That pursuant to Section 262(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.
25, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby declares
the Office of City Councillor, Ward 2 to be vacant;
3.That Council directs the City Clerk to fill the vacancy for the Office of City
Councillor, Ward 2 by way of Option A3, as outlined in Report CLK 06-21;
and,
4.That the Clerk be given the authority to give effect thereto and provide for
any process or procedures necessary to undertake the filling of the vacant
seat.
Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote
- 14 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
11.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 36-21
Arena Pro Shop Rental Fee Relief
Resolution #735/21
Moved by Councillor Butt
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.That Report CS 36-21 Arena Pro Shop Rental Fee Reduction be received;
2.That that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Concession
Licence Amending Agreement with XPRT Marketing & Promotions, that
contains the following condition: that rent be waived for the months of
September and October 2021 and that the current monthly rent paid to the
City of $581.25 be reduced by fifty percent to $290.63 monthly and in
addition, subject to such additional terms and minor revisions as may be
required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate
Services & City Solicitor; and,
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
11.6 Director, Operations, Report OPS 02-21
2022 Pre-Budget Approval to Award RFP-4-2019 Automotive Parts Supply &
Inventory Management System
Resolution #736/21
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1. That Proposal No. RFP-4-2019, for Automotive Parts Supply & Inventory
Management System submitted by UAP Inc., NAPA Auto Parts (NAPA), in
the amount of $1,610,250.00 (HST included) be accepted for the initial two
year contract period of the initial five year term with an option to extend for
two additional one year extensions;
2. That the total gross project cost of $1,600,250.00 (HST included), including
the proposal amount, and other associated costs, and the net project cost
of $1,450,080.00 (net of HST rebate) for the initial two year contract, to be
funded over a two-year period, be approved;
- 15 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
3. That Council grant pre-2022 Current Budget amount of $580,032.00 for
year one of the initial two year contract;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to fund the net
project cost of $1,450,080.00 as follows:
a. That the year one in amount of $580,032.00, to be funded from property
taxes; and,
b. That the year two in the amount of $870,048.00 will be provided for in
the 2023 Current Budget;
5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary S&S Summary Memo, dated March 30, 2021
Carried
11.7 Director, City Developments & CBO, Report PLN 42-21
Envision Durham – Employment Strategy Technical Report
Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding the need for the
Region to address the concerns of the City and the need for a variety of housing
options in light of the planned intensification.
Resolution #737/21
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Butt
1.That Council endorse the Staff Comments contained in Section 2.2 of
Report PLN 42-21 as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham
Employment Strategy Technical Report, September 24, 2021; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
11.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 43-21
Pickering Integrated Sustainable Design Standards
City of Pickering
Resolution #738/21
Moved by Councillor Brenner
- 16 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1. That Council approve the hiring of Urban Equation Corp. to update and
convert the 2007 Sustainable Development Guidelines into a tiered
Integrated Sustainable Design Standard in accordance with Purchasing
Policy 10.03 (c);
2. That the Letter Proposal submitted by Urban Equation Corp. for
Professional Consulting Services to prepare a tiered Integrated Sustainable
Design Standard for the City in the amount of $84,850.00 (HST excluded),
provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 43-21, be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $106,604.00 (HST included), and the
total net project cost of $96,000.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the
total net project cost from the Consulting & Professional 2021 Council
Approved Current Budget Account 502230.10115 as follows:
a) The sum of $86,000.00 from The Atmospheric Fund; and,
b) The sum of $10,000.00 from The Regional Municipality of Durham;
5. That City staff be authorized to sign any agreements between the City and
Urban Equation Corp. in a form satisfactory to the Director, City
Development; and,
6. That the appropriate staff of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
12.Motions and Notice of Motions
There were no notices of motions.
13.By-laws
13.1 By-law 7883/21
Being a by-law to appoint Rumali Perera as the Deputy Clerk for The Corporation
of the City of Pickering.
13.2 By-law 7884/21
- 17 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors.
Resolution #739/21
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Butt
That By-law Numbers 7883/21 through 7884/21 be approved.
Carried
14.Confidential Council – Public Report
Mayor Ryan stated that prior to the Regular Council Meeting, an In-camera session was
held at 6:30 p.m. in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Procedure
By-law 7665/18 to consider personal matters about identifiable individuals as it relates to
appointments to the Cultural Advisory Committee.
14.1 Appointments to the Cultural Advisory Committee Carried
Resolution #740/21
Moved by Councillor Butt
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That Surriya Jabeen be appointed to the Cultural Advisory Committee for a term
ending November 14, 2022 or until a successor is appointed.
Carried
15.Other Business
15.1 Councillor McLean gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Notice of
Motion to dedicate the off leash portion of Balsdon Park in memory of late
Councillor Ian Cumming to recognize his work and love towards animals.
15.2 Councillor Pickles noted that a company that crushes stones, was creating dust,
mud, and traffic on the east side of Notion Road towards west of Marshcourt
Drive and beyond, and added that this issue had been going on for years. Paul
Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, noted that area residents
could seek civil litigation or report to a Spill Centre through the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) and added that Staff would follow up to gain a better
understanding of the situation.
- 18 -
Council Meeting Minutes
November 22, 2021
Electronic Meeting
7:00 pm
15.4 Councillor Ashe requested a briefing note from Staff regarding the Minister’s
Zoning Order that was issued for the Annandale lands and how this would impact
the City’s legal options at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Paul Bigioni, Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor, stated that he would provide the briefing note
as requested and work with the Chief Planner in this regard.
16.Confirmation By-law
By-law Number 7885/21
Councillor Pickles, seconded by Councillor Butt moved for leave to introduce a By-law of
the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of November 22, 2021.
Carried
17.Adjournment
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
The meeting adjourned at 9:04 pm.
Dated this 22nd of November, 2021.
David Ryan, Mayor
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 19 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
1
Present:
Mayor David Ryan
Councillors:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
S. Butt
B. McLean
D. Pickles
Also Present:
M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer
K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO
P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
S. Douglas-Murray - Director, Community Services
B. Duffield -Director, Operations
R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services
F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects
S. Cassel -City Clerk
J. Halsall -Division Head, Finance
A. Mostert -Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
R. Perera -Deputy Clerk
J. Litoborski -Supervisor, Licensing & Enforcement
N. Emery -Coordinator, Traffic Operations
1.Roll Call
The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating
electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20.
2.Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
3.Delegations
3.1 Robert Roszell, Chairman
10,000 Trees
Re: SAVE Program: Encouraging Salt Management Best Practices on Sidewalks
and Parking Lots
- 20 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
Robert Roszell, Chairman, 10,000 Trees, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection to speak to the SAVE Program: Encouraging Salt Management Best
Practices on Sidewalks and Parking Lots. Through the aid of a PowerPoint
presentation, Mr. Roszell discussed the toxicity of road salt, key events leading to
the creation of the SAVE program, and the usage of salt on parking lots and
sidewalks. Mr. Roszell further discussed the negative impacts of road salt
including the corrosion of infrastructure, high winter maintenance costs, harm to
fish and aquatic life, damage to soils and vegetation, and pollution of groundwater.
He also discussed the potential cost savings from applying road salt at the correct
rates and the best practices as per the SAVE Program. Mr. Roszell concluded his
delegation by speaking to managing risk and ensuring due diligence of road salt
application.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Staff,
and Mr. Roszell, regarding:
•the rating of magnesium chloride in comparison to calcium chloride;
•the type of road salt the City is currently using and the type that is being
used by liquid trucks on highways;
•organic alternatives to road salt; and,
•exploring opportunities and ideas for salt application and City Staff
connecting with Mr. Roszell to continue the discussion.
4.Matters for Consideration
4.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 25-21
Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment
-Summary of Public Engagement Process and
-Endorsement of the Beachfront Park Master Plan
Consultant Delegation
Jana Joyce, Principal, The MBTW Group, on Report ENG 25-21
Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, noted that The MBTW Group
had been working on the Needs Assessment and the public engagement process
pertaining to the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation Project since 2019 and added that
Staff had now arrived at a preferred design option.
Jana Joyce, Principal, The MBTW Group, appeared before the Committee via
electronic connection to discuss the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs
Assessment. Through the aid of a PDF presentation, Ms. Joyce provided the
Committee with an overview of the study area, the project timeline, and the public
2
- 21 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
3
engagement process. She further provided details of the preferred designed
option and the implementation process which include a detailed design process
and consultation of external agencies, and added that the proposed park
rehabilitation initiative would be implemented in two phases.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and
Ms. Joyce regarding:
•limiting access to the North edge of the spit of the East and West side of
the beach to protect natural areas and coordinating with the Toronto
Region Conservation Authority;
•whether there would be wayfinding signage to guide the public along the
boardwalk;
•public interest in splash pads and whether this could be incorporated into
the plans;
•the placement of accessibility mats on the beach to provide access to
wheelchair users;
•ensuring that discussions with adjacent properties are conducted early on
in the project;
•whether offshore protection measures were considered;
•the number of viewing platforms and whether the size would be similar to
the existing viewing platforms;
•whether there were any additional platforms proposed on the marsh for bird
rehabilitation;
•the various lighting options that had been explored and the need for
sufficient lighting providing safety and security to the area;
•whether other Durham area municipalities’ beach parks had been reviewed
as part of the process;
•the possibility of incorporating a beach volleyball court and the types of
recreation that would be feasible in the area;
•whether the public survey was completed by Pickering residents;
•whether vehicles would be allowed to enter the connection to the pier area
to drop off their canoes;
•managing the speed of electric bikes on the boardwalk and whether bike
rental features used by other municipalities were reviewed; and,
•the timelines of the Project.
A further question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee
and Staff regarding:
•providing sufficient lighting along the East and West side of the Park and
whether lighting was included in the cost estimating;
- 22 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
4
•the possibility of placing security cameras and building a beach volleyball
court area; and,
•the top five favorite park elements and activities identified through the
public engagement process.
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.That Report ENG 25-21 regarding a summary of the Public Engagement
Process for Beachfront Park, as a follow-up to Report ENG 21-21, be
received for information;
2.That the Final Preferred Design Option that was prepared in response to
the input received through the public engagement process, be endorsed as
the Beachfront Park Master Plan; and,
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
4.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 04-21
Property Standards By-law
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and
Staff regarding:
•how the City would enforce the maintenance of retaining walls;
•the storing of compost heaps as included in the attached by-law being to
address health and environmental concerns;
•whether the attached by-law addressed bird feeders on properties and
indicated a specific number of bird feeders permitted on a property;
•how the noise of exterior equipment would be measured;
•whether the attached by-law addressed security cameras facing other
resident properties;
•the level of change from the 2002 Property Standards by-law to the
attached by-law; and,
•whether the attached by-law addressed junk in backyards and derelict
vehicles in driveways.
- 23 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
5
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That Report BYL 04-21 regarding the attached Property Standards By-law
be received;
2.That Council enact the Property Standards By-law attached to this Report
(Attachment No. 1); and,
3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
Carried
4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 26-21
Proposed Community Safety Zones
-Fairport Road and Parkside Drive
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”,
Community Safety Zones to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of
Community Safety Zones on highways or parts of highways under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. The amendments
specifically provide for the inclusion of a Community Safety Zone on
Fairport Road between Glenanna Road and Strouds Lane, and on Parkside
Drive between Aspen Road (east intersection) and New Street; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
4.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-21
2022 Interim Spending Authority
Recommendation:
- 24 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
6
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That the 2022 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50 percent of
the prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as contained in Attachment
1, pending approval of the formal 2022 Current Budget by Council; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
4.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-21
2022 Temporary Borrowing By-law
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That the temporary borrowing limit of $56 million be established to meet
2022 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues for
the period of January 1 to September 30, 2022 inclusive, and $28 million
thereafter until December 31, 2022;
2.That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2022 be
established at $41 million;
3.That the attached draft By-law providing for the temporary borrowing of
monies be enacted; and,
4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Carried
4.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-21
2020 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
- 25 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
7
It is recommended that Report FIN 18-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer
regarding the 2020 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for
information.
Carried
4.7 Director, Operations, Report OPS 11-21
Diana, Princess of Wales Park
-Licence Renewal Agreement
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
1.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a license renewal
agreement with the Minister of Infrastructure – Hydro One Networks Inc. for
a further five year term, commencing January 1, 2022, and ending on
December 31, 2026 that is in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate
Services & City Solicitor; and,
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect hereto.
Carried
5.Other Business
5.1 Councillor Butt discussed the increased levels of substance abuse and the
adverse impact to hospitals and enquired whether the City could be involved in
any way.
Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, noted that the subject matter was
dealt with through the Region in cooperation with hospitals and nonprofit
organizations and added that the Region had a dedicated webpage detailing the
available resources and that the City could help in promoting those resources. Ms.
Carpino further added that the Region had recently identified substance abuse
through their Community and Safety Well Being Plan and that the City would
assist in delivering the recommendations identified in the Plan as part of a Region
wide committee. Councillor Pickles added that he would be reaching out to the
Health and Social Services Departments at the Region to assist in citing the
available resources on the City’s website.
- 26 -
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
8
5.2 Councillor Brenner enquired about the role that the City could play to address
homelessness and the Opioid Crisis, and added that the Pickering Public Library
had conducted an opioid training course. Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative
Officer, added that through previous Council direction Staff were preparing a
Community Safety Well Being Plan to support the objectives of the Region’s
Community Safety Well Being Plan and that Staff would be reporting back to
Council with an update in 2022.
6.Adjournment
Moved by Mayor Ryan
Seconded by Councillor Ashe
That the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m..
- 27 -
Special Council
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting
Immediately Following the
Executive Committee Meeting
Present:
Mayor David Ryan
Councillors:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
S. Butt
B. McLean
D. Pickles
Also Present:
M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer
K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO
P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services
F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects
S. Cassel -City Clerk
R. Perera -Deputy Clerk
Due to the Executive Committee Meeting held at 2:00 p.m., the Special Council Meeting was
called to order at 3:55 p.m.
1.Roll Call
The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating
electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20.
2.Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
Resolution # 741/21
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Butt
That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239
(2) of the Municipal Act and Procedural By-law 7665/18, in that the matters to be
discussed relate to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the
municipality or local board.
- 28 -
Special Council
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting
Immediately Following the
Executive Committee Meeting
Carried
Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be severed.
3.In Camera Matters
3.1 Confidential Verbal Update from the Director, Economic Development & Strategic
Projects
Re: The Innovation Corridor - Land Acquisition Plans
This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera
meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the
In Camera minutes.]
Resolution # 742/21
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Ashe
That Council rise to the open session of the Special Meeting of Council.
Carried
Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed.
Mayor Ryan stated that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council received
a confidential verbal update from Staff pertaining to a proposed or pending
acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality as it relates to the Innovation
Corridor. Mayor Ryan further noted that no decisions were made and that no
direction was provided to or requested from staff.
4.Confirmation By-law
By-law Number 7886/21
Councillor Ashe, seconded by Councillor Butt, moved for leave to introduce a by-law of
the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of December 6, 2021.
Carried
5.Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Butt
- 29 -
Special Council
Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting
Immediately Following the
Executive Committee Meeting
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Dated this 6th of December, 2021.
David Ryan, Mayor
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 30 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
1
Present:
Mayor David Ryan
Councillors:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
S. Butt
B. McLean
D. Pickles
Also Present:
M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer
K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO
P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
S. Cassel -City Clerk
C. Rose -Chief Planner
N. Surti -Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
D. Jacobs -Manager, Policy & Geomatics
R. Perera -Deputy Clerk
C. Celebre -Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives
M. Kish -Principal Planner, Policy
C. Morrison -Principal Planner, Development Review
I. Lima -(Acting) Planner II
1.Roll Call
The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating
electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20.
2.Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor McLean
That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow one additional delegation, under
Section 3.1 of the agenda regarding Information Report No. 16-21, and one additional
delegation, under Section 3.2 the agenda regarding Information Report No. 17-21.
Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote
- 31 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
2
3.Statutory Public Meetings
Councillor Butt, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting
under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted
that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City
before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the
decision of City Council to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), and may not be entitled to be
added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of OLT, there are reasonable
grounds to do so.
Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for
the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining the process for discussion
purposes as well as the order of speakers.
3.1 Information Report No. 16-21
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/21
S. Larkin Developments Inc.
5435 Brock Road
A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of
informing the public with respect to the above-noted application.
Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II, provided the Committee with an overview of
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/21. Through the aid of a PowerPoint
presentation, Ms. Lima outlined the subject lands, noting that the purpose of the
amendment was to rezone the subject lands to an appropriate zone category to
formalize the existing industrial uses and to expand the list of permitted uses to
facilitate the redevelopment of the lands for industrial and commercial purposes.
She further spoke to the planning policy framework, public comments received,
planning and design comments, and the next steps in the application process.
Marcus Martins, Humphries Planning Group Inc., and Shaun Larkin, S. Larkin
Developments Inc., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide
an overview of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/21. Through the
aid of a PDF Presentation, Mr. Martins discussed the subject lands, the three
phases of the development proposal, planning policy framework, comments
received, and studies completed to date.
Andrey Gusev, 5460 Old Brock Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/21. Mr.
Gusev raised concerns regarding the invasion of privacy as the proposed gas
stations would be facing his home and enquired about the input from the Toronto
- 32 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
3
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). He further discussed the adverse impact
to the community including noise, traffic, and safety of pedestrians. Mr. Gusev
concluded his delegation by asking the Committee to oppose the application or to
remove the gas station component from the application.
A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee
and Mr. Gusev regarding water quality and the source of water for the area.
Eric Stone and Nikki Stone, 5436 old Brock Road, joined the electronic meeting
via audio connection in opposition to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A
09/21. Ms. Stone discussed the adverse impact to pedestrian safety, noise, and
water quality and spoke to traffic and sound pollution. She added that the subject
lands were currently being used for uses not permitted by the current zoning and
questioned the reasoning for the zoning change now. Ms. Stone enquired about
the studies conducted pertaining to livestock and wetlands and the impact to the
Hamlet. Ms. Stone concluded her delegation by asking how the uses being sought
through the zoning amendment would be monitored as the current uses on the
lands were not permitted through the current zoning.
Ian Gillespie, Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/21. Mr.
Gillespie spoke to the Pickering Official Plan adding that the proposed
development does not the meet the intention of the Official Plan for the area. He
further added that the subject lands were a highly visible gateway to the Hamlet
and discussed the significance of the Hamlet, adding that the proposed
development would be detrimental to the community’s interest. Mr. Gillespie noted
the adverse impact to traffic and water quality and added that the applicant had
not conducted the slope analysis correctly as per the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan Technical Report 4. He concluded his delegation by stating that
a noise report should be conducted and that the proposal does not meet the
objectives and policies of the City’s Official Plan.
Steven Peters, 1775 Pickering-Uxbridge Townline Road, joined the electronic
meeting via audio connection in opposition to Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 09/21. Mr. Peters added that he had submitted comments to the City
Development department and discussed the adverse impact to well water quality
and quantity, traffic, noise, safe movement of pedestrians, local economy, and the
value of homes in the area. Mr. Peters noted that the proposal does not conform
to the Durham Regional Official Plan and concluded his delegation by stating that
the proposal would not be beneficial to the community.
Marcus Martins, Humphries Planning Group Inc., stated that public comments
received will be reviewed and addressed and added that the uses were permitted
- 33 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
4
within the City’s Official plan and the purpose of the application being to
reintroduce the uses and the gas station component.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Staff,
Mr. Martins, and Mr. Larkin, regarding:
•the significance of the subject lands and the area being a gateway to both
the Hamlet and the City, and whether the applicant would be open to
creating a more sustainable and environmentally friendly proposal that
would benefit the Hamlet;
•whether uses included in the Official Plan could be removed from the
Official Plan;
•whether the proposed development would be presented to the City’s Site
Plan Advisory Committee and the possibility for the Site Plan Advisory
Committee to engage the residents of the Hamlet in reviewing the
application;
•the status of the current uses on the property and whether these uses were
permitted under the current zoning;
•the planning application being in the early stages of the planning process
and whether the City had received any additional agency comments since
the publication of the Report;
•whether the applicant would be making amendments to the application
given the comments received from the public and future comments from
agencies and the City;
•how the water from the proposed carwash would be recycled and whether
any studies were conducted pertaining to any effects on the water quality
and quantity for surrounding wells;
•the number of resident homes that the Public Meeting Notice was sent to;
•the current permitted uses on the property and the involvement of the
Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and,
•whether the gas station would be open to the general public or utilized just
for trucking companies.
3.2 Information Report No. 17-21
City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21
Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for
Infill and Replacement Dwellings
Multiple Properties in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones
A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of
informing the public with respect to the above-noted application.
- 34 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
5
Margaret Kish, Principal Planner, Policy, provided the Committee with an overview
of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Ms. Kish noted that the
purpose of the zoning by-law amendment was to reduce the maximum permitted
Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres, that
would apply to areas within the City identified as Established Neighbourhood
Precincts. She discussed the Infill & Replacement Housing in Established
Neighbourhoods Study and background information leading to the zoning by-law
amendment process to reduce the maximum Dwelling Height provision from 10.0
metres to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Ms. Kish
further outlined the planning policy framework, comments received, and the next
steps in the process.
Paula MacDonald, 379 Rosebank Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Through
the aid of a PDF presentation, Ms. MacDonald spoke to the need for compatibility
of new homes within established neighbourhoods and the adverse impact to
privacy and sunlight of established neighbourhoods from larger homes. Ms.
Macdonald commented on the average ceiling height in homes and noted that 9.0
metres would provide for those heights sufficiently. She concluded her delegation
by noting the importance of changing the maximum dwelling height to 9.0 metres
from 10.0 metres.
Llewellyn Pereira, Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Mr.
Pereira noted that he had previously submitted a review of other municipalities’
maximum dwelling heights which were consistent with the proposed change and
raised concerns regarding the Council resolution to amend the height from
recommended 9.0 metre height by SGL Planning & Design Inc. He concluded his
delegation by asking Council to consider the comments of the local residents.
Paul White, President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association (Inc.1949),
joined the electronic meeting via audio connection in support of Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 12/21. Mr. White noted that 9.0 metres would still allow
applicants to appear before the Committee of Adjustment to apply for increased
heights beyond the 9.0 metres and would still provide a standard height. He
concluded his delegation by asking Council to accept the proposal and implement
the 9.0 metres as the standard maximum height.
Carlie Weppler, Pickering resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Ms.
Weppler added that the proposal would be considered down zoning and would
unnecessarily restrict development where reasonable design would require minor
variances as per previous decisions of the OLT. She noted that the 10.0 metre
- 35 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
6
height should remain as to not waste City resources through minor variance
applications. Ms. Weppler concluded her delegation by asking the Committee to
maintain the 10.0 metre height, to not follow confirmation bias, and to increase the
rest of the City maximum dwelling height to 10.0 metres.
Dana Saccoccio, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Ms.
Saccoccio noted that there was no single family home Maximum Dwelling Height
for the City until 2018 when a by-law amendment was introduced. Ms. Saccoccio
spoke to the maximum heights of GTA municipalities and enquired about how the
9.0 metre maximum height was determined and the expertise used in making the
determination. She further stated that the amendment made by Council to
increase the height to 10.0 metres, which was later reconsidered at the October
25th Meeting of Council, was done without regard for public input. She concluded
her delegation by asking the Committee to amend the Zoning By-laws for all areas
of Pickering to 10.0 metres for maximum dwelling height.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the 9.0 metre height being identified through
the Study conducted by SGL Planning & Design Inc.
Garry Winsor, 600 West Shore Boulevard, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. He
added that he was a member of the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association
who lobbied for the Study to implement development controls and provided input
to SGL Planning & Design Inc. Mr. Winsor concluded his delegation by asking the
Committee to maintain the 9.0 metre maximum dwelling height which would still
allow builders to submit a minor variance application to the Committee of
Adjustment for increased heights.
Paul Weppler, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Mr.
Weppler raised three questions to the Committee pertaining to the process
undertaken to reconsider the Council decision of the 10.0 metre height, the
rational for a standard height, and how dwelling height could be determined when
passing by homes.
Elizabeth Italiano, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Ms.
Italiano discussed the maximum dwelling height in neighbouring municipalities, the
‘Oppose Pickering Proposal that will Decrease Property Values’ Petition, the
average ceiling height of homes, and the waste of resources through the
Committee of Adjustment. Ms. Italiano concluded her delegation by urging the
- 36 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
7
Committee to vote in favour of the 10.0 metre height and to extend the 10.0 metre
height to all of Pickering.
Martin Tzakov, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio
connection in opposition of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21. Mr.
Tzakov spoke to the need for large multigenerational homes due to the increase in
housing prices and different maximum heights creating unequitable
neighbourhoods. He concluded his delegation by adding that large homes would
lead to a bigger tax base which would then increase municipal funding, and that
adopting the reduction in dwelling height would be counter intuitive.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and
Staff regarding:
•the significance of the neighbourhood boundaries and the established
neighbourhood precinct overlay zones in relation to the zoning by-law
amendment;
•public comments received to date and the public meeting notification
process;
•the process taken in the past to identify R3 and R4 areas requiring a
maximum height limit and the 9.0 metre height being recommended by City
staff based on their research findings; and,
•Staff undertaking the work on this matter based on their obligations to
provide recommendations that are based on professional standards under
the Planning Act and working independently in this regard.
4.Delegations
4.1 Paul W hite, President
Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association (Inc.1949)
Re: Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing Support
Paul White, President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association (Inc.1949),
joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to City staff’s role of
representation at Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearings. Through the aid of a PDF
presentation, Mr. White displayed a number of pieces of correspondence detailing
the absence of Staff representation at an OLT hearing. He added that he was
unable to ask City Staff why the application was denied as Staff were present in
an observer capacity leaving only himself as a resident to challenge the matter at
the OLT. Mr. White concluded his delegation by expressing his disappointment in
the lack of professional opinion at OLT proceedings and added that the process
should be addressed as there were future Committee of Adjustment applications
before the OLT where City representation would be needed.
- 37 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
8
A question and answer period ensued between the Members of Committee, Staff,
and Mr. White, regarding:
•other City communities such as North Rosebank, East side of Bay Ridges
facing similar frustrations pertaining to City representation at OLT
proceedings;
•the reasons for the difference in the process undertaken in representing the
decisions of the Committee of Adjustment at OLT proceedings in
comparison to City representation at OLT proceedings pertaining to Council
decisions; and,
•whether Council had delegated their authority to the Committee of
Adjustment to make decisions and how this relates to representation at
OLT hearings for Committee of Adjustment decisions.
4.2 Adam Layton, Evans Planning Inc.
Re: Report PLN 44-21
Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/17 (R)
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-03
Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2020-03
Brock Dersan Developments Inc.
Southwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street
(2540 and 2550 Brock Road)
Adam Layton, Evans Planning Inc., joined the electronic meeting in support of
Report PLN 44-21. Through the aid of a PDF presentation, Mr. Layton provided an
overview of the subject lands, site plans, key changes to the proposal, the amenity
areas included in the proposal, and the elevation conceptual plans.
A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and
Mr. Layton regarding:
•whether the amenity spaces would be for the residents and whether the
play area would be for all ages;
•whether the applicant had any intention to use the lands to the west during
the construction process and the City desiring to expedite the development
of the park to the west of the subject lands;
•the anticipated population increase through the development;
•the location of the car park for Block 2 of the proposal and the underground
parking, and whether elevator access would be provided through the
underground parking;
•clarity on the widening of the roads as indicated as being a key change;
and,
- 38 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
9
•the length and width of the garages.
5.Planning & Development Reports
5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 44-21
Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/17 (R)
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-03
Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2020-03
Brock Dersan Developments Inc.
Southwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street
(2540 and 2550 Brock Road)
A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee
and Staff regarding:
•whether there was any opportunity to incorporate accessible units in the
development; and,
•the length and width of the garage spaces and working with the applicant to
ensure that the size of the garages were sufficient.
Recommendation:
Moved by Councillor Ashe
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/17 (R), submitted by
Brock Dersan Developments Inc., to permit a residential condominium
development consisting of a mix of townhouse dwellings for the lands
located at the southwest corner of Brock Road and Dersan Street, be
endorsed subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix
I to Report PLN 44-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward
an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment; and,
2.That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-03, submitted by Brock
Dersan Developments Inc., to establish a single development block to
facilitate a residential condominium development, as shown on Attachment
#7 to Report PLN 44-21, and the implementing conditions of approval, as
set out in Appendix II, be endorsed.
Carried
6.Other Business
- 39 -
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Butt
10
6.1 Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Motion
regarding City staff representation at Committee of Adjustment OLT appeal
hearings. He added that the current process was unfair to residents and
encouraged Staff to look at addressing this important issue by way of City Policy.
Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, added that Planning staff, in
collaboration with Legal staff, would look into the matter understanding that it is a
priority.
7.Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the meeting be adjourned.
Carried
The meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
- 40 -
Memo
CAO 86-21
To: Mayor Ryan
Members of Council
December 13, 2021
From: Susan Cassel
City Clerk
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Subject: Council Appointments to Fill Councillor Representative Vacancies on Boards and
Committees
-ADM 045 Council Appointments to Committees
File: A-1410
Further to Policy ADM 045, Council Appointments to Committees, when a vacancy occurs on any
Board or Committee, Council appointments are required.
Due to the unfortunate passing of Councillor Ian Cumming on November 1, 2021, the Councillor
representative vacancies that currently exist include:
Public Library Board
Animal Services Appeal Committee
Site Plan Advisory Committee
Civic Awards Selection Committee
The following is a summary of the interest expressed from current Members of Council to be
appointed to each respective Board/Committee.
Public Library Board – 1 Member of Council required
Councillor Shaheen Butt
Animal Services Appeal Committee – 1 Member of Council required
Councillor Shaheen Butt
Due to the process currently underway to appoint an individual to fill the vacant seat of City
Councillor, Ward 2, and the precedent of a City Councillor from each ward sitting on the Site Plan
Advisory Committee and the Civic Awards Selection Committee, the newly appointed Member of
Council, as the City Councillor, Ward 2 representative, will fill those vacancies once they are
officially appointed in January 2022.
The following motion is provided to give effect to the appointments to fill the Councillor
representative vacancies on the above noted Board/Committees:
Corr. 58-21
- 41 -
1. That Councillor Shaheen Butt be appointed to fill the Councillor representative vacancy on
the Pickering Public Library Board and the Animal Services Appeal Committee for the
remainder of the 2018-2022 Term of Council; and,
2. That the Councillor representative vacancies on the Site Plan Advisory Committee and
Civic Awards Selection Committee be filled by the new Member of Council, to be
appointed in January 2022, for the remainder of the 2018-2022 Term of Council.
Respectfully,
Susan Cassel
City Clerk
December 13, 2021 Page 2 of 2
Council Appointments to Fill Councillor Representative Vacancies on Boards and
Committees - 42 -
Report to Council
Report Number: CS 37-21
Date: December 13, 2021
From: Sarah Douglas-Murray
Director, Community Services
Subject: Accessibility Initiatives Update
-Service and Support Animals Initiative
-Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
-2021 Accessibility Compliance Report
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That the Service & Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) Draft Monograph prepared by the
SSAI stakeholder group and endorsed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee, as set
out in Attachment 1, be received;
2. That Council endorse Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025, prepared by
City staff and endorsed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee, as set out in Attachment
2;
3. That Council endorse the City of Pickering 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report
prepared by City staff and endorsed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee, as set out
in Attachment 3, and that staff be authorized to submit it to the Government of Ontario
Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility; 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 provide Council with an update on
various accessibility initiatives, as supported and endorsed by the Accessibility Advisory
Committee.
1. Service and Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) Draft Monograph has been completed by
the SSAI stakeholder group including the City of Pickering and is attached for Council’s
information (see Attachment 1).
2. Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025: Municipalities are required to
complete multi-year accessibility plans by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities
Act (AODA). The City’s 2016-2020 Five Year Accessibility Plan was approved by
Council on November 16, 2015 (Report CR 20-15; Council Directive #105-15) and has
now expired. The new 5 year accessibility plan will guide the City’s accessibility
priorities until 2025. Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025 is attached for
Council’s endorsement (see Attachment 2).
- 43 -
CS 38-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Accessibility Initiatives Update Page 2
3. Pickering’s 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report: This mandatory report to the
Government of Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility has been completed for
the City of Pickering (including the Pickering Library). The report confirms the City’s full
compliance with AODA requirements and is attached for Council’s endorsement (see
Attachment 3). The report is required to be submitted to the Regulator by December 31,
2021. The AAC has endorsed this report.
Financial Implications:
1. The Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility has awarded a grant of $50,000 to the
City of Pickering to support Pickering’s SSAI. This grant will be fully expended by
December 31, 2021.
2. Annual Capital expenditures, reflected in Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-
2025, will be considered as part of the annual Capital Budget process. The 2021
Accessibility Approved Capital Budget and 2022-2025 Capital Forecast is included as
an appendix to the City’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025.
3. There are no financial implications regarding Pickering’s 2021 Accessibility Compliance
Report.
Discussion:
1. The Service and Support Animals Initiative (SSAI)
SSAI is a joint effort, with partners that include:
• the City of Pickering;
• the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility;
• Aequum Global Access Inc.;
• the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) of OCAD University; and,
• a network of professionals in accessibility, business, and governance.
The SSAI’s purpose is to collaboratively:
• identify prominent issues around service and support animals in the community –
including challenges to businesses, municipalities, and other client-facing
organizations – to include barriers that regularly face users of service animals;
• respond with co-designed recommendations addressing the identified challenges
and barriers;
• provide resources for stakeholders and the community, as drawn from an Innovation
Lab results and other consultative research and outcomes; and,
• educate, using the developed resources through public awareness access and
forums.
- 44 -
CS 38-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Accessibility Initiatives Update Page 3
The SSAI has developed the attached Monograph (draft research paper) that includes
recommendations. The information will be presented to members of the accessibility
community and stakeholder groups through a Zoom event on December 15, 2021. The
project will conclude by December 31st, 2021.
From the results of various stakeholder engagements and consultations, the SSAI has
developed a Monograph, with background, information, and resources, documenting the
SSAI process and its recommendations. The Monograph will facilitate outreach to
businesses, municipalities, and other community service organizations and sharing the
resources, best practices and tools developed.
2. Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Under AODA, the City of Pickering is required to develop a multi-year accessibility plan to
help make Ontario accessible by 2025. An Accessibility Plan must be updated at least once
every five years in consultation with people with disabilities and accessibility advisory
committees. Pickering’s 2021-2025 Accessibility Plan provides a roadmap for City Council
and staff on actions to prevent, reduce and, where possible, eliminate barriers to City
programs, services and facilities that may affect community members and visitors who live
with disabilities. Additionally, the plan outlines how the City will meet its obligations under
the Ontario Human Rights Code, AODA, and the Ontario Building Code and continue to
enhance the accessibility of our services over the next five years. This is the City’s second
multi-year accessibility plan which builds on the fulfilment of its 2016-2020 plan and the
City’s compliance with requirements under AODA.
Since Ontario’s legislation and regulations relating to accessibility often specify minimum
compliance requirements, the City of Pickering has often found that going above and
beyond the letter of the law and seeking best practices often makes practical sense in the
pursuit of an inclusive community.
Pervasive change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with rapid
municipal growth are themes that set the stage for Pickering’s accessibility planning to
2025.
3. 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report
The compliance report is a checklist of 25 questions encompassing the broad range of
AODA requirements for municipalities. This mandatory bi-annual report to the Ministry for
Seniors and Accessibility has been completed for the City of Pickering and Pickering
Library indicating the achievement of full compliance with AODA.
Regarding Question #14, significant collaborative efforts have been undertaken and
resources invested by Pickering to ensure current and ongoing conformity with World Wide
Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 at Level AA coming
into effect in 2021. Much progress has been achieved, and remaining challenges have
been reduced to content not controlled by the City of Pickering and files for which
accessible renderings are not technically possible. A plan and resources are in place to
maintain compliance and pursue continuous improvement.
- 45 -
CS 38-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Accessibility Initiatives Update Page 4
Subject to Council’s approval, the 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report will be submitted
by Pickering’s Accessibility Coordinator to the Regulator by December 31, 2021.
Attachments:
1. Service and Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) PowerPoint Presentation and Monograph
2. Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
3. 2021 Accessibility Compliance Report
Prepared By:
Original Signed By:
Sharon Milton
Manager, Recreation Services
SM:th
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:
Sarah Douglas-Murray
Director, Community Services
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 46 -
Attachment #1 to Report #CS 37-21
Service &
Support Animals
Initiative
SSAI
Success & Progress
2020-2021
November 2021 1 - 47 -
Why Innovations
Stakeholder Identification & Engagement from the Start.
• Stakeholder Groups.
• Users of Service Support Animals (& Support Persons)
• Businesses & Services; “Main Street”; Libraries, Corporate; etc.
• Governance, (Including Accessibility Advisory Committees)
• Support Organizations (Animal Training, Disabilities, etc.)
• Multiple Ways to Gain Stakeholders’ Experiences & Opinions
• Every part of the project was Stakeholders – Inception to the Work
November 2021 2 - 48 -
A Word About SSAI Scope
• SSAI Responsible for doing all the work necessary to make doable
and meaningful Stakeholder-Focused Recommendations.
• Responsible to City (and Province) via the Stakeholders.
• Five Detailed Recommendations are made and speak to:
• Prioritized Needs.
• Needs we can respond to, essentially through the city.
• Needs we can “readily” address in our community.
• Serious Complex Issues Remain
◦ These are addressed in the Monograph as more concerted efforts by
stakeholders.
November 2021 3 - 49 -
The Beginnings
• City Councillors join our PAAC Meeting.
o Concerns reported from the Pickering community – Animal Confusion;
Need Easy Identification.
o PAAC Advised that Stakeholders need to be engaged.
• PAAC Created a Task Group of Stakeholders to:
o Research history, regulations, current environment, issues, etc.
o Identify Primary Issue Categories.
o Establish a Project Plan – Purpose, Resources, Methods
November 2021 4 - 50 -
SSAI Purpose
• Identify prominent issues around service and support animals in
the community.
• Respond with consulted & co-designed recommendations
addressing the challenges and barriers identified.
• Provide tools & resources for stakeholders and the community.
• Educate, using through resources, tools, public awareness access
and forums.
November 2021 5 - 51 -
SSAI Resources
• Highly Motivated Start-Up Task Group Members.
• Ongoing Support from the City of Pickering.
• Expanded Community Outreach to Increase & Diversify Task
Group.
• The Province Takes Interest – Sharing Mutual Concerns:
◦ Direct support through Alfred Spencer, (then) Director, Outreach &
Strategic Initiatives, Accessibility Directorate of Ontario.
November 2021 6 - 52 -
SSAI Methods
• With the Provincial Support, SSAI was formalized & able to plan
a robust methodology to engage stakeholders.
• Well Designed Public Survey – >300 Respondents; 54,000 Data
Points.
• Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL) – Co-Designing Ideas & Solutions.
• VIL Secondary Consult.
• Published Reports; Public Launch; Several 1-Page Resource Tools.
November 2021 7 - 53 -
Stakeholder Cross-Sections
Public Survey: Representation Per Group VIL: Representation Per Group
34%
25%
25%
16%
Users: 34% 38%
21%
15%
Government: 25%
Businesses/Services: 25%
Advocacy Orgs: 16% 26%
Users: 38%
Government: 26%
Businesses/Services: 21%
Advocacy Orgs: 15%
8November 2021 - 54 -
Issue Areas Identified
Four Issue Categories
1. Regulations, Policies & Procedures
2. Emerging Issues/Problems
3. Systemic/Practical Concerns
4. Education/Awareness & Public Service
November 2021 9 - 55 -
A Bit About Innovation Labs & the VIL
• An Innovation Lab enables its participants to work on complex
challenges, come up with new ideas, and co-create solutions
that no single group or entity could accomplish on their own.
• Learning the Bigger Picture Together – From Each Other.
• Our Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL): 4 half-day interactive sessions:
o Education/Training; Issue ID/Prioritization; Persona Creations.
• 6 Groups – Stakeholder Cross-Section →6 Ideas/Solutions.
November 2021 10 - 56 -
VIL Identified Issues, Slide 1
• Education/Awareness/Training needed for Businesses, Services
& the Public: Require more training in laws, rights, interaction
protocol, inclusion, animal purpose, etc. Learning Bigger Pictures
from Each Other.
• Competing Rights/Access: Confusion is notable with
understanding the various competing human rights, including
those based on factors like allergies, culture, fear, untrained
support animal/user behaviours – causing problems for trained
animal users, the business community, and public services, etc.
November 2021 11 - 57 -
VIL Identified Issues, Slide 2
● Standardized/Need for Certification/IDs: The Need for
standardized animal certifications and IDs.
● Laws/Regulations: Laws, regulations and their definitions are
confusing, inconsistent, not inclusive enough, including what is
appropriate to require for a person's needs identification.
● Animal Confusion: The various types, purposes, and access
rights of the variety of animals now in the community is
confusing.
November 2021 12 - 58 -
VIL Identified Issues, Slide 3
● Misrepresented & Untrained Animals: Too many people are
inaccurately claiming legitimacy of their animal’s role and/or
qualifications:
o Increase of various untrained animals do not or cannot demonstrate
appropriate behaviours, causing distraction and potential safety risks.
o Issues around behaviours, health and safety that impact the rights of
others, would cause inherent competing rights concerns.
o Easy availability of Online Simulated IDs, Certs, & Apparel is a
significant contributor to the issue.
November 2021 13 - 59 -
Secondary Consult – SSAI & VIL Outcomes
● Critique (positive or constructive) of the VIL structure, criteria &
process, as introduced in the report provided.
● Compare how you might differently identify or prioritize the issues,
challenges, and barriers to be addressed.
● Rate the 6 VIL solution models for how well they meet the identified
criteria (e.g., accessibility, ease of understanding, feasibility, etc.), as
well as your overall favourability rating and why.
● Provide an additional response that could be drawn from the VIL
outcomes, issues identified, and your own experience.
November 2021 14 - 60 -
SSAI: 6 Working Recommendations -Feat
● Prioritized by 1. Issue Recognition (%), and 2. Degree shared by all.
● Teamwork Intended – Create/Implement with Multiple Sources:
Community, Municipality, Government
● Engage the Community: Boards of Trade, Cultural Community Centres,
Native Canadian Centre / Indigenous Centres, ESL Communities;
Newcomer/Welcome Centres, Main Street Venues.
● Modular and Combine – Adjust & Use in Multiple Efforts
● Use Multiple Media: Online, In-Person, Social Networking (Use them
all – One medium does not replace another)
November 2021 15 - 61 -
Sample Recommendation: Businesses & Services
● Issue: More Training & awareness is needed for businesses, services
and public.
● Groups that Benefit: Businesses, Users, Municipalities/Government,
Support Orgs.
● Recommendation: Provide core training for businesses & services,
through municipalities, designed with stakeholders to include:
o Rights for community access of users and their service/support animals.
o Others’ Rights related to above.
o How to respond to your customers/clients with concerns/questions
o Types of service/support animals (Cont’d…)
November 2021 16 - 62 -
Recommendation: Businesses & Services, Cont’d
Considerations:
● Develop a target/recruitment program to draw in businesses/services.
Include business/services venues that support ESL clientele.
● Use recognized organizations such as Boards of Trade, Community
Centers, Indigenous Centres, etc. to promote the program and talk
with constituents about their needs.
● Post-Training: Provide signage to the business/service it as trained in
service/support animal access.
November 2021 17 - 63 -
Ongoing Concerns: Samples
• Quantity of regulations (Federal, Provincial, Municipal): Many with
confusing, ambiguous, conflicting content. (>25 regs faced by a
traveller)
• Divisions among user stakeholders around:
o Universal Certification vs. by Service Type.
o Emotional Support “Service” Animals: No training, problematic
behaviours.
• Easily Attained “Credentials” and Identifications Online
• Availability of trained service dogs does not meet the needs.
• Newly emerging: Online training courses for training one’s dog to be a
service animal, including PTSD, Mental Health, Medical Response.
November 2021 18 - 64 -
"The only disability in life is a bad attitude."
-Scott Hamilton
American Multi-World Champion Figure Skater
& Olympic gold medalist
November 2021 19 - 65 -
Discussion Time: Other Issues/Areas?
Feedback on SSAI content; Questions?
November 2021 20 - 66 -
SSAI Monograph – Text Access Version
Contents
SSAI Monograph Draft....................................................................................................................... 1
The Story: About the Project .......................................................................................................... 4
Stakeholders Engaged .......................................................................................................................... 4
Resources.............................................................................................................................................. 4
More Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 5
Making Sense of What We Got ............................................................................................................ 6
Reporting .............................................................................................................................................. 6
The Monograph & Reporting................................................................................................................ 6
Poster Handouts ................................................................................................................................... 7
Public Launch ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Our Resources are Available ................................................................................................................. 7
What the SSAI is About ......................................................................................................................... 7
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7
Data Collection & Reporting .......................................................................................................... 9
Project Data Collection Sequence ........................................................................................................ 9
Provided Report Formats ..................................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Service & Support Animals in Society .......................................................................... 9
Historical Narrative – Animals Assisting Humans ................................................................................. 9
Assistance Dog Training Schools Emerge: .......................................................................................... 10
A Variety of Needs – A Variety of Animal/Training Sources ............................................................... 11
Purpose: Service & Support Animal Initiative ...............................................................................12
Stakeholder Driven .......................................................................................................................12
Are There Issues? – Experiences and Opinions...............................................................................12
Experiences ......................................................................................................................................... 13
A Note About Survey “Items”............................................................................................................. 17
Two Qualifying Survey Items .............................................................................................................. 17
Opinions.............................................................................................................................................. 19
More Project Detail: SSAI Genesis, Purpose, Resources & Methods ...............................................19
- 67 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Project Genesis – Pickering Service Animal Task Group..................................................................... 19
Strategic Resourcing: Stakeholder Representation ........................................................................... 20
Community Access in Ontario ............................................................................................................ 20
Methods: Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................. 20
Innovation Lab Introduction .........................................................................................................21
Innovation Lab by Design – Codesigning Ideas and Solutions ............................................................ 21
The SSAI Innovation Lab: Collaborative Stakeholders Identifying Problems & Solutions..................22
Going Virtual ....................................................................................................................................... 22
The SSAI Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL): Stakeholders & Processes....................................................23
The VIL Stakeholder Representational Cross-Section ........................................................................ 23
The VIL Modular Process .................................................................................................................... 23
Polling Registrants: Prioritizing their Issues and Criteria for VIL Work .............................................. 23
Criteria for Solutions........................................................................................................................... 24
Working Sub-Groups .......................................................................................................................... 24
Identified Issues & Challenges Data ................................................................................................... 24
SSAI Virtual Innovation Lab by Design: 6 Groups – 6 Recommendations .......................................... 25
Limitations and Benefits – Balancing the VIL Outcomes .................................................................... 25
The Six VIL Solution Ideas ................................................................................................................... 26
Participant Feedback on the VIL ......................................................................................................... 27
More Stakeholder Review of the VIL Outcomes & Recommendations ............................................27
Summary Tables: Secondary Consultation Responses ...................................................................... 29
Written Responses for Issues ............................................................................................................. 30
More Study Focus: Stakeholder Concerns Around Animal Training/Availability .............................30
Additional Focus: The Federal and Provincial Regulatory Environment...........................................32
Expressed Concerns by Stakeholders re the Regulatory Environment .............................................. 32
The Regulatory Environment: Discussion ........................................................................................... 33
Applicable Federal and Ontario Regulations ...................................................................................... 34
Applicable Rules & Regulations – Details & Comparisons.................................................................. 34
Important Ontario Discussion ............................................................................................................ 34
Stacking up the Numbers ..............................................................................................................35
Responding to Stakeholders .........................................................................................................37
Stakeholder Input Leads to Issue Prioritization.................................................................................. 37
Five Recommendations Based on the SSAI Work ...........................................................................37
We’re Back: A Post-Covid & Pandemic World ................................................................................41
Page |2 - 68 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Communities Reopening after Covid.................................................................................................. 41
Exercise – Consider the following scenario: ....................................................................................... 42
Emerging, Continued & Complex Issues: More Work is Needed .....................................................43
Quantity & Quality of Different Regulations (Federal, Provincial, Municipal) ................................... 43
Divisions Among Animal User Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 44
Easily Attained “Credentials” and Identifications Online ................................................................... 45
Availability of trained service dogs does not meet the many people in need. .................................. 46
Recent Development: Online Service Dog Training Courses ............................................................. 46
Further Consideration of Barriers: Government & the “Environment”...........................................47
What We Learned ........................................................................................................................48
Authorship ...................................................................................................................................49
Core Authorship.................................................................................................................................. 49
Principal Author .................................................................................................................................. 50
Secondary Authorship ........................................................................................................................ 50
Collaboration and Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................50
In Memoriam, Councillor Ian Cumming ............................................................................................. 50
Disclaimers & Qualifiers................................................................................................................52
“Loving people and animals makes us stronger in the right ways and weaker in the right
ways. Even if animals and people leave, even if they die, they leave us better. So we keep
loving, even though we might lose, because loving teaches us and changes us.”
― Glennon Doyle Melton, Carry On, Warrior: The Power of Embracing Your Messy,
Beautiful Life.
“Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.”
― Groucho Marx, The Essential Groucho: Writings for by and About Groucho Marx.
Page |3 - 69 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
The Story: About the Project
(This section is written in clear language for easier reading access.)
Pickering has seen big changes in the numbers of support animals in public.
Some retail stores and others approached Pickering City Councillors about their concerns. Some
felt it was confusing to see more animals inside public places that seemed like pets. People, like
store owners and mall managers felt it was their job to manage this in their stores. But they also
felt confused about how to do this. They knew different people may have different rights. They
wondered how everyone’s rights could be respected. It has been confusing.
Questions started like:
● Is it a support animal if it only looks like someone’s pet?
● Is it a service dog if the person doesn’t look like they have a disability?
● How do I know what kinds of animals have a right to be in public buildings?
● How do I know if some animals have the right to be in places that other animals are not
allowed?
● Can I ask the owners about their animal or their need for the animal?
● I serve food. What do I do when my customers complain about an animal in my store?
● Is there an easy way to identify if the animal is allowed to be in my store?
They talked about special colour license tags. Thoughts were these might help us to know the
animal is providing recognized service or support for their owner.
Stakeholders Engaged
City councillors came to the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC) to share their
concerns. Committee members wanted to make sure everyone would be part of any discussions,
ideas and solutions. This means people who:
● Work in places like stores, libraries, and restaurants.
● Need and use a service or support animal.
● Work in the city like animal control and provide animal licenses.
● Support people with disabilities and those that need animals to assist them.
We call these people “stakeholders”. Different stakeholders would be affected by ideas and
solutions in different ways. They would need to be part of the ideas. They would need to sit at
the table for all project planning, and for doing the work.
Resources
The PAAC started a separate action group called the Service and Support Animal Task Group.
Their job was to look deeper into the concerns. There have been a lot of news about animals in
the community and in places like airports and public transit. But the stories don’t give
everybody’s side. The stories also don’t look at reasons why there seems to be more animals and
Page |4 - 70 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
confusion around them. The Task Group looked into the laws behind service animals and people’s
rights. They also explored the different kinds of service animals and how they fit into the laws and
peoples’ lives.
All this was helpful. But understanding what stakeholders actually experience was most
important. The Province of Ontario shared many of the concerns and provided direct support to
the project. The first thing the task group did then was to organize the project for increased
activity. The project purpose was formalized. We also identified our resources and came up with
ways to get the job done. From this the Service and Support Animal Initiative was formed – the
SSAI.
More Stakeholders
The next thing to do was to hear from as many stakeholders as possible – to get their experiences,
opinions, concerns, and ideas. The SSAI leaders thought it best to survey as many stakeholders as
possible. A survey was designed to get stakeholders’ experiences and opinions. Survey responses
showed that each stakeholder group was clearly experiencing issues around community access
with service and support animals. This included everyone, from retail stores to service and
support animal users alike. The survey showed that different stakeholders are affected in
different ways from each other. It also showed that different stakeholders shared many of the
same concerns.
The SSAI tasks included:
● Research the federal and provincial laws and how they affect stakeholders. We found that
many laws could be confusing and sometimes contradict each other.
● Search through articles to see what was happening around Ontario, Canada and The U.S.
This included looking if other communities have been working on similar efforts as the
SSAI.
● Organize the many issues into categories and list issues that fall under each.
● Collect and assess the survey results from over 350 stakeholders. This amounted to over
54,000 pieces of information.
● Produce a source of background information, including laws and survey results. This was
first used to inform the Innovation Lab participants.
● Hold a Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL), designed, run, and participated by only stakeholders.
The Innovation lab was a workshop where all stakeholders:
o Learned from the background information that the SSAI provided.
o Learned from each other while working together.
o Worked on ideas and solutions together.
● Create a VIL report. This was sent to a new set of stakeholders for their opinions and ideas
on the SSAI and Innovation Lab outcomes. This way we heard from stakeholders that had
not yet worked on SSAI tasks. It also helped us make sure the project was on the right
path.
Page |5 - 71 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Making Sense of What We Got
After getting all this great information and data, the SSAI had to make sense of it. So, we went to
work:
● Sorting through the survey results for them to make sense.
● Turning the Innovation Lab content into usable information for stakeholders.
● Listening to what stakeholders said.
● Organizing all the other information we gathered.
● Turning all this into ideas, solutions, and recommendations for stakeholder groups and the
public.
The SSAI is all about:
● Engaging stakeholders.
● Supporting and reporting their responses, concerns, and ideas.
● Using stakeholders to help identify the problems and share ideas for solutions.
Reporting
We want you to know about the project and its outcomes. To do this we are providing you three
resources:
● A Published Monograph.
● A more detailed Study Report.
● Poster Handouts.
The Monograph & Reporting
The Monograph is designed to give you:
● Plain Language and Executive Summaries.
● An overview of the SSAI, its design, and methods.
● An overview of how survey data was gathered and how it guided the project.
● Project Outcomes & Recommendations.
The Detailed Study Report can be used as a companion to the Monograph. It offers additional
detailed information, especially in:
● The design, processes, and methods of the SSAI.
● Specific supporting data.
● Results of the in-depth study, comparing federal, provincial laws and regulations.
● The same outcomes and recommendations as the Monograph.
● Appendix resources.
Page |6 - 72 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
The Detailed Study Report will be made available on the City of Pickering website, and other
possible venues. It should be used as a companion report to the Monograph for referencing the
additional detail it provides.
Poster Handouts
We are also producing poster-styled handouts, or “tools” that are meant to be direct resources for
stakeholders and the public. These will be one to two pages. Each will focus on one topic that is
helpful as a stand-alone resource for the public.
Public Launch
The SSAI is holding a half-day “Public Launch Event” in mid-December for everyone to join, learn,
share, and discuss.
Our Resources are Available
The reports, and poster handouts will be available on the City of Pickering Website. Video from
the Public launch will also be there. The Monograph will be available in its published version, and
in a separate more accessible format. The “Detailed Study Report” will be provided in the more
accessible format only.
What the SSAI is About
The SSAI has been about reaching out, listening, and working through concerns and ideas. It’s
about working as stakeholders, to help stakeholders. It was designed to further understand the
issues, from each other, and provide supporting information from the work. The SSAI has not
been about isolated academic research, one point of view, or recommending things that could
cause more problems for stakeholders.
The SSAI used a core concept for the project: “Nothing About Us Without Us”. The phrase has
become an important point for people with disabilities . Results from working on disability-related
issues can be a problem if people with disabilities are not included from the beginning, through to
the end.
(A closing summary is also written for easier reading at the end of this report. Please go to ”What
We Learned”, page 48.)
Executive Summary
Numbers of people across Canada have reported being confused about having many more animals in
public settings these days. Are they all service animals? Are they all legal? How can I tell? How do we
respect theirs and others’ rights?
The Service and Support Animal Initiative (SSAI) has been a grassroots effort to understand what is
really happening. It was implemented through the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee. It was
conceived, planned, and implemented by stakeholders. The stakeholders included
● Animal Users and Direct Support Persons
● Businesses & Services
● Municipal Government
Page |7 - 73 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Disability Support Organizations
● Service Dog Training Organizations
With direct support from the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, the SSAI was able to plan
a project with robust engagement of high numbers and areas of stakeholders. It used methods from
qualitative study standards and collected well over 75,000 data points using a variety of engagement
tools. Information was triangulated throughout the project to increase the validity of the SSAI
findings. This included an extensive information search, large Public Survey, an Innovation Lab,
Secondary Consultations, and reviews provided by various stakeholder-based organization and
services.
Based on our methods, it became evident that many issues do indeed exist around community access
by persons who use service and support animals. Occurrences have gone well beyond general
random thoughts and anecdotal observations.
Four distinct issue areas were affirmed in the subjects of:
1. Regulations, Policies and Procedures.
2. Emerging Issues/Problems.
3. Systemic/Practical Concerns.
4. Education/Awareness and Public Service.
The issue areas were studied further to expand each into specific concerns shared by a majority of
stakeholders. Data and formal exploration into these were used to prioritize the issues by:
● The percentage of issue recognition by all stakeholders.
● The degree an issue is shared across stakeholder groups.
From these findings and through dynamic stakeholder engagement (e.g., The Virtual Innovation Lab),
five detailed recommendations are made in this report. It is recommended that the five
recommendations be picked up by the primary stakeholders identified in each and used to implement
change in their areas.
The project’s issue prioritizations and recommendations were based on an essential premise – that
one issue usually affects all stakeholders, though sometimes to different degrees and in different
ways. Recommendations were also based on the following four criteria (as advanced from an
integration of Kepner Tregoe principles and Human Rights criteria):
1. All disabilities & stakeholders matter.
2. Good solutions should represent supports for a full range of disabilities/stakeholders.
3. Good solutions should leverage the full potential of animals to support people with disabilities.
4. Good solutions should not negatively impact competing rights.
In addition to the five recommendations, five complex, ongoing, and emerging issues have been
identified and are addressed at length in this report. It is recommended they become part of ongoing
efforts by various stakeholders, with hope that a meaningful level of resolution can occur, beyond
what can be reasonably expected within the scope of the SSAI.
COVID-19 Impact: Additionally, the impact of COVID-19 on service and support animals in the
community is discussed at length, especially with the reopening of our communities.
Page |8 - 74 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Data Collection & Reporting
Project Data Collection Sequence
Data was collected through three online survey-based methods. In the following sequence:
● Public Survey: Announced and available in November 2020 with continued announcement
efforts into February 2021. Initial collection was performed for use in the Innovation Lab.
Responses plateaued by February 2021. Final data capture began in March 2021.
● Innovation Lab Registration/Survey: Announced and available in December 2020. Participant
numbers reached beyond the limit of 30+ and the survey was closed by January 28, 2021.
Data capture was implemented before the first lab sessions began on January 28, 2021.
● Secondary Consultation: Announced and available in March 2021. Recruitment efforts
continued to November 1, 2021. Final data capture, November 12, 2021.
Provided Report Formats
Reporting for the SSAI is provided in two forms:
● Public Monograph: A report providing key overview information including background,
methods, findings, and recommendations. Available in two formats:
o Design-Published to include interest-capturing formatting, graphics, and images.
o Accessible PDF (from the original accessible MS Word creation)
● Detailed Study Report: A full, detailed ancillary companion report to the Monograph. It
contains extensive methodology information, statistics tables, and appendix references. It
follows the same section flow as the Monograph. This report can be used as a detailed
reference to any part of the Monograph, read in its entirety or referenced for select
supportive detail to the Monograph. It is available in one format:
o Accessible PDF (from original accessible MS Word creation).
Overview of Service & Support Animals in Society
This brief overview is provided as a narrative and is not intended to be an exhaustive presentation
of service and support animal history, training, and access.
Historical Narrative – Animals Assisting Humans
It is probably safe to say that animals have been brought into service for humans throughout the
ages – animals of various types, performing various duties and evolving over time. From hunting,
to planting and harvesting, transportation, protection, and as “beast s of labour”, humankind has
perpetually benefitted from animals providing direct services throughout time. One could argue
that this coexistence has had a natural course of development and in many ways, the presence of
animals in service to humans has been a long-accepted reality.
The history of dogs providing direct services for people with disabilities is well documented, with a
recognized advent of guide dogs supporting veterans having sustained vision loss and blindness
from World War I and continuing from World War II – leading to formal training schools in Europe
and North America in the 1920s – 1960s.
Page |9 - 75 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Likewise, animals have provided companionship and psycho-emotional support for their human
counterparts in a variety of ways through time. From highly and specifically trained service dogs,
to the therapeutic effect provided by many animals, we find these animals in direct support for
people with both specific and general needs.
Assistance Dog Training Schools Emerge:
Following the post-WWI/WWII establishment of guide dog training centres, the concept of a
“Service Dog” and the field of service dog training and provision in North America can be traced to
Canine Companions for Independence. It was founded in California, in 1975, reportedly as a first
program of this kind – training and providing various types of service dogs.
Many service dog schools, including those established earlier for guide dogs, have continued to
develop throughout the U.S. and Canada. They are typically associated with na tional and/or
international, independent oversight and accrediting organizations for established standards and
quality of service dog training. Training programs can differ, but generally include the following
aspects:
● They pair people with disabilities with highly trained assistance dogs typically at no cost to
the recipient.
● Some schools have also developed breeding programs as an improved source for their
dogs.
● Puppies are raised by volunteers for approximately 1-½ years, until it is time for them to
enter a formal training program. Through a volunteer “foster home”, young dogs are
expected to gain environmental acclimation and socialization, including familiarity with
things like public transportation, public spaces, elevators, escalators, etc., and establishing
a foundation of appropriate behaviours in public, around people, children, and other
animals.
● After the foster home program, formal training is provided for the dogs, over many months
and can include in-depth health and temperament assessments/provision; teaching of
skills and commands intended to foster prospective recipients’ independence; and
providing further environmental acclimation and training – including assuring appropriate
socialization and behaviours are demonstrated by each dog. Dogs can be trained in a
variety of specific services and supports, such as for hearing, mobility, vision guides, mental
health, autism, health/medical alerts, etc.
● As the next step following the formal dog training program, human applicants are matched
with a dog for a multi-week program of in-person classes that teach the recipients how to
work with their new canine partners. This includes components such as learning about dog
psychology, ethical treatment, dog grooming and care, appropriate dog and user
behaviours and expectations, as well as learning and applying the commands and skills that
the dogs gained. The partnered training includes substantial real learning/practice sessions
in the community. Matching the dog with the person is typically done carefully to make
sure their activity levels and personalities match.
● Lastly, service dog recipients can typically return to their school for follow-up over the
course of the placement or for extra training at any time.
Page | 10 - 76 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
A Variety of Needs – A Variety of Animal/Training Sources
Recognition of a variety of animal-related service needs has developed over time – generally since
the late 20th century to today. These service areas can include (the following is a non -exhaustive
listing of examples, provided in alphabetical order):
● Autism Supports.
● Blind/Vision-Impairment, Guide Dogs.
● Deaf and Hard of Hearing Supports.
● Developmental Disability Supports (including for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders).
● Therapy Animals and Facility Support Dogs (These animal services are provided through a
facilitative animal handler versus the animal having been trained to a specific person’s
needs.).
● Emotional/Psychological and other Mental Health Supports,
● Medical/Health Alerts (including seizure, diabetic, and environmental allergen alerts).
● Mobility Assistance.
● Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Supports.
A casual assessment of the above list would indicate that:
● A large percentage of our population could benefit from service and support animals.
● The demand for service and support animals likely exceeds the supply.
● The necessary knowledge and skills required for training animals for the above service and
support categories is extensive and complex.
In addition to the various standardized training programs describe d above under “Service Dog
Training Schools Emerge”, and presumably as a response to the human need exceeding the animal
availability, a variety of training methods/services (or lack thereof) can be found through basic
internet searches, to include:
● Online training courses, training of individuals, for a fee, with training provided entirely
online, and includes premade/modular courses, and a certification.
● Individuals paid to provide individual training for a person’s prospective service/support
animal.
● Service/Support animal users providing their own training either independently or under
the guidance of an individual trainer.
● Emerging training centres in various stages of development.
● Individuals obtaining dogs having not successfully completed a standardized service dog
training program.
● Basic “obedience” training only – may include appropriate relief area use and behaviours
(common for dogs and cats).
● No known or reported training.
One could envision a problem with people having real needs for animals with adequate training,
yet unable to satisfy their needs to pair up with an adequately trained animal. I n the authors’
opinion, this is a critical issue that:
1. Can impede one’s independent and safe access to the community.
Page | 11 - 77 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
2. Create problematic situations where the public (including other service/support animal
users) is uncomfortable with the presence of the user and their animal.
3. Can compromise safe and responsible service/support animal use in the community.
Purpose: Service & Support Animal Initiative
The purpose of the SSAI has been to engage all applicable stakeholders, to:
● Identify prominent issues related to community access with service and support animals –
including challenges for businesses, municipalities, and other client-facing organizations. Key to
this has also been addressing barriers that regularly face users of service and support animals,
through collaborating directly with stakeholders from that group, and their support systems.
● Respond with stakeholder co-designed recommendations to address the identified challenges
and barriers to community access for people with service and support animals .
● Provide resources for stakeholders and the community, as drawn from the:
○ Public Survey results.
○ Innovation Lab outcomes.
○ Secondary input consultation with additional stakeholders.
○ Other consultative research and outcome efforts through the SSAI.
● Educate, through public awareness access and forums while using the resources and information
base developed through the SSAI.
Stakeholder Driven
The Service & Support Animal Initiative (SSAI) has been a stakeholder focused endeavour – from
inception, through implementation, and as represented in the data collection, reporting and
recommendations. The SSAI was advanced through:
● Broad stakeholder networking.
● Input from a substantively designed public survey with over 600 respondents providing over
datapoints from the key stakeholder groups.
● A robustly designed Innovation Lab / Co-Design process with key stakeholders as the full
majority of directly engaged participants.
● Project design and consultation provided through known accessibility professionals, including
those with lived experience.
Are There Issues? – Experiences and Opinions
We just love our own paradigms. This makes sense individually, because it is how we all try to make
sense out of a large complex world. So, the first step for the SSAI was to reach out past our own
paradigms. Reach out to a broader number of people, outside the project/city leaders and smaller
leadership group responsible for articulating the SSAI. We needed to find out what many others
Page | 12 - 78 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
(from the four stakeholder group categories) were experiencing and thinking. Our first public effort
would be the SSAI Public Survey
Experiences & Opinions: Once we determined a well-designed public survey was in order, next would
be to ask the public what they thought – more specifically, what each survey respondent has
experienced, and what each respondent thinks or feels about their experiences (aka: what are their
Opinions).
The survey was designed with two separate response areas – 1. “Your Experience” and 2. “Your
Opinions”. In fact, the email blasts that went out to announce and engage interested survey takers
were titled “Opinions Wanted”. And, to help make this qualitative study more valid, we wanted the
respondent to first think of their experiences, before giving us their opinions.
The results have shown that issues do exist and that respondents were able to soundly respond to the
survey’s statement items, with interrelated, grounded points of view.
Experiences
The survey helped us see where individuals see themselves fit, into one of four stakeholder
groups:
● Animal Users and Support Persons (A person, [or a direct support person for a person], that
uses a service/support animal in public.)
● Governance, including Advisory Committee Members (e.g., Municipal, Provincial, Federal;
Regulations, Rules, and Policies).
● Businesses & Public Services (e.g., retail stores, recreation, libraries, restaurants,
transportation, hotels, theatres, medical/health services, Chambers of Commerce, customer
services, “main street”, community centres, commerce/trade organizations, etc.)
● Advocacy/Support Organizations (e.g., animal training, training certification,
accessibility/disability advocacy, accessibility/disability services).
Note: The above four stakeholder groups, as engaged, and referred to throughout this report –
including statistically – will be more simply indicated by their group names (without the
parenthetical examples), as follows:
● Animal Users / Support-Persons
● Governance
● Businesses & Public Services
● Advocacy/Support Organizations
It is important to recognize the diversity, different experiences, and distinctive perspectives
brought to the table by each of the above groups. This w as an intended and purposeful design of
the SSAI. It provided all aspects of the project with a robust representational process – such as
stakeholder engagement, project design, issue identification, information gathering, problem
solving, etc. Stakeholder representation in the Public Survey is provided below in the following
circle graph:
Page | 13 - 79 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Circle Graph: Public Survey Representation per Group
34%
25%
25%
16%
Public Survey: Representation Per Group
Users: 34%
Government: 25%
Businesses/Services: 25%
Advocacy Orgs: 16%
As shown in the above graph, among the four stakeholder groups, representation was as follows
in the Public Survey:
● Service & Support Animal Users: 34%
● Governance: 25%
● Businesses and Public Services: 25%
● Advocacy and Animal Training: 16%
Once a person identified with one of the four groups in the survey, they were taken to the set of
items designed for their group. First, an additional level of anonymous details about the
respondent were gathered (e.g., demographics, type of animal or organization, etc.). Then all
respondents were provided parallel survey items (based on their chosen group) that fell into the
four following categories:
1. Regulations, Policies & Procedures
2. Emerging Issues/Problems
3. Systemic/Practical Concerns
4. Education/Awareness & Public Service
The experience items fell into the above issue areas and asked about things like: the presence of
persons with service/support animals using their services; confusion or clarity in the role of the
animals; troublesome barriers or refused/limited entry for users; conflicts with various
customer/client rights; etc.
The survey items allowed the respondents to share their experience levels by choosing
“seldom/never”, “sometimes”, or “frequently”. Statements were poised as either positive or
Page | 14 - 80 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
negative, depending on the potential circumstance. This allowed our data analysis to identify
prominent experiences by respondents, and further categorize each group’s experience responses
as either positive, mixed, or negative. The circle charts below reflect that perspective.
Circle Graph: Service/Support Animal Users – Respondent Experiences to Community Access.
9%
20%
71%
Service/Support Animal Users
Respondent Experiences
Positive: 9%
Mixed: 20%
Negative: 71%
Circle Graph: Governance Group – Respondent Experiences.
Page | 15 - 81 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Circle Graph: Businesses & Services – Respondent Experiences.
40%
12%
48%
Businesses & Services
Respondent Experiences
Positive: 40%
Mixed: 12%
Negative: 48%
Circle Graph: Advocacy & Animal Training Group – Respondent Experiences.
The results have revealed that more negative experiences, (aka issues), were shared with us, than
those that were mixed or positive, as follows:
● Service & Support Animal Users: 71% Identified Issues (Compared to 9% Positive
Experiences)
● Governance: 60% Identified Issues (Compared to 12% Positive Experiences)
Page | 16 - 82 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Businesses and Public Services: 48% Identified Issues (Though this was also close to the
40% that reported positive experiences.)
● Advocacy and Animal Training: 62% Identified Issues (Compared to 23% Positive
Experiences)
The bar graph below represents the percentage of issues experienced by group (as detailed
above).
Issues Experienced:
Percent of Each Group Respondents
80%
Users: 71% Governance: 60% Busn/Services: 48% Advocacy/Training: 62%
Users
71%
Gov
60%
Busn &
Svcs
48%
Advoc
& Trng
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
A Note About Survey “Items”
Note: The terms used in this report around survey contents – i.e., “response items”, “statement
items”, or simply “items” – refer to the individual questionnaire items, provided in the form of
statements, to which a respondent would select from Likert-scaled options, 1-5, or “N/A”. For
example:
“Provincial/Federal-based regulations & requirements are confusing, inconsistent or cause
conflicts.” Response options:
1. Strongly Disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neutral or Undecided; 4. Agree; 5. Strongly Agree; N/A
Two Qualifying Survey Items
The concern remained – making sure the Task Group had did not conjure up, but rather accurately
conjectured that real issues exist and are shared by a broad base of stakeholders. The first two
survey items bridged the Experience and Opinion sections. They were used for qualifying if overall
issues are perceived by the majority of stakeholders. The two qualifying survey items were a
hybrid of experience and opinion, as follows:
1. There is a big Increase in numbers of service/support animals in public, (including well -
trained animals, untrained animals, emotional support animals, misrepresented animals).
Page | 17 - 83 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
2. There is a noticeable increase in the misrepresentation of animals as service/support animals
in public, (aka, “Fake” Service dogs/animals).
The following two tables provide the percentage of responses per group, specifically the “Agree”
and “Strongly Agree” responses:
Table: “There is a big Increase in numbers of service/support animals in public, (including well -trained
animals, untrained animals, emotional support animals, misrepresented animals).”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 31% 45% 76%
Governance 46% 26% 72%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 33% 19% 52%
Advocacy / Training 32% 50% 82%
All 4 Groups (Average) 36% 34% 70%
Table: “There is a noticeable increase in the misrepresentation of animals as service/support animals in
public, (aka, “Fake” Service dogs/animals).”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 28% 47% 75%
Governance 34% 25% 59%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 35% 15% 50%
Advocacy / Training 32% 46% 78%
All 4 Groups (Average) 32% 33% 65%
From the above data, we can infer that a plurality of persons, as stakeholders, agree that notable
issues exist around community access by users of service/support animal users. Seen as plausible,
this allowed the SSAI to confidently pursue a greater gathering and analysis of data.
Note 1: The term “fake”, though controversial for some, is commonly used among the
stakeholder groups, and the authors felt it was important to keep statements concise and
relevant. For respondents who have not agreed with this term or a condition it represents,
additional clarifying survey items allowed this to be captured, without bias.
Note 2: In gauging the significance of an issue, the authors determined that 30% is significant
(versus 50% and above). Consider this like a “customer service” assessment. If 30% of one’s
customers or clients identified an issue with their services, 30% or more would represent a
significant breakdown in the service. Thus, 30% or more of stakeholders perceiving issues in an
area of service/support animals in the community could well represent a notable breakdown in
the system providing service/support animal users’ access to the community.
Page | 18 - 84 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Opinions
The second full grouping, and majority of survey items, was about getting opinions from the
respondents and doing so in a way to gather a lot of in-depth, highly relevant data to be used in
analyzing results in a variety of ways. This grouping also covered each of the four issue areas and
provided about 10 items per issue area, per group, while addressing another level of 4 – 5 issues
under each area.
This supported the anonymous expression of differing, sometimes competing, opinions.
The openly expressed opinions (through anonymous survey responses) were used as a foundation
for a planned interactive, group-learning and problem-solving process – the Innovation Lab. It was
designed to consider all facets of a robust group of stakeholders. Nowhere in the project design
and implementation was this more dynamic than in the Innovation Lab and Co-Design processes.
To support these processes, pertinent data from the Public Survey, was later combined with
Innovation Lab participant engagement and used to further represent the diversity of experiences
and perspectives of key issues and concerns.
More Project Detail: SSAI Genesis, Purpose, Resources & Methods
Project Genesis – Pickering Service Animal Task Group
The SSAI, originally identified as the Service Animal Task Group (SATG), was formed, through the
City of Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC). This was in response to city councillors
having approached the committee for advice on addressing concerns expressed by retail
businesses and their needs which included:
● Clarification of animal types and their roles.
● Easily recognizable identification system/methods.
● Access rights for the various animals.
● Human Rights for animal users, the public, store owners, etc.
The PAAC acknowledged these concerns as emerging issues increasingly shared by communities
throughout Ontario and Canada. The committee made initial recommendations to:
● Engage relevant stakeholders to respond to the issues of concern and further identify and
prioritize the issues.
● Perform a review of the variety of issues reported in Ontario and Canada.
● Perform a review of regulations, laws, rules, and policies that impact the areas of concern, for
both Ontario and Canada.
● Make initial formal recommendations to the City, based on the above efforts and outcomes.
Per city protocol, an initial Service Animal Task Group (SATG) was formed to begin working on the
above charges. The makeup of Task Group was intended, from the beginning, to create as much
of a represented perspective of stakeholders as possible. The stakeholder cross-section continued
to evolve as more stakeholder areas were identified.
Page | 19 - 85 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
The Task Group depended on a make-up of leadership that included:
● Service animal users.
● Direct customer/client services, in retail and public services.
● Accessibility professionals.
● Municipal by-laws and enforcement.
● High-level dog training and certification experience.
● Nationally standardized therapy animal services.
The Task Group activated members with a high level of engagement and commitment through
notable discussions, exploration, researching, resource gathering, identifying current and
emerging Issues, and guiding the project’s efforts.
Strategic Resourcing: Stakeholder Representation
As reported, Stakeholders that were engaged in the SSAI collaborative processes have
represented those key groups that are directly affected by and engaged in community access with
service/support animals. As the project progressed in its knowledgebase, Additional stakeholders
were invited to further diversify the group’s makeup. These stakeholder experiences and
perspectives have been key to the project efforts and outcomes.
Community Access in Ontario
The project’s stakeholder focus has been on community access in Ontario. It is important to
recognize the regulatory environment that is unique to Ontario. (This includes what is perceived
as broad access rights for “emotional support animal” users). Likewise, attention to the Canadian
national environment was included by recognizing and considering the impact on community
access, by the Canadian federal regulatory environment.
Realistically, all applicable regulations with their rules and processes directly impact the full range
of policies and procedures for community-based services, including for businesses, retail, and
public services. This would include service dog training organizations, and nationally based
organizations such as airline companies and other federally regulated transportation. This in turn
impacts a full range of stakeholders’ lives and organizations.
Methods: Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement was facilitated through the following:
● Stakeholder-Based Project Inception
● Project Design and Implementation
● Broad-Based Public Survey Design and Implementation
● The Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL), including an initial VIL registrant survey, pulling together
VIL participants’ concerns and priorities.
Page | 20 - 86 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Formalized VIL Secondary Consultative Input provided through the same cross-section of
stakeholders as participated in the VIL, but having not previously participated.
● Public Survey Revisited: Further, in-depth analysis of the significant quantitative and
qualitative data attained through the public survey, refining the measurable outcomes into
meaningful and purposeful patterns of current and viable information.
● Additional comparative analysis to establish validity for the SSAI outcomes.
Innovation Lab Introduction
Innovation Lab by Design – Codesigning Ideas and Solutions
As reported, an Innovation Lab, aka Co-Design Lab, was a core part of the SSAI stakeholder
engagement plan. An Innovation Lab enables its participants to work on complex challenges,
come up with new ideas, and co-create solutions that no single group or entity could accomplish
on their own.
Innovation Labs can take on a variety of designs, formats, and problem/solution -seeking
approaches. Essential Innovation Lab features used for the SSAI are explained below.
How an Innovation Lab works: Why an Innovation lab for our project
Structure & Freedom: An Innovation Lab is an organised approach in which participants
recognize and respond to a plurality of issues and concerns, structured around a specific topic
area.
Participants start by being vested in their key issues – entering with their own paradigms. A
paradigm being a pattern of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a
way of viewing reality.
As the participants learn and work together, realizing the broader impact of the issues on other
participating stakeholders, an Innovation Lab fosters the freedom needed for expanding,
reforming, redefining, and prioritizing the issues at hand.
Utilizing a Broad Knowledge Base: The participant educational experience relies on garnering a
substantive knowledge base, coupled with shared participants’ lived experiences, and using
this mutually gained knowledge to grow the participants’ perceptions of the problem.
Prioritizing the Issues: The Innovation lab then challenges the participants to prioritize the
variety of issues identified through the increased knowledge base and sharing of different
perspectives.
From Open Brainstorming to Working Ideas: Continuing to work together in an iterative
process of steps, exercises and subgroups, the Innovation Lab participants, together, distill the
mutually recognized and prioritized challenges into manageable ideas and practical solutions.
Pros & Cons Overview – Innovation Lab
Pros: An Innovation Lab adapts itself well to the complexity, divergent issues, and various
experiences of a broader representation of key stakeholders – allowing the participants to grow
together into a larger perspective of the issues. This allows lab participants to mutually prioritize
Page | 21 - 87 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
the issues, identify the key problems, and work closely together to come up with responsive
ideas and identify approaches and/or solutions.
Cons: Available time and lab size, will naturally limit the number of issues that can be addressed
and the practical ideas that are spawned. The group needs to be large enough to represent the
diversity of experiences and ideas, while not too large as to make it unwieldy – especially when
running a Virtual Innovation Lab versus in-person.
Potential: That said, as lab duration is increased, allowing for more iterations of groups and
solutions, and interlacing subgroups during the iterative process, prioritized issues and ideas
could theoretically be refined to fully representational outcomes of the pr imary issues as
identified and prioritized through the Innovation Lab process.
The SSAI Innovation Lab: Collaborative Stakeholders Identifying Problems &
Solutions
Going Virtual
Complex virtual meetings may see like old hat now. But in the fall of 2020, it was much less
familiar, and accessibility was in question. Innovation Labs have benefitted from direct participant
presence, known accessibility, in-person dynamics, personal and group interrelations, built
cohesion, etc.
COVID-19 changed all this. Concerns that had to be addressed quickly, and go virtual, were many
and included:
● Participants’ and facilitators’ limited capacity for the new virtual meeting platform
environment.
● Adjusting our facilitators’ experience with the in-person Innovation Lab venue, to a new
and different way of interacting, motivating, and dynamically guiding participants through
the process.
● Finding optimally accessible platforms. There was very little experience with accessibility
in virtual meeting platforms and space. We needed to meet all accessibility needs, from
sensory to neuro-cognitive, to physical.
(Note: After research, consultation and considerations, the Zoom platform was selected as
optimally meeting the VIL and participants’ needs.)
The virtual environment for the dynamics of an Innovation Lab is challenging to say the least.
Imagine, for example, someone that is visually impaired, using a screen-reader and concurrently
getting auditory input from multiple participants, a separate chat room f eed, reading one’s own
documents to stay on task, and receiving computer screen navigation information – all at the
same time. Now that is a challenge!
Distinct advantages of a VIL were also realized, such as no need for travel, flexible scheduling and
separately scheduled group exercises.
Page | 22 - 88 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
The SSAI Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL): Stakeholders & Processes
The VIL Stakeholder Representational Cross-Section
VIL participants were recruited, semi-randomly, using four methods (as detailed in the Detailed
Study Report).
Based on registered stakeholders, the following cross-section was achieved with the VIL – virtually
the same percentages as the Public Survey:
● 38%: Animals Users/Support-Persons
● 26%: Governance, including Advisory Committee Members
● 21%: Public Services & Businesses
● 15%: Advocacy/Support Organizations.
The above VIL participation cross-section is represented in the circle graph below:
38%
26%
21%
15%
VIL: Representation Per Group
Users: 38%
Government: 26%
Businesses/Services: 21%
Advocacy Orgs: 15%
The VIL Modular Process
The VIL was designed as a 4-step modular process that included the following half-day sessions
and themes over a 6-week period:
1. Orientation.
2. Exploration and Ideation.
3. Group Homework Sessions: Building a Solution/Response Model (most groups scheduled
more than one session over the 2-week period).
4. Solution Implementation Reporting.
Polling Registrants: Prioritizing their Issues and Criteria for VIL Work
As part of the VIL registration process, each registrant was asked to identify and prioritize three
areas:
Page | 23 - 89 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
1. The individual registrant’s personal prioritization of perceived issues/concerns.
2. Criteria for prioritizing issues/concerns during the VIL.
3. Criteria for identifying ideas and solutions to the issues and concerns.
Criteria for Solutions
From a list of six possible criteria, the VIL participants prioritized the following criteria with which
to gauge prospective solutions:
● Ease of understanding by others.
● Accessibility/Diversity: Does the solution increase accessibility for most or all
stakeholders, or does it increase barriers for some/all?
● Feasibility: Can the solution be implemented within existing systems/regulations, or
require significant system changes to implement?
● Adaptable/Flexible: Among a variety of applications, environments, venues, locales, etc.
● Viability: Is the solution economically and/or pragmatically viable? What does it take to
implement?
Working Sub-Groups
The VIL design used subgroups for the various steps and processes. Registrants were assigned to
one of six subgroups, each reflecting the same cross-section as the whole:
Subgroup Tasking: The VIL facilitated dynamic exercises and processes for the following task
areas:
● Issues Identification & Prioritization.
● Persona Creation.
● Co-Designed Ideas/Solutions.
● Integration of each subgroup’s persona, ideas, and solutions with the entire Virtual
Innovation Lab group.
Many accessible resources were provided to the participants to include pre-session handouts
with educational and informative PowerPoint decks and Word documents.
Identified Issues & Challenges Data
Over 300 separate survey items were asked of the 33 VIL registrants – amounting to over 9,000
data points. These were coupled with the over 54,000 public survey data points. With this
information, participants prioritized challenge areas and further elaborated on them through the
VIL process. These are, in order of top priority first:
● Education/Awareness/Training needed for Businesses, Services & the Public: Require
more training in laws, rights, interaction protocol, inclusion, animal purpose, etc.
● Competing Rights/Access: Confusion is notable with understanding the various competing
human rights, including those based on factors like allergies, culture, fear, untrained
support animal/user behaviours – causing problems for trained animal users, the business
community, and public services, etc. Businesses and direct public-facing services have
repeatedly indicated in our public survey that they do not know what can be asked of
Page | 24 - 90 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
service/support animal users re identification or authentication, and concerns exist with
how best to respond when a competing human rights situation presents itself.
● Standardized/Need for Certification/IDs: The Need for standardized animal certifications
and IDs.
● Laws/Regulations: Laws, regulations and their definitions are confusing, inconsistent, not
inclusive enough, including what is appropriate to require for a person's needs
identification.
● Animal Confusion: The various types, purposes, and access rights of the variety of animals
now in the community is confusing.
● Misrepresented & Untrained Animals: Too many people are inaccurately claiming
legitimacy of their animal’s role and/or qualifications. There is an increase of various
animals in the community which do not or cannot demonstrate appropriate behaviours
around others, causing distraction and potential safety risks. Despite some protection
under the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) for untrained support animals, criteria to
certify the user’s need is provided in the OHRC. Additionally, issues around behaviours,
health and safety that impact the rights of others, would cause inherent competing rights
concerns. Easy availability of unsubstantiated online IDs, Certs, & Apparel is a significant
contributor to the issue.
(Note: The complete list of 11 issues, identified and prioritized through the VIL process, is
available in the Detailed Study Report Appendix, to include the percentage rating for
each.)
SSAI Virtual Innovation Lab by Design: 6 Groups – 6 Recommendations
Using the dynamics and cross-stakeholder representation inherent to each VIL subgroup, each
group was fostered to develop, independently and iteratively, the following four outcomes:
● A Persona: Based on the key stakeholder groups, a realistic, multi-faceted person with a
detailed background, personal concerns and issues, by whom realistic challenges are faced.
● Challenges/Issues: A realistic detailed problem (or associated multiple problems) th at the
above persona faces. (Based on the six prioritized issues/challenges list).
● Ideas/Solutions: By applying the five gauging criteria, ideas for solutions were created and
developed further within each group, into a workable solution.
● Detailed Response: A fully developed, marketable and implementable response, which
could include multiple resources, a marketing/awareness plan, and implementation needs,
was presented by each group.
Limitations and Benefits – Balancing the VIL Outcomes
Limitations include:
● Practical Time: Too long and we lose people. Too short and we don’t accomplish our
objectives.
Page | 25 - 91 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Time to Fruition: Independently developed ideas by each sub-group led to a notable
overlap of similar challenge selection. If additional time could be spent, a next level of
main group and subgroup iteration process(es) could occur with the intention of further
diversifying the VIL results.
Advantages to having overlapping challenge/response areas, include:
● Shared Priorities: Separate development with similarly chosen challenges indicate a cross-
stakeholder shared level of issues prioritization.
● Broader Programs: Dovetailing efforts, covering similar issues but with differently
identified personas, means a broader-scoped community response can be developed.
Efforts could be harmonized and concurrently address and engage wider members of a
community through one concerted program.
The Six VIL Solution Ideas
Each of the following solutions included a detailed challenge description; response/proposed
concept; issues addressed; and a list of who benefits. Below is the title of each proposed
solution, followed by a descriptive statement:
1. “Learning Together” – Developing Community-Based Resources & Training for Small
Businesses and the Community.
2. “Quest4Inclusion” – A public awareness and education campaign that uses a service animal
as the “storyteller” and provider of the message, while also ensuring there is a link with the
handler and their disability – “A Day in the Life of…”
3. Standardized Emotional Support Animal Recognition – Establish standards, measurements,
and oversight for a harmonized emotional support animal (ESA) identification process, with
universally accessible ID card.
(Note: Ontario regulations do not use the term “Emotional Support Animal”. The term that is
used Provincially is “Service Animal”. And though they can be untrained, public access still
requires a regulated health professional’s documentation for the user’s need.)
4. “Creating the Buzz” – Creating standardized learning materials that are simple and easy to
understand and reference – especially geared toward “main street”.
5. “Eyes Forward” – Mandatory training for all staff of businesses/services that provide front -
facing services to public.
6. “Carefree Travel App” – A smartphone/tablet app designed to aid persons travelling with
service/support animals providing one source for resources, guidance, directions, tips, and
mandatory requirements, per jurisdictions, and based on the person’s planned itinerary –
improving the traveller’s experience.
Page | 26 - 92 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Participant Feedback on the VIL
An online survey was designed to anonymously garner constructive feedback from the VIL
participants. Twenty-three, 23, of the 33 VIL participants provided feedback via the survey. This
feedback indicated:
● A majority of positive feedback provided validity to the SSAI as a qualitative-based study.
● The greater part of the respondents viewed the process as inclusive, engaging, fair,
representative of various viewpoints, and pertinent to the issues.
● Most recognized the ability to learn from others and gain a bigger, more inclusive picture.
(Please refer to the Detailed Study Report for assessment details and statistical responses.)
In addition to the scaled items, participants were asked to provide written feedback. Much was
offered. Sampled positive feedback included:
● “This was a great lab and has laid some amazing groundwork for possible solutions to an
issue that has existed for a while now”
● “I had just taken a course on Human Centered Design or Design Thinking , so it was great to
see this practice put to use.”
● “Breaking off into smaller groups and having a wide variety of perspectives and people of
different backgrounds with different needs.”
● “It was great to work with people from all experiences and to learn from them. Lots of great
ideas were shared in a respectful way”; “Collaborative, gained valuable insights from other
participants.”
Sampled constructive feedback included:
● “It was great for time as time is something so sacred anymore, however [I] feel it would have
been beneficial to maybe have a couple more weeks to actually hash out the ideas in
totality.”
● “I just felt the time commitment was a bit too much. I was pressed for time at work and
maybe it was just the timing of when they were scheduled.”
● “Our goal of the sessions is what was unclear. But once in the smaller sessions it became
clear and well directed. There were questions about what next steps would be. Perhaps in
the beginning, going through the steps a little more clearly and explaining the short and long -
term goals would make it easier.”
More Stakeholder Review of the VIL Outcomes & Recommendations
A founding principle for developing qualitative studie s is the use of multiple data sources. These are
used to triangulate for validity of measured outcomes. Having the 33 VIL participants working closely
together, despite applying a variety of separate iterative processes, could lead to an inherent or
“academic” bias developing within the group as a whole.
Page | 27 - 93 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
A secondary, independent group of stakeholders was engaged, reflecting the same stakeholder cross-
section as both the VIL participants and Public Survey respondents, (with similar semi-random
recruiting methods).
The secondary consultation group was provided a new detailed report and online survey. The report
covered areas such as the SSAI project review and Innovation Lab concepts. It also covered:
● Identified and Prioritized issues from the VIL.
● The criteria used for processing the VIL recommendations
● Detailed VIL Outcomes – including details for each of the six VIL responses.
The survey was designed for use by the respondents after they read the provided report. The sur vey
was presented in the same format as the previous two surveys, using response statements and
providing a Likert-based scale as in the following example:
“The VIL was able to address the complexity and depth of the identified issues and challenges.”:
1. Strongly Disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Neutral or Undecided; 4. Agree; 5. Strongly Agree; N/A)
The areas covered by the survey response items included:
● Critique (positive or constructive) of the VIL structure, criteria & process, as introduced in th e
report.
● How might you differently identify or prioritize the issues addressed .
● Rate the 6 VIL solution models for how well they meet the identified criteria (e.g., accessibility,
ease of understanding, feasibility, etc.), as well as your overall favourability rating and why.
Stakeholder Representation:
Circle Graph: Secondary Consultation Group Cross-Section
22%
37%
33%
8%
Secondary Consult: Representation Per Group
Users: 22%
Government: 37%
Businesses/Services: 33%
Advocacy Orgs: 08%
Page | 28 - 94 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
As shown in the above graph, among the four stakeholder groups, representation for the
Secondary VIL Consultation was as follows:
● Service & Support Animal Users: 22%
● Governance: 37%
● Businesses and Public Services: 33%*
● Advocacy and Animal Training: 8%
*This shows an targeted increase in Businesses/Services from the VIL. VIL Business participants had a
lower ratio and the authors wanted secondary input to reflect a greater representation from this
group.
Summary Tables: Secondary Consultation Responses
Below are two tables which summarize the input provide by the secondary consultation respondents.
Table: Critique of the VIL structure, criteria, process, and contents:
Area Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Key/Divergent Stakeholders are Represented 30% 57% 87%
Organized for Collaborative Input & Processes 22% 65% 87%
Addresses Complexity & Depth of Identified Issues 30% 52% 82%
Agree with the top 5 criteria for VIL solution development
(Yes/No)
N/A N/A 100%
Agree with the 6 Prioritized Issues
(Yes/No)
N/A N/A 82%
Total 37% 58% 88%
Table: Rating of the six proposed ideas/solutions for relevance and effectiveness:
Solution/Idea Relevance Effectiveness
“Learning Together” – Community-Based Resources &
Training for Small Businesses and the Community.
96% 96%
“Quest4Inclusion” – A public awareness/education campaign
– service animal as “storyteller” and provider of the message.
82% 95%
Standardized Emotional Support Animal Recognition –
Establish standards, measurements, and oversight for a
harmonized emotional support animal (ESA) ID process &
card.
87% 83%
Page | 29 - 95 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Solution/Idea Relevance Effectiveness
“Creating the Buzz” – Creating standardized learning
materials that are simple and easy to understand and
reference.
91% 87%
“Eyes Forward” – Mandatory training for all staff of
businesses/services that provide front-facing services to
public.
92% 86%
“Carefree Travel App” – Smartphone/Tablet app to aid
persons travelling with service/support animals. Provides one
source for resources, guidance, directions, tips, & mandatory
requirements, per jurisdiction. Based on the person’s
planned itinerary – improving the traveller’s experience
77% 68%
Additional detail was gathered individually rating the six ideas for each of the 5 development criteria,
(Ease of Understanding; Accessibility/Diversity; Feasibility; Adaptability/Flexibility; Viability).
Overall, the secondary consultative results were notably positive, strongly supporting the validity of
the VIL process and SSAI project.
Written Responses for Issues
Opportunity for additional written responses was offered resulting in 36 responses. A
representational selection is provided below:
● “Enforcement would make my top 6, without it the rest of the work could be in vain.”
● “I would replace the need for ID’s and certification with education of how to recognize a properly
trained service animal, as certifications and ID issuing can be biased based on breed.”
● “Have a focus on communication. The success of the outcomes will depend on a robust
communication plan to all stakeholders!”
● “We need standardized service animal signage in widespread use.”
● “Education over regulation. I firmly believe that the problem with our current system is a lack of
understanding and that the information can be hard to find.”
● “Great work! Great initiative! Like other social progress and innovations using this type of
thoughtful engagement and setting the ultimate approach as wide as we can, will produce strong
foundation moving forward.”
● “Scrap the ESA certification. The province of Ontario specifically does not need a separate
distinction process for service animals and ESA’s. If someone with a disab ility requires their animal
for this work, they are able to get a doctor’s note for the animal that would grant them access.”
More Study Focus: Stakeholder Concerns Around Animal Training/Availability
Through three specific response items in the SSAI Public Survey, respondents revealed the following
concerns related to availability and training of service and support animals:
Page | 30 - 96 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
1. Survey Item: “I am concerned with readily available online “fake” registration, certification, identity
products, etc.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 14% 61% 75%
Governance 34% 30% 64%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 31% 13% 44%
Advocacy / Training 29% 54% 83%
All 4 Groups (Average) 26% 40% 66%
Note: The term “fake”, though controversial for some, is commonly used among the stakeholder
groups, and the authors felt it was important to keep statements concise and relevant. For
respondents who have not agreed with this term or a condition it represents, additional clarifying
survey items allowed this to be captured, without bias.
2. Survey Item: I/We have concerns, ”. . . about the difficulty to attain certifiably trained animals for
legitimate needs, because availability levels are not meeting the volume of needs.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 27% 34% 61%
Governance 36% 13% 49%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 35% 4% 39%
Advocacy / Training 37% 33% 70%
All 4 Groups (Average) 33% 21% 54%
3. Survey Item: I/We have concerns, ”. . . about sub-par training for service and support animals by
non-certified trainers, friends, owners.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 25% 35% 60%
Governance 41% 16% 57%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 40% 10% 50%
Advocacy /Training 33% 33% 66%
All 4 Groups (Average) 34% 24% 58%
Based on the above response data, a significant level of concern is indicated around the training and
availability of service/support animals in the community. An average of the three tables above comes
to 61%.
Page | 31 - 97 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Additional Focus: The Federal and Provincial Regulatory Environment
Expressed Concerns by Stakeholders re the Regulatory Environment
The SSAI Public Survey provided four issue-related statements for each of the four stakeholder groups
to respond re the regulatory environment. Below are the four statements, followed by the table
under each statement. The tables show the totals and averages of concerned responses, by each
stakeholder group. (Concerned responses would be those under “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.)
1. “Provincial/Federal-based regulations & requirements are confusing, inconsistent or cause
conflicts.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 34% 22% 56%
Governance 26% 18% 44%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 18% 6% 24%
Advocacy /Training 10% 31% 41%
All 4 Groups (Average) 22% 19% 41%
2. “Policies and procedures of transportation carriers (e.g., airlines, trains, buses, public
transportation) for service/support animals seem inconsistent or change too often.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 34% 28% 62%
Governance 35% 8% 43%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 25% 4% 29%
Advocacy /Training 34% 31% 65%
All 4 Groups (Average) 32% 18% 50%
3. “I am challenged or confused with the Competing Rights of others, (e.g., animal allergies, fear,
lack of acceptance, cultural/religious) when it comes to animal access.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 37% 14% 51%
Governance 48% 8% 56%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 43% 6% 49%
Advocacy /Training 31% 14% 45%
All 4 Groups (Average) 40% 11% 51%
Page | 32 - 98 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
4. (Intersection of Emerging Issues and Regulations) “The increase of so many different animals now
in the community, makes the Human Rights Code more difficult to interpret/apply.”
Group Agree Strongly
Agree
Total
Animal Users 31% 20% 51%
Governance 39% 5% 44%
Public Businesses, Organizations, Services 44% 8% 52%
Advocacy /Training 39% 39% 78%
All 4 Groups (Average) 38% 18% 56%
The Regulatory Environment: Discussion
The following discussion may help us understand why such stakeholder concerns exist.
Both federal and provincial regulations have developed, generally, to protect the rights of individuals,
including for their access and safety. This includes the rights of service/support animal users, as well
as elements intended for recognizing and protecting the needs of the general public.
The authors studied the notable content of both federal and various provincial laws and regulations
(as well as a sampling of municipal-based regulations and bylaws, and related service provider policies
and procedures, e.g., Air Canada, VIA Rail, etc.).
On the Canadian Federal level, laws and regulations that have jurisdiction over service/support
animals and users, in just the travel sector alone, amount to over 12 separate federal acts, laws,
regulations, and codes of practice – generally referred to, in this report, as “regulations”. In a detailed
compare/contrast exercise among the federal regulations, it was common to find notable overlaps,
contradictions, and confusion among their various contents.
Couple the fact that many regulations also exist under each of Canada’s 10 provincial jurisdictions,
plus territory-based regulations. It was found that a traveller, across provinces, with a
service/support animal, can encounter from between 22 to 28 pertinent regulations and policies,
depending on the type of animal and the number of provinces they travelled. It was common to
discover overlaps, conflicts, and confusions among the federal and provincial regulations. Challenges
can occur when a service/support animal user travels from one provincial jurisdiction, to another
province with differing regulations.
Also, regulations can quickly and notably change. For example, during a one-month period in early
2021, due to changing federal regulatory content, major Canadian airlines, went from previously
accepting “emotional support animals” in the cabin, to only accepting “emotional support dogs”, to
initiating extensive documentation requirements, and ultimately to not allow any emotional support
animal or dog in the cabin, except as pets, and subject to the policies and procedures for pets only
(e.g., caging, additional fees, etc.).
The conditions discussed in this section can make it untenable for service/support animal users to join
in the community with a reasonable degree of legal/regulatory awareness and confidence –
potentially impeding their independence versus supporting it – not to mention the service/support
animal user’s loss of spontaneous travel that most people without these animals enjoy.
Page | 33 - 99 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Applicable Federal and Ontario Regulations
The following categories are offered as primary regulatory areas:
● Human Rights.
● Accessibility/Disability Related.
● Transportation/Travel.
● Specific Disability/Need (e.g., Ontario Blind Person’s Act; Ontario Guide Dog Regulations).
The specific regulations applicable to service and support animals in the above categories include:
1. Accessible Canada Act
2. Canadian Human Rights Act
3. Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations – SOR/2019-244 (Canada)
4. Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations – SOR/94-42
(Canada)
5. Passenger Terminal Accessibility – Code of Practice (Canada)
6. Aircraft Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities – Code of Practice (Canada)
7. Passenger Rail Car Accessibility and Terms and Conditions of Carriage by Rail of Persons with
Disabilities – Code of Practice (Canada; Rail)
8. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
9. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
10. Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation O. Reg. 191/11
11. Ontario Human Rights Code
12. Ontario Blind Persons’ Rights Act
13. Ontario Guide Dog Regulations – R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 58
Applicable Rules & Regulations – Details & Comparisons
A detailed comparative table is provided in Detailed Study Report Appendix that covers the 13 federal
and provincial regulations. Despite that the table is only an overview of the regulatory environment,
it is full and complex.
Of notable concern, is the different use of the terms “dog” and “animal” among the eight regulations
that use these to specify animal types. The regulations also vary notably in terms of required training
and certification levels of the service/support animals covered.
Important Ontario Discussion
In the area of animal type and training levels, Ontario is notably unique. The Ontario Human Rights
Code (OHRC) specifies that, “Service animals for people with psychiatric disabilities or addictions do
not have to be trained or certified by a recognized disability -related organization” [emphasis
added]. This appears to be often used to define Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) and vindicate their
users’ rights in public – essentially, that any type of animal, for any personal need, even with zero
training (including training that would be beneficial in appropriate and safe behaviours in public), is
allowed full community access rights.
Page | 34 - 100 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
The OHRC and the Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards (OIAS) do require the users of the
stipulated service animals to attain (and understood to provide if requested) a document from one of
nine Ontario regulated health professionals, indicating their need for an animal.
Resource Tool Provided in Detailed Study Report Appendix
To help simplify the extensive comparative table, in the Appendix, of the Detailed Study Report, a
resource tool is further provided in the Appendix. It is named: “Comparison Tool: Table of
Regulations by Feature: Federal, Provincial, & Municipal”. This table allows a cross-reference visual
search for specific regulatory features, such as definitions, identifications requirements, behavioural
expectations, etc.
Stacking up the Numbers
Issues Prioritization
As reported, four issue areas were initially identified, then expanded, and used as part of all
stakeholder engagement processes (i.e., 1. Regulations, Policies & Procedures; 2. Emerging
Issues/Problems; 3. Systemic/Practical Concerns; 4. Education/Awareness & Public Service). With
approximately 45 survey response items created for each stakeholder group , coupled with the total
number of completed surveys, this has resulted in ov er 54,000 data points from the entire Public
Survey. A table is provided at the end of this section which represents the prioritization of the four
issue categories, based on Public Survey data.
Public Survey and VIL Prioritizations Compared
The prioritization of issues generated from the Public Survey results was attained differently from the
prioritization of issues achieved through the Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL). For the VIL, each registrant
was asked to directly prioritize a list of issues, as garnered from the Public Survey, and further
developed through the VIL. The VIL prioritization resulted in an issue list with more detailed
descriptors of each identified issue.
Issues Prioritized through the Public Survey
Public Survey issues prioritization was attained differently from the Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL). Issue
prioritization at the Public Survey level was calculated mathematically, using all the responses to the
individual items in the survey. It was intentional, to clarify where the larger number of Public Survey
participants anonymously saw issues.
Adjustments for Skewing**: Some adjustments were made for the table at the end of this section, to
reduce skewing of the results. Specifically:
● Education/Awareness & Public Service: Participants from the Users and Advocacy/Animal-
Training groups are, in a sense, most directly affected by the training and education
performance of the other two groups – i.e., Governance, and Businesses/Services.
Users, and Advocacy/Animal-Training respondents were asked to consider their experiences
when interacting with the other two groups (Governance, and Businesses/Services). Because
Governance, and Business/Services groups do not typically receive direct services from
Page | 35 - 101 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
stakeholders of the Users, and Advocacy/Animal-Training groups, it would not make sense to
ask the former to consider training from the latter.
However, it would be helpful to know what the Governance, and Business/Services
stakeholders perceive as the quality of education, training, and awareness in their own
communities, especially in consideration of their direct functions and services.
Interestingly, each community group (either Governance or Businesses and Public Services)
assessed their own level of performance as much better than the other group. Additionally,
both groups considered their education, training, and awareness significantly better than what
stakeholders thought from the Users and Advocacy/Animal-Training groups.
In other words: When self-assessing, the results show up notably more favourable than when
being assessed by the other stakeholders. To reduce this skewing, the results in the table
below were separated among individual groups and all groups. The skewing is obvious when
comparing rankings 1 with rankings 5 and 6.
● Regulations Policies & Procedures: These results were being skewed by one survey item
about the qualifications of Ontario Regulated Health Professionals to determine the need of
an individual for a service/support animal. All other survey items in this category were more
general about the environments and effects of regulations. The skewing effect was removed,
so the results were more representative of the issue area as a whole.
Table: The results of Public Survey issues category prioritization, adjusted for skewing, are
represented in the following table:
Ranking Issue Category Issue
Percentage
(%)
1 Education/Awareness & Public Service
(**As identified by Users and Advocacy/Animal-Training stakeholders’
perception of Government, Businesses, Public Services performance.)
64%
2 Emerging Issues/Problems 61%
3 Systemic/Practical Concerns 54%
4 Regulations, Policies & Procedures 51%
(5) Education/Awareness & Public Service
(Average of all four stakeholder group responses in this category –
Not adjusted for skewing.)
38%
(6) Education/Awareness & Public Service
(**Average of Governance, Businesses, Public Services perception of
themselves.)
13%
Page | 36 - 102 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Responding to Stakeholders
Stakeholder Input Leads to Issue Prioritization
Thank you to everyone who participated by responding to our Public Survey and working
deliberatively in the Virtual Innovation Lab. The generous stakeholder input we received throughout
this project has told us many things. The most important point is that no single issue, concern, or idea
is limited to affecting only one group. Something that affects one group, affects all groups. For
example, confusion with laws and regulations around access rights, can make it more challenging for
business owners. In turn, that confusion will likely create access barriers for users of service and
support animals. It would be a win-win situation to address shared issue areas to make solutions for
everyone.
We prioritized our recommendations based on two measurable criteria:
● The percentage of issue recognition by all stakeholders.
● The degree an issue is shared across stakeholder groups.
Five Recommendations Based on the SSAI Work
Below are a set of five tables with key recommendations (one per table), grounded in the above
criteria: 1) Issue recognition and 2) Shared issues. These recommendations are based wholly on:
● The data received by over 350 public survey respondents.
● Data received through the Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL) survey.
● Content developed through the VIL dynamics and cross-stakeholder engagement.
● Responses to the VIL Secondary Consultation.
● Additional information and knowledgebase garnered through the entire SSAI process.
The following recommendations take a holistic approach. They combine aspects of more than one
issue and more than one stakeholder group. They also use multiple community and stakeholder
resources – creating a partnered or collaborative approach for each recommendation.
Table – Issue 1: More Training & awareness is needed for businesses, services and public.
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
Provide core training for
businesses & services, through
municipalities, designed with
stakeholders to include:
● Types of service/support
animals.
● Rights for community access
of users with their
service/support animals.
● Develop a target/recruitment
program to draw in
businesses/services. Include
business/service venues that
support ESL and indigenous
clientele.
● Use recognized organizations such
as Boards of Trade, Community
Centres, Welcome Centres,
● Municipal
(Lead)
● Businesses &
Services
(Target)
● Businesses &
Services
● Municipalities
● Users
● Support Orgs
Page | 37 - 103 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
● Others’ Rights related to
above.
● How to respond to your
customers/clients with
concerns/questions.
● How to identify a legitimate
service/support animal in
your premises.
● Basic De-Escalation Skills
● Where to go for help with
questions/issues.
Indigenous Canadian Centres, etc.
to promote the program and talk
with constituents about their
needs.
● Post-Training: Provide signage to
the business/service as trained in
service/support animal access.
Table – Issue 2: More community outreach and awareness are needed for the public.
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
Provide a facilitated public ● Use multiple forms of media and ● Municipal ● Public
awareness campaign through communications (e.g., posters, (Lead) ● Municipalities
municipalities, designed with brochures, online ● Community-● Users stakeholders to include:
● The story behind animal
information/resources, social
media, etc.). Based
Organizations
● Support Orgs
supports. ● Hold online and in-person events (Partners)
● Types of service/support – one venue does not replace the ● Public/Resi-
animals. other – especially in closer-knit ents (Target)
● Service/Support Animal communities.
Users’ Rights and access ● Collaborate with cultural
needs. community centres, other
● “Your Rights” community centres, Immigration
● Not everyone looks like they Welcome Centres, Indigenous
need an animal. Canadian Centres, etc.
● Appropriate animal and user ● Provide information in common
behaviour & responsibilities. other languages used in your
● Appropriate public community.
behaviours around animal
users and their animals.
Page | 38 - 104 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Table – Issue 3: The increase in numbers and types of animals in the community is confusing. Some
people may not have verifiable animal needs.
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
Provide Municipal-based, easily ● Any type of special ID will require ● Municipal ● Users
identified tags or other simple an accessible, reasonable process (Lead) ● Businesses &
IDs/indicators. This may be a for users to attain it. ● Users Services
different colour license tag. Or, ● A municipal-base ID process needs (Partner) ● Municipalities it may be similar to the Ottawa
OC Transpo ID card. to clearly not impede or override
existing certification/ID processes, ● Businesses &
Services such as provided through
accredited service dog training
schools. They may be used to
help the process.
● A QR code system may be
considered if this adds
confidentiality to the process and
possibly make it easier to use.
● The ID and process would need to
be covered in the public
awareness campaigns, and
Business/Services Training
program.
(Partner)
● Local Transit
(Partner)
Table – Issue 4: Provincial/Federal-based regulations & requirements are confusing, inconsistent or
cause conflicts.
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
Provincial Government & ● Content should be accurately ● Municipal ● Users
Municipalities partner to detailed, but without appearing it (Co-Lead) ● Businesses &
provide education on laws and is more for lawyers than ● Province (Co-Services
regulations that impact the area stakeholders – Make it user-Lead) ● Municipalities of community access for friendly.
persons with service/support
animals. Areas to include: ● Provide plenty of time for
discussion.
● Users (Full
partner)
● Province
● Overview of federal
regulations & jurisdictions. ● Attempt to minimize the presence
of special interest groups – ● More detailed coverage for Produce a fair process for all each Provincial (Ontario) stakeholders. regulation.
Page | 39 - 105 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
● Areas of confusion.
● Overlaps with other
regulations, including federal.
● Contradiction with other
regulations.
● Human Rights content,
processes, and competing
human rights.
● Examples of Municipal bylaws
designed to help.
● Use the events as a public
consultation process to address
shared issues. It may also be used
to help guide potential revisions
to existing laws.
● Have a way attendees can feel
there are clear avenues for
resolution where possible.
● Outreach: Leverage partnerships
and community outreach venues
from previous recommendation
tables.
Table – Issue 5: It is a challenge to reach into the deeper levels of “main street”, cultural and other local
communities, newcomers, persons with English as a Second Language (ESL), etc. when implementing
training, awareness, and knowledgebase education content.
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
Create a dynamic partnered
public education/awareness
approach, using multiple
community
organizations/resources to:
● Identify target groups for
needs
● Materials can be developed
through recommendations 1, 2,
& 3, above, while adding back to
their content based on more
community-based collaborative
approaches.
● Materials can be produced in
● Municipal
(Lead)
● Community-
Based
Organizations
(Partners & Co-
Lead)
All groups
benefit:
● Public
● Municipalities
● Users
● Support Orgs
● Identify existing barriers,
especially those not being
addressed.
modules that can be shared
with:
o Other municipalities
o The Province
● Public &
Residents
(Target)
● Use multiple, trusted, and
familiar organizations and
individuals to produce
meaningful and appropriate
content.
● Use these same resources to
design and implement a
marketing or “reaching-out”
program.
o Community-based
organizations
Page | 40 - 106 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Recommendation/Idea Considerations Group Partners Groups that
Benefit
● Use community-based venues
(small businesses, cultural
community centres,
Welcome/Newcomer Centres,
Indigenous-based
organizations, etc.).
● Foster open dialogue time to
address issues together.
● Provide flexible content which
can be adjusted to targeted
groups, in-person sessions,
online venues, social media,
and include printed resources
as needed.
We’re Back: A Post-Covid & Pandemic World
We all know the Covid experience has turned our lives completely around and upside down. This was
discussed early in the SSAI project. But the Public Survey was designed and completed early in the
Covid experience. There were not yet enough patterns to draw on. In retrospect, we have heard
from stakeholders that they felt the Province’s and Federal response had left service and support
animal users hanging, especially around getting newly trained animal partners. This process was
essentially at a standstill, leaving many people in limbo, that needed an animal to keep what part of a
regular life was possible.
But we can now turn to the reopening of our communities and considerations around it.
Communities Reopening after Covid
Naturally, the impact of Covid on the lives of people who rely on service and support animals would
have some different dynamics than others in the community. However, as reflected in our approach
to recommendations, all stakeholders’ experiences affect all others. This can be especially so, in
ways, among the Users, and the Business/Services groups. Please consider the following:
● Service and Support Animals would have lost some skills and need to be worked some to bring
them up to pre-covid abilities.
● The Users of service and support animals may have lost confidence, and some interactive skills
required to work in public in the community with their animal.
● Levels of mental health challenges have increased among the general population, including
anxiety and depression. Think of the following:
o This is doubly concerning for people that have service animals for mental health supports,
being at risk of worsening symptoms.
o Store and restaurant owners have watched their businesses collapse and have been
worried about their future, while also experiencing increased issues of anxiety.
Page | 41 - 107 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
o These business owners are likely quite concerned around getting their businesses
restarted, while also concerned for the health of their customers, staff and their own
health.
Exercise – Consider the following scenario:
The following story illustrates challenges that both users and businesses may well be experiencing
as we return to our communities – hoping the more personal perspective helps us all understand
better.
Jamal uses a service animal for his mental health needs – he is diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.
His need for an animal is agreed among his health providers. A document was co-signed by Jamal’s
Psychiatrist and Occupational Therapist stating his needs and recommending he be allowed in public
with his service animal. Jamal attained a dog, “Porter”, with basic obedience training, and training
in appropriate behaviours in public (e.g., lay on the floor while Jamal is eating; being relieved in
appropriate places; focusing more on Jamal in a public setting than others; appropriate behaviour
around other dogs; etc.). Porter does not wear any identifying service animal gear. It is not
required because Jamal has his health professional letter. Also, Jamal does not like receiving
increased attention to himself. He has also felt it was not appropriate to spend money online for
service dog identification gear.
Jamal has never been comfortable with needing documentation to have his service animal with him.
The thought of being asked by someone, for his health professional’s document increased Jamal’s
anxiety and feelings of anger.
Earlier in the day, Jamal quarrelled with his partner, literally over spilt milk. Both Jamal and his
partner had been stuck at home during Covid. Jamal had been out of work and his partner working
virtually, part-time. During the quarrel, Jamal left their home upset. He decided to go to a local
restaurant for the first time since the community was reopening. He had been to this restaurant
before Covid. In his haste, Jamal had forgotten to take his Psychiatrist and Occupational Therapist
document showing his need for a service animal.
Jamal sat at a table in the back corner awaiting service. Porter was out of practice and standing by
the table, sometimes trying to interact with others, and looking for food on the floor.
George, the restaurant owner was bothered by Porter’s behaviour. He was also concerned for his
other customers’ reactions – some being uncomfortable with Porter milling about. When Jamal had
come to the restaurant before Covid, Porter was much better behaved. George did not know then
about dog user rights to be in the restaurant. Then, George thought it best to let Jamal and Porter
discreetly stay at their back corner table. George was not comfortable at that time with what else
to do about it.
Since Covid, George’s city offered online workshops on service and support animals. He learned
that a person with a service and support animal is required to have a document from their doctor or
one of nine health professionals. Given George’s discomfort with Jamal and Porter being in the
restaurant, plus Porter’s increased behaviours, George decided to ask for Jamal’s document.
George was very anxious about his restaurant’s reopening and for his other customer’s reactions.
George reluctantly went to ask for Jamal’s document. Both were anxious. Jamal then realized he
forgot the document, and resented being asked for it as it was. Jamal declined to show George a
Page | 42 - 108 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
document. After several attempts, with emotions escalating, George told Jamal that he had to
leave. Jamal refused. Two restaurant staff, stron g looking men, came and asked Jamal to leave.
When he refused again, the two men physically forced Jamal out of the restaurant.
Considerations:
● Would the situation have had a much better ending if it were not already charged with
emotions related to Covid?
● Might George have left Jamal and Porter alone to stay if Porter was behaving more
appropriately?
● Might Jamal handle the document situation differently if he had an opportunity to discuss
his feelings with his Occupational Therapist?
● What if the city workshop provided some helpful ways for store owners in how to engage
customers about their animals? This could have included basic de-escalation skill coverage.
● Might Jamal have left with less commotion if George had discreetly engaged the police, and
the police be skilled at recognizing possible mental health challenges and practicing de-
escalation? Would it have been further helpful if the police were knowledgeable about the
rights and types of service/support animal users?
Emerging, Continued & Complex Issues: More Work is Needed
Many issues have been identified by this project. These include emerging and newer issues as well as
long-standing ones. The SSAI stakeholder engagement, co-design approach, and analysis methods,
qualify and obligate the SSAI to report on all identified issues.
The issues detailed in this section go beyond the current SSAI scope and methods to resolve. Still, the
issues are presented with detailed background and treatment to hopefully generate further
discussion and future efforts.
The hearts and minds of many stakeholders have generously contributed to this content. It is our
recommendation that the SSAI work is used as a platform from which others step forward and begin
working on these complex concerns. A stand -alone report with the content of this section in greater
detail is available for reference by all stakeholders. It also contains suggestions in how to pursue
resolution more successfully with these tough issues.
For long-standing, complex, and historically charged issues, additional professional assistance in
problem solving, dispute management, de-escalation, conflict resolution, negotiations, etc., are highly
recommended to be a core part of the process. These facilitative supports should be budgeted and
introduced before the project is implemented.
Quantity & Quality of Different Regulations (Federal, Provincial, Municipal)
Issue: Many regulations (i.e., Acts, Laws, Regulations, Codes of Practice, Bylaws, etc.) can be
confusing, ambiguous, and have conflicting content with other regulations. Some regulations have
created conflict within the regulation (such as the Ontario Human Rights Code re competing rights).
This project study identified over 13 separate Canadian Federal and Ontario Provincial regulations
that affect persons using service and support animals in the community.
It is interesting to note, among many inconsistencies within the various regulations, that:
Page | 43 - 109 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Definitions of a service animal vary widely.
● Some definitions are recognized by stakeholders as vague and/or ambiguous.
● Others cover only dogs; others use only the term “animal”, while others address both dogs
and animals, sometimes inconsistently.
● Those that cover dogs only, in some provinces, require certification and identification that is
unique to their province. This could create a risk of excluding travellers with certification
from other provinces. It could also cause additional hurdles for users to work through.
● Other regulations that rely on definitions of disability as evidence of need for a service
animal, can tend to omit specific service types. This appears to be the case in Ontario where
different applicable disabilities are covered under separate regulations. By not providing a
single, clear, and complete source of disabilities, some service areas can also be omitted.
● Travel-based regulation and carrier policies have changed dramatically in a notably short
period of time.
Divisions Among Animal User Stakeholders
Issue: Divisions among animal users and groups have been shared and observed during the SSAI. Key
conflict areas include:
● Nationally Standardized Training & Certification for all Service Animals, versus Individual
Training Certification by Service Type.
● Some “Service” Animals, including those designated by Ontario regulations as not requiring
training, can be distracting, while some behaviours can be a safety or functional risk for others .
● “Emotional Support Animals” (“ESAs”), are not recognized by that term in Ontario regulations.
However, the ESA term is pervasive, confusing, and the animals’ increased presence can
increase risks for persons who rely heavily on highly trained service dogs. Proponents for ESAs
believe they should have full access rights for their use of untrained and various animals.
Standardized/Universal Certification vs. Separate Certification by Service Type
There are ongoing efforts to standardize, make universal training standards and certification
processes that would cover all service animal types. This effort is faced with opposition by some
already covered by longer-standing training and performance standards that have a recognized
position.
Some see advantages to a national certification/identification, including for regulatory and policy
procedures. Other concerns have been shared that the existing standards currently covering some
specific animal-based services could be compromised.
It appears that differing perspectives may be going down separate – away from working with each
other. Unfortunately, if unresolved, this could create seemingly untenable conditions.
In the spirit and practice of the SSAI, engaging all Stakeholders, including those with differing
perspectives, it is recommended that:
● This issue be recognized as serious and real.
● All responsible parties find ways to come to the table for development.
Page | 44 - 110 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
● Recommendations be considered from the section’s introduction and detailed further in the
Detailed Study Report. One key consideration would be that independent professional
assistance in problem solving, de-escalation, negotiations, conflict resolution, dispute
management, etc., be a core part of the budgeted process.
Service Animals with no training required, can be distracting, while some behaviours can be a
safety or functional risk for others.
In Ontario, per the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) (under, “Preventing discrimination based
on mental health disabilities and addictions”), in Section 13, “Duty to Accommodate”, it states,
“People with mental health or addiction issues who use service animals to assist with them with
disability-related needs (such as anxiety) are also protected under the definition of “disability” in
section 10 of the Code. Service animals for people with psychiatric disabilities or addictions do not
have to be trained or certified by a recognized disability-related organization.” (Note the use of
the term “Service” animal by the OHRC. The OHRC does not use the term “support” or “emotional
support” animal.)
Despite that the term Emotional Support Animal” (ESA) is not stated above, the authors have
observed that ESAs may be widely considered synonymous with the OHRC Section 13 content,
especially by ESA users. Concerns exist of a general notion that anyone that wants the
companionship of their pet in public can claim it to be an ESA, with full public rights.
Another criterion exists as required by law, under Section 13, OHRC. That is, “. . . where it is not
immediately obvious that the animal is performing this [mental health related] service, a person
must be able to show evidence (such as medical evidence, or from a similar service provider) that
they have a disability and that the animal assists with their disability-related needs.” The health
professionals have been specified under the Ontario Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation,
(OIAS), Part, IV.2, (4), (b), “the person provides documentation from one of the following
regulated health professionals confirming that the person requires the animal for reasons relating
to the disability”.
This provision, however, should not provide anybody with simply a desire to have a pet
companion in open public access. The regulated health professional, by charge of their respective
college, should clinically determine a distinct and clear need by the individual, based on treatment
knowledge, and/or assessment.
Competing Rights: Built into the Ontario Human Rights Code is the concept of Competing Human
Rights (http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-competing-human-rights). How effective is the OHRC in
addressing the complex and reportedly manifest conditions of competing rights of others in
everyday community access, by variously trained or untrained service and support animals?
Where does one turn in the face of a real-time competing rights situation, where the condition is
disruptive and/or creating untenable risks – while it is happening?
Easily Attained “Credentials” and Identifications Online
A simple Google search, such as “certified service animal” has consistently rendered a full page of
various online certification-like companies. For various fees, a person can “register” and/or “certify”
their animal through one of the online companies. The companies typically also sell an array of
Page | 45 - 111 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
photo-IDs, certification documents, and identification gear, such as leads, vests, ID tags, collars,
harnesses, patches, etc.
One website boasts, “ESA Letters issued by real therapists in your Province, delivered in 48 hours or
less.”
This is deeply troubling to SSAI leadership, as well as to the bulk of stakeholders engaged
throughout the SSAI process. 79% of the Users and Advocacy/Animal-Training group respondents to
the Public Survey identified this as an agreed issue. Over 55% of Governance, and Public
Organizations, and Businesses, Services group respondents did as well.
It is highly recommended to not go to these sources for any of the products they sell. As
stakeholders, we need to discourage the use of uncertified vendors. We should inform stakeholders
of the risks to animal users and the general public. The documentation of a user’s disability-related
need for a service animal through one of nine regulated health professional is a valid document. It
is fully able to be used in lieu of any online identification gear or other documents.
Animal Identification can also be addressed through the recommendation (above recommendations
table 3): “Provide Municipal-based, easily identified tags or other simple IDs/indicators”. This may
be a different colour license tag. Or, it may be similar to the Ottawa OC Transpo ID card.”
Availability of trained service dogs does not meet the many people in need.
This is a systemic and increasing challenge for which the SSAI has little capacity to make
recommendations. The main concern is that we do recognize this as very serious situation. The
authors think this issue is magnified by:
● The increase of community-based accessibility with increased activities of persons with
disabilities in the community.
● Relatively recent recognition of populations which have shown to greatly benefit from a
highly trained service dog (e.g., autism, PTSD).
● Difficulty to grow centres that provide highly trained service dogs, especially in shorter
periods of time.
● The disruption to training processes and staff due to COVID-19.
Another consideration is when people who desperately need a trained service dog, may seek out
sources outside the longer-standing service dog training centres. This could increase training
performed by 1:1 paid trainers; friends and family providing training with lesser skills in the area;
users attempting to perform their own training; etc.
Recent Development: Online Service Dog Training Courses
The previous concern (trained animal availability) may well have led to a recently recognized
development. That is, online training companies, providing service dog training courses. One of
these sites claims it is, “. . . focused on helping people with physical and mental disabilities to train
their own dog to become a qualified service dog to assist in their daily life”. The training provided
appears to be mostly pre-created and prepared as remote learning, with minimal 1:1 time spent
Page | 46 - 112 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
with an instructor. Being remote would also increase the likelihood that no hands-on services are
being provided with the dog or dog and user.
Areas listed as covered by the online companies include:
● “Intensive Service Dog Training”
● Psychiatric Service Dog
● Diabetic Alert/Medical Response
● Autism Companion Dog
● Therapy Dog Training
● Emotional Support Animal (ESA) Training
The online training sites also claim certification and accreditation. The certification appears similar
to the online credentialling and identification products that other online businesses provide for a
fee. The accreditation listed on one site is of simply another online training company –listed as
“Service Dog Training International”. The online logo and name may look and sound impressive.
However, the accrediting organization is simply another online training site. It is not an accrediting
and standards monitoring organization such as the International Guide Dog Federation, or
Assistance Dogs International.
Further Consideration of Barriers: Government & the “Environment”
The environment can either help with access, or create barriers for persons with a disability. The
environment is everywhere we spend time, and everything we interact with. It is made up of all
contexts that include things like:
● Attitudes & Culture.
● General Inclusion versus Exclusion.
● The Physical Environment (often the only thing that comes to mind as “environment”).
● Language and Communication.
● Laws, Regulations, & Policies.
o How they are created.
o How they are accessed.
o How clear or confusing they are.
o How many exist for one topic.
● Excluding people with disabilities from planning and making change.
● Everyday things like:
o Customer Service.
o The Internet.
o Written and shared information.
o Training & Education.
o Transportation.
o Etcetera.
This issue is also addressed in more detail in the Detailed Study Report and may be most applicable to
any governing body to consider further in the development of regulations, policies, and bylaws.
Page | 47 - 113 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
What We Learned
(This section is written in clear language for easier reading access.)
We went to the Stakeholders to learn:
● What they experience.
● What they think and feel – we asked for their opinions.
We also went to the Stakeholders to:
● Guide the SSAI project from the beginning.
● Research information.
● Design the project and do the work.
Our Stakeholders included:
● Service and Support Animal Users – We included as many types of service animal users as
possible.
● Support Persons for Animal Users.
● Businesses and Services – Retail Stores, Libraries, Rec Centres, “Main Street”, Parks, etc.
● Government – Municipal, Provincial, Federal – Services, Planning, Laws, Accessibility, etc.
● Government Advisory Committees.
● Animal Training Organizations.
● Disability Support Organizations.
Through research, surveys, workshops, consultations, discussions, and meetings, we learned:
Almost everybody thinks there are big challenges around service and support animals in the
community. The most important challenges include :
● People in businesses, services, government, and the public do not know enough about:
o How to know the kinds of service and support animals.
o Laws and Regulations.
o The rights of animal users in public.
o How to act around service and support animals.
o How to include animal users according to the law.
o How to respond to everybody’s different human rights.
● Almost everybody is overwhelmed by too many laws that also seem confusing.
● So many animals and animal types are confusing, to almost everybody.
● Does somebody need an animal if they don’t look like they have a disability?
● Some kind of easy identification could help with the confusion.
● Some animal users don’t seem to respect other users and the rights of others.
● “Fake” identifications and animal gear is too easy to buy online. It adds to the confusion, and
it should be regulated.
● Different types of animal users do not agree with other animal users, especially about:
o Training levels and standardizing them.
o Standardized identification requirements.
Page | 48 - 114 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
o Animals that are not highly trained dogs.
What else we learned:
● We were not able to reach everybody despite how much we tried. We need to find ways to
reach more people, especially in training and awareness.
● There are complex issues that go beyond the helpful recommendations made by the SSAI
project.
● The complex issues are real, serious, and need to be resolved with more work by all the
stakeholders.
The SSAI has made five recommendations to try helping with the common concerns. They are
detailed in five separate tables above under “Responding to Stakeholders”. Please see the tables for
more detail. The tables provide:
● A real challenge, experienced by many stakeholders.
● A detailed recommendation to help.
● Who would work on the recommendation.
● Who would benefit from making the recommendation work.
We also provide a story to help us understand how COVID-19 has affected our Stakeholders’ lives.
Our report also covers complex challenges that still need work, to include:
● Quantity of regulations (Federal, Provincial, Municipal). Many are also confusing.
● Disagreements among user stakeholders around:
o Universal Certification.
o Emotional Support “Service” Animals: No training & problem behaviours.
● Easily Attained “Credentials” and Identifications Online
● Not enough trained service dogs available for people who need them.
● New: Online training courses for training a person’s dog to be a service animal.
Authorship
Core Authorship
Miriam Webster defines “author” as, “one that originates or creates something”. Frank N. Magill,
from his Cyclopedia of World Authors, states that an author is "the person who originated or gave
existence to anything". Based on these definitions, the recognition of core authorship should go to
the Stakeholders who gave input and spoke through their lives and experiences – all contributing to
the content of this report, in various honest and sincere ways.
If we also look to Roland Barthes, from his The Death of the Author, he writes, "it is language which
speaks, not the author".
So, let us give first credit to the language of our Stakeholders, who generously provided their thoughts
and efforts to create the SSAI’s ideas, perspectives, findings, and expressions.
Page | 49 - 115 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Principal Author
David J. Wysocki, M.Sc., OT (Reg) (Ont.), Occupational Therapist, Project Lead; Pickering Accessibility
Advisory Committee member. David has been responsible for consolidating into this Monograph, all
that was given to the project through the Stakeholders and secondary authors.
Secondary Authors
Significant and critical contribution to the Monograph content, without whom the Monograph would
not have been completed, includes:
Pina D’Intino, MDes, PMP, CPACC, Business Transformation, Accessibility Strategist and Consultant.
Pina has been a most significant content contributor and reviewer. Pina generously provided her
esteemed international and Canadian recognized expertise, and her lived experience as a Guide Dog
user, in significant contribution to the Monograph writing.
Timothy J. Higgins B.Com, CPA, CGA, Accessibility Coordinator, City of Pickering. Tim has been an
essential content contributor and reviewer. In addition to his leadership and insights used for the
content writing, as well as for project guidance, and behind the scenes work, he assured we were
creating content that made sense to municipalities and Provincial Government.
Collaboration and Acknowledgements
In Memoriam, Councillor Ian Cumming
It is with great sadness that the Service and Support Animals Initiative team, partners, participants,
and friends acknowledge the leadership of the late Pickering Councillor Ian Cumming in helping to
provide the initial inspiration as well as ongoing vision, direction, and support for this project.
This project would not have been possible without :
● Pickering Councillors Maurice Brenner and Ian Cumming who recognized the need to consult
with the first stakeholder group, the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC). They
acted as keenly responsive to their constituents, who had approached them with their
questions, concerns, and ideas around community access by persons with service and support
animals.
● The City of Pickering and its constant support in countless ways throughout the project, from
its inception to its continuing completion.
● The hundreds of Stakeholders, from all groups who took their time and energies to contribute
to the various forms of input, essential to the meaningful and valid outcomes of the SSAI.
● The direct supports provided us by the Province of Ontario, Ministry for Seniors and
Accessibility.
● Early recognition and support provided us by Alfred Spencer, (then) Director, Public Education
and Outreach Branch, Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility.
The SSAI must recognize the invaluable assistance, with deep appreciation of:
● Athar Shabbar, MDes, Organizational Development Specialist at Inclusive Design Lab. Athar’s
deep experience from early engagement and facilitation of Innovation Labs proved crucial to
Page | 50 - 116 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
the SSAI’s ability to initiate, design and facilitate this unique process of the SSAI Virtual
Innovation Lab (VIL). Athar spent immeasurable time sharing and responding to the many
hurdles, with the SSAI team, in this early COVID-19 effort. His presence helped assure the VIL
was accessible, complete, dynamic, and most successful.
The SSAI relied entirely and heavily on the many roles and responsibilities provided throughout the
project. We are continuously grateful to:
● The original Service Animal Task Group, generated through the Pickering Accessibility
Advisory Committee (PAAC), to respond to the PAAC’s recommendations to Councillors
Brenner and Cumming. This group grew from a half dozen to over a dozen stakeholder-based
members who vibrantly engaged in the initial work at hand, eventually leading to the Service
and Support Animals Initiative (SSAI).
● The six Co-Facilitators of the Virtual Innovation Lab. It took commitment, flexibility, and hard
work during the countless hours it took to help plan, run, and report on a unique process – an
actual virtual innovation lab.
The SSAI is profoundly grateful to:
● The over 30 Virtual Innovation Lab (VIL) Stakeholder Participants. It was an immense
pleasure to work so closely with such a key group of Stakeholders. It took hours of
commitment on their part, with open, honest, and generous engagement – working closely
among all VIL participants, of varying backgrounds, learning, deliberating, and solving real
issues around community access for service and support animal users.
The SSAI expresses its continued appreciation to:
● OCAD-University’s Inclusive Design Research Centre (IRDC). Its leadership stepped up to the
plate at a time when we were mostly unsure of how to implement a Virtual Innovation Lab,
using platform technology at the time to run a complex workshop and do so with an attempt
at a fully accessible experience for all participants. David Pereyra, Ph.D., MArch, Project &
Outreach Coordinator, IDRC, stuck with us through the four Virtual Innovation Lab sessions,
always solving the technical and access issues that popped up before, during and after each
session, so we could run a viable Innovation Lab.
● Gloria Bernal, who worked closely with the survey design team to produce a unique, dynamic
survey format that answered to the different Stakeholder needs . It took many meetings and
discussions with the team, with numerous drafts and expert online design skills, to produce
the exact survey tools the project required. She followed through with crucial data harvesting
and management so we could produce meaningful measurements and apply these to the SSAI
process and outcomes.
● The hundreds of Stakeholders that generously contributed their time, thoughts, and feelings,
in the stakeholder engagement process, including the over 350 Public Survey respondents.
This includes a special recognition for the additional time and deliberative consultative
engagement of the Secondary VIL outcomes reviewers.
Page | 51 - 117 -
SSAI Monograph Draft Dedcember 1, 2021
Disclaimers & Qualifiers
This report is the result of many efforts provided by many people. It is intended to be a
representation of the hundreds of Stakeholders engaged, and their input. All reasonable efforts have
been made, in good faith, for the report to be as fully representative of the Stakeholders’ voluminous
and diverse contributions. This means it is intended to represent information from Stakeholders that
are in agreement with one another, and where Stakeholders differ in their perspectives, ideas, and
even terminology. It is about the Stakeholders’ opinions, not the authors’. Where authors’ opinions
are offered, it is still done from a recognition of the constituency of Stakeholders – not personalized
opinions of the authors.
It is critical that the notable efforts that went into in-depth and extensive Stakeholder engagement
and representation be embodied in this report. Through various Stakeholder feedback, it was shared
by a significant majority that:
● The processes were inclusive, engaging, fair, representative of various viewpoints, and
pertinent to the issues.
● Participants recognized the ability to learn from others and gain a bigger, more inclusive
picture.
This is evident in the following Stakeholder shared statements:
● “I had just taken a course on Human Centered Design or Design Thinking , so it was great to
see this practice put to use.”
● [It was positive] “. . . having a wide variety of perspectives and people of different
backgrounds with different needs.”
● “It was great to work with people from all experiences and to learn from them. Lots of great
ideas were shared in a respectful way”; “Collaborative, gained valuable insights from other
participants.”
It is rewarding to hear this from the engaged Stakeholders. Full and diverse Stakeholder engagement
has been the M.O., modus operandi, for the entire SSAI project and leadership. Of course, not
everyone was in agreement with all things, or even the project itself. It was attempted to represent
the various differing opinions in this report and in the SSAI findings as well.
Lastly, all reasonable and good faith efforts have been made to provide accurate information and all
the applicable information necessary to represent the SSAI subject. Efforts have also been made to
report content that is outside the scope of the project. This said, errors and omissions can occur. If a
reader perceives issues of accuracy or omission, we ask that you address this with the project, so we
can make efforts to correct it. Or at least discuss where and where -not accurate information was
perceived. Please feel free to contact the project at info@aequumaccess.com.
Now on to more accessibility, advocacy, and inclusion work. Will you join us?
Page | 52 - 118 -
Attachment #2 to Report #CS 37-21
Five Year Accessibility Plan
2021-2025
1
- 119 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4
The Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan for 2016-2020 .............................................. 5
Accomplishments ......................................................................................................... 5
Pickering's Inclusion Leadership ..................................................................................6
Vision for the City of Pickering -2021-2025 .................................................................... 7
Accessibility Environmental Scan -2021-2025 ............................................................... 9
Accessibility Standards & Best Practices ...................................................................... 12
Ontario’s Legislative, Regulatory and Policy Context ..................................................... 12
Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) and Ableism Policy .......................................... 12
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) .............................................. 14
The Ontario Building Code (OBC) .......................................................................... 16
Other Jurisdictions ..................................................................................................... 17
Best Practices ............................................................................................................. 17
Pickering’s Accessibility Resources .............................................................................. 18
Organizational Changes ............................................................................................ 18
The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC) .......................................... 19
The Pickering Accessibility Core Staff Team (ACST) ................................................ 20
Partnerships ............................................................................................................... 21
Pickering’s Accessibility Priorities -2021–2025 ............................................................ 23
Future Actions -2021-2025 ...........................................................................................23
General ...................................................................................................................... 23
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 24
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 24
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 24
Customer Service ...................................................................................................... 25
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 25
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 25
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 26
Information & Communications ..................................................................................26
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 26
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 27
- 120 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 27
Employment ............................................................................................................... 27
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 27
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 27
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 28
Public Spaces and Facilities ...................................................................................... 28
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 28
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 28
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 29
Transportation ............................................................................................................ 30
Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 30
Ongoing Goals ........................................................................................................ 30
2021-2025 Goals .................................................................................................... 31
Appendices ................................................................................................................... 31
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast .......................... 31
- 121 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Executive Summary
Compared with other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world, Ontario has
established an impressively comprehensive and robust legal and policy framework
aimed at achieving an inclusive and fully accessible province, and to defeat ableism.
“Ableism” refers to attitudes in society that devalue and limit the potential of persons
with disabilities. Ableism may be defined as a belief system, analogous to racism,
sexism or ageism that sees persons with disabilities as being less worthy of respect and
consideration, less able to contribute and participate, or of less inherent value than
others. Ableism may be conscious or unconscious, and may be embedded in
institutions, systems or the broader culture of a society. It can limit the opportunities of
persons with disabilities and reduce their inclusion in the life of their communities.
Since 2012, the Canadian population age 15+ with disabilities has grown from 3.8
million to 6.2 million. The disability ratio also climbed, from 14% in 2012 to 22.3% in
2017. The economic impact is substantial with 22.3% of Canada’s 15.2 million
households containing at least one member living with a disability. The consumer
spending of those households equals $215.7 billion.1
This means that there are approximately 21,000 people, or more, in Pickering currently
living with one or more disabilities. As the population ages and the full impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic are realized, we can expect the percentage of people with
disabilities to increase significantly by 2025.
Notwithstanding Ontario’s significant leadership achievements in creating an inclusive
and accessible society, Statistics Canada reports that Ontarians with disabilities
continue to have lower educational achievement levels, a higher unemployment rate,
are more likely to have low income status, and are less likely to live in adequate,
affordable housing than people without disabilities. People with disabilities contin ue to
experience difficulties accessing employment, housing and various services throughout
Ontario. “Disability” continues to be the most frequently cited ground of discrimination
under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) in human rights claims made to the
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).
Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), the City of Pickering
is required to develop multi-year accessibility plans to help make Ontario accessible by
2025. An Accessibility Plan must be updated at least once every 5 years in consultation
with people with disabilities and accessibility advisory committees. Pickering’s 2021-
2025 Accessibility Plan provides a roadmap for City Council and staff on actions to
prevent, reduce and, where possible, eliminate barriers to City programs, services and
1 Statistics Canada’s Survey of Household Spending estimates average household spending was
$63,723 in 2017. Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017 and 2012; Survey of Household Spending, 2017;
Labour Force Participation of Adults with Disabilities, 2012 13–1003–48.
- 122 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
facilities that may affect community members and visitors who have disabilities.
Additionally, the Plan outlines how the City will meet its obligations under the Ontario
Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and
the Ontario Building Code and continue to enhance the accessibility of our services over
the next five years. This is the City’s second multi-year accessibility plan (MYAP) which
builds on the fulfilment of its 2016-2020 plan and the City’s compliance with
requirements under the AODA.
Since Ontario’s legislation and regulations relating to accessibility often specify
minimum compliance requirements, the City of Pickering has often found that going
above and beyond the letter of the law and seeking best practices makes practical
sense in the pursuit of an inclusive community. For example, the City of Pickering has
been a recipient of the David C. Onley Award for Leadership in Accessibility in 2016,
2017 and 2018 recognizing that it has gone above and beyond to improve accessibility
for its residents with disabilities.
Pervasive change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with rapid
municipal growth are themes that set the stage for Pickering’s accessibility planning to 2025.
The Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan for 2016-2020
Accomplishments
The Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan for 2016-2020 has been successfully
completed. On an ongoing basis, the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee
(PAAC) has monitored progress with respect to Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan
for 2016-2020 and each spring the PAAC presented Year End Reports and Work Plans
to Pickering City Council for each of 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21
informing Council of the Committee’s objective assessment of progress on accessibility
as well as to keep Council continuously posted on emergent accessibility issues and
priorities.
All AODA standards coming into effect from 2010 forward have been successfully
implemented by the City of Pickering. Following consultation with the AAC and the
Accessibility Core Staff Team and other City staff, the City of Pickering filed its
required 2017 and 2019 compliance reports with the Ministry for Seniors and
Accessibility (the Regulator) indicating that the City of Pickering was fully AODA-
compliant.
The AODA’s 2010-2017 requirements have been successfully completed. These
requirements include:
o providing accessible customer service;
o providing emergency and public safety information in accessible formats;
o providing employees with accessible and customized emergency
information;
o creating accessibility policies and a multi-year plan;
- 123 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
o buying accessible goods, services or facilities;
o making new websites accessible;
o training employees on Ontario’s accessibility laws;
o making it easy to provide feedback, when asked;
o making employment practices accessible;
o making public information accessible, when asked; and,
o making new or redeveloped public spaces accessible.
There were no new AODA requirements introduced during 2018-2020.
Beginning January 1, 2021, public-facing websites must conform to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Level 2.0 AA. WCAG is an international standard
for making websites and web content accessible to a broader range of users with
disabilities.
The AODA has not specified any additional future requirements, so far.
Pickering's Inclusion Leadership
Since Ontario’s legislation and regulations relating to accessibility ofte n specify
minimum compliance requirements, the City of Pickering has often found that going
above and beyond the letter of the law and seeking best practices makes practical
sense in the pursuit of an inclusive community. For example, the David C. Onley Award
for Leadership in Accessibility recognizes Ontarians who have gone above and beyond
to improve accessibility for people with disabilities. While only a dozen or so Onley
Awards are issued each year, and there are several hundred municipalities in the
Province of Ontario, it is notable that the City of Pickering has been recognized 3 times
with Onley Champion Awards for the following initiatives:
2016 Champion Award: The DRP Children’s Games Partnership is comprised of
the Durham Regional Police, the City of Pickering, the Campbell Children’s
School and the Grandview Children’s Centre. This core partnership has been
supported each year by a variety of other local organizations and numerous
volunteers. As one of the partners, the City of Pickering has hosted the annual
Children’s Games, and welcomed young athletes, their families and friends to the
City, and its accessible public facilities for more than three decades. Children
aged 5-18 with a variety of physical disabilities and/or mobility limitations a re
eligible to participate in the Games and develop essential skills that will help
them in future endeavors. These young athletes are given an opportunity to
discover new inclusive sports and experience the joy of being ‘in the game.’
2017 Champion Award: In planning and executing the inclusive renewal of its
Delaney Arena, the City of Pickering has demonstrated leadership and sensitivity
to both the letter and spirit of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The city has used
a creative and innovative mindset to model exemplary inclusive design elements
when renewing its recreational infrastructure.
2018 Champion Award: The City of Pickering organized the Canada 150 Youth
Forum: A Confederation Journey 1867-2067. This information and active living
fair inspired more than 700 youth in the city to share ideas about how they c ould
- 124 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
help make Pickering and Canada more inclusive and accessible in the future.
The free event encouraged participants to start to think about how their future
employment could be improved with efforts to make the province fully accessible.
The full-day event also included career planning, 3D prosthetics printing, breath -
taking accessible breakdancing performances and numerous inclusive sports
and recreation activities.
The City of Pickering's Canada 150 Confederation Journey Youth Fair has also
been recognized by: the 2017 Ontario Municipal Social Services Association
(OMSSA) Award for Leadership in Accessibility; the 2017 Parks and Recreation
Ontario Access & Equity Award of Excellence for Advan cing Access to Affordable
Recreation Programs in Ontario; and the cover-featured article in Facility Forum,
winter 2017, the magazine of the Ontario Recreation Facilities Association Inc.
(ORFA).
At the January 27, 2020 City Council Meeting, Pickering Coun cil set in motion the
Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee’s Service & Support Animal Initiative
(SSAI) with funding from the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility. A PAAC sub -
committee was established to develop information regarding the current rules
and best practices with respect to service and support animals, and related
issues, particularly as they impact municipal operations and Durham businesses.
The SSAI has hosted an Innovation Lab, and is developing a Monograph, and a
launch event to rollout findings of the SSAI study in the autumn of 2021.
Vision for the City of Pickering -2021-2025
Pickering is the fastest growing city among the eight municipalities located in Durham
Region. As the gateway to the east GTA, Pickering (population 94,000) is strategically
located where Toronto, York and Durham Regions meet. An award-winning
municipality, Pickering is slated for significant economic and residential growth; offering
an unparalleled quality of life for those who live, work, and play here. Its dynamic City
Centre has been designated by the Province of Ontario as both an Urban Growth
Centre and Mobility Hub, and continues to evolve as a preferred destination for creative
learning, memorable events, and unique experiences at the heart of a vibran t, inclusive,
and engaged community. City population is projected to grow to 115,000 people by
2025.
The City of Pickering provides municipal services and programs to the residents of the
City. Services include provision and maintenance of municipal infrastructure, planning
and development, economic development, municipal law enforcement, and inclusive
cultural and recreational services. The City of Pickering is committed to making its
community an attractive place in which to live, work and invest. Within 22,652 hectares,
the City boasts top-quality municipal sports fields and recreation programs, a quarter-
million square foot recreation complex, a 19th century living history museum, libraries,
- 125 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
dozens of community and neighborhood parks, conservation areas, waterfront facilities
and hiking trails.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering employs approximately 700 staff to meet the
needs of its residents. The Corporation also maintains satellite facilities for Library
Services, Fire Services, Recreation Complex, Community Centres, Pickering Museum
Village and the new municipal Operations Centre.
Pickering City Centre Redevelopment Project and Recreation Complex Investments -
As Pickering prepares for massive growth, the City of Pickering has been the focus of a
recent Urban Land Institute webinar exploring its transformation from a suburban
community to a sustainable city.
Pickering’s City Centre is envisioned to undergo a bold transformation that will see an
exciting array of new, state-of-the-art buildings and municipal facilities, including a
performing arts centre, a relocated and expanded central library, a combined seniors &
youth centre, three condominium towers, hotel, and a vibrant public square. This project
is in partnership with OPB Realty Inc., owners of Pickering Town Centre (PTC), and
focuses on the redevelopment of lands on the east side of the mall and immediately
south of Esplanade South.
Forming a new downtown vision, the area around the Civic Complex and the Pickering
Town Centre would be transformed. The proposed City Centre development would
include a new two-story seniors and youth centre, a new 43,000-square-foot public
library and a new performing arts centre. A 40-plus-storey, residential tower is proposed
to be built over top of the seniors and youth centre. As well, with inclusion top-of-mind, a
state-of-the-art Recreation Complex will be built in Pickering's new Seaton community
and the existing Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex is currently being
extensively renovated at a cost of approximately $6 million.
The City Centre project, would provide a unique opportunity to ensure Pickering’s new
downtown not only fully complies with Ontario’s accessibility standards but models best
practices in inclusive design. The City’s programs, events and services will continue to
be accessible and strive for continuous improvement. It is Pickering’s ambition for its
new City Centre to be seen, in all its aspects, as an Ontario showcase for downtown
accessibility and inclusion.
Other major developments planned or underway, with completions anticipated by 2025
include:
expansion of the new Seaton community to add approximately 70,000 new
Pickering residents;
construction and initial opening in 2021 of the Pickering Casino Resort and
subsequent expansion of Durham Live;
- 126 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
design and construction of Metrolinx Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Oshawa to
Toronto; and
introduction of high frequency rail service from Quebec City through Durham
Region to the GTA.
Other City plans that intersect with accessibility and inclusion are at various stages of
development/completion and will need to be articulated and harmonized with Pickering’s
5 Year Accessibility Plan. Such plans include those dealing with Recreation; Age
Friendly initiatives; Affordable/Accessible Housing; and, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Accessibility Environmental Scan -2021-2025
To inform the priorities and content of Pickering’s Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021 -
2025, a scan of Pickering’s accessibility environment has been conducted with input
from the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee; the Pickering Accessibility Core
Staff Team, persons with disabilities in the City of Pickering, the Ontario Network of
Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), as well as the Pickering community at large. This
scan has identified a number of factors and considerations likely to shape Pickering’s
accessibility future to 2025 and will interact with Pickering’s vision for dynamic growth
discussed above. Some of these factors and considerations are outlined below:
Demographics -Since 2012, the Canadian population age 15+ with disabilities has
grown from 3.8 million to 6.2 million. The disability ratio also climbed, from 14% in
2012 to 22.3% in 2017. The economic impact is substantial with 22.3% of Canada’s
15.2 million households containing at least one member living with a disability, the
consumer spending of those households equals $215.7 billion. This means that
there are approximately 21,000 people, or more, in Pickering currently living with
one or more disabilities. As the population ages and the full and longer-term impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic are realized, we can expect the percentage of people
with disabilities to increase significantly by 2025.
2019 AODA Review -The Honourable David C. Onley, Ontario’s 28th Lieutenant
Governor, was appointed to review the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities
Act (AODA) and conducted public consultations in 2018. The 2019 Report presented
Mr. Onley’s numerous recommendations to the Government of Ontario for
improvements to the AODA. Among Mr. Onley’s candid observations were the
following:
o “For most disabled persons, Ontario is not a place of opportunity but one
of countless, dispiriting, soul-crushing barriers.”
o “We (people with disabilities) are the only minority group in our society that
faces blatant, overt discrimination and whose civil rights are infringed upon
every day from multiple directions.”
o “The message is: you don’t belong here, we don’t want you here and,
while we won’t say it out loud, we will make it clear by our design barriers
that this place is not for you or for any of your kind.”
- 127 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
COVID-19 Pandemic -The COVID-19 pandemic has arisen unexpectedly in 2020,
has had a profound impact on almost every aspect of life, and seems destined to
unpredictably shape Pickering’s future, well into the timeframe of the 2021-2025 Five
Year Accessibility Plan. A few specific impacts of the pandemic include:
o According to recent and ongoing research by th e Durham Abilities Centre
consequences of the pandemic for people with disabilities are increased
physical and mental health challenges; rising stress levels; social isolation;
and, financial uncertainty, among others.
o Social distancing and virtual communication have become the norm.
o For survivors of COVID-19, long-hauler symptoms of the pandemic are
anticipated to create a new range of disabilities such as impairments of
lung capacity. A long period of physical inactivity during the pandemic is
likely to have a number of negative health outcomes for everyone.
o Most municipalities have been negatively impacted financially and
operationally by the pandemic. (Pickering has resumed its planning for
anticipated growth and is moving forward with a significant Acce ssibility
Capital Budget Plan for 2021 to 2025. (see Appendix))
o COVID-19 has expedited the development, refinement and user
acceptance of a number of technologies that are supportive of
accessibility such as videoconferencing, real-time captioning and
translation.
Research -Following a pandemic-induced hiatus, the Pickering Football Club (PFC)
has resumed its research into barriers to recreation and sports programs; causes of
social isolation and inactivity for marginalized groups including people with
disabilities; and impacts of exclusion on physical and mental health. Based on
previous programming, partnerships, and research, PFC has identified a number of
community groups who remain isolated from recreational opportunities due to
barriers including: facility and program accessibility, transportation, cultural
awareness & sensitivity, and finances, just to name a few. Increasingly, physical
activity levels among Ontarian's are declining due to age, ability, time, availability,
cost etc., while priority populations continue to experience barriers that reduce
access and participation.
Service and Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) -The SSAI is an ongoing joint effort
led by the City of Pickering’s Accessibility Advisory Committee, with partners that
include:
o the City of Pickering and the Pickering Library;
o the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility;
o Aequum Global Access Inc.;
o the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) of OCAD University; and,
o a broad-based network of professionals in accessibility, business, and
governance.
The SSAI’s purpose is to collaboratively:
- 128 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
o identify prominent issues around service and support animals in the
community – including challenges to businesses, municipalities, and other
client-facing organizations – to include barriers that regularly face users of
service animals;
o respond with co-designed recommendations addressing the identified
challenges and barriers;
o provide formal resources for stakeholders and the community, as drawn
from an Innovation Lab results and other consultative research and
outcomes; and.
o educate, using the developed resources through public awareness ,
access and forums.
The SSAI plans to publish a Monograph (research report) and hold public forums
in autumn of 2021 to provide:
o recommendations for current best practices for businesses, municipalities,
and other organizations;
o further problem identification, clarification, and recommended responses;
and.
o increase stakeholder and public awareness.
Grants -In 2020 and 2021, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number
of high value federal and provincial grant opportunities have been announced to
advance accessibility/inclusion through focused projects including: social isolation of
vulnerable children & youth; and infrastructure renewal. More such grant
opportunities are anticipated through the period ending in 2025.
Networks -The Ontario Network of Accessibility Professionals (ONAP) and other
Durham Region municipalities continue to collaborate in identifying accessibility
issues and successful practices.
Private Sector Innovation -A handful of forward-looking private sector builders,
boards of trade, and other organizations continue to pioneer innovations in
accessible residential accessibility.
Other jurisdictions -Other Canadian and foreign jurisdictions are actively developing
accessibility legislation, regulations and policies and are pioneering best practices
and technologies that are helping to shape the inclusion landscape. As an example,
U.S. residential accessibility standards are far more rigorous than the Ontario
Building Code.
Adaptive and Other Technologies -Adaptive and other technologies are
continuously emerging that promise to benefit accessibility. For example, artificial
intelligence software is becoming available to aerially map and inventory City
infrastructure and readily assess accessibility deficiencies/opportunities for
improvement.
- 129 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Surveys -New national public opinion data on disability, accessibility, and
inclusion was released in November 2021.2 This new data outlines how people with
disabilities continue to face barriers to employment and how Canadians are more
likely to support organizations that have specific Diversity, Equity & Inclusion policies
that focus on disability. Some of the key highlights include:
o 91% of Canadians say that it’s unacceptable that people with physical
disabilities are underemployed because of workplace barriers.
o 40% of people with disabilities say companies fall short when it comes to
hiring those with disabilities. This increases to 55% for 18-to 34-
year olds with a disability.
o Nine in ten (92% of) Canadians agree that taxpayer-funded projects
should be held to the highest accessibility standards.
Accessibility Standards & Best Practices
Ontario’s Legislative, Regulatory and Policy Context3
Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) and Ableism Policy
Among Ontario’s numerous laws, the Ontario Human Rights Code has “primacy”. This
means that Ontario laws, with a few exceptions, must follow the Human Rights Code.
The Code protects people from discrimination and harassment under the ground of
“disability” in the “social areas” of employment, services, goods, facilities, housing,
contracts and membership in trade and vocational associations. This means that people
with disabilities have the right to equal treatment, which includes the right to accessible
workplaces, schools, public transit, health and social services, restaurants, shops and
housing, among other areas. The Preamble to the Code emphasizes the importance of
creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each
person, so that each person can contribute fully to the development and well-being of
the community. The Ontario Code protects people in Ontario with disabilities from
discrimination and harassment under the ground of “disability.”
Organizations have a legal obligation under the Code to not discriminate against people
with disabilities, and to eliminate discrimination when it happens. These obligations
apply in situations where discrimination is direct and the result of a person’s internal
2 . By the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with the Rick Hansen Foundation -Please find the
full research report here.
3 See the 2019 Legislative Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 by the
Honourable David C. Onley at https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-legislative-review-accessibility-ontarians-
disabilities-act-2005
- 130 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
stereotypes or prejudices. They also apply when discrimination is indirect and may exist
within and across institutions because of laws, policies and unconscious practices.
Organizations and institutions operating in Ontario have a legal duty to take steps to
prevent and respond to breaches of the Code. Employers, housing providers, service
providers and other responsible parties must make sure they maintain accessible,
inclusive, discrimination and harassment-free environments that respect human rights.
The Ontario Human Rights Code’s (OHRC’s) Policy on Ableism and Discrimination
Based on Disability is intended to supplement, elaborate on, and clarify the Ontario
Human Rights Code by providing extensive, clear, user-friendly guidance on how to
assess, handle and resolve human rights matters related to disability.
“Ableism” refers to attitudes in society that devalue and limit the potential of persons
with disabilities. Ableism may be defined as a belief system, analogous to racism,
sexism or ageism that sees persons with disabilities as being less worthy of respect and
consideration, less able to contribute and participate, or of less inherent value than
others. Ableism may be conscious or unconscious, and may be embedded in
institutions, systems or the broader culture of a society. It can limit the opportunities of
persons with disabilities and reduce their inclusion in the life of their communities.
Ontario’s 2016 policy Ableism aims to assist organizations and institutions, such as the
City of Pickering, to better understand and appropriately discharge responsibilities
under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The OHRC’s policies reflect its interpretation of
the Code, and set out standards, guidelines and best practice examples for how
individuals, service providers, housing providers, employers and others should act to
ensure equality for all Ontarians. The OHRC’s p olicy on ableism and discrimination
based on disability provides practical guidance on the legal rights and responsibilities
set out in the Code as they relate to the ground of disability.
The 2016 policy will assist organizations to better understand and appropriately
discharge their responsibilities under the Code. This policy will help organizations:
understand their rights and obligations under the Code;
design their facilities, policies, and procedures inclusively;
respond to accommodation requests;
address complaints related to disability; and,
find further resources.
The policy is intended to provide clear, user-friendly guidance on how to assess, handle
and resolve human rights matters related to disability; for example, the following
guidance is provided on “appropriate accommodations”:
In addition to designing inclusively and removing barriers, organizations must
respond to individual requests for accommodation. The duty to accommodate
- 131 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
requires that the most appropriate accommodation be determined and provided,
unless this causes undue hardship.
Accommodation is considered appropriate if it results in equal opportunity to
enjoy the same level of benefits and privileges experienced by others or if it is
proposed or adopted for the purpose of achieving equal opportunity, and meets
the individual’s disability-related needs. The most appropriate accommodation is
one that most: respects dignity, responds to a person’s individualized needs and
allows for integration and full participation.
Human rights case law makes it clear that the purpose of the Code is t o
accommodate a person’s needs, not their preferences. If there is a choice
between two accommodations that respond equally to the person’s needs in a
dignified way, then the accommodation provider is entitled to select the one that
is less expensive or less disruptive to the organization.
The accommodation process is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved
should co-operatively engage in the process, share information and consider
potential accommodation solutions. Organizations and persons responsible for
accommodation are not, as a rule, expected to accommodate disabilities they are
unaware of.
For the City of Pickering, policies, practices, job-specific training and accommodations
regarding employment; receiving goods, services and using facilities; housing; and
contracts will be informed by clarifications to the Code that the 2016 policy provides.
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)
In 2005, the Government of Ontario passed the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA), which requires that Ontario be an accessible province by 2025.
The AODA is legislation that establishes a process for developing and enforcing
accessibility standards. Accessibility standards are regulations that government,
businesses, non-profits and public sector organizations must follow to become more
accessible.
The AODA immediately impacts those with restrictions due to age, mental, physical or
intellectual disabilities; however, the standards outlined in the AODA will affect everyone
in one way or another. For example, an automatic door designed for persons with
disabilities could also benefit a parent pushing a stroller or someone with their hands
full. At some point in time, everyone will require assistance due to a temporary or
permanent disability.
Five standards have been established by Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation
(IASR) under the AODA. The standards help organizations to identify and remove
barriers to improve accessibility in the following areas:
Customer Service
The first standard, on Customer Service, came into force on January 1, 2008. Its
provisions were phased in, taking effect for the provincial government and the broader
- 132 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
public sector in 2010 and the private sector (business and non-profits) in 2012. This was
also the first standard to undergo the mandatory five-year review, which began in
September 2013 and resulted in a revised standard that took effect July 1, 2016.
The standard applies to all providers of goods, services or facilities. It requires them to
develop, implement and maintain policies for serving people with disabilities that are
consistent with the principles of dignity and independence, integration, equal opportunity
and communication that takes disability into account. Among other requirements,
providers must train staff and volunteers in accessible customer service, create a
process for receiving and responding to feedback, and permit service animals and
support persons to enter the premises.
The next three standards were combined in the Integrated A ccessibility Standards
Regulation (IASR) that took effect on July 1, 2011. Again, the requirements were
phased in, though coming into effect over a much longer timeframe, between 2011 and
2021. The standards are:
Information & Communications
These standards address the way information is created and communicated.
Organizations are required to provide accessible formats and communication supports
on request. The standard also covers such areas as websites and web content,
educational and training materials and resources, educator training and public libraries.
Accessible websites and web content -Designated public sector organizations and
large organizations are obliged to make their internet websites and web content
conform with the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0, initially at Level A and increasing to Level AA by January 1, 2021, other
than live captions, and pre-recorded audio descriptions. At WCAG level AA, it is no
longer sufficient to indicate that alternate formats will be provided on request.
Employment
This standard supports accessibility throughout the employment relationship. Among
other provisions, it requires employers to: notify employees and the public that
recruitment processes are accessible; accommodate the needs of job applicants on
request; provide work-related information in accessible formats; provide customized
emergency response information; and establish a process for developing individual
accommodation plans. It also calls for accommodation in return to work, performance
management, career development and redeployment processes.
Transportation
This standard includes an array of policy, operational and technical requirements to
prevent and remove barriers in both conventional public passenger se rvices and
specialized transportation services for persons with disabilities. Among the many areas
affected are: accessibility planning, equipment and training; pre-boarding and on-board
announcements; fares; priority seating and storage of mobility aids. Obligations are also
- 133 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
imposed on municipalities that license taxicabs and on school boards and other public
sector organizations that offer transportation services.
In Pickering, transit is a regional service and accessibility requirements are outlined in
the Region of Durham’s Accessibility Plan. The City of Pickering is, however,
responsible for ensuring that the requirements for accessible taxicabs are met.
Design of Public Spaces (Built Environment)
A further standard, covering parts of the Built Environment, was added to the IASR on
January 1, 2013. Applicable to newly constructed or redeveloped public-use areas, it
was phased in between 2015 and 2018. It covers such public spaces and features as
recreational trails and beach access routes, outdoo r tables for eating, outdoor play
spaces, outdoor sidewalks or walkways, off-street parking, waiting areas, service
counters and queuing guides.
The Design of Public Spaces Standard focuses on removing barriers in areas not
covered by the Ontario Building Code such as playgrounds, on and off -street parking,
recreational trails and service counters. It applies to new construction or re -construction
of existing spaces. It does not require organizations to retrofit in order to be compliant.
General Provisions
In addition to the above standards, the IASR contains general requirements concerning:
accessibility policies, multi-year accessibility plans, accessibility criteria and features in
procurement, accessible self-service kiosks, and training of employees and volunteers
on the IASR standards and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
As of July 1, 2016, the revised Customer Service standard was folded into the IASR,
bringing all AODA standards into a single regulation in order to make the requirements
easier to follow and implement.
If accessibility standards under the AODA fall short of requirements under the Ontario
Human Rights Code in a given situation, the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights
Code will prevail.
The Ontario Building Code (OBC)
Beyond the AODA’s Design of Public Spaces standard, other requirements for the Built
Environment are found in Ontario’s Building Code, which has included barrier -free
design provisions since 1990. The Ontario Building Code (OBC) regulates most aspects
of the construction of buildings and other structures within the Province of Ontario.
Enhanced accessibility standards covering most new construction and extensive
renovations of buildings were incorporated into the Building Code effective January 1,
2015. The amendments update requirements in such areas as: visual fire alarms and
smoke alarms; elevator access between stories in most buildings; barrier-free path of
travel throughout buildings, including power doors at entrances to a wider range of
- 134 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
buildings; and the minimum number of visitable suites in apartment buildings, which was
raised from 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
The Building Code does not apply to existing buildings where no work is planned, and
most accessibility requirements do not affect houses.
Other Jurisdictions
Legislation from other jurisdictions may sometimes provide helpful insights into
accessibility/inclusion issues in Ontario. The Government of Canada, several other
Canadian provinces, and the United States have taken steps to implement
accessibility/inclusion legislation as indicated below:
Federal Government of Canada:
o The Accessible Canada Act: An Act to Ensure a Barrier-free Canada, 2019
o The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
o The Canadian Human Rights Act
o The Employment Equity Act
o Standard on Web Accessibility
Provincial:
o The Accessibility for Manitobans Act, 2013
o Nova Scotia Accessibility Act, 2017
o Quebec's Act to Secure Handicapped Persons in the Exercise of their
Rights with a View to Achieving Social, School and Workplace Integration ,
2004
o Proposed Accessible British Columbia Act, (Bill 6, 2021)
United States
o Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990/2008
Best Practices
Since Ontario’s legislation and regulations relating to accessibility often specify
minimum compliance requirements, the City of Pickering has often found that going
above and beyond the letter of the law and seeking best practices makes practical
sense in the pursuit of an inclusive community.
For example, the David C. Onley Award for Leadership in Accessibility recognizes
Ontarians who have gone above and beyond to improve accessibility for people with
disabilities. The City of Pickering has been recognized 3 times with Onley Champion
Awards for the following initiatives:
2016 -The DRP Children’s Games Partnership
2017 -Renewal of its Delaney Arena
2018 -Canada 150 Youth Forum: A Confederation Journey 1867-2067
Other best practices are actively shared among Pickering’s various accessibility
partners (discussed below), especially among members of the Ontario Network of
Accessibility Professionals (ONAP). A large and growing international community of
- 135 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
interest in accessibility and inclusion is an ongoing online source for innovative thought,
practices and technologies.
Pickering’s Accessibility Resources
Organizational Changes
Since the appointment of Marisa Carpino, to the position of Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO) effective February 1, 2021, a fulsome review of the Community Services
Department has been completed and resulting changes have begun on June 7, 2021.
The Community Services Department has grown over the past several years to become
the largest Department in the City of Pickering employing approximately 65% of the
City’s workforce and managing approximately 40% of the City’s net operating budget. In
its prior form, the Department’s responsibilities included Recreation Services &
Programs, Cultural Programs & Special Events, Pickering Museum Village, Marketing,
Accessibility, Facilities Capital Projects, Facilities Maintenance & Operations, Corporate
Security and Public Works (Parks, Property Maintenance, Roads, and Fleet). While this
structure enabled the successful delivery of services through collaboration and
coordination, a review was necessary in order to assess its long-term effectiveness.
The new CAO initiated the Departmental review process with the support of the Human
Resources Department. This process included the research and review of municipal
best practices, 1:1 meetings with the Community Services Department non-union
management team for their input and insight, and a thoughtful considerati on of the
City’s future growth.
The following changes have been implemented to improve efficiency and effectiveness
and prepare the City for the future. The Community Services Department will be split
into two Departments: 1) Operations Department & 2) Community Services Department.
The Operations Department will be comprised of:
Public Works (Parks, Property Maintenance, Roads, Fleet). This work unit will
remain unchanged.
Facilities Capital Projects. This work unit will focus on the City’s facilities capital
asset management program, new construction, renovation, retrofits, renovations
and repairs of the City’s facility inventory.
Corporate Security. This work unit will remain unchanged.
Energy Conservation & Management. This will be a new addition to the
Department achieved by moving a vacant Energy Conservation position from the
City Development Department to the Operations Department.
The Community Services Department will be comprised of:
- 136 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Recreation Services. This work unit will focus on recreation and leisure programs
for pre-school, children, youth, adults and seniors, accessibility, grants and
community safety.
Administration Services. This is a newly created work unit that will focus on the
administrative functions of the department that are relied upon for the successful
delivery of programs, memberships and services. These functions include facility
booking, sports field booking, parks booking, arena booking, court booking,
program registration, memberships, customer service, marketing, child care
services and the leisure guide.
Fitness & Aquatics. This is a newly created work unit that will focus on fitness &
aquatic programs and services.
Cultural Services. This newly created work unit will oversee cultural services &
special events, Pickering Museum Village & heritage, arts and grants.
Facilities Maintenance. This work unit will be responsible for the cleaning,
operation and daily set-ups of City facilities, pool maintenance and arena
operations.
Further information regarding the organization structure and operations of the City of
Pickering can be found at Pickering.ca.
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast
The City of Pickering’s Accessibility Capital Budget for 2021 and the 2022 -2025 Capital
Budget Forecast was approved by City Council in May 2021 and plans for capital
investments exceeding $20 million for accessibility-focused projects over five years. (It
should be noted that only the 2021 funds are formally approved, and that the balance of
years are a forecast projection only.) see Appendix.
The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC)
As outlined in the AODA, the council of every municipality having a popu lation of not
less than 10,000 must establish an accessibility advisory committee.
The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (PAAC) advises and assists the City of
Pickering in creating and facilitating strategies for the development and maintenance o f
a barrier-free community. Each year the PAAC normally holds ten public meetings on
the third Wednesday of each month except for July and August. At the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic, Committee meetings rapidly, and successfully, adapted to a
virtual format.
Both during and between scheduled meetings, PAAC is highly active and is regularly
involved in awareness raising; development and implementation of municipal
accessibility policies, standards and providing advice on implementation; consultation
and collaboration on accessibility issues and projects; as well as site plan application
reviews.
- 137 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee maintains a full authorized complement
of 10, highly-qualified, diverse, volunteer members who are appointed by City Council.
As well, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade provides a highly-qualified and engaged
representative as a non-voting member of the Committee. As required by the AODA,
the majority of PAAC members live with one or more disabilities. Importantly, all PAAC
members are competitively selected by Council for their strong interest in, and
commitment to, inclusion as well as for notable expertise and insights into accessibility
and to achieve a balance of differing abilities.
At the time of writing this plan, the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee members
were:
Peter Bashaw
Saima Fatima
Daniel Hughes
Glenn Lang
Tammy Lyle-Gravlev
Anthony Lue
John McLellan, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade Representative
Phyllis Milton
Anna Taverna
Megan Thorpe Ross
David Wysocki
City staff includes a permanent part-time Accessibility Coordinator who facilitates
meetings of the PAAC and Accessibility Core Staff Team (ACST) to identify, discuss
and advance solutions to municipal issues with respect to accessibility. The PAAC
attends City Council to present its annual report and business plan to the City in the
spring of each year and leverages this opportunity to profile the Committee’s leading
accessibility concerns, identify opportunities for accessibility improvements, and to
maintain its positive working relationship with Council and City Staff . Copies of PAAC’s
annual report and business plan are posted to Pickering.ca along with the City’s Five
Year Accessibility Plan(s).
Guests of the Committee frequently include Pickering community members,
representatives of community partner organizations, subject matter experts, and
representatives of the staff of the City of Pickering. Informal contact is maintained
through the Accessibility Coordinator with former members of the PAAC (alumnae) who
are often consulted on accessibility matters under consideration by the City.
The Pickering Accessibility Core Staff Team (ACST)
The Accessibility Core Staff Team (ACST) provides professional expertise and technical
support to the municipality and to the PAAC. The ACST ensures interdepartmental
cooperation to advance accessibility initiatives and solutions. Representatives from City
of Pickering departments
- 138 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
assist in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to access for
people with disabilities;
determine appropriate work plans for their area of responsibility; and,
attend PAAC meetings as required.
The ACST meets monthly, up to 10 times annually, to discuss/resolve accessibility
issues and to provide updated information on the City’s various accessibility initiatives.
During the development of the Five Year Plan, the Committee reviewed the legislative
requirements of the AODA and the Accessibility Standards developed under the AODA.
In consultation with other staff in their area of responsibility, they develop action plans to
meet or exceed those legislative requirements.
As implementation of the Plan proceeds, the Committee reports on what progress has
been made and reviews the legislative requirements and updates. They also consider
recommendations made by the Accessibility Advisory Committee and other members of
the community to determine what changes or additions may be required to the Plan.
Members of the Accessibility Core Staff Team, at the time of writing this Five Year plan
are:
Vince Plouffe, Manager, Facilities Capital Projects
Scott Booker, Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure
Sharon Milton, Manager, Recreation Services
Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
Isabelle Janton, Senior Planner, Site Planning
Jaclyn San Antonio, Senior Advisor, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
TBA, Coordinator, Parks Infrastructure
Nancy Johnstone, Website Coordinator
David Janveaux, Human Resources Associate
Muhammad Rafeh, Pickering Public Library
Timothy Higgins, Accessibility Coordinator
Partnerships
The City of Pickering’s Accessibility Coordinator is a member of the Ontario Network of
Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), a community of interest comprised of approximately
300 public sector accessibility professionals working collectively to remove barriers in
municipalities, hospitals, universities and colleges and in other such public sector
organizations across the province through the sharing of information and experiences.
City staff also work in partnership with the Region of Durham and the eight area
municipalities to collaboratively identify and eliminate barriers to accessibility, to and to
share best practices.
The City of Pickering has established a collaborative community of interest, networks
and partnerships on accessibility/inclusion with organizations such as:
- 139 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Ajax Pickering Board of Trade
Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
Campbell Children’s School
Centre for Accessible Sport & Play -authority on inclusive recreation & sport
CNIB
Durham Master Gardeners – provides program opportunities for isolated children
& youth
Durham Regional Police – lead for the DRP Children’s Games; youth and kids
programming
Durham Regional Transit and Metrolinx -providers of general and special transit
services
Ecole Ronald-Marion -liaison with French-Language community in Pickering
Grandview Kids – community expert re. inclusion of children with disabilities
March of Dimes
Ontario Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility – funds the Service & Support
Animal Initiative
Parks Canada, Rouge National Urban Park
Participation House Durham -helps individuals with disabilities acquire work
skills and pursue employment
PFLAG – expert community leader in programming for LGBTQ2S+ youth
Pickering Age Friendly Initiative
Pickering Anti Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT)
Pickering Football Club – expertise in inclusive recreation & sport and research
Pickering Indigenous Relationship Building Circle -liaison to Indigenous
communities
Pickering Public Library – innovative mobile and virtual library programming
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
- 140 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Pickering’s Accessibility Priorities -2021–2025
The City of Pickering’s long term vision is to ensure that Pickering is a caring and
responsive community known for its commitment to equity, inclusion and accessibility as
well as its achievements in these areas. With the support of City Council, management,
staff, the PAAC, volunteers and a broad range of community partners, barrier removal
will continue to be a priority in Pickering. Accessibility is everyone’s responsibility and
will be incorporated by design into the work of all City Departments.
The 2021-2025 Five Year Accessibility Plan includes both new and continuing initiatives
that will help meet Pickering’s commitment to an inclusive community where all
residents and visitors have access to City services, programs and facilities in a manner
that is integrated and promotes dignity and independence.
In 2021-2025, the City of Pickering will continue to address the areas of accessibility
outlined in the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation and will also consider
barriers to accessibility more broadly, and with reference to best practices and
emergent opportunities, seek innovative, inclusive solutions. In addition to the
Standards under the IASR, the City is committed to going beyond the legislated
requirements, where feasible, to ensure that barriers to accessibility are identified and
addressed across the community.
Pickering’s areas of priority include:
City Center accessibility
accessibility partnerships and collaboration
service and support animals
website accessibility
mental and physical wellness, particularly through recreation and sports
parks, playgrounds, pedestrian and cyclist corridors, sidewalks and trails
accessible and affordable housing options
accessible transportation
community employment opportunities for people with disabilities
signage and navigation
Future Actions -2021-2025
General
As set out in the general requirements of the IASR the City of Pickering has established
a statement of commitment, accessibility policies, and successive multi-year
accessibility plans.
- 141 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Outcomes
Clear roles and accountability are established in support of accessibility at all
levels and in all segments of the organization.
The City of Pickering fosters a culture where everyone feels like they belong, that
values and includes employees, residents and visitors living with disabilities.
City employees, residents and visitors are aware of available resources and
accommodations when accessing City programs, services and facilities.
Employees are supported to identify barriers to accessibility and actively seek
solutions to prevent and remove them .
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of the practices that will continue:
demonstrating leadership in accessibility by meeting or exceeding requirements
of provincial legislation;
providing annual status updates on the City’s multi-year accessibility plan
through the PAAC to Council and posting on the City’s website;
being informed by the findings of David C. Onley’s Report regarding the
independent review of the implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act;
promoting accessibility awareness within the City of Pickering, the community
and its businesses;
through PAAC, playing an active role in Pickering’s community events and
celebrations such as Canada Day and Remembrance Day.
through PAAC, monitoring local, provincial, national and international emerging
accessibility legislation, regulations, policies, best practices, produ cts and
services and considering relevant adaptations for use in Pickering;
collaborating and consulting with regional, provincial, national and international
accessibility professionals and advocates, such as the Ontario Network of
Accessibility Professionals (ONAP), to stay abreast of emerging accessibility
issues, successful practices and opportunities to collaborate ;
ensuring City of Pickering purchases meet accessibility design criteria and
include accessibility features; and,
providing training on the AODA and the Ontario Human Rights Code to all new
employees, volunteers, anyone who participates in developing City policies or
provides goods, services or facilities on behalf of the City of Pickering.
2021-2025 Goals
seeking continuous improvements to the corporate accessibility governance
structure and accountability framework to oversee the implementation of the
multi-year accessibility plan; for example, through engagement of additional City
departments in the ACST;
- 142 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
promoting awareness of, and advising on, information and resources for people
with disabilities needing help during pandemic including: emergency supports;
virtual management of anxiety and mental health; and human rights of people
with disabilities;
promoting awareness of, and advising on City/Regional COVID-19 initiatives
such as Pickering’s partnership with Grandview Kids to provide /expand respite
programs;
consulting with Pickering residents on a range of accessibility-related topics over
time, using the City’s new “Let’s Talk, Pickering” software;
monitoring local, regional, provincial, national and international learning and
networking and partnership opportunities related to accessibility; and,
through PAAC, reviewing and providing input to the City of Pickering’s bi-annual
Accessibility Compliance Reports to the Ontario Ministry for Seniors and
Accessibility. The next accessibility compliance report is scheduled for
submission to the Regulator by December 31st, 2021.
Customer Service
The Accessible Customer Service Standards under the Integrated Accessibility
Regulation require the City of Pickering to provide accessible public services for people
with disabilities and to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to support this
requirement.
Outcomes
An accessible Pickering that includes ensuring people with disabilities receive
quality programs and services in a timely manner, supported by effective policies,
procedures, tools and resources that promote accessibility in customer service ;
and,
dignity, independence, integration and equal opportunity for everyone ling with a
disability.
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of the practices that will continue:
monitoring customer service to ensure the City of Pickering is maintaining and
continuously seeking opportunities for improving upon the level of accessibility
we provide in programs, services and facilities;
training staff, volunteers and those who provide goods, services or facilities on
the City’s behalf on an ongoing basis;
providing job-specific inclusive recreation program training;
providing notice of service disruptions;
through Pickering’s various strategic plans, embracing accessibility as an
important element to ensure an inclusive, healthy and safe community;
- 143 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
presenting annual accessibility awards to residents and businesses who advance
accessibility and model inclusion in the community;
through PAAC, providing ongoing advice on accessibility issues/priorities as well
as a formal annual report to Pickering City Council;
collaborating with Pickering’s Accessibility Core Staff Team, ONAP, the Ajax
Pickering Board of Trade, the Pickering’s Age Friendly initiative, as well as other
partners to advance accessibility and inclusion;
working with community partners to pursue grant opportunities that provide
accessible/inclusive programs and services; and,
providing support to, promoting and attending the Annual Durham Regional
Police Children’s Games.
2021-2025 Goals
developing and consulting the PAAC on a 2022 election accessibility plan to
consider potential voting locations; ensuring forms and signage are accessible;
and, training of election officials;
supporting the PAAC’s Service & Support Animals Initiative (SSAI) in completing
a Monograph, and a launch event to rollout findings of the SSAI study in the
autumn of 2021 as well as subsequent implementation of recommendations;
studying and implementing, as appropriate, recommendations from the Pickering
Football Club’s (PFC) research project, funded by an Ontario Trillium Grant, to
investigate barriers associated with recreational and sport opportunities in
Pickering and Durham Region and the impacts of isolation on people with
disabilities; and,
exploring assistive assistive/adaptive devices and software that make City
programs and services more accessible including charging stations for mobility
devices, captioning, residential elevators, new-wave wheelchairs, etc.
Information & Communications
The Information and Communications Standard under the Integrated Accessibility
Standard Regulation requires the City to communicate and provide information in ways
that are accessible to the public and that are accessible to people with disabilities.
Outcomes
enhanced accessibility as it relates to communication supports, formats, and
websites and web content;
City staff are equipped with the appropriate training, tools and resources to
effectively develop information and communications in accessible formats; and,
the City will support the effective delivery of programs and services by delivering
information and communications in accessible formats to all City employees,
residents, visitors and customers.
- 144 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of the practices that will continue to be in place:
achieving and maintaining accessible websites and web content;
ensuring documents and other content posted online are in accessible formats;
reviewing documents and City templates to ensure they are accessible;
providing training and tools for staff to create/remediate accessible documents;
maintaining a process for receiving and responding to feedback in ways that are
accessible to people with disabilities;
notifying the public about the availability of accessible formats and
communication supports;
providing accessible formats and communication supports;
providing emergency information in alternative formats; and,
completing and implementing a way-finding study for City facilities.
2021-2025 Goals
continue implementation of the City’s strategy to meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA
requirements and maintain compliance;
maintaining an ongoing awareness of the City’s progress to establish and
maintain website accessibility commensurate with heightened (WCAG 2.0 Level
AA) AODA Information and Communication standards;
developing resources for employees to support accessible public engagement
and consultation;
expanding digital content offered by the City of Pickering Library; and,
improving signage and website accessibility information to enhance the
navigation of paths/trails and other City properties.
Employment
The Employment Standard under the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation
(IASR) sets out accessibility requirements that the City must follow to support the
recruitment and accommodation of employees.
Outcomes
Employment practices and workplaces are accessible for new and existing
employees with disabilities.
Accommodation practices ensure people with disabilities are able to participate
fully and meaningfully as City employees.
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of practices that will continue:
- 145 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
notifying applicants about the availability of accessibility accommodations in the
recruitment process;
advising successful applicants about the availability of accommodations for
employees with disabilities;
making policies on accommodating and supporting employees with disabilities
available to all employees;
providing accessible formats and/or communication supports to employees with
disabilities who require it;
documenting individual accommodation plans for employees with disabilities;
providing individualized emergency response information for persons with
disabilities;
offering a return-to-work process for employees with disabilities;
providing accessibility training to new hires, including full time, part time and
students; and,
providing workplace mental health and wellness training and supports for all staff.
2021-2025 Goals
training staff and providing staff support with respect to emergent mental health
issues;
continuing to regularly review corporate policies and practices in light of the
pandemic or other emergent issues to ensure applicants and employees with
disabilities receive the appropriate support;
providing training to all staff regarding the City of Pickering’s Workforce Diversity
and Inclusion Strategy; and,
seeking opportunities to provide meaningful employment opportunities to people
with disabilities.
Public Spaces and Facilities
The Design of Public Spaces Standard under the IASR requires the City of Pickering to
ensure that newly-constructed or significantly renovated public spaces are accessible.
The City also complies with the Ontario Building Code’s requirements for accessibility in
the built environment, often exceeding the se requirements.
Outcomes
improved accessibility of City facilities and public spaces including incorporating
accessibility retrofits during renovations; and,
prevention and removal of accessibility barriers within City facilities for new
construction and redevelopments.
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of the practices that will continue:
- 146 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
consulting the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee, the public and people
with disabilities prior to redeveloping or constructing new public spaces such as
the City Centre Development Project and playgrounds;
PAAC working in collaboration with City planning staff through an ongoing site
plan application review process to encourage the proactive integration of
accessibility considerations into City developments;
PAAC consulting on the City’s Signage & Wayfinding Program which is aimed at
enabling individuals of all abilities to navigate efficiently through City of Pickering
buildings;
PAAC monitoring and providing accessibility advice regarding walkway
reconstructions, sidewalk retrofits, new multi-use paths, installation of tactile
plates at intersections, curb cuts, traffic light timing, parks, playgrounds, special
event accessible parking, etc.;
fostering/promoting/supporting submissions for local, regional, provincial and
federal grants and awards to fund and profile Pickering’s continued accessibility
achievements;
incorporating public consultations into existing development processes;
implementing accessibility improvements as part of state-of-good-repair capital
and maintenance programs;
maintaining accessible elements in public spaces through monitoring and
regularly planned preventative maintenance;
responding to temporary disruptions when accessible elements in public spaces
are not in working order by notifying the public and prioritizing remediation;
exploring the installation of mobility device charging stations in new and
redeveloped public spaces;
increasing the number of accessible picnic tables at parks;
enhancing the accessibility of new and redeveloped playgrounds;
fulfilling requests for accessible pedestrian signals and installing them with all
new traffic signals and replacements of existing traffic crossing signals;
installing tactile walking surface indicators at all corners; and,
incorporating accessibility into new builds and significant renovations for facilities,
parks, playgrounds and trails.
2021-2025 Goals
implementing the City of Pickering’s 2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to
2025 Capital Forecast which plans for capital investments exceeding $20 million
for accessibility focused projects over five years -see Appendix;
designing and building a new Pickering City Centre to model excellence in
accessible design;
accessibility renovations to the Pickering Council Chambers, Pickering’s center
of municipal democracy;
- 147 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
renewing Pickering playgrounds based on community input regarding
accessibility needs;
consulting the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee, the public and people
with disabilities on the City of Pickering Housing Strategy to address a general
shortage of accessible and affordable housing for people with disabilities;
PAAC collaborating with Parks Infrastructure on asset management, and the
rehabilitation of City parks and trails to ensure accessible assets mirror the
community’s needs and model best practices;
PAAC exploring the value of the City’s tranquil parks and trails amid the stress-
laden pandemic, and rising frequency of mental illness in the community;
exploring artificial intelligence software to aerially map and inventory Pickering’s
infrastructure to readily assess accessibility deficiencies and opportunities for
improvement;
expanding audible intersections;
enhancing accessibility of parks, pedestrian and cyclist corridors, sidewalks and
trails, trail head signage etc.; and,
exploring opportunities to improve site plan review processes such as more
timely pre-consultation processes.
Transportation
The Transportation Standard under the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation
(IASR) sets out requirements to prevent and remove barriers to public transportation
and to make public transportation and related services more accessible . In Pickering,
transit is a regional service and accessibility requirements are outlined in the Region of
Durham’s Accessibility Plan. The City is, however; responsible for ensuring that the
requirements for accessible taxicabs are met.
Outcomes
The City continues to support the development of transportation services for residents
and visitors that are barrier-free especially with respect to accessible licensed taxi cabs
operating in the municipality.
Ongoing Goals
The following is a summary of the practices that will continue to be in place to ensure
that accessibility is routinely considered:
collaboration with Durham Regional Transit (DRT) and Metrolinx to identify
opportunities to improve transit accessibility and customer service for people with
disabilities in Pickering;
continuing PAAC member representation on the Metrolinx Accessibility Advisory
Committee representing Durham Region;
consulting on the adequacy of on-demand accessible taxicabs in the community;
- 148 -
City of Pickering Five Year Accessibility Plan 2021-2025
monitoring taxi owners and operators in Pickering to ensure they are meeting the
requirements of the regulation; and,
monitoring regularly and obtaining feedback regarding accessible taxi on-
demand availability and safety.
2021-2025 Goals
through the AAC conducting an accessible taxicab review;
collaborating with Metrolinx on the design and construction of the Durham-
Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit Project to identify opportunities to improve transit
accessibility and customer service for people with disabilities;
working with other levels of government to ensure the new frequent rail service
models excellence in accessibility;
pursuing facility, service and operation improvements to enhance the universal
design of the Go Transit system;
integrating accessibility considerations in the design and implementation of a City
cycling master plan; and,
modeling accessibility best practices in the “walkable” public space design of the
new Pickering City Centre.
Appendices
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast
- 149 -
City of Pickering
Accessibility Capital Projects
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast
Accessibility
Project Description Component of
Project Cost
2021
Pickering Heritage Community Centre (PHCC) - Construction $900,000
(gross project cost = $22,477,400)
PHCC Archives & Library Space - Construction 300,000
(gross project cost = $6,602,600)
Lynn Heights Park - New Path Construction 120,000
Balsdon Park Master Plan - Implementation (gross project cost = $500,000) 100,000
Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park - Pathway Construction 100,000
Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park - Phase 2 Completion 100,000
(gross project cost = $2,000,000)
Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park - Washroom Facility 500,000
(gross project cost = $1,000,000)
Bruce Handscomb Memorial Park - Walkway Reconstruction 500,000
Museum Site Accessibility Improvements 50,000
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - 4 locations 360,400
Pedestrian Countdown Signals - 5 locations 37,100
Finch Avenue - New Sidewalk Construction 200,000
- South side (East of Valley Farm Rd. to Guild Rd.)
$3,267,500
The Draft 2021 Capital Budget includes four Village Greens and a
Neighbourhood Park in Seaton which will have accessible paths and other
features.
2022
Museum Collins House - Restoration (gross project cost = $145,000) $15,000
Museum Redman House - Remediation (gross project cost = $103,000) 30,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Rosebank - Cedarcroft Cres. to St. Isaac 125,000
Jogues Church
Walkway Reconstruction: Chiron Crescent to Springview Drive 125,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Rosebank - Lightfoot Place 125,000
Reconstruction of Existing Asphalt Pathways - Location(s) TBD 150,000
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - 4 locations 361,000
Pedestrian Countdown Signals - 5 locations 37,000
Primary Trail Network - Seaton T-1 360,000
Primary Trail Network - Seaton T-4/T-5 1,090,000
New Sidewalk Installation - Location TBD 200,000
Pickering Parkway - New Sidewalk Construction 200,000
- North side multi-use trail ( Glenanna Rd. to Hydro Corridor)
$2,818,000
- 150 -
City of Pickering
Accessibility Capital Projects
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast
The 2022 Capital Forecast includes three Village Greens, a
Neighbourhood Park and a Community Park in Seaton which will have
accessible paths and other features.
Accessibility
Project Description Component of
Project Cost
2023
Museum Brougham Temperance House - Restoration $20,000
(gross project cost = $350,000)
Museum General Store - Restoration (gross project cost = $50,000) 10,000
Museum Harvey House - Restoration (gross project cost = $250,000) 40,000
Chestnut Hill Developments Rec. Centre (CHDRC)- Elevator Retrofit 30,000
(gross project cost = $100,000)
Walkway Reconstruction: Foxwood - Beckworth 125,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Graceland - St. Mary Park 125,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Whites - Cognac 125,000
Dunmoore Park - Pathway Construction 200,000
J. McPherson Park - Accessible Pathway Construction 300,000
Trail - Hydro Corridor - Liverpool to Whites 982,000
Pathway Construction - Alex Robertson Park (subject to OPG approval) 300,000
Trail from Creekside Park to SWM Pond 230,000
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - 4 locations 361,000
New Sidewalk Installation - Location TBD 200,000
Trail - Bayly St. - Waterfront Trail to Go Station 539,600
BI-I Bayly St. - Sidewalks & Streetlights 1,162,000
- Church St. to Hydro Corridor - north and south sides)
DH-24 Brock Rd. - Sidewalks & Streetlights 25,000
- Both sides Forbrock St. to Taunton Rd.
D-2 Kingston Rd. Streetlighting & Sidewalks South Side 695,000
D-1 Kingston Rd. Streetlighting & Sidewalks North Side 570,000
$6,039,600
The 2023 Capital Forecast includes one Village Green, two Neighbourhood
Parks and a Community Park in Seaton which will have accessible paths
and other features.
- 151 -
City of Pickering
Accessibility Capital Projects
2021 Approved Capital Budget and 2022 to 2025 Capital Forecast
Accessibility
Project Description Component of
Project Cost
2024
Seaton Community Centre - Construction (gross project cost = $69,211,000) $1,000,000
Seaton Regional Library - Construction (gross project cost = $16,672,000) 300,000
Museum Redman House - Restoration (gross project cost = $400,000) 40,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Strouds - Sultana Square 125,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Charnwood - Greenvale 125,000
Trail - Bayly Street from Go Station to Hydro Corridor 377,700
Civic Complex Renovations and Addition - Construction 1,000,000
(gross project cost = $14,500,000)
Major Oaks Park - Pathway Reconstruction 150,000
Pathway Reconstruction - Locations TBD 300,000
Primary Trail Network - Seaton T-2 360,000
Neighbourhood Park - Seaton P-120 500,000
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - 4 locations 361,000
New Sidewalk Installation - Location TBD 200,000
$4,838,700
The 2024 Capital Forecast includes five Village Greens and a
Neighbourhood Park in Seaton which will have accessible paths and other
features.
2025
Council Chambers - Renovations (gross project cost = $3,100,000) $800,000
Civic Complex Elevators - Upgrades (gross project cost = $240,000) 40,000
CHDRC Pool - Renovations (gross project cost = $2,100,000) 150,000
CHDRC O'Brien Arena - Renovations (gross project cost = $3,662,000) 200,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Cattail - Dunbarton H.S. 125,000
Walkway Reconstruction: Tanzer - Bayshore Tot Lot 150,000
Pathway Reconstruction - Locations TBD 300,000
Trail - Wharf Street to Sandy Beach Road 431,000
Primary Trail Network - Seaton T-9 140,000
Primary Trail Network - Seaton T-10 320,000
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - 4 locations 361,000
New Sidewalk Installation - Location TBD 200,000
$3,217,000
The 2025 Forecast includes a Community Park in Seaton which will have
accessible paths and other features.
Total $ 20,180,800
- 152 -
Attachment #1 to Report #CS 37-21
Ministry for Seniors and 2021 Accessibility compliance reportAccessibility
Organization category Designated Public Sector Number of employees range 50+
Filing organization legal name sdasd
Filing organization business number (BN9) 333333333
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are mandatory.
B.Understand your accessibility requirements
Before you begin your report, you can learn about your accessibility requirements at ontario.ca/accessibility
Additional accessibility requirements apply if you are:
a library board
a producer of education material (e.g. textbooks)
an education institution (e.g. school board, college, university or school)
a municipality
If you are a municipality submitting this report, and submitting on behalf of local boards, please indicate which boards below.
C.Accessibility compliance report certification
Section 15 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 requires that accessibility reports include a statement
certifying that all the required information has been provided and is accurate, signed by a person with authority to bind the
organization(s).
Note: It is an offence under the Act to provide false or misleading information in an accessibility report filed under the AODA.
The certifier may designate a primary contact for the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility to contact the organization(s);
otherwise the certifier will be the main contact.
Certifier: Someone who can legally bind the organization(s).
Primary Contact: The person who will be the main contact for accessibility issues.
Acknowledgement
✔ I certify that all the information is accurate and I have the authority to bind the organization *
Certification date (yyyy-mm-dd) * 2021-11-18
Certifier information
Last name *
Carpino
First name *
Marisa
Position title *
Chief Executive Officer
Business phone number *
905-420-4660
Extension Check here
4648 if TTY
Email *
mcarpino@pickering.ca
Alternate phone number Extension Fax number
905-420-6951
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 1 of 6 - 153 -
Primary contact for the organization(s)
Check if the primary contact is same as the certifier
Last name *
Higgins
First name *
Timothy
Position title *
Administrator
Business phone number *
905-420-4660
Extension
3608
Check here
if TTY
Email *
thiggins@pickering.ca
Alternate phone number Extension Fax number
905-420-6951
D. Accessibility compliance report questions
Instructions
Please answer each of the following compliance questions. Use the Comments box if you wish to comment on any response.
If you need help with a specific question, click the help links which will open in a new browser window. Use the link on the left to
view the relevant AODA regulations and the link on the right to view relevant accessibility information resources.
Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
1. Is your organization a municipality with a population of 10,000 or more? * ● Yes No(If Yes, you will be required to answer additional questions.)
Read Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. Learn more about your requirements for question 1
2005, c. 11, s. 29: Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
1.a. Has your organization established an accessibility advisory committee as ● Yes Nooutlined in section 29 of the AODA? *
(If Yes, you will be required to answer additional questions.)
Read Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. Learn more about your requirements for question 1.a
2005, c. 11, s. 29: Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
Comments for
question 1.a
2. Are the majority of the members of the committee persons with disabilities? * ● Yes No
Read Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. Learn more about your requirements for question 2
2005, c. 11, s. 29 (3): Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
Comments for
question 2
3. Has the committee provided advice to council about site plans and drawings
(as described in S.41 of the ) as well as advice on the ● Yes NoPlanning Act
requirements and implementation of accessibility standards? *
Read Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. Learn more about your requirements for question 3
2005, c. 11, s. 29 (4): Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees
Comments for
question 3
Foundational requirements
4. Does your organization have written accessibility policies that include a statement of commitment? * ● Yes No
Read O.Reg. 191/11 s. 3: Establishment of accessibility policies Learn more about your requirements for question 4
Comments for
question 4
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 2 of 6 - 154 -
5. Does your organization have a document or documents of your accessibility policies publicly
* ● Yes No available and, on request, provide them in an accessible format?
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 3 (3): Establishment of accessibility policies Learn more about your requirements for question 5
Comments for
question 5
6. Has your organization established, implemented, maintained and posted a multi-year ● Yes Noaccessibility plan on your organization’s website? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 4: Accessibility plans Learn more about your requirements for question 6
Comments for
question 6
7. Has your organization completed a review of its progress implementing the strategy outlined Noin its accessibility plan and documented the results in an annual status report posted on the ● Yes
organization’s website? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 4 (1), 4(3): Accessibility plans Learn more about your requirements for question 7
Comments for
question 7
8. Did your organization consult with people with disabilities when establishing, reviewing and ● Yes Noupdating its multi-year accessibility plan? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 4 (2): Accessibility plans Learn more about your requirements for question 8
Comments for
question 8
9. Does your organization provide the appropriate training on the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation and the Human Rights Code as it pertains to persons with ● Yes No
disabilities? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 7: Training Learn more about your requirements for question 9
Comments for
question 9
10. Were all persons that require training trained as soon as practicable? Under Section 7(1) of ● Yes Nothe Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, the following persons require training: (a)
all persons who are an employee of, or a volunteer with, the organization; (b) all persons
who participate in developing the organization’s policies; and (c) all other persons who
provide goods, services or facilities on behalf of the organization. *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 7 (3): Training Learn more about your requirements for question 10
Comments for
question 10
11. Does your organization provide training in respect of any changes to your accessibility ● Yes No policies on an ongoing basis? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 7 (4): Training Learn more about your requirements for question 11
Comments for
question 11
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 3 of 6 - 155 -
12. Does your organization keep a record of the training provided, including the dates on which ● Yes No the training is provided and the number of individuals to whom it is provided? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 7 (5): Training Learn more about your requirements for question 12
Comments for
question 12
13. Does your organization ensure that its public feedback processes are accessible to ● Yes No persons with disabilities by providing or arranging accessible formats or communication
supports, upon request, and do you notify the public of this accessible feedback policy?
Note: “public” can include customers, clients, third parties, or businesses. *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 11: Feedback Learn more about your requirements for question 13
Comments for
question 13
Information and communications
14. As of January 1, 2021, do all your organization’s internet websites conform to World Wide ● Yes NoWeb Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA (except for live captions
and pre-recorded audio descriptions)? Please indicate in the comment box provided the
complete names and addresses of your publicly available web content, including websites,
social media pages, and apps *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 14 (4): Accessible websites and web content Learn more about your requirements for question 14
Publicly pickering.ca, pickeringlibrary.ca
available web
content and Significant efforts have been undertaken and resources invested by Pickering to ensure currentcomments for and ongoing conformity with World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelinesquestion 14 2.0 at Level AA. Much progress has been achieved, and remaining challenges have been
reduced to content not controlled by the City of Pickering and files for which accessible renderings
are not technically possible. A plan and resources are in place to maintain compliance and pursue
continuous improvement.
Employment
15. Does your organization notify successful applicants of its policies for accommodating ● Yes Noemployees with disabilities during offers of employment? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 24: Notice to successful applicants Learn more about your requirements for question 15
Comments for
question 15
16. Does your organization develop and have in place a written process for the development of ● Yes Nodocumented individual accommodation plans for employees with disabilities? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 28: Documented individual Learn more about your requirements for question 16
accommodation plans
Comments for
question 16
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 4 of 6 - 156 -
Transportation
17. Does your organization provide transportation services? * Yes ● No(If Yes, you will be required to answer an additional question.)
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV: Transportation standards Learn more about your requirements for question 17
17.a. Does your organization conduct employee and volunteer accessibility training on the Yes Nosafe use of accessibility equipment and features of your transportation vehicles? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 36: Accessibility training Learn more about your requirements for question 17.a
Comments for
question 17.a
Design of public spaces
18. Since your organization last reported on its accessibility compliance, has your organization ● Yes Noconstructed new or redeveloped existing off-street parking facilities that it intends to
maintain? *
(If Yes, you will be required to answer an additional question.)
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV.1: Design of public spaces standards Learn more about your requirements for question 18
18.a. When constructing new or redeveloping off-street parking facilities that your ● Yes Noorganization intends to maintain, does it ensure that the off-street parking facilities meet
the accessibility requirements as outlined in the Design of Public Spaces standards? *
Read O. Reg. 80.32-37: Accessible parking Learn more about your requirements for question 18.a
Comments for
question 18.a
19. Since your organization last reported on accessibility compliance, has your organization ● Yes Noconstructed new or redeveloped existing outdoor play spaces that it intends to maintain? *
(If Yes, you will be required to answer an additional question.)
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV.1: Design of public spaces standards Learn more about your requirements for question 19
19.a. When constructing new or redeveloping existing outdoor play spaces, did your ● Yes Noorganization consult with the public and persons with disabilities on the needs of
children and caregivers, and if you represent a municipality did your organization
consult with the municipal advisory committee where one was established as outlined
in s. 80.19 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 80.19: Outdoor play spaces Learn more about your requirements for question 19.a
Comments for
question 19.a
20. Does your organization’s multi-year accessibility plan include procedures for preventative ● Yes Noand emergency maintenance of the accessible elements in public spaces, and for dealing
with temporary disruptions when accessible elements required under the Integrated
Accessibility Standards Regulations Part IV are not in working order? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 s. 80.44: Maintenance of accessible elements Learn more about your requirements for question 20
Comments for
question 20
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 5 of 6 - 157 -
Confirmation questions
21. Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization ● Yes Nocomplying with all other requirements for the Information and Communications
Standards under the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part II: Information and Learn more about your requirements for question 21
communications standards
Comments for
question 21
22. Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization ● Yes No complying with all other requirements for the Employment Standards under the
Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part III: Employment standards Learn more about your requirements for question 22
Comments for
question 22
23. Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization Yes No complying with all other requirements for Transportation Standards under the
Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV: Transportation standards Learn more about your requirements for question 23
Comments for
question 23
24. Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization ● Yes Nocomplying with all other requirements for the Customer Service Standards under
the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV.2: Customer service standards Learn more about your requirements for question 24
Comments for
question 24
25. Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization ● Yes Nocomplying with all other requirements for the Design of Public Spaces Standards
under the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation? *
Read O. Reg. 101/11 Part IV.1: Design of Public Spaces standards Learn more about your requirements for question 25
Comments for
question 25
009-0236E (2021/01)[V5.0] Page 6 of 6 - 158 -
Report to
Council
Report Number: OPS 05-21
Date: December 13, 2021
From: Brian Duffield
Director, Operations
Subject: Sole Source of Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management
System
-Implementation within Public Works and Facilities Maintenance
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Quote 1494 for Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management
System software subscription, and implementation cost for a five-year period, submitted by
Go Evo in the amount of $499,623.00 (HST included) be accepted i n accordance with
Purchasing Policy Item 09.04 (d) and 09.08;
2. That the Year 1 of the five-year period in the amount of $50,487.00 (net of HST rebate) be
approved for work related to 2022;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance Year 1 (2022) of the
MESH Work Order Management System in the amount of $50,487.00 (net of HST rebate)
from account C10405.2007 by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve;
4. That financing approval for the remaining four optional years will be provided for annually in
the current budgets, from 2023 to 2026, for a t otal amount of $399,439.00 (net of HST
rebate);
5. That as per service agreement, all items on the proposal beyond Year 1 are options and
exercisable at the sole discretion of the City of Pickering; and,
6. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to
give effect hereto.
Executive Summary: Public Works and Facilities Maintenance staff have been investigating
a work order management software solution that will provide an efficient work order work flow with
the functionality to assign work tasks, track completion, record committed resources and provide
cost information on the work completed. The existing work order request form, submitted through
the City’s Intranet portal, needs improvement and better functionality to address more complex
tasks requested of Operations and maintenance staff. Go Evo was retained to provide a 12 month
- 159 -
OPS 05-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management System
pilot project work order management system for Public Works and Facilities Maintenance for up to
25 users in the amount of $27,442.00 (HST excluded) (see Attachment 1). In June 2021, the
existing contract had to be initially amended in the amount of $9,248.30 (HST excluded) to include
10 additional users to be registered into the modules. The additional users were required within
Public Works and Facilities Maintenance as the pilot was expanded to test more modules.
Additionally, in October 2021, a second amendment was made in the amount of $11,218.50 (HST
excluded) to extend the pilot project until year end (December, 2021). As a result, the pilot project
was extended for 15 months at a total cost of $47,908.80 (HST excluded).
The pilot, which started in October 2020, focused on specific work tasks for Roads, Parks &
Property, and Facilities Maintenance to field test the functionality and integration of software when
applied to our actual work environment. The pilot work order management system has been well
received by various user groups and internal stakeholders. The City has previously approved
Capital Budget funding in the amount of $250,000.00 in C10405.2007 Fleet Management
Software for the development and implementation of a new work order management system.
By implementing MESH, efficiencies that can be realized include, but are not limited to:
• Integrate MESH Work Order Management System with ADP EZ Labour Payroll system. This
will assist in keeping track of employee planned/unplanned absences, track productivity
based hours worked weekly, and eliminate the use of paper based systems that employees
currently have to complete on a daily basis.
• Track materials, equipment, and accomplishments of a variety of activities and departments
as a whole. This will assist with the current and capital budgeting process by ensuring that
there are analytics to support budget requests.
• Capability to pull reports used for cost benefit analysis, and use metrics to report on Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure success and growth within Public Works and
Facilities Maintenance.
• Optimize and improve Level of Service (LOS), with an expected reduction in customer care
calls from City of Pickering residents, and assist with discoveries by having real-time data
and supporting documents (before and after pictures) in a centralized database.
• MESH Work Order Management System also has the capability to integrate with various
other systems currently used by Public Works and Facilities Maintenance such as SAP,
Amanda 7, etc. By integrating these systems to achieve synergies, current processes can be
streamlined to achieve greater output.
- 160 -
OPS 05-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management System
Financial Implications:
1. Proposal Amount
Base Subscription Fee $28,500.00
User Subscription Fee 341,648.88
Implementation and Training 71,995.20
Total Project Cost (excluding HST) $442,144.08
HST (13%) 57,478.73
Total Gross Cost $499.622.81
2. Breakdown of Costs by Budget Year
Total Project Cost C10405.2007* Current Budget Total
2020 Capital 2023-2026
Budget Budgets
Base Subscription Fee $5,700.00 $22,800.00 $28,500.00
User Subscription Fee 31,915.00 309,734.00 341,649.00
Implementation and Training 11,999.00 59,996.00 71,995.00
Total Project Cost $49,614.00 $392,530.00 $442,144.00
HST (13%) 6,450.00 51,029.00 57,479.00
Total Gross Project Costs $56,064.00 $443,559.00 $499,623.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (5,577.00) (44,120.00) (49,697.00)
Total Net Project Costs $50,487.00 $399,439.00 $449,926.00
*Fleet Management Software
Public Works and Facilities Maintenance will implement the work order management system in
2022 at an estimated cost of $50,487.00 (net of HST) for 50 users, which will be paid through the
balance of the allocated funds previously approved. Any additional data charges have been
included elsewhere in the 2022 Current Budget submission.
For each of the following years in 2023 to 2026, a total estimated cost of $399,439.00 (net of HST)
or approximately $98,860.00 (net of HST) per year will be required to expand the number of users
in Public Works and Facilities Maintenance to 145 users. Please note that all items on this
proposal beyond year 1 and optional are exercisable at the sole discretion of the City.
Additionally, any new mobile devices that are required to be purchased to support expansion have
been forecasted in the Information Technology Current Budget submissions for 2023 and 2024.
- 161 -
OPS 05-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management System
Discussion: Public Works and Facilities Maintenance needs to have a better software
solution to manage their work flow, utilizing mobile devices which can support and improve
efficiencies in their day to day operations. As the City grows from the current population of 94,000
residents to 127,340 by 2031, there will also be an increase in staffing within Public Works and
Facilities Maintenance for support.
A work order management system that is reliable, user friendly, and meets the requirements
identified by Public Works and Facilities Maintenance is fundamental to support and improve the
current operations and future growth. The system will assist with planning and optimizing
workforce, equipment, and other assets. The work order management system established by Go
Evo will support, integrate, and manage current needs and in scalable to meet future
requirements.
In addition, the MESH work order management system is available to most work crews and staff
on a mobile device and work tasks can be assigned based on operational needs while in the field.
In turn, the same work crews can input data and upload pictures in real time into MESH on
activities completed or in progress with comments along with labour resources used, materials,
equipment, and contracted services. This will eliminate the need for paper based forms and
provide for central storage of digital information. The data received has the capability to be further
analyzed to establish benchmarks, accomplishments, Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and unit
costs. Further, the work order management system, when fully established, will have the capability
to set parameters for planning and scheduling maintenance tasks.
Staff will have the ability to receive reports daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and on an as needed
basis on key metrics once the benchmarks have been established. Supervisors will have the
capability to pull data and report on productivity measured against the benchmarks set by the
department. Using the analytics produced by the MESH, departments can increase productivity
and decrease downtime by improving work flow through standardization. All departments will be
able to find efficiencies by analyzing the data produced by MESH to optimize their workforce
based on routing and scheduling. This can potentially reduce costs, assist with budget planning,
and help to make better informed decisions.
During the pilot project, there were several modules that were tested to ensure the system met the
requirements outlined by Public Works and Facilities Maintenance. With the assistance of the
Information Technology department, the work order management system has been able to
communicate and integrate with the City’s Amanda 7 software and is easily adopted by staff.
Modules completed to date include block pruning, tree maintenance, waste collection in parks and
on roadsides, signs inventory, underground utility locates, and an internet request form for City
Hall facilities. The work order management system in Public Works and Facilities Maintenance will
have over 100 activities when fully implemented by 2026.
- 162 -
OPS 05-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Government Evolved (Go Evo) MESH Work Order Management System
MESH has demonstrated its capability to be customized, scalable for future growth of Public
Works and Facilities Maintenance and ability to communicate and integrate with other software
used by the City.
Upon careful examination, Public Works and Facilities Maintenance recommend to proceed with
implementing the Government Evolved (Go Evo) Work Order Management System. The total
gross project cost is estimated to be $499,622.81 (HST included) and the total net project cost is
$449,926.00, with approval for Year 1 in the amount of $50,487.00 (net of HST rebate). Once
approved, Public Works and Facilities Maintenance can prepare for implementation in Q1, 2022
and purchase order be prepared for Year 1.
Attachment:
1. Sole Source Memo dated August, 24, 2020
Prepared By:
Original Signed By:
Brian Duffield
Operations Director
Original Signed By:
Sarah Douglas Murray
Director, Community Services
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:
Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA,
Director, Finance & Treasurer
BD:sv
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 163 -
Attachment #1 to Report OPS 05-21
- 164 -
- 165 -
the full software solution for up to 150 users and include a dashboard for staff to enter work
order requests ..
In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, Section 09.07, A single source or sole source
purchase over $10,000 and up to $30,000 is subject to the approval, of the Manager and the
Director. The proposed expenditure of $27,442.00 (excluding HST) falls within these limits.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Rob Burlie, P. Eng. Brian Duffield. Manager, Public Works (Acting) Director, Community Services
Original Signed By:
Ray R drigues
Manager, Supply & Services RB:rb
Attachments: Proposal -Mesh Operations Management System July 14 2020
Pricing -Full Rollout -Pickering
Go Evo Pilot Hardware Requirements RB July 14, 2020
August 24, 2020 Page 3 of 3
Request to Sole Source Go Evo (Government Evolved) MESH
Operations Management Software
I
- 166 -
- 167 -
- 168 -
- 169 -
- 170 -
- 171 -
- 172 -
- 173 -
- 174 -
- 175 -
- 176 -
- 177 -
- 178 -
- 179 -
- 180 -
Report to Council
Report Number: PLN 45-21
Date: December 13, 2021
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Developments & CBO
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Areas Urban Land Needs Technical Report
- File: A-2100-020
Recommendation:
1. That Council endorse the Staff Comments contained in Section 2.2 of Report PLN 45-21
as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham Community Area Urban Land
Needs Technical Report, October 1, 2021; and
2. That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to take the necessary actions
as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Region of Durham released the Community Area Urban Land
Needs Technical Report (Community Areas Report) on October 1, 2021, and requested
comments by November 1, 2021. The Community Areas Report is the final of four technical
papers to be released as part of the Envision Durham’s Growth Management Land Needs
Assessment exercise. Given the short comment period (30 days) for these technical reports,
staff informed the Region that the City’s comments with respect to the Community Areas
Report will only be available after Council has considered this report. Staff’s comments on the
Community Areas Report are outlined in Section 2.2 of this report. Staff is seeking Council’s
endorsement of the comments, and that a copy of Council’s resolution and Report PLN 45-21
be forwarded to the Region for consideration.
Financial Implications: This report has no financial implications for the City.
1. Background:
The Region of Durham is undertaking a Growth Management Study (GMS), as part of
Envision Durham, the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review process. The first
phase of the GMS consists of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to determine the
amount of settlement area boundary expansion that may be required to accommodate
the future population and job growth to 2051. The LNA is being presented through the
release of the following four technical reports:
• The Region-Wide Growth Analysis;
• The Housing Intensification Study;
• The Employment Strategy; and
• The Community Area Urban Land Needs.
- 181 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 2
The first technical report, the Region-Wide Growth Analysis, released on July 2, 2021,
was commented on through staff-to-staff comments in a letter to the Region on
August 11, 2021. The staff comments were submitted to, and endorsed by, Council on
September 27, 2021 (Corr. 41-21).
The second technical report, the Housing Intensification Study Technical Report,
released on September 3, 2021, was commented on by staff through Report PLN 40-21,
and endorsed by Council on October 25, 2021 as the City’s formal comments
(Resolution #716/21).
The third technical report, the Employment Strategy Technical Report, released on
September 24, 2021, was commented on by staff through Report PLN 42-21, and
endorsed by Council on November 22, 2021 as the City’s formal comments
(Resolution #737/21).
On October 1, 2021, the Region released the fourth and final technical report, the
Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report (Community Areas Report). The
Community Areas Report can be accessed through the following hyperlink:
https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/resources/Documents/Council/CIP-
Reports/CIP-Reports-2021/2021-INFO-100.pdf
Regional staff will be preparing a Land Needs Assessment Recommendations
(Summary) Report, compiling the key outcomes, technical analysis, and related
recommendations contained in the four technical reports. The Summary Report will be
presented to Regional Planning and Economic Development Committee at a future
date, to be confirmed by the Region. City staff will, at that time, bring forward a
recommendation report to Pickering’s Planning & Development Committee, providing
the City’s formal comments on the Region’s Land Needs Assessment Recommendations
(Summary) Report. Currently, the Region is working on preparing a number of different
development scenarios to help further assess the appropriateness of the planned
population and jobs targets and area required for expansion of the urban area boundary
to accommodate the forecasted growth for the Region.
2. Discussion:
2.1 The Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report
The purpose of the Community Areas Report is to present the existing state, current
trends, and long-term development potential of “Designated Greenfield Areas” through
2051. “Designated Greenfield Areas” (DGA) is specifically defined in the provincial
Growth Plan and generally means lands within the urban area boundary that are outside
the built-up area. In Pickering, it encompasses all lands within the urban area boundary
north of the Canadian Pacific Railway line.
- 182 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 3
Key outcomes of the Community Areas Report include a proposed density target for
Designated Greenfield Areas, and consultant recommendations on new urban area land
required to accommodate residential units and population-related jobs to 2051, referred
to as “Community Areas” in the provincial Growth Plan.
The key findings of the Community Areas Report are the following:
• Within Durham Region, there are approximately 5,500 hectares (13,600 acres) of
DGA lands (net of allowable take-outs, such as natural heritage features). As of 2019,
approximately 1,190 hectares (2,940 acres) of this total were developed, and
approximately 4,320 hectares (10,660 acres) were vacant. In Pickering, DGAs are
currently comprised of lands in Seaton and a very small parcel in the northeast part
of Duffin Heights.
• The Growth Plan establishes a minimum density target to be achieved in the DGA of
50 people and jobs combined per hectare. Since 2006, the Region’s DGA has nearly
achieved the minimum DGA density target of 50 people and jobs combined per
hectare through the construction of predominantly low density housing.
• The Region anticipates approximately 105,800 new housing units to be
accommodated on DGA lands within the 2021 to 2051 planning horizon. Based on
an analysis of approved and draft approved development plans, pending development
applications and market trends, the consultant’s recommended DGA density target
by 2051 for Durham Region is 64 people and jobs combined per developable
hectare for all designated Community Area DGA lands.
• As reported on in the Employment Strategy Technical Report, the Region considered
45 Employment Area conversion requests covering an area of 699 hectares. In total,
Employment Area sites totaling 208 developable hectares are recommended for
conversion to Community Area lands across the Region’s DGA. It should be noted
that none of these requests for conversions within the DGA were in Pickering.
Employment Area conversions in the DGA reduce the existing designated
Employment Area land supply and increase the need for new DGA Employment
Area land.
• Based on the evaluation conducted by the Region and their consultant, the
Community Area Report indicates there is currently insufficient urban area land
supply within the region to accommodate forecasted people and jobs (352,000)
across the region by 2051 within the existing DGA lands. It is estimated that the
Region will require approximately 750 developable hectares (1,850 acres) of
additional DGA land to accommodate the Growth Plan’s forecasted growth of
approximately 49,700 people and jobs across the Region’s DGA by 2051.
• The recommended DGA density target for Durham Region is 64 people and jobs per
developable hectare (P&J/ha) for all designated DGA lands. To achieve this average
DGA density target of 64 P&J/ha, the Seaton Community will need to develop at a
density of 89 P&J/ha by 2051, whereas it is currently being developed at a density of
81 P&J/ha, and the rest of the Durham Region DGA lands will have to be planned at
an average density of 60 P&J/ha.
- 183 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 4
2.2 Staff Comments
Staff is generally in agreement with the methodology employed by the Region to
evaluate the existing state, current trends, and long-term development potential of
DGAs contained within the Community Areas Report. However, a number of aspects
and technical concerns have been identified, which are elaborated on below.
a. The title of the Technical Paper, “Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical
Report” is misleading as the Technical Paper only deals with DGAs. The definition
of “Community Areas” on page 13 of the Report defines these areas broadly as
“areas where most of the housing required to accommodate the forecasted
population will be located, as well as most population-related jobs, most office jobs
and some employment land employment jobs". For greater clarity, it is
recommended the Region refer to Designated Greenfield Areas or DGA
Community Areas rather than Community Areas in reference to this work.
b. On page 5 of the Report, it would appear that the sentence may be missing the
following words, “In contrast, recommended conversion of DGA Employment
Area sites to Community Area reduce the need for new DGA Community Area land
that would have otherwise been required as additional urban land.” Clarification is
required.
c. Staff is in agreement with the statement on page 7 of the Report that “To ensure
that existing and new DGA lands are able to evolve as complete communities,
these areas will need to be planned to accommodate a balance of people and
jobs”. The Report references providing a variety of housing forms as a key
consideration. However, staff suggest that there also be emphasis or
acknowledgement on jobs, robust transportation options, infrastructure and
sustainability considerations as being paramount considerations in planning for
DGAs.
d. Further, development within the DGAs is contingent upon servicing expansions. As
indicated in previous staff comments on the Proposed Policy Direction Report, it is
recommended that as part of the Region’s Growth Management work, servicing be
prioritized by the Region, as well as a longer term capital plan which will provide
greater certainty around phasing and when DGA lands might be developable.
Further, there is a need for amenities such as parkland, schools, transit, and
commercial/employment etc. to be front loaded to communities to support the
achievement of complete communities. Often these amenities are not developed
until much later, or not at all. Development of DGAs should be undertaken in a
coordinated and orderly fashion to facilitate complete communities at every stage
of build out.
e. Figure 3-1 on page 16 of the Report shows the breakdown of Total Designated
Greenfield Area in Durham. While Pickering has the largest gross hectares of DGA
land (approximately 3,080 hectares) of all Durham municipalities, Pickering lags
behind most of the other lakeshore municipalities in net developable DGA at
approximately 1,200 hectares or 16% by comparison to Whitby (1,730 hectares or
- 184 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 5
22%), Clarington (1,630 hectares or 23%), and Oshawa (1,540 hectares or 24%),
respectively. Pickering also lags behind Whitby (530 hectares) and Clarington
(390 hectares) in Gross Developable Employment Lands at approximately
320 hectares.
Staff recommend it would have been helpful to have the net developable
Employment Lands area included in this figure. Staff expect that, through the
Region’s subsequent evaluation on allocating population and employment growth
that Pickering’s allocation of additional DGA will be reflective of the market
demands and proximity to Toronto, as Pickering is the first municipality
immediately east of the City of Toronto.
f. The Report indicates on page 18 that all DGA areas in Pickering (21%) are
classified as vacant, representing 875 developable hectares of land within the
Seaton community and approximately 5 developable hectares of land within the
Duffin Heights DGA, but indicates that development has been progressing in
Seaton. Please clarify this contradiction.
Furthermore, staff requests clarification on where the 21% figure comes from as
Figure 3-2 indicates an allocation of 16%. It is recommended that the data be
updated to include development that has taken place in Seaton since 2019, since
Figure 3-3 indicates 100% of the lands in Pickering being vacant. It is recommended
that the latest data be factored into evaluation and decision-making as additional
land beyond what has been indicated may be required due to this updated
information not being considered in the growth calculations.
g. The Report indicates in Figure 3-5 on page 20, that 770 hectares of the 880 hectares
of DGA in Pickering are Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being
built out), and Draft Approved (Category 1). Staff note that Figure 3-6 on page 21
shows vacant lands in Pickering, including lands which are parks or golf courses.
While these uses are not eligible to be taken out of the calculation as are other
uses like natural areas, they may be unlikely to contribute to population and jobs
targets during the planning horizon. Staff suggest these factors be taken into
consideration, along with recognition that Approved and Draft Approved
applications may still change until such time as they are built. This may result in
the need for more land to be added to the urban area boundary.
h. The Report indicates that in accordance with the Central Pickering Development
Plan (CPDP), Seaton is planned to reach 61,000 people and 30,500 jobs by 2031
and ultimately achieve a buildout population and employment target of 70,000 and
35,000, respectively. Based on these targets, the Region indicates that to achieve
this 2031 CPDP target of 61,000 people and corresponding portion of Community
Area employment prior to 2051, the Seaton Community will have to develop at a
minimum of 89 persons and jobs per hectare (P&J/ha). If this planned 2031 target
in Seaton is achieved by 2051, and the density of remaining vacant lands outside
of Seaton increase relative to current approved/draft approved plans to an average
of 67 P&J/ha, the Region has indicated it is likely that the Durham DGA will be able
to achieve an overall average density of approximately 64 P&J/ha by 2051
including Seaton and 60 P&J/ha excluding Seaton. - 185 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 6
Staff note that there is a significant difference between 89 P&J/ha projected for
Seaton and the minimum of 50 P&J/ha required by the Growth Plan for DGAs, and
recommended new targets of 64 P&J/ha for areas outside of Seaton. Contextually,
Seaton is similar to much of the other DGAs in the lakeshore municipalities in
Durham. Expecting this average density to further increase to 89 P&J/ha is
questionable given the preference for lower density housing forms, lack of higher
order public transit, and direction for 50% of new growth to be within the built
boundary, which make increased densities in Seaton less palatable. Accordingly,
staff recommend that the Region review this projection. Realization of the long
term P&J/ha for Seaton as well as the housing mix, and updating of the data to
take into account development that has occurred since 2019, will likely result in the
need for additional DGA lands.
i. Further to the above comment, staff would like to better understand the rationale
for recommending a higher target than the required minimum of 50 P&J/ha for
DGAs. Market conditions are referenced in Section 4.4 of the Report on page 30.
However, there are no references to data sources. The Report indicates that:
• developed DGA lands accommodate a housing mix of 82% low-density,
15% medium-density and 3% high-density dwellings;
• Category 1 applications are currently planned to achieve a housing mix of
46% low density, 36% medium-density and 18% high-density dwellings; and
• the remaining vacant DGA lands are forecast to accommodate a unit mix of
26% low-density, 55% medium-density and 19% high-density dwellings.
The unit shift, particularly for low-density residential, from the developed DGA
lands and the vacant lands represents a significant shift, that has not been
adequately explained. Staff request further information on how the forecasted mix
was determined for the vacant DGA lands. It is possible that the significant number
of Category 1 applications in Seaton may be skewing the housing mix numbers
noted above (46% low density, 36% medium density, 18% high density) with a
greater proportion of medium and higher density to achieve the CPDP targets. This
may not be reflective of the market demands outside of Seaton.
Generally speaking, the DGA areas do not contain the same robust, higher order
transit systems as the built-up area to provide the necessary transportation
infrastructure and mix of uses needed to support a significant shift to higher density
housing forms. It is recommended that the Region consider establishing a more
realistic target. The Region will have the opportunity to revisit these numbers in
10 years or less as may be required by changes in provincial policy or legislation or
as determined to be required through on-going monitoring.
j. Staff are concerned with Figure 4-4 on page 31 of the Report that shows a zero
percent increase in the “Employment Land” (industrial, warehousing, office parks)
category in the DGAs, as well as a total employment of only 13% of Regional
employment being located within the DGAs. Staff request confirmation on these
numbers. The definition of Community Areas as mentioned above, does include
- 186 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 7
some employment land. Staff recommend the Region reconsider this allocation
based on the Employment Strategy Technical Report findings which indicated a
shortfall in the supply of designated Employment Area Lands and the desire for
complete communities. Additionally, Figure 4-4 indicates that the DGA Community
Area is expected to accommodate a population increase of 322,800 and an
employment increase of 29,800 jobs. This is a ratio of approximately 1 job for
every 11 people. This split of residential and employment does not support the
creation of complete communities within the DGAs.
k. Staff has reviewed the policy recommendations, and recommend that the above
comments be considered by Regional staff and their consultants and that additional
evaluation and analysis be conducted to determine expansion needs in the
Region. Further, staff agree with the statement in Section 5.3 of the Report that
“the forecast Community Area land needs are not homogenous across the region
and will be sensitive to area municipal DGA Community Area density targets”. This
is a gap in the work completed to date as it would not be appropriate for the same
density targets of 60 P&J/ha to be applied across Durham. In order to get a better
understanding of whether the recommended average target is appropriate, a more
detailed level of analysis may have to be undertaken.
Additionally, staff support the Region’s further review of a number of development
scenarios with different housing mixes, and further consultation on these scenarios,
to determine an appropriate mix and targets for the DGA. As part of this analysis,
and in accordance with previous comments from the City contained in Report
PLN 29-21, staff recommend the Region also consider a scenario reflecting a
future airport and the potential implications it may have in terms of population and
employment allocation and growth.
3. Staff Recommendations:
It is recommended that the staff comments in Section 2.2 of this report be endorsed by
Council as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham Community Area Urban
Land Needs Technical Report, and that a copy of Report PLN 45-21 and Council’s
resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham for consideration.
- 187 -
Report PLN 45-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Envision Durham – Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report Page 8
Prepared By:
Original Signed By
Kristy Kilbourne, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy
Original Signed By
Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Original Signed By
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
KK:DJ:ld
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 188 -
Report to Council
Report Number: PLN 46-21
Date: December 13, 2021
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Proposed Fee Increases for Building Permit
and Development Application Fees
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve a 5% increase to the Building Permit Application Fees and a
10% increase to the Planning Application Fees, effective January 4, 2022;
2. That Council approve an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General
Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as amended, by deleting the pages for City
Development Department – Building, and City Development Department – Planning, and
substituting the updated pages for City Development Department – Building, and City
Development Department – Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law
provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 46-21;
3. That Council pass the by-law to update to the General Municipal Fees and Charges
By-law with new City Development Department – Building, and City Development
Department – Planning fees, as set out in the Draft By-law provided as Appendix I to
Report PLN 46-21;
4. That Council approve revising “Schedule B – Fees Payable for Building Permits” of the
Building By-law with the Building Permit fees listed in the 2022 User Fee Schedule; and
5. That City officials be authorized to undertake the necessary actions to give effect to
Council’s decision.
Executive Summary: The City has retained Watson & Associates to undertake an update
to the 2017/2018 full cost assessment to inform updated fee recommendations for planning
and building permit applications. The purpose of the update is to reflect increases in complexity
in the planning application review processes, and increases in costs associated with
administering and enforcing the Ontario Building Code. It is anticipated that the
recommendations from the current update will be completed for Council’s consideration as part
of the City’s annual budget process. Should there be any recommended changes in fees
resulting from this completed assessment, staff would recommend phasing in such fees with
an effective date of July 1, 2022.
To help recover the City’s immediate costs for reviewing and processing these applications, as
an interim measure, staff recommend that building permit and planning application fees be
increased by 5% and 10%, respectively, effective January 4, 2022. However, fees for planning
applications for part lot control by-laws will not be increased as they are at 100% cost recovery.
- 189 -
Report PLN 46-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Building and Planning Application Fees Page 2
Financial Implications: Staff recommend a phased approach to the introduction of new
application fees within City Development. This will provide immediate cost recovery for the
department, as the City receives and processes new development and building permit
applications. The first phase of City Development fees for Building Services and the Planning
& Design Division are identified on Schedule “I” of the Draft By-law, and are proposed to take
effect on January 4, 2022.
Upon completion of the full cost assessment process, any changes to the fee structure
necessary to effect complete cost recovery would be proposed to take effect on July 1, 2022.
The timing for the second phase of City Development fees for Building Services and the
Planning & Design Division would both align with the schedule for the indexing of City
Development Charges, and enable the development community a 6 month period of time to
prepare for this fee change.
Discussion: In 2017/2018, the City of Pickering, with the assistance of Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. (Watson & Associates), undertook a review of our development application
approvals process fees. This review included an assessment of the full cost of services for
planning, engineering, and building, and made fee recommendations to improve cost recovery.
The findings of the full cost assessment and fee recommendations were summarized in the
“City of Pickering Development Application Approvals Process Fee Review Study” dated
February 12, 2018.
Currently, the City, with the assistance of Watson & Associates, is undertaking an update to
the 2017/2018 full cost assessment to inform updated fee recommendations for the City
Development Department. The purpose of the update is to reflect increases in complexity in
the planning application review processes, increasing costs associated with administering and
enforcing the Ontario Building Code (OBC). It is anticipated that the recommendations from the
current update will be completed for Council’s consideration as part of the City’s annual budget
process. Should there be any recommended changes in fees resulting from this completed
assessment, staff would recommend phasing in such fees with an effective date of July 1, 2022,
as noted in the Financial Implications section of this report.
Building Services Fees
Over the past several years, the City of Pickering has been experiencing significant growth,
particularly in the City Centre and Seaton, as well as a number of subdivisions throughout the
municipality. As development applications are approved, the Building Services Section
receives the associated building permit applications for each of these neighbourhoods. This
growth, coupled with evolving market conditions, has led to applications with increased
complexity (for instance, we are seeing more higher density stacked townhouses instead of a
traditional mix of detached dwellings and row townhomes).
This has prompted an increase in staff time and resources to process building permit
applications and to administer the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. Given the length
of time it takes for developers to obtain the necessary planning approvals, there are
expectations from the building community that building permits will be issued in a reasonable
and timely manner. Building Services strives to meet these expectations.
- 190 -
Report PLN 46-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Building and Planning Application Fees Page 3
The Building Code Act (BCA) prescribes specific timelines for municipalities to review these
applications and issue building permits. Despite the onset of the global pandemic in 2020, the
provincial government has not granted any relief to the legislated timelines for permit issuance.
The Chief Building Official, and the City as a whole, has an obligation to ensure that all
submitted applications are reviewed in a consistent manner to ensure compliance with the
OBC and applicable law.
In order to adapt to challenges with COVID-19, the City looked at new ways of conducting
business. One such positive outcome was a shift to paperless building permit applications.
Building Services launched a digital submission application process for all building permits.
This allowed for digital review and has greatly reduced paper use and waste, and has
improved the customer experience. Similarly, the Planning & Design Division has also
transitioned to electronic submission of applications and supporting material.
For the past several years, the City has annually increased building permit application fees by
about 3% to reflect annual inflation costs. However, a review of year end application revenue
intake has identified that the department is currently not recovering its costs, despite this
annual fee indexing. Based on the review of Building Services staff utilization capacities,
Watson & Associates has advised that a modest 5% increase for building permit fees is just
barely above inflation and appropriate for the additional value in service that is being provided
to customers.
Planning & Design Division Fees
Watson & Associates has undertaken an analysis of the effect of a 10% increase for planning
application fees (see Memorandum from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., dated
November 1, 2021, regarding Planning Application Fees, Attachment #1).
Watson & Associates identifies that, based on the 2017/2018 study, the recommended
planning application fees that the City implemented on January 1, 2019 were anticipated to
recover 41% of the total annual application processing costs. Based on the subsequent
increases to fees over the 2020-2021 period (approximately 5% total increase) and inflationary
increases to the City’s costs, the cost recovery performance ranges considerably from a low of
15% for minor variance applications, 48% and 50% for subdivisions and site plans
respectively, to a high of 83% and 101% for condominiums and part lot control applications
respectively.
In order to understand the impacts of planning application fee increases of 10%, an impact
analysis for sample developments has been prepared. Four sample development types have
been considered, including:
• Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment applications
for a residential subdivision of 100 single detached units;
• Site Plan Control, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Condominium applications for a 200-unit
multi-residential apartment development;
• Site Plan Control, and Zoning By-law Amendment for a retail building of 1,000 square
metres; and
• Site Plan Control application for an industrial building of 10,000 square metres. - 191 -
Report PLN 46-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Building and Planning Application Fees Page 4
Based on the survey results, a 10% increase in planning application fees results in 0.3% to
0.9% increase in total development fees payable. However, the City’s ranking amongst the
municipal comparators remains unchanged, and for the most part, below that of the other
Durham Region municipalities surveyed. Note that, given the cost recovery performance of
part lot control applications, a specific fee increase in this category would not be required.
Conclusion
In order to immediately address the rising costs to operate the City Development Department,
and to enable sufficient time for the full cost assessment work to be completed, as an interim
measure, staff is recommending that Building Permit application fees be increased by 5% and
planning application fees (with the exception of part control applications), by 10%, effective
January 4, 2022.
The fee increases for Building and Planning are within the established full cost of service and
maintains the City’s overall competitive position, as compared to other municipalities within the
Region of Durham and the Greater Toronto Area.
Appendix:
Appendix I Draft By-law to amend By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges
By-law as amended
Attachment:
1. Memorandum from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., dated November 1, 2021,
regarding Planning Application Fee
- 192 -
Report PLN 46-21 December 13, 2021
Subject: Building and Planning Application Fees Page 5
Prepared By:
Original Signed By
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Original Signed By
Carl Kolbe
Manager, Building Services
& Deputy CBO
Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By
Kyle, Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Original Signed By
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
CR:KB:ld
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 193 -
Appendix I to
Report No. PLN 46-21
Draft By-law to amend By-law 6191/03, the General
Municipal Fees and Charges By-law as amended
- 194 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7890/21
Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm
General Municipal Fees
Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 6191/03, as
amended, on October 14, 2003 to confirm general municipal fees;
Whereas Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03 was updated and replaced under By-law 6338/04,
By-law 6519/05, By-law 6652/06, By-law 6677/06, By-law 6748/07 By-law 6857/08, By-law
6951/09, By-law 7032/10, By-law 7119/11, By-law 7194/12, By-law 7268/13, By-law 7339/14,
By-law 7411/15, By-law 7478/16, By-law 7542/17, By-law 7605/18, By-law 7679/19, By-law
7740-20, and By-law 7823/21;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1.Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting the pages
for City Development Department – Building and City Development Department –
Planning and substituting the updated pages for City Development Department –
Building and City Development Department – Planning attached as Schedule “I” to this
By-law.
By-law passed this 13th day of December, 2021.
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
__________________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
- 195 -
Schedule “I” to
By-law XXXX/21
Updated Application Fees for
City Development – Building and City Development – Planning
- 196 -
City Development Department - Building
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Building Permit Fees
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Building Code Act , 1992, C.23
Demolition Permit $27.50/each 100m ² of
GFA min $135.00
$28.75/each 100m ² of
GFA min $140.00
N January 4, 2022
Demolition Deposit - Refundable with
receipt from licensed landfill
$0.00 $3,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Conditional Permit 10% of Appl. Permit Fee
to a max of $3,400.00 in
addition to applicable fee
10% of Appl. Permit Fee
to a max of $3,570.00 in
addition to applicable fee
N January 4, 2022
Change of Use Permit $285.00 $299.00 N January 4, 2022
Authority to Occupy Permit $350.00 $365.00 N January 4, 2022
Alternative Solution $400.00/hr (4 hour min) $420.00/hr (4 hour min) N January 4, 2022
Resubmission of Incomplete
Application
25% of Application Fee 25% of Application Fee N No Increase
Revision to Permit (houses) $135.00 $140.00 N January 4, 2022
Revision to Permit (all other building
types)
15% of applicable permit
fee to a max of $2,850.00
15% of applicable permit
fee to a max of $2,990.00
N January 4, 2022
Transfer of Permit $135.00 $140.00 N January 4, 2022
Re-examination Change in House
Model
$500.00 + fee prescribed
in Part B for any additional
area
$515.00 + fee prescribed
in Part B for any additional
area
N January 4, 2022
Re-examination Other Than Above 10% of applicable permit
fee to a max of $1,300.00
10% of applicable permit
fee to a max of $1,365.00
N January 4, 2022
Certification of House Models $7.00/m ² of GFA $7.35/m ² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Re-certification of House Models $450.00 $470.00 N January 4, 2022
Reactivation of Dormant File $135.00 $140.00 N January 4, 2022
Building Permit Surcharge 25% of Fee ($135.00 min) 25% of Fee ($140.00 min) N January 4, 2022
Additional Inspection $400.00 $420.00 N January 4, 2022
Minimum Building Permit Fee $135.00 $140.00 N January 4, 2022
Assembly Occupancies $22.15/each m² of GFA $23.25/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Institutional Occupancies $25.25/each m² of GFA $26.50/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Residential Occupancies 1- 20 Storeys $14.00/each m² of GFA $14.70/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Residential Occupancies 21 - 40 Storey $15.25/each m² of GFA $16.00/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Residential Occupancies +41 Storeys $16.50/each m² of GFA $17.30/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Business & Personal Service &
Mercantile Occupancies (single
storey)
$14.00/each m² of GFA $14.70/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Business & Personal Services &
Mercantile Occupancies (multi storey)
$17.25/each m² of GFA $18.10/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Farm & Unserviced Storage Buildings $5.75/each m² of GFA $6.00/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Industrial Occupancies $10.50/each m² of GFA $11.00/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Interior Partitioning & Finishing $5.25/each m² of GFA $5.50/each m² of GFA N January 4, 2022
Minor Residential Structures and
Alterations
$135.00 $140.00 N January 4, 2022
Temporary Sales Centres $1,650.00 $1,730.00 N January 4, 2022
- 197 -
City Development Department - Building
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Minor Non-Residential Structures $365.00 $383.00 N January 4, 2022
Alterations, Building and Designated
Structures Not Provided Above
$14.00/each $1,000.00 of
construction value
$14.70/each $1,000.00 of
construction value
N January 4, 2022
Solar Collector for All Buildings $250.00 Flat Fee $262.00 Flat Fee N January 4, 2022
Wind Turbines $12.75/each $1,000.00 of
construction value
$13.35/each $1,000.00 of
construction value
N January 4, 2022
Grading & Final Inspection
Performance Deposit (new detached
and semi-detached dwelling units)
townhouses, stacked townhouses &
additions greater than 275 m²
$2,000.00 $2,100.00 N January 4, 2022
Mag Locks $300.00 Flat Fee $315.00 Flat Fee N January 4, 2022
Fire Alarm Installation/Replacement
(Stand alone)
$350.00 $365.00 N January 4, 2022
Fire Suppression System (when
submitted separately from parent
document - stand alone permit)
$350.00 $365.00 N January 4, 2022
Building permit fees are required to meet the City costs to administer and enforce the Building Code Act . Building permit fee
amounts will not exceed the anticipated reasonable City costs to administer and enforce the Act following implementation of
the changes in this schedule. Note, GFA represents Gross Floor Area.
Sign Permit Fees
Ground Sign $515.00 $540.00 N January 4, 2022
Wall Sign $515.00 $540.00 N January 4, 2022
Development Sign $515.00 $540.00 N January 4, 2022
Billboard Permit $515.00 $540.00 N January 4, 2022
Additional fee for any sign installed
prior to permit issuance
$515.00 $540.00 N January 4, 2022
Revision Fee $150.00 $157.00 N January 4, 2022
Sign Variance - ground sign, wall sign
or development sign
$575.00 $603.00 N January 4, 2022
Miscellaneous Charges January 4, 2022
Lawyer Compliance Letter January 4, 2022
Building Code and Zoning Matters $175.00 $180.00 N January 4, 2022
Legal Matters $125.00 $130.00 N January 4, 2022
Site Plan Control Matters $125.00 $130.00 N January 4, 2022
Recovery of costs for Clandestine
Investigations
$2,500.00 per
investigation (minimum)
$2,625.00 per
investigation (minimum)
Y January 4, 2022
Administrative Fee for Processing
Clandestine Investigations
$525.00 $550.00 N January 4, 2022
Administrative Fee for Registering
Orders on title
$125.00 $131.00 Y January 4, 2022
Request for Building and/or Planning
Records
$50.00/hr. $52.50 Y January 4, 2022
After Hours Inspections $175.00/hr. (4 hr. min) $183.00/hr. (4 hr. min) N January 4, 2022
Licence/Zoning Compliance Letter $175.00 $180.00 N January 4, 2022
Records Management Fee
(houses and other minor residential
alterations)
$11.50 $12.00 N January 4, 2022
Records Management Fee
(all other permit applications)
3% to a maximum of
$275.00 ($11.50 min)
3% to a maximum of
$288.00 ($12.00 min)
N January 4, 2022
- 198 -
City Development Department - Building
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Daycare Compliance Letter $500.00 $525.00 N January 4, 2022
AGCO Compliance Letters $0.00 $150.00 N January 4, 2022
Complaint driven inspection after 2nd site
visit for the same matter or closely
related as verified by City Staff
$0.00 $131.00 N January 4, 2022
- 199 -
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13
Planning Documents
Pickering Official Plan $225.00 $225.00 Y No Increase
Official Plan Compendium $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Seaton Sustainable Placemaking
Guidelines 1
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
City Centre Urban Design Guidelines $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Development Guidelines $5.00-$20.00 $5.00-$20.00 Y No Increase
Special Studies $10.00-$20.00 $10.00-$20.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws
3036 - Set 13 Volume $100.00 $100.00 Y No Increase
3036 - By Volume $10.00 $10.00 Y No Increase
2511,2520,3037,7364/14 (Seaton),
City Centre
$40.00 $40.00 Y No Increase
20 Year Household & Population
Projections
$30.00 $30.00 Y No Increase
Mapping $5.00-$25.00 $5.00-$25.00 Y No Increase
Address Booklet $25.00-$50.00 $25.00-$50.00 Y No Increase
Fiche Prints Price Varies Price Varies Y No Increase
Special Mapping Requests $54.15/hr $54.15/hr Y No Increase
Photocopies - 6 or more pages $0.50/ea $0.50/ea Y No Increase
CD Copies of Documents $10.00/document $10.00/document Y No Increase
Planning Applications
Pre-submission Consultation $280.00 $310.00 N January 4, 2022
Telecommunications Tower Approval $8,100.00 $8,910.00 N January 4, 2022
Minor Variance
Accessory buildings, structures,
decks, platforms & driveway widening
$625.00 $685.00 N January 4, 2022
Residential Minor (a lot for a
Detached dwelling unit, Semi-
detached dwelling unit and/or
Freehold Townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $835.00 $920.00 N January 4, 2022
Multiple Variances $1,050.00 $1,155.00 N January 4, 2022
Residential Major (all other residential
and mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $1,820.00 $2,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Multiple Variances $2,050.00 $2,255.00 N January 4, 2022
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $2,300.00 $2,530.00 N January 4, 2022
Multiple Variances $2,690.00 $2,960.00 N January 4, 2022
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant
initiated)
$570.00 $630.00 N January 4, 2022
Special Meeting $3,660.00 $4,025.00 N January 4, 2022
Authorization to Apply for Variance
Under Section 45 (1.4) of the
Planning Act
$5,230.00 $5,755.00 N January 4, 2022
Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Amendment -Major 2 -
Base Fee
$16,100.00 $17,700.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $410.00 $450.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 75 units (26-100) $305.00 $335.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 100 Units (101-200) $205.00 $275.00 N January 4, 2022
- 200 -
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $100.00 $110.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Non-Residential
Ha of Land Area
$825.00 $910.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Development Block
(Ha of Land Area)
$520.00 $575.00 N January 4, 2022
3Zoning By-law Amendment -Minor $11,500.00 $12,650.00 N January 4, 2022
Zoning By-law - Recirculation $1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges
Moraine or Greenbelt
$2,090.00 $2,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $3,135.00 $3,450.00 N January 4, 2022
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan Required)
$3,975.00 $4,375.00 N January 4, 2022
Zoning By-law - Extension of
Temporary Use By-law
$16,100.00 $17,710.00 N January 4, 2022
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment -
Major 10
$2,615.00 $2,875.00 N January 4, 2022
Minister Zoning Order Amendment -
Minor 11
$2,090.00 $2,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Official Plan Amendment
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Major 4
$44,000.00 $48,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Minor 5
$20,910.00 $23,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation
$1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges
Moraine or Greenbelt
$2,090.00 $2,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Regional Official Plan - Amendment
(not part of a Pickering OPA)
$12,550.00 $13,800.00 N January 4, 2022
Neighbourhood Development
Guideline Amendment 6
$1,045.00 $1,600.00 N January 4, 2022
Land Division
Comments $1,570.00 $1,725.00 N January 4, 2022
Clearance of Conditions $785.00 $865.00 N January 4, 2022
Council authorization to proceed by
land division instead of draft plan of
subdivision 8
$5,230.00 $5,750.00 N January 4, 2022
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Conveyance
For the creation of up to 3 additional
lots
$5,560.00 $6,610.00 N January 4, 2022
For the creation of more than 3
additional lots
5% of the value of the
land
5% of the value of the land N No Increase
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Base Fee $31,500.00 $34,650.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $510.00 $560.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $450.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 100 Units (101-200) $305.00 $355.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $205.00 $225.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Non-Residential
Ha of Land Area
$165.00 $180.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Development
Block (Ha of Land Area)
$100.00 $110.00 N January 4, 2022
Recirculation $1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
- 201 -
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges
Moraine or Greenbelt
$2,100.00 $2,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan -
(redline revisions) - Base Fee
$12,600.00 $13,860.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Additional
Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25) $510.00 $560.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $460.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 100 Units (101-200) $305.00 $335.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $205.00 $225.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Non-Residential
Ha of Land Area
$165.00 $180.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Development Block
(Ha of Land Area)
$100.00 $110.00 N January 4, 2022
Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan
Approval) - Base Fee
$10,500.00 $11,560.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Additional
Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25) $510.00 $560.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $460.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 100 Units (101-200) $305.00 $335.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $205.00 $225.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Non-Residential
Ha of Land Area
$165.00 $180.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Development Block
(Ha of Land Area)
$100.00 $110.00 N January 4, 2022
Plan of Condominium
Draft Plan of Condominium $15,200.00 $16,720.00 N January 4, 2022
Common Element Condominium $20,910.00 $23,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Recirculation $1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$1,185.00 $1,300.00 N January 4, 2022
Condominium Conversion $20,910.00 $23,000.00 N January 4, 2022
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan -
(redline revisions)
$2,200.00 $2,420.00 N January 4, 2022
Site Plan
Residential See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 4, 2022
Commercial See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 4, 2022
Industrial See "All Uses
Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
See "All Uses Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use)
N January 4, 2022
All Uses (Residential, Non-
Residential, Mixed-Use) - Base Fee
$8,875.00 $9,975.00 Y January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $510.00 $560.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $450.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 100 Units (101-200) $305.00 $335.00 N January 4, 2022
Next 800 Units (201-1,000) $75.00 $85.00 N January 4, 2022
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 of Non-
Residential GFA
$6,120.00 $6,630.00 N January 4, 2022
- 202 -
City Development Department - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2021 Current Fee
(Excluding HST)
2022 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable
(Y/N)
Proposed Fee
Effective Date
Minor Revision $2,090.00 $2,300.00 Y January 4, 2022
Major Revision $8,375.00 $9,215.00 Y January 4, 2022
Compliance Inspections/LC Release
Report (includes 2 inspections)
$855.00 $940.00 Y January 4, 2022
Additional Compliance Inspections $366.00 $400.00 Y January 4, 2022
Other Fees
Peer Reviews 9 Full recovery of City costs
+ 10% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs
+ 10% admin. fee
Y No Increase
Minor Revision to Approved Condo
Site Plan (by unit owner) I.e. decks,
sheds, fences
$105.00 $115.00 N January 4, 2022
File Reactivation 7 $2,040.00 $2,040.00 N No Increase
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $560.00 $560.00 N No increase
Add Street Name to Approved List $1,020.00 $1,020.00 Y No Increase
Refund of Application Fees 12 10% Admin. Fee 10% Admin. Fee Y No increase
Film Permit Fees (public road use) $250.00 $250.00 Y No Increase
Request for Zoning Information $50.00 $50.00 N No Increase
Request for Exception to Council
Adopted Policies on Municipal
Addressing and Street Naming
$5,230.00 $5,230.00 N No Increase
1. Fee applicable after Council adoption
2. An application for an amendment that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor zoning amendment, and which may have
greater impact beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application, if considered to represent a large scale redevelopment
- any change in use and/or zone category, except as identified under a minor amendment
- an application involving significant changes to the development standards or general provisions of the by-law
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
3. An application for minor or small scale zoning amendment having no significant impact on adjoining lands, as determined by the
Director, City Development or designate. Minor applications must be site specific and meet one or more of the following conditions:
- request for additional permitted use, within an existing building with no significant impact on existing development standards
- changes in development standards or zone to accommodate a residential severance to create one additional lot
- application for Temporary Use
4. An application that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor amendment and which may have greater impact or policy
implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet
one or more of the following conditions:
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application if considered to represent large scale redevelopment or significant change to the designations and
permitted uses
- an application involving significant changes to the policies of the Official Plan
5. An application for a minor, site specific and small scale amendment or exception to Official Plan policies and designations, having
limited impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate.
6. An application to amend a Neighbourhood Development Guideline when the development proposal would necessitate an
amendment to the Guideline or there is no other planning application being processed by Council.
7. Fee applies to planning applications that have been inactive over 1 year but less than 2 years. If the file has been inactive 2 or more
years, the file will be closed without notice and a new application will be required with current application fees being applied.
8. Charged only if no other planning applications are being processed by Council.
9. The applicant is responsible for the City's full costs of undertaking the peer review of any studies or drawings submitted in support of
the application. This requirement applies to matters such as, but not limited to, the peer review of traffic, marketing, environmental,
noise, engineering drawings and reports, and architectural drawings.
10. A major Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards do not comply with the City's zoning by-law and
a Report to Council is required.
11. A minor Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards comply with the City's zoning by-law.
12. Also subject to deduction of credit card fee if paid by credit card.
- 203 -
Memorandum
Address Contact Information Filepath
Plaza Three
101-2000 Argentia Rd.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 1V9
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca H:\Pickering\2021 DAP Update\Planning Application Fee Memo.docx
Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 46-21
To Kyle Bentley
From Sean-Michael Stephen
Date November 1, 2021
Re: Planning Application Fee Increases
Fax ☐Courier ☐Mail ☐Email ☒
The City of Pickering (City) undertook a review of their development application
approvals process fees (spanning planning, engineering, and building) in 2017/2018 to
assess the full cost of service and to make fee recommendations to improve cost
recovery. The findings of the full cost assessment and fee recommendations were
summarized in the “City of Pickering Development Application Approvals Process Fee
Review Study” dated February 12, 2018.
The City is currently undertaking an update to the 2017/2018 full cost assessment to
inform updated fee recommendations. The purpose of the update is to reflect increases
in complexity in the planning application review processes and changes in building
permit volumes and costs associated with administering and enforcing the Building
Code. It is anticipated that the recommendations from the current update will be
implemented for July 1, 2022.
Prior to the completion of the ongoing review, the City intends to implement an increase
to their planning application fees for January 1, 2022. This memorandum has been
prepared to inform the maximum planning application fees that could be imposed based
on the full cost of service established in the 2017/2018 study.
Based on the 2017/2018 study the recommended planning application fees that the City
implemented on January 1, 2019 were anticipated to recover 41% of the total annual
application processing costs. Based on the subsequent increases to fees over the
2020-2021 period (approximately 5% total increase) and inflationary increases to the
City’s costs, the cost recovery performance for each major application type is presented
in Table 1 below.
- 204 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Planning Application Fee Memo
Table 1
2021 Planning Application Fees Cost Recovery by Application Type
Application Type
Cost
Recovery
%
Plan of Subdivision 48%
Plan of Condominium 83%
Pickering Official Plan
Amendment 36%
Regional Official Plan
Amendment 26%
Site Plan 50%
Land Severance 18%
Minor Variance 15%
Part Lot Control By-Law 101%
Zoning By-Law Amendment 65%
Minister Zoning Order 24%
Total Planning Applications 41%
Section 69 of the Planning Act specifies that municipalities may impose fees through by-
law and that the anticipated costs of such fees must be cost justified by application type
as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g. Subdivision, Zoning By-Law Amendment, etc.).
Given the cost justification requirements by application type, this would suggest that
cross-subsidization of planning fee revenues across application types is not permissible.
As such, when assessing the fee increases that could be imposed to recover the full
costs of service, each application type must be considered separately.
Table 2 summarizes the increase in fees that would be required to recover the full costs
of service by planning application type.
- 205 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Planning Application Fee Memo
Table 2
Full Cost Fee Increases (%)
Application Type
Full Cost
Fee
Increase
(%)
Plan of Subdivision 110%
Plan of Condominium 21%
Pickering Official Plan
Amendment 177%
Regional Official Plan
Amendment 290%
Site Plan 100%
Land Severance 455%
Minor Variance 555%
Part Lot Control By-Law -1%
Zoning By-Law Amendment 53%
Minister Zoning Order 309%
Total Planning Applications 143%
Based on the analysis presented within Tables 1 and 2, with the exception of Part-Lot
Control fees which are already at full cost recovery levels, increases to full cost fees
would require between 21% (Plan of Condominium) and 555% (Minor Variance)
increases.
In order to understand the impacts of planning application fee increases of 10%, an
impact analysis for sample developments has been prepared. Four sample
development types have been considered, including:
• Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment
applications for a residential subdivision of 100 single detached units;
• Site Plan Control, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Condominium applications for
a 200-unit multi-residential apartment development;
• Site Plan Control, Zoning By-law Amendment for a retail building of 1,000 m2;
and
• Site Plan Control application for an industrial building of 10,000 m2.
The following graphs illustrate the increase in total municipal development fees (i.e.
planning application fees, building permits, and development charges).
Based on the survey results, 10% increases in planning application fees result in 0.3%
to 0.9% increases in total development fees payable. However, the City’s ranking
- 206 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Planning Application Fee Memo
amongst the municipal comparators remains unchanged, and for the most part below
that of the other Durham Region municipalities surveyed.
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development
(100 Single Dwelling Units, 185 m² GFA each, $1.5 million cost of works)
Official Plan Amendment Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Engineering Fees Development Charges
+0.3%
+$16,807
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to a Multi-Residential Apartment Development
(200 Units, 92 m² GFA each)
Plan of Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges
+0.3%
+$16,608
- 207 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Planning Application Fee Memo
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to Retail Development
(1,000 m² GFA)
Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges
+0.9%
+$2,826
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
Survey of Fees Related to Industrial Development
(10,000 m² GFA)
Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges
+0.3%
+$5,745
- 208 -
Memo
December 8, 2021 To: Susan Cassel
City Clerk
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Copy: Manager, Building Services & Deputy CBO
Supervisor, Building Inspections
Supervisor, Building Permits
Subject: Amendment to Schedule A of
By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors
File: L-2000-021
As a result of staff changes within the Building Services Section, and pursuant to the Building
Code Act, please be advised that it will be necessary to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 as
attached hereto. The new schedule will reflect the following housekeeping changes:
•Schedule A updated noting all of the appointed Building Inspectors.
If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2070.
Original Signed By
Kyle Bentley
KB:ld
Attachment Schedule A – Appointments
- 209 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 7891/21
Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14
appointing Inspectors
Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 3(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O.
1992, chapter 23, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering is responsible for the
enforcement of the Act within the City of Pickering;
Whereas, pursuant to By-law 7362/14, Council appointed a Chief Building Official and such
Inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of the Act within the City of Pickering;
Whereas, as a result of recent staff changes, the By-law to appoint these individuals must be
amended to reflect the addition of new Inspectors;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
Schedule A of By-law 7362/14, as amended, is hereby deleted and replaced with Schedule A
attached hereto.
By-law passed this 13th day of December, 2021.
__________________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
__________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 210 -
Schedule A
Appointments
Item Column Column
1. Chief Building Official Kyle Bentley
2. Deputy Chief Building Official/Inspector Carl Kolbe
3. Inspector Steven Amaral
4. Inspector Stuart Caulfield
5. Inspector Joseph Domanski
6. Inspector David Escudero
7. Inspector Adam Fowler
8. Inspector Peter Furnell
9. Inspector Rachelle Gravel
10. Inspector Steven Heidebrecht
11. Inspector Vanessa Jiang
12. Inspector Anthony Nunes
13. Inspector Steven Smythe
14. Inspector David Stawowczyk
15. Inspector Ardalan Tanha
16. Inspector Robert Watson
17. Inspector Litian Wei
18. Inspector Andy Westcott
- 211 -