Council will begin shortly for second day of meeting of this last session before the summer break (unless COVID-19 brings them back together). On the agenda still:
- The city's unresolved $1.35B budget hole
- Auditor's report on tree maintenance
- Expanding into the Yellowbelt
- The city's unresolved $1.35B budget hole
- Auditor's report on tree maintenance
- Expanding into the Yellowbelt
Additional items on the agenda still:
- Exploring a legal challenge to province's new evictions legislation
- Additional public health measures for bars and restaurants
- Exploring a legal challenge to province's new evictions legislation
- Additional public health measures for bars and restaurants
First up will be the additional public health measures. That supplementary report was quietly submitted yesterday ahead of the province's announcement. As Tory mentioned, it's a backup plan if the province doesn't adopt Toronto officials' recommendations: toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2…
I haven't had coffee yet, so if I missed something you're watching, let me know!
Staff are trying to sort out some technical difficulties to do a presentation on there COVID-19 update. A baby cries. Perks wanders outside.
City manager Chris Murray says the bulk of their report on how to deal with the city's financial gap is now hopefully unnecessary given the recent announcement of $4B in funding for Ontario municipalities. Murray said they don't yet have details on how it breaks down for Toronto
Cressy, city's board of health chair, asks medical officer Dr. Eileen de Villa about the additional measures. Is Toronto ready for stage 3 based on current indicators? De Villa says yes. But pandemic isn't over until there's effective treatment/vaccine
Measures proposed in supplementary report are meant to strengthen stage 3 rules introduced by province and notably learning from experience of other jurisdictions with bars and restaurants most notably
Key changes recommended by Toronto Public Health that council could adopt here changes to city licensing are that all patrons must stay seated, overall capacity limits indoors, number of people per table, keeping a customer log and staff screening
There are also recommendations from the medical officer of health that a by-law be enacted that masks me mandatory in the common area of apartment buildings after Tory asked apartments association to adopt their own policies thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
If your head is spinning, you are not alone.
So, the extra bars and restaurants rules would be amending an existing by-law for licensing and the masks in apartments would be a new by-law
The city solicitor says they don't yet know which of the city's recommendations for bars and restaurants have been incorporated in the province's phase 3 re-opening and won't know until they see the words in the order
Cressy suggests they could adopt the by-law amendments today and if they're covered by provincial order it can be worked out later. Lawyer Wendy Walberg says that's her recommendation
Worth noting the city has had to come up with their own plan B to make sure Toronto residents are subject to additional measures that everyone seems to agree are necessary/good idea if bars and restaurants are going to re-open because it's not clear what the province is doing
I’m obviously still listening to this important debate but 
Unexplained structures
Council is back from lunch break and now working through member motions. Will let you know if anything of interest comes up!
Council is still chugging along with the Yellowbelt and Bill 184 items yet to be debated. Following that, looks like we'll get a reprise of last month's tree removal debate:
Council views, 4:44PM
(They’re meeting in closed session to discuss some legal matters which are not the items I care about)
FYI council approved the Yellowbelt work plan with little debate so that will carry forward now: thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
Council is now discussing the province's Bill 184, now law. Our story from yesterday: thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
Holyday has a motion asking province to consider amendments to the bill that balance interests of landlords and tenants
Holyday says they don't want to discourage people to create secondary suites etc. in their homes to expand rental market
Breaking: Perks moves to challenge province's Bill 184 in court on basis new legislation affecting residential evictions is contrary to rules of procedural fairness & natural justice and seek stay of rules (which would block them from being used until court challenge decided)
Perks cites @_VictoriaGibson reporting that more than 6,000 evictions pending in Ontario for non-payment of rent during the pandemic period alone thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…
Perks said cold weather, mass evictions, overflowing shelters is a perfect storm that will be a bigger crisis than start of pandemic. "Bill 184 puts new onerous rules on tenants who are fighting to keep their home" that they won't be able to deal with without legal support
Here is Perks' motion:
Tory has said he believes tenants should not be evicted without a hearing, which this bill allows. Not clear how he and his allies will vote on Perks' motion
I have not actually read the confidential advice from legal myself so I don't know if the argument Perks is suggesting is specifically spelled out there
Wong-Tam says she has no hope province will change course on evictions given the bill and that's why it's important council get loud
Mayor Tory speaking now saying it's unlikely the province will repeal the bill, which has already passed. He's reiterating he doesn't have emergency power to stop evictions, despite what activists say. He hasn't commented on Perks' motion specifically yet
BREAKING: Tory says he will support Perks' motion to launch a court challenge against Bill 184. That means the motion is likely to pass and the city will again be in court challenging provincial legislation.
Tory was under pressure from activists - who have twice been to his condo - to do something about the Bill. I'm not sure that made him more or less likely to support Perks' motion here but worth noting
Holyday's motion to consider amendments that "balance" protecting tenants and landlords fails 6-17. Ford, Grimes, Holyday, Lai, Minnan-Wong, Pasternak in support
With Tory's support, Perks' motion to challenge the province's Bill 184 in court passes with an overwhelming 22-2 vote. Only Ford and Holyday against. City will go back to court against the province.
The advice from city legal on Bill 184 will stay confidential, unsurprisingly, since council has now voted to challenge the province in court
Holyday draws a lot of reaction from his colleagues, including from a muted Tory, when he asks for the item as amended to be recorded as well (it's time consuming). I wish I was better at reading lips. I miss the council chamber, where sound carries up to the press gallery
Council is now debating the decision of Etobicoke York Community Council to remove this littleleaf linden - a city-owned tree - to accommodate a new driveway. Perks has moved council adopt staff recommendations to deny the removal
Council is once again debating whether or not they should even be debating the removal of trees at council.
Council votes against Perks' motion. The littleleaf linden in Etobicoke will die.
Perks moves to deny removal, in line with staff recommendation, of two city-owned trees in Etobicoke (a Colorado blue spruce and Norway spruce) to accommodate a new driveway
Pasternak demanding Perks apologize for saying councillors who believe planting a new tree confers the same energy as a mature tree is foolish. Perks refuses to apologize for science.
Nunziata, whose ward these trees are in, says it would be impossible to build a new house on this lot without removing the existing trees (lot is currently vacant home)
Nunziata suggests the person who purchased this property would go "homeless" otherwise. Given they had the funds to purchase a property that requires them to tear down and rebuild, that seems highly unlikely
Scenes from a tree removal debate
Council again denies Perks' motion to save trees. These York trees will also die (These motions have often won but the votes have been shifting in favour of community council decisions).
Colle now moving to remove a tree that North York Community Council (including him) earlier approved. It's a black walnut and Colle says they now know there is a child who is allergic to nuts who lives there (this was in the staff report)
Colle: "It's a vigorous black walnut."
Colle's attempt to kill the black walnut fails. This Eglinton-Lawrence tree will live
