NEWS

Ontario Bill 2: Prohibiting political contributions from corporations and trade unions

|

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader’s aid to Bill 2 and does not form part of the law. Bill 2 has been enacted as Chapter 22 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2016.

A number of amendments are made to the Election Finances Act. Among them:

1. Corporations and trade unions are prohibited from making contributions to parties, constituency associations, nomination contestants, candidates and leadership contestants. Contribution limits for individuals are reduced.

2. “Nomination contestants” — persons seeking to be endorsed as a party’s candidate in an electoral district — are brought within the Act, on and from July 1, 2017.

3. Quarterly allowances are made payable to registered parties and constituency associations.

4. The rules regarding loans and loan guarantees are made more restrictive….

FONTRA Submission on the Review of the OMB

|
FoNTRA logo

While FoNTRA shares many of the key concerns regarding the current role and operation of the OMB put forward by advocates for the abolishment of the OMB or the removal of Toronto from its jurisdiction, it does not support these initiatives since the broader need for significant provincial planning reform is not being addressed by these moves. Furthermore, FoNTRA sees the right to appeal certain municipal decisions to an independent body as being of paramount importance in a public process that is to respect procedural fairness for all actors. Experience has shown that residents are regularly called upon to defend city policies and regulations when city council and/or planning staff fail to do so.

FUN Submission Re: The Ontario Municipal Board – September 30, 2016

|

September 30, 2016 Submission Re: The Ontario Municipal Board Should the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) be abolished? The Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods (FUN) believes that it should be retained, as alternatives would be more expensive and difficult to use. What is needed are major reforms that address the concerns of the community. The OMB was … Read more

Sewell on City Hall

|
Mirvish Village

Community groups are rightly flummoxed when a development they are opposed to is pushed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for a decision.

Should the group start raising $20,000 or more to retain a lawyer to fight on its behalf? Is there any chance the board will be influenced by community concerns? Does it matter what city planners say about the development? Can the group win at the OMB?

I’m often approached by groups facing these questions, and my advice is that it’s difficult to create enough sympathy to raise the money and retain a lawyer. In any case, having a lawyer at the hearing on its own rarely gives a group much chance for success.

FUN Supports FoNTRA on Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review (CLUPR)

|
Land use in the greater golden horseshoe

The Federation of North Toronto Residents Associations (FoNTRA) provides its comments on the proposed changes to the four provincial Land Use Plans:

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
The Greenbelt Plan,
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and
The Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The proposed changes follow a provincial review aimed at improving the laws passed to permanently protect agricultural and natural lands, and promote smart development in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. They are intended to allow communities to continue to grow while minimizing impacts of urban growth on productive farmland, heritage buildings and landscapes, archeological resources, green spaces, and important natural areas.

Richmond Hill Decision on Parkland Appeal

|

Municipalities across Ontario have reason to celebrate as a recent landmark decision by the Divisional Court may generate millions of dollars for parkland at the cost of the development industry.

In Richmond Hill (Town) v. Elginbay Corporation,1 the Divisional Court considered whether the Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) has the authority to set the alternative rate for the conveyance of parkland in a municipality’s official plan. The Court concluded that the OMB did not. By imposing a cap on the alternative rate in the Town of Richmond Hill’s official plan, the Court held that the OMB overstepped its jurisdiction and unnecessarily fettered the discretion of the Town to make its own decisions, contrary to the intent of the Legislature.

Uxbridge OMB Appeal

|
62 Mill St. development - Uxbridge

A controversial townhouse development proposed for 62 Mill Street in Uxbridge is slated to go to the Ontario Municipal Board for a decision. When council turned Monday to a report by township planning consultant Elizabeth Howson regarding the proposed development, Mayor Gerri Lynn O’Connor announced that the applicant has already taken the application to the OMB. “It’s out of our hands,” the mayor said.

FUN Letter re: Victims of Communism Memorial

|

I am writing in my capacity as President of the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods (FUN Ontario), with regard to the proposal to construct a “Memorial to the Victims of Communism” adjacent to the Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa.

We wish to add our voice to the groundswell of opinion questioning the plans for the Memorial, including the Globe and Mail (Mar. 29 editorial), the Ontario Association of Architects, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mayor Jim Watson of Ottawa and a majority of his Council, the present and former MPs for this area Ottawa Citizen (Oct 20).

FoNTRA supports Bill 52 – anti-SLAPP legislation

|
FoNTRA logo

We are writing in support of Bill 52, Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 which you introduced in the Ontario Legislature on December 1, 2014. The Bill, which is substantively the same as former Bill 83, was debated for Second Reading on December 10, 2014, and received supportive comments from members of all Parties at that time.

Bill 52 provides an effective response to the problem of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in Ontario and would prevent the misuse of the courts from SLAPP suits without depriving anyone of appropriate remedies for expression that causes significant harm. It reflects the recommendations of the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel that was established four years ago to provide advice on the content of legislation to target SLAPPs.