TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 6

1By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing - Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities

2By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited

3Records Retention By-law for the Toronto Police Services Board

4Feasibility of Exemptions from Fees for False Fire Alarms for City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions

5Requested Amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and Process

6Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 6

OF THE EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 16, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing - Mandatory Drop and Accreditation of Vehicle Repair Facilities

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)deleting from Recommendation No. (1)(a) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, the date "July 2, 1998", and inserting in lieu thereof the date "August 3, 1998"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the list of accredited vehicle repair facilities be organized on a geographical basis;

(2)the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be requested to forward to all Members of Council on August 3, 1998, a list of the accredited shops filed with the Collision Reporting Centres by such date; and

(3)the following motion be referred to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for consideration in September, 1998, and the City Solicitor and the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be requested to report thereon, in writing, to such meeting:

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

'That the foregoing Clause be amended by striking out the recommendation of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendations Nos. (1)(b), (c), (d), (2) and (4) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, with respect to accreditation, be deferred to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998, and the Chair of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee be requested to meet with representatives of the Provincial Government to encourage swift passage of a Province-wide accreditation which would complement the City's plan;

(2)the City Auditor be requested to submit the report, previously requested by Council with respect to accident reporting centres, to Council, through the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, no later than October 1, 1998;

(3)staff be requested to submit a report, to the same meeting, on the possibility of establishing City-operated/independent reporting centres, as previously requested by Council;

(4)the operators of the existing reporting centres be advised that City Council will not tolerate any solicitation of any resident by agents of insurance companies, auto body shops, car rental companies, tow trucks, or other businesses;

(5)a self-help or 'what-to-do' pamphlet be produced and submitted to Council for approval, such pamphlet to provide guidance and advice to every person involved in an accident and distributed by the police, tow truck operators and reporting centres;

(6)Recommendation No. (1)(a) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

'that the mandatory drop be delayed until January 2000 and the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report on the legal authority to force all tow-truck operators to display or hand-out notices to the public which would advise the public that any recommendations of body shops or other businesses made by tow truck operators will result in the immediate suspension of their licence and a hearing before the Licencing Tribunal';

(7)City staff be requested to strictly enforce these rules at all collision reporting centres with all tow truck operators on a regular basis; and

(8)Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated May 15, 1998, from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing Commission, be adopted. " ' ")

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends that:

(1)the report (May 15, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, be adopted subject to Recommendation No. (3) contained therein being amended to read as follows:

"3.An appeal process to the Toronto Licensing Tribunal be approved;"

(2)in the interim, until the mandatory drop comes into effect, the operators of the collision reporting centres be permitted to cover up the signs in the centres;

(3)the collision reporting centres be requested to report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on a program to improve customer relations; and

(4)the necessary bill be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report (May 15, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Purpose

This is a status report on the implementation of the accreditation of vehicle repair facilities. Approval for amendments to the licensing by-law sections relating to collision reporting centres and the implementation of the mandatory drop/accreditation program are sought.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement

No new financial implications are resulting from this proposed interim program. The participating vehicle repair facilities will fund the accreditation program. Payment for accreditation services will be made to a private contractor. The Toronto Licensing Commission will provide support to the program in providing computerized database support to maintain the list of accredited vehicle repair facilities.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1.By-law 20-85, Schedule 24 be amended to:

1. Implement the mandatory drop and the accredited vehicle repair facilities system on July 2, 1998;
2. specify the criteria a vehicle repair facility must meet to qualify for accreditation;
3. revise "forms as approved by the Commission" to "forms as approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services or her/his designate";
4. Describe an Appeal Process for applicants who are refused accreditation;

2.The recommendation of the Working Group, for an interim accreditation program, operated through the Toronto Licensing Commission and by Reg Quinn Ltd. be approved and the existing contract with the Toronto Licensing Commission be amended accordingly;

3.An appeal process to either the Toronto Licensing Tribunal or the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be approved;

4.A review of the need to continue the interim program be conducted within the next six months; and

5.The appropriate City of Toronto Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History

This report is generated in response to a request made at the December 10 and 18, 1997, Metropolitan Council meeting, i.e., the General Manager of the Licensing Commission (TLC), report on the status of amendments to the sections of the licensing by-law, By-law 20-85, concerning the regulation of tow truck operators and collision repair centres (CRC) and report on whether an extension should be permitted for the implementation of the mandatory drop and the new accreditation system. The full background report on earlier amendments to By-law No. 20-85 - Accident Towing is attached as Appendix A.

This report addresses: the creation of an accreditation system for auto body repair facilities and the timing of the regulations that create a mandatory requirement that tow truck operators drop accident-damaged vehicles at the CRC. This mandatory drop/accreditation system is designed to provide the owners of vehicles towed to and dropped at a CRC, with a broad-based list of accredited body shops. This system was developed as an alternative to earlier practices where tow truck operators towed accident-damaged vehicles to their preferred shops, or insurers at CRCs recommended repairs be performed at one of the limited number of their preferred shops. With regard to implementing this accreditation program, Metropolitan Council, on December 10 and 18, 1997, recommended:

a Working Group comprising of industry representatives be established to assume full responsibility for working out the details of this program which would be exclusively industry-directed. The role of Metropolitan Toronto prior to final approval of the program, will be to assist with complaints, to adjudicate on problems and to provide due process.

This Working Group is composed of: Ed Kemenoff, John Babiar, Ralph D'alessandro, Sam Saccola and Tony DiSanto from the Toronto Collision Repair Society; and, Julius Suraski, John Keen, Sandra Driesel, Jim Caranci and Mike Wines from the Independent Auto Repairer's Association.

Comments and/or Discussion

Accreditation Process

Councillor Kinahan has convened regular meetings with the Working Group and TLC staff where details of an accreditation program have been worked out. At its last meeting of May 12, 1998, the working group recognized that the ground work for implementing an accreditation system was in place and voted unanimously for an extension from June 18, 1998 to July 2, 1998, of the implementation of the mandatory drop of vehicles at CRCs and the accreditation system. This was recommended to ensure sufficient time to produce a comprehensive list of accredited facilities.

Criteria/ Application Form

The basis of this accreditation system is that a vehicle repair facility is accredited and placed on the "list of accredited vehicle repair facilities" when a facility meets the set of criteria agreed upon by the working group. These criteria are listed in Appendix B. Applicants prove they meet this criteria by completing an application form (attached as Appendix C) showing they have the necessary equipment, expertise and procedures, and passing an on-site inspection conducted by an independent contractor.

As stated above, the original expectation was that the accreditation program be industry-directed. However, time limitations and the possibility that the Provincial government will implement a province-wide accreditation program have convinced the working group to support an interim accreditation program operated through the Toronto Licensing Commission.

With the approval of the working group given at the meeting of May 12, 1998, Reg Quinn Ltd., the contractor which presently provides mechanical inspection service for the Toronto Licensing Commission, was approached. The company was asked to submit a proposal to expand its existing contract by developing a short term program to process application forms and inspect and accredit vehicle repair facilities. The submission from Reg Quinn Ltd. is attached as Appendix D.

List of accredited vehicle repair facilities

Under the interim accreditation program, the contractor provides to the Toronto Licensing Commission the names of the facilities approved for the list of accredited vehicle repair facilities. The Toronto Licensing Commission will maintain a compiled list of accredited facilities and make this list available for distribution to users. In accordance with the By-law, CRC owner/operators will provide a copy of this list to vehicle owners at the CRCs.

The Toronto Licensing Commission will store the data of the eligible facilities in a computerized database, update the database with additions and changes, regularly produce lists and transfer to the CRCs a list accredited facilities ordered geographically. The Toronto Licensing Commission will work with the CRCs to finalize details of operating the computerized database system.

Appeal Process

An appeal procedure will be required for the occasions when applicants do not satisfy the criteria for the accreditation of their auto body facilities. This inability to conform may be due to a lack of particular equipment or a difference of opinion regarding modified equipment.

The following is a proposal for the appeal process.

Once an application for accreditation is received the General Manager, through the Toronto Licensing Commission contractor, will investigate the application for conformance with the approved criteria. In the event that an application does not conform with the approved criteria, the applicant will be advised by mail that their application has not been approved and that they may appeal this decision. The applicant will be able to appeal the decision by advising the contractor, in writing, of their wish to appeal.

Two alternatives for where an appeal will be heard are proposed. The findings of the contractor and the request for an appeal will be reported for a decision to: either the Licensing Tribunal or to City of Toronto Council who may delegate this responsibility to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

1)Appeal to the Toronto Licensing Tribunal

Given the current workload of the Licensing Tribunal will mean there will be a minimum of three months hiatus from receipt of the appeal to the Tribunal Hearing. The benefit is that the conduct of the Hearing is prescribed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

2)Appeal to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

The appeal to the designate of Council could move along much faster although the procedure would be more informal.

As was indicated earlier in this report, this proposed accreditation program is an interim process. It is unlikely that there would be any desire to carry an appeal beyond the decision of the Licensing Tribunal or the Council designate's decision.

Other Issues/approval of forms/New City of Toronto

Section 18(2) of schedule 24, part 6, and section 33 of schedule 37 refer to "a form approved by the Commission". This approval needs to be re-assigned to Council due to the restructuring of the Toronto Licensing Commission and the re-assignment of administrative functions. It is recommended that this administrative function be delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services or her/his designate.

Furthermore, references to "Metropolitan Toronto" and the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto" should be revised.

Summary of necessary By-law Amendments

To implement the above-described interim accreditation program, it is recommended that the By-law be amended to:

1. implement the mandatory drop and the accreditation vehicle repair facilities system on July2, 1998;

1. specify the criteria a vehicle repair facility must meet to qualify for accreditation;

1. revise "forms as approved by the Commission" to "forms as approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services or her/his designate";

1. Describe an appeal process for applicants who are refused accreditation.

Summary of necessary administrative actions

To implement the interim accreditation program recommended by the working group, approval is required for:

1. an interim accreditation program, operated through the Toronto Licensing Commission and by Reg Quinn Ltd. and;
2. an appeal to either the Toronto Licensing Tribunal or the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be approved.

Conclusions

This report recommends a two week extension of the implementation of a mandatory vehicle drop/repair facility accreditation system. This extension is proposed to ensure wide participation from the approximately six hundred eligible vehicle repair facilities and should not be interpreted as anything more than a temporary delay.

The proposal to amend the current contract with Reg Quinn Ltd. To facilitate the accreditation of vehicle repair facilities is proposed as an interim measure. It is understood that the accreditation process will be assumed by the Provincial Government or the industry. As the program was originally approved as exclusively industry-directed, review of this situation within the next six months is recommended.

_________

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Lynda L. Ciaschini, B.Sc.(Psych.), LL.B., Barrister and Solicitor, Mediator & Arbitrator, Notary Public, Woodbridge;

-Mr. Steve Cameron, North York;

-Mr. Michael Wines, Recruitment Manager, Independent Auto Repairer's Association, Toronto;

-Mr. John Long, Downtown Towing, Toronto;

-Mr. Julius Suraski, Member, Independent Auto Repairer's Association, Downsview;

-Ms. Sandra Driesel, Member, Independent Auto Repairer's Association, Scarborough;

-Mr. John Norris, Member, Independent Auto Repairer's Association, Hamilton; and

-Mr John R. Keen, Member, Independent Auto Repairer's Association, Toronto.

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a licensed insurance broker.)

2

By-law to Amend By-law No. 20-85 - Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 29, 1998.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May 20, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, subject to the following:

(1)the proposal by Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited be approved for a six-month trial period; and

(2)the approval of the proposed routes by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief of Police, the General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, and the City Solicitor and that they submit a joint report thereon to City Council on July8, 1998.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports, for the information of City Council, having requested:

(a)the Toronto Humane Society to review the details of the proposed amendments to By-law No. 20-85;

(b)the Kensington Market Association to comment on this proposal;

(c)the Chief of Police to report on any concerns he may have relating to this proposal, and to submit their comments/ reports thereon directly to City Council for consideration on July 8, 1998.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the City Solicitor to review Section 10 of Schedule 35 to By-law No. 20-85 which refers to the "boundaries of the City of Toronto" and bring forward the necessary amendment in light of amalgamation.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report (May 20, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Licensing:

Recommendation:

1)By-law 20-85 Schedule 35, Section 17 be amended to permit the operation of horse drawn trolleys with a passenger capacity of 25 persons.

2)By-law 20-85 Schedule 35, Section 23(3) be amended to delete the word "Commission" and to insert the words "Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services".

Background:

The attached Notice of Motion was before City of Toronto Council on May 14, 1998. At that time the report was referred to Committee for further discussion.

In the course of the debate at Council, concerns were raised about the well being of the horses and about possible traffic problems. Both of these matters are addressed in By-law 20-85 Schedule 35. (Copy enclosed).

Animal Welfare

Schedule 35, Section 11 (I) - (ii) describes the hours a horse may work

Section 12 limits the time of year the horse drawn vehicles may work

Section 13 (I) - (7) regulates the physical condition of the horse

Section 17 (5) and (6) limits the temperature under which the vehicle may operate

Traffic Concerns

Section 9 (1) and (2) prohibit the use of these vehicles during morning and afternoon rush hours

Section 28 and 29 restrict roads on which these vehicles may travel.

On May 13, 1998 Council also approved the Restructuring of the Toronto Licensing Commission, Section 23 (3), Schedule 35 of By-law 20-85 currently requires that the Commission designate a person to examine the drivers of horse drawn vehicles. With the implementation of the restructuring of the Commission this responsibility should rest with Council or Council's designate. I recommend that Council designate the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to exercise this function.

The Subsection would then read (3) Every applicant for a license as a driver shall be examined by a person designated by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as to his ability to:

(a)handle horses in traffic;

(b)harness horses;

(c)groom and care for horses; and

(d)detect lameness in horses and assess their general health.

Conclusion:

Emergency and Protective Services Committee adopt the recommendations set out in this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Carol Ruddell-Foster, General Manager, Toronto Licensing

416-392-3070

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee also had before it the following communications:

(a)(May 28, 1998) from Leanne Wong, Project Strategist, Toronto Humane Society, 11 River Street, Toronto, M5A 4C2, requesting that the Toronto Humane Society be included in further discussions and be consulted in the drafting of reports related to the horse-drawn trolley issue;

(b)(June 9, 1998) from Leanne Wong, Project Strategist, and Dr. Steve Sheridan, Director of Animal Services and Chief Veterinarian, Toronto Humane Society, 11 River Street, Toronto, M5A 4C2, recommending that Schedule 35 to By-law No. 20-85 not be amended and that no changes be made to affect the status quo regarding horse-drawn vehicles in the City of Toronto for the following reasons:

1.traffic congestion and decreased capacity of the roads to handle traffic;

2.behavioural traits and biological care requirements of horses that are not conducive to pulling vehicles in the urban setting; and

3.the high level and cost of enforcement required to properly monitor horse-drawn vehicles, if such an activity is allowed to expand.

(c)(June 11, 1998) from Mr. Tim Trow, President, Friends of Horses Inc., 385 Balliol Street, Toronto, M4S 1E1, expressing concerns with regard to the use of horse-drawn trolleys in downtown Toronto and providing background information and newspaper articles on this issue; and

(d)(June 11, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, in support of the proposal of the Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited for a horse and trolley service in downtown Toronto provided that the operator honours their commitment to operate as per the proposed route, and does not come east of University Avenue.

(Copies of Schedule 35 of By-law No. 20-85 and the documents listed above were forwarded to all Members of Council with the Agenda and Supplementary Agenda of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting of June 16, 1998, and are on file in the Office of the CityClerk.)

________

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

Ms. Leanne Wong, Project Strategist, Toronto Humane Society;

Dr. Steve Sheridan, Director of Animal Services and Chief Veterinarian, Toronto Humane Society;

Mr. Tim Trow, President, Friends of Horses Inc.; and

Mr. Lorenzo D'Urso, President, and Ms. Miriam Isenberg, Director, Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited, 71 City View Drive, Etobicoke, M9W 5A5, who also filed a copy of their submission with the Committee.

________

Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, also appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 29, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To comment directly to Council on the proposal to allow the size of sightseeing tour horse-drawn vehicles to be increased from five passengers to 25 passengers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)By-law No. 20-85 Schedule 35, Section 17, be amended to permit the operation of horse-drawn vehicles with a passenger capacity of 25 persons, for a six month trial period; and

(2)By-law No. 20-85 Schedule 35, Section 23(3), be amended by deleting the word "Commission" and inserting the words "Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services" in place thereof.

Background:

At its meeting of June 16, 1998, the Emergency and Protective Services Committee considered a report from the General Manager of the Toronto Licensing Commission, dated May 20, 1998, addressing a proposed amendment to By-law No. 20-85 Schedule 35 which would increase the passenger capacity of sightseeing horse-drawn vehicles from five to 25.

The Committee recommended adoption of the foregoing report subject to the following:

(1)the proposal by Olde Town Toronto Tours Limited be approved for a six-month trial period; and

(2)the approval of the proposed routes by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Chief of Police, the General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, and the City Solicitor and that they submit a joint report thereon to City Council on July 8, 1998.

Discussion:

At present sightseeing horse-drawn vehicles with a passenger capacity of five persons are permitted on City of Toronto streets except between 2:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on any day, or between 3:00p.m. and 6:30 p.m. (with the exception of Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays). The existing by-law prohibits these vehicles from traveling on Lake Shore Boulevard at any time.

From a traffic perspective the impacts of a 25-passenger horse-drawn vehicle will not be significantly different than a five passenger vehicle. The speeds of the vehicles will be similar, and the larger horse-drawn trolleys will be able to manoeuvre street intersections effectively.

However Olde Town Tours Limited expect to operate two 25-passenger trolleys rather than eight five-passenger buggies. The traffic impact of the two larger vehicles should be less in total than the eight smaller ones.

The intention of Olde Town Tours Limited is to bring its horse-drawn trolleys out of Exhibition Place at 10:30 a.m., using Bathurst Street and Front Street to access the downtown area. The trolleys will circulate the downtown area, principally on non-arterial roadways, and travel along the curb lane of Spadina Avenue approximately four times per day. The tour operators do not intend to stop on Spadina Avenue to pick-up or drop-off passengers. The trolleys will return to Exhibition Place at 3:30 p.m.

The area that the horse-drawn trolleys will manoeuvre through is generally defined by Spadina Avenue to the west, the University of Toronto to the north, and Front Street to the south. The operators do not intend to travel on or across University Avenue as an easterly boundary.

Transportation Services staff liaised with their colleagues in the Toronto Police Service and Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). Police Traffic Services expressed concern that a horse-drawn vehicle could cause traffic flow problems on week days and also Saturdays on Spadina Avenue and Front Street, in front of the Convention Centre. There may be conflicts between the horse-drawn trolleys and vehicles parking and unparking, and taxi cabs at the Convention Centre. There may also be conflicts between the horse-drawn trolleys turning right and pedestrians waiting to cross the road, because pedestrians may misjudge the turning radius of the trolleys.

Our TTC colleagues are concerned about the potential impact of a slow-moving vehicle on their streetcar routes downtown. In this area streetcars operate on four-lane east/west roadways which typically allow parking in the curb lane during off-peak periods. Therefore all traffic is restricted to one lane in each direction, on the streetcar tracks. Because horse-drawn trolleys could cause congestion and delay streetcar service, the operators could be instructed not to operate their horse-drawn vehicles along King Street, Queen Street, Dundas Street and College Street.

This report has been discussed with staff of the City Solicitor's office.

Conclusions:

Staff anticipate that the amendment of By-law No. 20-85 Schedule 35 to allow 25-passenger horse-drawn vehicles should not have a significant impact on the safety and capacity of traffic in downtown Toronto. However the six-month trial will provide staff with the opportunity to monitor and evaluate the operation of these vehicles and recommend additional by-law amendments prior to the 1999 tourist season if necessary.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Hillier, Senior Manager, Traffic Regions, (416) 392-5348.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a submission (July2, 1998) from the Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Humane Society providing, as requested by the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, a review of the details of the proposed amendments to Licensing By-law No. 20-85, to permit horse-drawn trolleys with a passenger capacity of 25persons.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals and organizations, commenting on the re-introduction of horse-drawn vehicles in Toronto:

(i)(June 28, 1998) from the President, Friends of Horses Inc.;

(ii)(June 29, 1998) from the Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals;

(iii)(June 27, 1998) from Ms. Terri D. Daniels, North York;

(iv)(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada, on behalf of the Animal Protection Institute, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and Zoocheck Canada Inc.;

(v)(July7, 1998) from Mr. A. Veltri, Prestige Horse Drawn Carriage Co.; and

(vi)(June 30, 1998) from Ms. Nicola Thompson, Toronto, submitting a petition containing 317signatures in support of a ban on horse-drawn vehicles on City streets.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July8, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising, with respect to the aforementioned communication dated June30, 1998, from Ms.NicolaThompson, Toronto, that the office of the City Clerk is in receipt of pages containing an additional 46 signatures.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 1991) submitted by Ms. Margaret Ann Johnson, issued by the Carriage Horse Action Committee, New York, pointing out that the horse-drawn carriage is a highly unsafe vehicle for commercial transportation and including documentation supporting legislation to ban the existence of a carriage horse trade within city limits.)

3

Records Retention By-law for the Toronto Police Services Board

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor; and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek City Council's approval for an amendment to the schedule to the records retention by-law enacted by the former Metropolitan Council on behalf of the Toronto Police Services Board and to re-enact such by-law as a by-law of the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(i)the records retention schedule forming part of Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92 be amended to provide for an increase in the retention period for bicycle registrations from five years to ten years;

(ii)City Council take the opportunity to re-enact Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92 as a by-law of the City of Toronto and in so doing repeal Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 58-92; and

(iii)the necessary bills be introduced.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act provides that a local board, as defined in the Municipal Affairs Act, shall not destroy any of its records or documents except:

(i)with the approval of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; or

(ii)in accordance with a by-law passed by the municipality and approved by the auditor of the municipality establishing retention periods for such records and documents.

The Toronto Police Services Board (the "Board") is a local board under the definition of that term contained in the Municipal Affairs Act. As a result, the Board can only destroy its records and documents in accordance with the methods described above.

Pursuant to subsection 270(1) of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act (MMTA), section 116 of the Municipal Act was deemed to apply to the former Metropolitan Corporation with necessary modifications. As a result of the application of subsection 270(1) of the MMTA and subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act, the Board requested Metropolitan Council to adopt a by-law governing retention periods for records and documents of the Board and the Toronto Police Service (the "Service"). In light of the former statutory structure, at its meeting of April 27, 1992, Metropolitan Council adopted By-law No. 58-92 (the "By-law"), establishing a retention schedule for various records of the Board and the Service. The By-law was only amended once by Metropolitan Council at its meeting held on September 24, 1997, in order to amend the retention schedule to provide retention periods for additional records identified by the Board and the Service

At its meeting held on October 16, 1997, the Board received a report from the Chief of Police respecting various bicycle programs operated by the Service, including its bicycle registration program. A concern was expressed in that report regarding the current five year retention period for bicycle registrations contained in the By-law and the impact it has on the ability of the Service to return recovered bicycles to their rightful owners on an ongoing basis. In light of this concern, the Board adopted a motion requesting the former Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor to review the By-law and determine whether an amendment was required to it in order to accommodate the ongoing retention of bicycle registration information. If, subsequent to such review, an amendment appeared to be required, the Board authorized the former Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor to initiate the appropriate action on behalf of the Board.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A review of the By-law, along with discussions with representatives of the Community Policing Support Unit of the Service responsible for bicycle registrations, indicates that an increase in the retention period for bicycle registrations from the current five years to ten years would be desirable in order to address the concern raised in the report of the Chief of Police. In order to accommodate such an increase in the retention period, an amendment to the current terms of the retention schedule forming part of the By-law would be required.

However, rather than simply amend the By-law, it appears expedient to take this opportunity to repeal the By-law and re-enact it in the form of a by-law of the City of Toronto incorporating the requested amendment. This would allow for a consolidation of the By-law and the requested amendment in the form of a by-law of the current municipality and avoid the necessity for continued reference to a by-law of a municipality that is no longer in existence. A by-law identical in all respects to the By-law, and incorporating the requested amendment, would be introduced as a bill before Council. The proposed by-law has been reviewed and approved by the City Auditor in accordance with the provisions of subsection 116(1) of the Municipal Act.

Conclusions:

City Council may wish to consider the Board's request for an amendment to the By-law. If Council wishes to amend the By-law as requested, it is recommended that it repeal the By-law and adopt a new by-law containing identical provisions.

Contact Name:

Karl Druckman

(392-4520)

4

Feasibility of Exemptions from Fees for False Fire Alarms for City Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (May 21, 1998) from the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services subject to Recommendation No. (2) contained therein being amended to read as follows:

"(2)staff of the Fire Department, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department and the Corporate Services Department work together to develop and place on file with the Fire Chief an implementation plan for a phase-in during 1998 of the by-law in certain City operated sites which have a high rate of false alarms due to the vulnerable nature of their residents;" and

(2)the Corporate Services Committee also become involved in this process and work with the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Corporate Services to reduce the number of calls to City-owned buildings.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee submits the following report (May 21, 1998) from the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To discuss whether it is appropriate or feasible to exempt the City's Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions from the by-law which has been established to charge fees for responses to false fire alarms.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In the report of April 16, 1998, the Fire Chief estimated that income generated from these fees would be between $500,000.00 - $700,000.00 with a declining annual income as the program proved to be effective in reducing false fire alarms.

It is estimated that the possible annualized costs to the operating divisions of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department could be $400,000.00. This rise in expenses is related to the expansion of the by-law to the full City including the former City of Toronto, which has a significant number of City operated community services programs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)no blanket exemptions to the By-law to Establish a Fee Structure for Fire Prevention be granted to the City's Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

(2)staff of the Fire Department and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department work together to develop an implementation plan for a phase-in of the by-law in certain City operated sites which have a high rate of false alarms due to the vulnerable nature of their residents; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 16, 1998, Council adopted the By-law to Establish a Fee Structure for Fire Prevention. At that time it was recommended that the Fire Chief, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, submit a report on whether exemptions to the false alarm fee should be made for any of the City's Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions (specifically the City's Homes for the Aged, Hostels and Housing programs), and that additionally the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to make recommendations regarding the special problems of false fire alarms within buildings operated by the Metro Toronto Housing Authority.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Background:

In early 1996, three area municipalities, the City of Scarborough, the City of North York and the City of Etobicoke enacted by-laws or by-law amendments that allow fees to be charged to property owners when false fire alarms, and the required response by the fire department, exceed a certain level. The former City of Toronto was in the process of enacting a similar by-law when amalgamation took place. The new City of Toronto by-law which was recently approved is essentially a merging of the previous existing by-laws.

The purposes of the by-law are to reduce false fire alarms and to encourage property owners to better monitor their fire systems, and to upgrade them where required. The reduction of false alarms frees up the resources of the Fire Department for genuine emergencies, and the upgrading of systems provides a greater level of fire safety for building occupants. In all previous municipalities where the by-laws were enacted, the Fire Departments experienced a reduction in false alarms.

Impact of By-law on City Departments:

The greatest impact of the by-law has been and will be on the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department. The Divisions most affected are those which provide accommodation, whether on an emergency or a permanent basis: Homes for the Aged, Hostel Services, Metro Toronto Housing Company Ltd. (MTHCL), and City Home. Sources of false alarms in these Divisions are varied and include individuals who are confused or cognitively impaired and pull alarms without any willful intent, children who initiate alarms with no understanding of the consequences of their actions, and angry clients who may wish to disrupt the operation of a facility. Additionally, all Divisions experience false alarms where individuals truly believed an emergency existed or where fire systems malfunctioned.

In 1997, staff of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto reviewed the by-laws, and while they were initially in favour of exemptions, protocols were established with the former local Fire Departments to address the payment of charges. Staff found that system upgrades and resident/staff education were effective in reducing the likelihood of false fire alarms. Actions which were taken by the various Divisions included replacement of smoke detectors and pull stations in Homes for the Aged, installation of tamper proof pull stations in MTHCL buildings, repairs to fire systems, tenant/client and staff education plans, and improved internal reporting regarding occurrence, location and source of false fire alarms. Additionally, after the by-laws had been in effect, the three municipalities began providing fee rebates when owners upgraded their systems and were successful in reducing the number of alarms.

The by-law is intended to prevent false alarms and the staff of Community and Neighbourhood Services recognize and support this aim. Nevertheless, the high proportion of vulnerable clients served by the Department results in certain facilities being disproportionately affected by the implementation of the by-law. A number of these facilities will be dealing with the by-law for the first time as it was not previously in place in all former area municipalities. Hostel Services will be particularly affected as will as the City Home properties.

Exemptions:

It could be argued that payment of fees by one City Department to another is simply a transfer of dollars from one budget line of the City to another and thus it would make sense to exempt the City's Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions from the by-law. The Fire Department, however, feels that despite good working relationships with City Departments, previous experience has indicated that the likelihood of a more rapid and effective operational response from a City Department is not better than from many private property owners.

For this reason, and because of the important preventative aspect of the by-law, it is not appropriate to provide any blanket exemptions. However, due to the significant financial and operational impact this by-law will have on certain facilities, there will need to be a phased-in approach in implementing the by-law for Hostel Services, specifically Seaton House and for certain specific City Home properties.

Financial Impact:

In 1997, the Community Services Department expended approximately $60,000.00 on fees for false fire alarms. Staff are now estimating that the potential annualized cost to Community and Neighbourhood Services could be up to $400,000.00. This projected increase in expenditures is related to the expansion of the by-law to the former City of Toronto, particularly to the false fire alarm rate at one of the City operated shelters located in the City core. This financial requirement is not included in the current operating budget.

Metro Toronto Housing Authority:

Staff from the Fire Department have indicated that the level of false fire alarms is high in MTHA buildings. More than ever, it is important that there be adherence to the prevention of false fire alarms by-law. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will be corresponding with the CEO of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority regarding the importance of meeting the objective of the by-law, and will provide information on the steps which have been taken by City Departments to reduce the occurrence of false fire alarms within their facilities.

Future Steps:

Staff of Community and Neighbourhood Services have already met with staff of the Fire Department to discuss ways to meet the intent of the by-law and minimize the financial impact on the operating Divisions. There is agreement that staff of the two Departments will continue to meet to work on a plan for a phased-in implementation of the by-law in sites that have high rates of alarms due to the vulnerable and frail nature of their residents.

Conclusions:

At this time blanket exemptions from the By-Law to Establish a Fee Structure for Fire Prevention should not be provided to Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions of the City of Toronto. However, a phased-in implementation of the by-law should be planned for certain City facilities. Staff of the Fire Department and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department will continue to monitor the impact of the by-law, and will work together to address any operational or financial issues which may arise.

Contact Name:

Anne Longair, Hostel Services Division

Tel: (416) 392-5417

Fax: (416) 392-8876

5

Requested Amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and Process

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the discussion recommended in the report dated June 1, 1998, from the City Solicitor, also address the usual practice of the Commission to hold its hearings for Toronto at the Commission Offices during normal business hours, with a view to changing the usual practice to hold its hearings, or portions of hearings, in or near the local area affected by a liquor licence matter and at times on evenings or weekends convenient for members of the public to attend upon the request of City Council or the relevant Community Council." )

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report back by June 16, 1998 as requested by the Emergency & Protective Services Committee with respect to certain motions adopted by the Committee at its meeting of April21, 1998 with respect to proposed amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and the liquor licensing process.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and the City Solicitor be authorized to consult with Provincial officials and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario with respect to a proposal to amend the Liquor Licence Act and/or seek special legislation to address the matters outlined in this report, and report back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee with the results of those discussions.

(2)That the discussion recommended in (1) also include references to required amendments to deal with problems in the existing liquor licence process."

Background:

At its meeting of April 21, 1998, your Committee had before it a number of communications relating to the existing process for the processing of liquor licence applications and the issuance and transfer of liquor licences. As a result of its consideration of the concerns expressed, the Committee requested that I report back by June 16, 1998 on:

(a)A co-ordinated strategy with respect to amendments to the Liquor Licence Act;

(b)Improving the process to revoke liquor licences for problem establishments; and

(c)A strategy to have the same "public interest" provisions which apply to liquor licensing applied to the issuance and revocation of business licences.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I should first point out that the Liquor Licence Act was recently amended by Bill 75 (the Alcohol, Gaming and Charity Funding Public Interest Act, 1996) which came into force on February 6, 1997. This Act amalgamated the former Liquor Licence Board and Gaming Commission to form a new body now known as the "Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario". It is this body which now issues liquor licences.

Should City Council wish to proceed with a proposal for amendments, I would suggest that these proposed amendments be discussed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Potential Amendments to the Liquor Licence Act:

Under the existing Liquor Licence Act, an applicant for a liquor licence is entitled as of right to a liquor licence unless sufficient evidence can be produced to establish the licence should not be issued. In other words, when challenging the issuance of a liquor licence, the burden of proof will be on the objectors to the licence (i.e. the local residents, police and/or the municipality) to show that, in the words of the statute, the licence is "not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located".

Where public interest is alleged as a ground for refusal or revocation of a liquor licence, the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act provide that, in the absence of receiving written submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the Council of the municipality as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of the Act. Such a resolution does not mean that the liquor licence will automatically be revoked or the application refused, but it will become part of the evidence which the Board will consider in making its decision. Therefore, substantive evidence of a detrimental impact on the community is still required.

Public interest is not considered with respect to the transfer of a liquor licence as the Liquor Licence Act explicitly excludes this as a ground for the refusal of a transfer. Therefore, no public notice is typically given of a transfer unless a specific condition has been attached to the liquor licence requiring such notice.

Compliance with municipal by-laws is contemplated under the Act and the regulations and a liquor licence will not be issued or may be revoked where the premises, accommodation, equipment or facilities in respect of which the licence is to be issued are not in compliance. Section 50 of Reg.719 under the Act requires that a licensee must ensure that the premises comply with all applicable zoning by-laws, the Building Code Act, the Fire Marshal's Act and Health Protection and Promotion Act. Where a new liquor licence is applied for, the licensee must obtain compliance letters from the municipality with respect to Zoning, Building Code, Fire Code and Health before it will be issued. Where the municipality seeks to have a licence revoked for failure to comply with this legislation, experience has shown that the best evidence to put before the Board is a Provincial Court conviction for a Zoning By-law or Building Code violation. The Commission is understandably reluctant to take action with respect to by-law violations where the municipality itself has failed to lay charges or proceed with a prosecution in provincial offences court.

The Commission has held on numerous occasions in the past that concerns related to "municipal land use issues" such as littering, noise, parking or traffic are matters which will not concern the Board unless they are directly related to the sale and service of liquor. Otherwise, the Board is likely to take the position that these matters are within the jurisdiction of the municipality and that complaining residents should therefore turn to the municipality for relief.

I recommend that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development be requested to consult with officials from the Province and the Alcohol & Gaming Commission to obtain their views on the concerns raised by your Committee, which I would list as follows:

1.Establish more control by Municipalities (i.e. ability to place conditions on licences, hold public meetings).

2. Revocation/refusal of licence for by-law or other infractions.

3. Six-month probation period.

4.Provision of licence/application or infraction information to objectors or the City.

5. Requirement to give public notice of transfers.

6. Remove exemptions from the requirement for the posting of public notice.

7. Place onus on applicants/licensees to show community support for application.

Should Council wish to pursue these matters, the above items would likely require legislative amendments. The other items raised in the motions are already part of the liquor licence process and/or legislation.

Improvements to Liquor Licence Process:

As indicated above, the process to be followed for the revocation of liquor licences is governed by the Liquor Licence Act which is administered by the Commission. There is therefore little that it can be done, short of seeking legislative amendments, which would improve this process from a municipal prospective.

In terms of staff processes, Legal Services staff of the former City of Toronto have developed a form of municipal resolution including the appropriate statutory references which may be put before Council by the Ward Councillor recommending that City Council:

1.Seek revocation/refusal of the liquor licence on the basis of the grounds set out in the resolution;

2.Authorize the City Solicitor to attend any hearing before the Commission held with respect to the matter; and

3.Request that the hearing be scheduled as an evening hearing at a venue in the community so that the public may easily attend and voice their concerns.

The Commission has in the past been very responsive with respect to scheduling hearings so as to allow for maximum public input.

Difficulties have been encountered in the past with respect to obtaining information concerning liquor licence applications and information in the possession of the Commission as to applications and infractions. In order to obtain this information, Legal Services staff have to make a formal freedom of information request to the Commission which, in accordance with recent Provincial legislative changes, requires a $5.00 request fee plus charges of as much as $50.00 for copying the requested material. Material such as objectors' names and addresses or inspection reports will often be censored or not be released in order to comply with the requirement of the freedom of information legislation.

As the police are often primarily involved in the laying of liquor licence charges, Legal Services staff have routinely requested the assistance of the police in preparing for a liquor licence hearing. The police may be contacted and information requested as to any public interest concerns they may have, including whether particular charges have been laid, etc. Again, access to this information is governed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Public Interest Provisions for Business Licences:

The inclusion of "public interest" grounds for the refusal or revocation of a liquor licence is expressly authorized under the provisions of the Liquor Licence Act. No such express authority exists with the respect to municipal authority to regulate the issuance of business licences. However, s. 11 of the licensing by-law No. 20-85 does arguably attempt to address public interest concerns as follows:

"11(1)An applicant for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence is, subject to the provisions of this by-law, entitled to be issued the licence or renewal, except where, ...

(e)The conduct of the applicant or other circumstances afford reasonable grounds for belief that the carrying on by the applicant of the business in respect of which the licence is sought would infringe their rights, or endanger the health or safety, of other members of the public."

Your Committee should be aware that section 11 was amended in 1985 as a result of concerns expressed that a broad and undefined "public interest" test would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At that time the report (May 9, 1985) from the Deputy Metropolitan Solicitor and Executive Officer recommended the insertion of clause (e), stating:

"Recent judicial statements indicate that the Charter guarantees rights and freedoms in Canada subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Law must be ascertainable and understandable. Any limit must be articulated with some precision or the Courts will probably consider it to be inconsistent with the new constitutional requirement that the law must be ascertainable, understandable and reasonably clear regarding the standards or duties it imposes on those persons to be regulated. Standards or reasonable limits must have legislative or legal force in order to meet the criteria established by section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or those limits could be declared invalid.

. . . the proposals would clarify the licensing requirements of the by-law, provide a greater degree of certainty as to the rights of the person applying for a licence or coming before the Commission and reinforce the elements of procedural and substantive fairness mandated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

These concerns are still valid today and are sufficient, in my view, to discourage any return to a broad public interest test.

Conclusions:

It is therefore recommended that the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report back with recommendations for specific amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and a form of special legislation, if necessary, to regulate the issuance and revocation of liquor licences within the boundaries of the City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle

Legal Services

392-7226

6

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Proposal to Enact a By-law to Regulate and Control Panhandling and the Need for By-laws to Control Squeegee Kids.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred this matter to the City Solicitor for a report thereon to the next meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee to be held on July 14, 1998, and directed that he obtain information from the City of Vancouver on the effect the panhandling by-law has had in that city and whether or not the by-law has been successful in dealing with those activities.

(i)(May 22, 1998) Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, recommending that the City of Toronto draft a by-law similar to By-law No. 7885 enacted by the City of Vancouver on April 30, 1998, to regulate panhandling;

(ii)(May 26, 1998) Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, advising that her office is receiving an increasing number of complaints regarding the aggressive behaviour of squeegee kids operating in downtown Toronto and recommending that the Committee consider a by-law to control this unacceptable behaviour;

(iii)Mr. Robert Hansen and Mrs. Helen Hansen, North York, expressing their opposition to the enactment of by-laws to control panhandling and squeegee kids;

(iv)(June 12, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton and Ms. Alison Kemper, Co-Chairs, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, requesting the Committee to consider the following recommendation adopted by the Advisory Committee on June 12, 1998:

"As panhandling is a symptom of the drastic reduction of resources available to people who are homeless or otherwise living in poverty, and that passage of the by-law proposed by Councillor Bossons would require a significant investment of resources by the City of Toronto to enforce a by-law which is essentially unenforceable, that the City instead redirect these funds to replace the lost resources of community agencies and the homeless persons served by them.";

(v)(June 12, 1998) from Mr. Fred Roy, Willowdale Unitarian Fellowship, Toronto, urging that the proposed by-laws be rejected;

(vi)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Anne Hansen, Toronto, urging that the proposed by-laws not be passed;

(vii)(June 15, 1998) from Ms. Evade Wilkinson, Out of the Cold Coordinator, and Chair, Police Working Group, Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons, expressing opposition to the proposed by-law;

(viii)(June 15, 1998) from Messrs. Frank Addario, Steven M. Barrett and James K. McDonald, Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, Barristers and Solicitors, Toronto, expressing concerns that the proposed panhandling by-law could be found to be unconstitutional as it infringes section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights relating to expressive activity and seeks to control activity which is regulated by the Criminal Code;

(ix)(June 16, 1998) from Mr. John Maclennan, Unemployed Workers Council, Toronto, expressing opposition to the enactment of a panhandling by-law and suggesting that the task forces established at the provincial and city levels be pushed to complete their deliberations and submit reports as soon as possible; and

(x)(June 15, 1998) from Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown, recommending that consideration of establishing a by-law dealing with squeegee kids be referred to the Youth Issues Committee and the City's Youth Advocate for discussion.

________

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. April J. Rhomer, Toronto;

-Ms. Sue Cox, Executive Director, Daily Bread Food Bank, Toronto, who submitted a written copy of her presentation;

-Mr. Steven Lawrie McCammon, Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

-Mr. John Maclennan, Unemployed Workers' Council, Toronto;

-Mr. Martin Hill, Toronto;

-Beric German, Street Health, Toronto;

-Mr. Vaughn Monague, Chidean Centre, Toronto;

-Mr. Gaetan Heroux, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Toronto;

-Mr. Robert Barnett, Architect, Toronto;

-Ms. Mary Taylor, Second Base (Scarborough) and Youth Shelter, Scarborough; and

-Ms. Peggy Gail, Youthlink Inner City, Toronto.

________

The following Members of Council appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown;

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River;

Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown; and

Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto.

(b)Licensing of Natural Health Practitioners - Requests for Reports.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred this matter to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, and the City Solicitor with the request that they submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee to be held on July 14, 1998.

(June 2, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, forwarding a draft report (June1, 1998) from the Advisory Committee on Complementary Therapies proposing a new Holistic Practitioner licensing category and requesting that:

(1)Toronto Licensing report to the July 14, 1998 meeting of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on creating a new business license based on the Advisory Committee's proposal; and

(2)the Legal Department report to the July 14, 1998 meeting of the Committee on the review of the Advisory Committee's proposal.

(c)Mandatory Third Party Liability Insurance for Business Licenses.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, and the City Solicitor for a report thereon to a subsequent meeting of the Committee:

(June 2, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, requesting that the City Solicitor and Toronto Licensing report on the mandatory requirement for local businesses to provide third party liability insurance in order to obtain and retain a business license.

(d)Efficiency of Information Coordination.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, and the City Solicitor for a report thereon to a subsequent meeting of the Committee:

(June 2, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, requesting that:

(1)the Toronto Police Services Board report on the following:

(a)amending their database system to include "location of crime" rather than simply the location of an arrest; and

(b)providing Toronto Licensing with a copy of a charge and/or occurrence sheet for every incident at a licensed or unlicensed business establishment;

(2)the City Solicitor report on the legal validity of Toronto Licensing obtaining Police information in regard to charges laid against a license holder or applicant;and

(3)Toronto Licensing report on a policy that allows the local councillors to "flag" any establishment in their respective wards, and to inform local councillors of any charges laid against licensed establishments in their respective wards.

(e)Mandatory Display of Municipal Address.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor for a report thereon to a subsequent meeting of the Committee:

(June 2, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, requesting that the appropriate staff report on the development of a by-law making it mandatory for home and business owners to display their respective addresses on the rear of their garages or properties should it abut a laneway.

(f)Toronto Licensing Workshops.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the request contained in the following communication to the General Manager, Toronto Licensing, for the appropriate action:

(June 2, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, requesting that Toronto Licensing staff organize at least two workshops for all interested Councillors outlining rules and procedures governing the actions of Toronto Licensing with respect to "problem establishments."

(g)Toronto Police Services Board - Pay Duty Policy.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having received the following communication for information:

(May 15, 1998) from Councillor Norman Gardner, Chairman, Toronto Police Services Board, advising that the Toronto Police Services Board on April 23, 1998:

(1)received the following recommendations contained in a report (February 24, 1998) from the Chief of Police:

(a)the Board agree it is not in the best interest of the Service or the community to eliminate pay duties; and

(b)the Board concur that pay duties remain at the divisional level; and

(2)directed that the foregoing report be forwarded to City Council for information.

(h)Potential Relocation of 14th Division Police Headquarters to the Former TTC Lansdowne Garage at 640 Lansdowne Avenue (Davenport).

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following report to the Toronto Police Services Board for comment on to City Council outlining its intentions with respect to the relocation of 14th Division Police Headquarters and the potential use of this site for such purposes:

(June 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reporting, as requested by City Council, on the potential relocation of 14th Division Police Headquarters to 640 Lansdowne Avenue and advising that the TTC lands at 640 Lansdowne Avenue would be a good location for a new police station with an adjacent park, provided the site meets the locational needs of the Police to adequately serve their existing or revised Division boundaries.

(i)Seizing and Impounding of Vehicles used by Persons charged with Prostitution Offence.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief of Police for a report back to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee providing the information requested by Council on June 3, 4 and5, 1998:

(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, struck out and referred Clause 3 of Report 5 of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee headed "Seizing and Impounding of Vehicles used by Persons Charged with Prostitution Offence" back to the Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 16, 1998, and report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 8, 1998; and, further directed that:

(1)the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Chief of Police submit comments thereon to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for such meeting; and

(2)the Chief of Police also examine whether vehicles could be seized and impounded now, without the need for any specific new legislation, and report thereon to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee for such meeting.

(j)Use of Helicopter - Toronto Police Service.

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee reports having deferred the following matter to its next meeting and having requested:

(a)the Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board to provide a copy of the report commissioned by the Board in 1997 for an independent review of the helicopter service; and

(b)the Fire Chief to comment on this issue.

(May 19, 1998) from Councillor Dennis Fotinos, Davenport, and Chair, Emergency and Protective Services Committee, addressed to the Chief of Police requesting that a report be submitted to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on June 16, 1998, providing a cost benefit analysis of leasing versus owning a Toronto Police Service helicopter.

Respectfully submitted,

DENNIS FOTINOS,

Chair

Toronto, June 16, 1998

(Report No. 6 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)