I know I say this at every milestone, but it really is just so enormously cool that this little indie newsletter has been able to survive and grow and thrive like it has. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

You wouldn’t necessarily think there’d be such a strong market for a hyper-obsessed municipal government newsletter that routinely runs thousands of words each week, but then I suppose we’re all mad here.

Speaking of mad:

Thanks to Joy San for contributing the cover art for this milestone issue. It’s definitely the most surreal cover yet, and I love it for that. Where else are you going to see mayoral candidates playing croquet, using a squirrel for a ball and geese for mallets, overseen by a deranged Cheshire raccoon that bears a striking resemblance to someone?

You can check out more of Joy’s work and commission your own art on her website.

This issue isn’t just big because it happens to be a round-number issue. It’s also big because there’s a lot packed into it. I’ve got a new edition of LOBBYIST WATCH and the launch of a new regular feature covering the latest from the 25 ward races.

But before that, there’s the big headline: the launch of a brand new interactive feature that, I hope, will help you figure out how much you align with your local councillor. I’m calling it SimCouncillor.

Let’s check it out.

✨ This issue runs a bit long. If it gets cut off in your email client, read it on the web.

— Matt Elliott

matt@cityhallwatcher.com / Archives / Subscribe

Introducing SimCouncillor: Tell us how you’d have voted — and find your match

Play SimCouncillor

Over the last three years, I’ve collected the results from over 100 important Council votes taken by Mayor Olivia Chow and Council and fed them to the COUNCIL SCORECARD. The Scorecard allows for all kinds of useful analysis about how councillors operate: their ideological disposition, their loyalty to the mayor and any and all shifts in perspective over time.

All this data is also useful, it turns out, in the context of a municipal election.

Launching today, SimCouncillor puts you right in the fancy shoes of your local councillor. You’ll be presented with 15 real votes and asked how you’d vote. Just like in the real Council Chamber, there’s no way to abstain. On some issues, you’ll have to consider whether it makes sense to compromise, or whether you’d like to stay rigid and hold out for a better outcome. Some issues will seem hyperlocal, and maybe require you to do a bit of research. (Like, does anyone really remember what that dispute over the Humber Yacht Club was actually about?)

You don’t have to stand up and give a five-minute speech explaining how you’d vote, but you can, if you’d like. Your cat, or your kid, or your coworkers, might like it.

After running through a set of 15 questions — and maybe a few tiebreakers — SimCouncillor will tell you a few things:

• How your views compare with the two members of Council running for mayor: Mayor Olivia Chow and Councillor Brad Bradford.

• How your views compare to your local councillor.

• Who your closest match on Council is.

It only takes a minute or two, so try it out. Choose some priority categories if you care more about some issues — you’ll be guaranteed to get more of those kinds of questions in your random set, and scoring for those issues will count more.

You can take a quick screenshot to share your results with friends. They’ll probably be like, “Wow, a municipal politics game? I’m cancelling my GTA 6 preorder! This is all the fun I need!”

I mean, maybe. It’s plausible.

Results are 100% anonymous. I can’t trace them back to you, even if I wanted to — and I don’t! But I will be regularly reporting on how many people match with each member of Council, though. I’m curious to see if anyone else in the world could possibly have the exact same views of some councillors. It’ll be a fun experiment.

Try it out and let me know if you have any feedback or notice any bugs.

Special thanks to Andrey Levkovski for his help vetting the questions and testing the app.

Pretty cool, right? If you like this kind of thing and want to support more independent journalism, consider becoming a City Hall Watcher subscriber. It costs just six bucks a month or sixty bucks a year, plus HST.

Subscribe now

Lobbyist Watch for August 2026: Waymo rolls on, Oracle sees an opening, and more

Lobbyist Watch is City Hall Watcher’s monthly summary of activity on Toronto City Hall’s Lobbyist Registry. In August 2026, City Hall Watcher reviewed 258 registered lobbyist communications and 74 new subject matter registrations.

Disclaimer: Toronto’s Lobbyist Registry requires lobbyists to register and record all communications they have with politicians and staff, but it does not require them to provide much detail about the extent of those communications. As a result, a meeting noted below could be a long conversation with some deal-making or a passing chat of no real consequence. The data presented below is current as of September 4, 2026.

A bit more Waymo

Robotaxi service Waymo continues to try to steer its way to establishing service in Toronto. On August 12, the company — a subsidiary of Google — sent Head of International Policy & Government Affairs George Ivanov and Head of Public Policy for Canada Caitlin McClung to meet with Adam Chaleff, the mayor’s Director of Legislative Affairs & Issues Management. The trio met on August 12.

McClung appears to be a new addition to the self-driving effort. She previously worked as a public affairs director for Restaurant Brands International. She was also a director at StrategyCorp and worked for the provincial government in the Dalton McGuinty era.

McClung’s registration tells us her job is to talk up “the potential development of by-laws and regulations related to autonomous driving technologies, including as it relates to operational authorizations, commercial operations, goods delivery operations and ridehail operations.”

Sabrina Geremia, a longtime Googler who currently serves as VP & Country Managing Director for Canada, is listed as the Senior Officer on the file.

In addition to the McClung and Ivanov meeting with Chaleff, Waymo also continues to employ the services of StrategyCorp’s Aidan Grove-White. Grove-White met with staff from Transportation Services on August 10.

Ask the Oracle

Senior staff from City Hall’s Technology Services division heard much from the Oracle in August. Reps from Oracle America, the tech company founded by billionaire Larry Ellison, logged 20 communications to City staff.

The company is pitching their products and services, including “cloud applications, platform services and engineered systems.” A contingent of staffers met with a large Oracle contingent on August 13. The meeting was followed by an email to Deputy City Manager for Corporate Services Sonia Brar on August 23.

The meetings, of course, come in the midst of an escalating trade war with the United States. Ellison has been a staunch supporter of the current U.S. administration.

Lobbying grab bag

• Reps for engineering firm AECOM logged a big meeting with senior staff from Toronto Water on August 27. The company has a long history helping the City upgrade wastewater facilities and other water-related infrastructure.

• SmartCentres seemingly has some issues with the signage at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre subway station. Maybe it’s because the name is ridiculously long and probably pretty hard to fit on a lot of signs? Anyway, Grant Gonzales, Director of Corporate Affairs for SmartCentres REIT, logged a meeting with senior staff at the TTC on August 25 to discuss the matter. The meeting included reps from the transit agency’s Wayfinding & Signage department and the Marketing department.

• Raly Chakarova, Executive Director of the Toronto and Area Road Builders Association, logged a meeting with Chief Procurement Officer Geneviève Sharkey on August 12.

• Dr. Kenneth Chan, a partner with professional services firm Optimus SBR, logged meetings with Councillor Chris Moise, Councillor Rachel Chernos Lin, Councillor Josh Matlow and Medical Officer of Health Michelle Murti on August 18. Chan is part of an effort to pitch City Hall on Optimus’ services. They’d probably describe them as prime.

• Representing restaurant group Pegasus, lobbyist Kim Wright logged a meeting with senior staff from City Planning and Corporate Real Estate Management on August 28. The company’s portfolio includes The Wheat Sheaf, O’Grady’s, Palais Royale, Figo and more.

• Lyft Canada’s Public Policy Manager Amanda Arella logged meetings with Craig Ruttan, chief of staff to Councillor Brad Bradford, and Adam Chaleff, senior staffer to the mayor, on August 4. Stefano Hollands from Crestview Strategy logged the same meetings as part of the lobbying firm’s work with Lyft.

Tech 4 sale

• Ouster Canada, makers of tech that uses LIDAR sensors to optimize traffic signal timing, has registered to pitch their tech to City Hall. No communications yet.

• Global Public Affairs’ Ellen Chin was keeping busy representing eStruxture Data Centers as the company continues to look for opportunities to convince City Hall of the virtues of data centres. She logged several phone calls and emails to staff with Toronto Building, City Planning, Development Review and the Environment division. On August 12, she logged a meeting with Environment, Climate & Forestry Executive Director James Nowlan.

• The City continues to see vendor presentations from cybersecurity companies. In August, they heard from Cybersnap, Beauceron Security, Hoxhunt, Kyndryl and others.

• Code 4 Canada CEO Dorothy Eng and Director of Partnerships Andrew Lui logged meetings with staff from Transportation Services and Technology Services, hoping to discuss the City’s “digital capacity to design, develop and deliver user-centric public services that meet people's needs.”

Familiar faces

• Kema Joseph, a former advisor to John Tory, is representing the Coalition of Innovation Leaders Advancing Respect. These CILARs are looking to gain City support for things like “inclusive AI and digital-skills training, mentorship, career pathways and entrepreneurship opportunities.” Joseph met with current mayoral advisor Adam Chaleff on September 2.

• Amir Remtulla, long ago the chief of staff to former mayor Rob Ford, is representing beer giant Molson Coors. The company has some concerns about the City’s sewer surcharge.

Toronto’s top lobbying charts for August 2026

Most Lobbied Officials: Adam Chaleff, Mayor’s Office (9 communications); Sebastien Gibson, Councillor Matlow’s Office (4); Nika Lennox, Councillor Matlow’s Office (4); Councillor Lily Cheng (4); Craig Ruttan, Councillor Bradford’s Office (4)

Lobbyist Watch will return in October.

Candidate Chaos: Labour Day labour endorsements, Nunziata and Padovani get into a heated rivalry, John Tory lurks

The mayoral race gets all the attention, but there are also 25 separate contests for Council seats happening. Here are some tidbits from the CANDIDATE CHAOS of the last week.

A TORY STORY: It’s not clear yet how much of an active role former mayor John Tory will play in this fall’s elections, but a pair of sitting councillors are claiming his endorsement. Both Councillor Mike Colle and Councillor Frances Nunziata have posts saying they’ve got the backing of the longtime mayor.

LABOUR OF LOVE: Candidates were out in force at the Labour Day parade yesterday, expressing their appreciation for unions. But the love isn’t necessarily 100% mutual in all cases. Both CUPE Local 79 and the Toronto & York Region Labour Council have come out with slates of endorsements. CUPE 416 has so far endorsed just one candidate: Beaches-East York’s Natalie Johnson.

Here’s where things stand:

ALSO ENDORSED: Colle also has the support of MP Marco Mendicino, while Nunziata is counting the support of MP (and former councillor) Jennifer McKelvie. Diana Yoon scored a notable endorsement in University-Rosedale, getting the backing of former MPP Suze Morrison. Councillor Chris Moise, meanwhile, earned kudos — and an endorsement — from former Medical Officer of Health and noted scarf aficionado Eileen de Villa.

In Scarborough North, challenger Han Dong is touting the support of CK Fung, husband of the late former councillor Cynthia Lai. And it seems notable that Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman is guesting at a fundraising event for Willowdale challenger Ardeshir Zarazade.

TURNING UP THE HEAT: In York South — Weston, challenger Chiara Padovani and Councillor Frances Nunziata have developed something of a heated rivalry over the idea of a max temperature bylaw.

Padovani posted a video with a lot of hot-weather effects and footage of people fanning themselves, claiming Nunziata “recently voted to kick the can down the road, pushing a decision on a Maximum Heat Bylaw to next summer.”

Nunziata fired back, saying “some people either can’t read or are disingenuous with the facts.”

“To be clear,” she wrote, “I voted with Mayor Olivia Chow and 21 other members of Council to move forward with a maximum indoor temperature by-law and to bring it back for approval by June 2027.”

But what do the facts say? Well, as is often the case with this stuff, it’s a bit complicated. There have been a lot of votes on the question of a maximum temperature bylaw over the years. Nunziata has generally been supportive of the idea. This dispute centres on a vote from May 2026, in which Councillor Josh Matlow moved to accelerate the development of a bylaw so that it’d be ready for June 2026.

Several councillors, including members of the mayor’s Executive Committee like Councillor Alejandra Bravo and Councillor Gord Perks, argued at the time that this was not a realistic timeline. The Matlow motion was defeated 8-16, with Nunziata on the opposing side. (Notably, both Mayor Olivia Chow and Councillor Brad Bradford supported the accelerated timeline motion.)

So Padovani is right to point out that Nunziata was opposed to a motion to speed up implementation of a maximum temperature bylaw, but with the caveat that Nunziata was far from alone in believing that the motion was not realistic.

Nunziata can instead point to her support of another motion moved and passed by Bravo at the same meeting, calling for the development of a “framework” for a maximum temperature bylaw. That motion led to a subsequent debate at the June Council meeting in which Council voted 23-1, with Nunziata joining the majority, in favour of developing a bylaw for June 2027.

BRIEFLY:

• Toronto Centre candidate Curren Stikuts is pledging to expand the operating hours at Riverdale Farm.

• Former councillor Mike Layton is making me jealous with his cool cargo bike.

• Both Councillor Jamaal Myers and challenger Han Dong ended up at the opening of the Toronto Zoo’s new glow-in-the-dark exhibit. Looks pretty trippy.

• Councillor Josh Matlow shared a post pointing out that the torrential rain last week didn’t seem to cause the roof to cave in at the Ontario Science Centre. Go figure.

• Scarborough Centre candidate Krissan Veerasingam raised some money by hosting a food tour.

• In Etobicoke North, challenger Chloe Brown has signed something called the Community-Led Planning Champion Pledge. “I believe in a holistic approach to development that empowers our youth, supports local businesses, and meets the needs of working-class families,” she says. The pledge is a project of the Coalition for Responsible Community Development. Thirty-three other candidates have signed so far.

News briefs are compiled primarily from Instagram posts. If you’re a candidate and haven’t been followed by the official City Hall Watcher account, get in touch, and we’ll add you.

The week at Toronto City Hall

THURSDAY: 🎭 The TO Live Board meets on Thursday to discuss the City’s theatres. An update from the Corporate Real Estate Management division reveals that two options for fixing up the St. Lawrence Centre for the Performing Arts will be presented in January. Option One will be a more bare-bones $84 million reno. Option Two will include “enhanced upgrades” but will require additional philanthropic and federal government funding.

NEXT WEEK: A special Council meeting scheduled for September 16 was cancelled. Dry your tears. It’s going to be okay.

Weekly wrap

📽️ ELECTION PROJECTION: City Hall Watcher’s Election Projection remains unchanged as we wait for new polling.

But here’s something new: School boards are now tracked in our election dashboard! You can see each trustee election, including where incumbents are running, as well as the wards that have already been decided by acclamation. View the full projection by Alex Olson.

📊 CouncilScorecard.ca ACCESS CODE: Subscribe to get access

🗳️ CANDID CANDIDATES: The 2026 Election Candidate Tracker remains available. I’ve added a section at the bottom listing registered third-party advertisers. As of today, there are four registered: ABC Advertising Company, More Neighbours Toronto, R. Michael Teper, and United Steelworkers USW.

🪧 SIGNS OF THE TIMES: 875 QUEEN ST E: Firehouse Subs; 3278 MIDLAND AVE: Molly Tea; 5 GRENOBLE DR: Flemmingdon Park Community Church; 0 BOROUGH DR: Alta at STC; 55 BLOOR ST W: Spier & Mackay; 801 BAY ST: Infinity Vape; 101 STOKES ST: Camh; 250A QUEENS QUAY W: Rabba Fine Foods; 3478 LAWRENCE AVE E: Angara Indian & Hakka Cuisine; 44 FASKEN DR: Budget Shelves; 0 SHAW ST: Camh; 5845-5955 LESLIE ST: Tim Horton; 150 SILVER REIGN DR: Poulet Rouge; 1050 MILITARY TRL: University Of Toronto; 2280 DUNDAS ST W: Shoppers Drug Mart; 1245 DUPONT ST: Pet Valu; 1142 CASTLEFIELD AVE: Bloomsbury Fine Cabinetry; 20 WELLINGTON ST E: Axis Therapy & Performance; 1780 MARKHAM RD: Punjabi Haveli; 1350-1400 CASTLEFIELD AVE: Fit 4 Less; 100 CONSILIUM PL: Hitachi; 5 EIREANN QUAY: Corleck; 365 PARLIAMENT ST: Bmo; 8450 SHEPPARD AVE E: Rouge Valley Community Recreation Centre; 45 EAST LIBERTY ST: Tim Hortons; 23 SPADINA AVE: Concord City Place Way; 70 CALEDONIA PARK RD: Nest; 200 WILMINGTON AVE: Honey & Barry Sherman Campus; 3250 MARKHAM RD: Marquee; 900 DUFFERIN ST: Canadian Blood Service. (Sign Permit Applications since August 31, 2026)

City Hall Watcher #400

Thanks for reading! That’s four hundred issues done and dusted. Next week: our highway series continues with Issue 401. But don’t worry: after much consideration, I have decided NOT to sell Issue 407 to an international conglomerate of investors.

If you liked this issue — and the 399 that came before it — tell a pal.

But there’s still reason to get excited. In this issue, Andrey’s got answers to a question I’ve seen a few people ask over the last few months: what, exactly, did Mayor Olivia Chow’s property tax increases over the last three years pay for?

It turns out a big chunk of the money went to policing. We’ve got a look at whether that’s been effective spending, and whether it’s sustainable. Two important questions to think about during this election year.

Also: notes on robot permit-checkers, the local side of the U.S.-Canada trade war, and the current state of the mayoral race.

Let’s get into it.

— Andrey Levkovski & Matt Elliott

andrey@cityhallwatcher.com / matt@cityhallwatcher.com / Archives / Subscribe

Olivia Chow’s property-tax hikes helped pay for a major expansion in police spending

By Andrey Levkovski

Olivia Chow’s property-tax increases paid for a whole lot of policing.

Across Mayor Olivia Chow’s 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets, Toronto’s annual general municipal property-tax levy grew from $5.142 billion in 2023 to $6.174 billion in 2026, an increase of $1.033 billion. Residential property-tax bills rose 9.5% in 2024, 6.9% in 2025 and 2.2% in 2026.

Over the same period, the Toronto Police Service’s net operating budget grew by $266.3 million, from $1.16 billion in 2023 to $1.43 billion in 2026.

Dividing the $266.3-million police increase by the $1.033-billion levy increase produces 25.8%, close to $1 for every $4. City Hall pools property-tax revenue with other income. The result is a scale comparison between the two annual changes. (Council records the City Building Fund separately. That dedicated levy for transit and housing capital projects consistently adds 1.5% to the budgeted residential property tax increase each year.)

Where Chow spent her tax increases

The police received the largest operating budget increase among the three major services examined: policing, housing, and transit. The City’s combined housing net budget grew from $420.1 million in 2023 to $597.8 million in 2026, an increase of $177.7 million. The TTC’s net budget rose from $1.3256 billion to $1.4806 billion, producing an increase of $155 million.

The police increase was therefore $88.6 million larger than housing’s and $111.4 million larger than the TTC’s. The housing figures combine the programs brought together in the City’s reorganized 2026 housing office, while the TTC figures include conventional transit and Wheel-Trans.

All three services received substantial increases, with police getting the largest.

Sean Meagher, executive director of The Change Lab and a longtime Toronto police budget analyst, said public safety had staunch support from residents and many councillors. Chow’s budgets reflected that democratic pressure, he said.

The extra police money largely bought people and compensation. TPS told CHW that negotiated salary increases, their annualization, inflation and employee benefits drove much of the growth. The 2026 police budget included a $50.7-million collective agreement impact and $20.5 million for 143 net new uniform officers. The City approved 212 additional police positions that year.

Meagher also pointed to money secured beyond the property-tax base. The Ontario-Toronto New Deal provided up to $1.2 billion in provincial operating support and transit funding. A federal partnership announced this month offered Toronto about $2.7 billion in housing grants and low-cost financing.

Capital budget documents reinforce Meagher’s point. The police’s rolling 10-year capital plan rose from $726 million in 2023 to $1.296 billion in 2026, an increase of $569.7 million. Both totals include carry-forward funding. Over the same budgets, the TTC plan grew from $12.491 billion to $16.657 billion — an increase of $4.166 billion. The City’s current capital plan also directs $5.183 billion to housing, supplemented by $3.577 billion in foregone revenues.

Police response times improved as budgets rose

On the operating side, police received a substantial increase across Toronto’s 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets. One measure of police performance is how quickly officers responded to the most urgent calls.

Average Priority 1 response time fell from 23.1 minutes in 2023 to 17.1 minutes in 2024 and then to 14.1 minutes in 2025. Those results cover Chow’s first two budgets. TPS credits increased staffing, targeted deployment and operational changes. Its 2025 annual report also points to Next Generation 911, automatic text replies for disconnected calls and better queue management. In reality, total calls for service fell by 205,761, or 11%, in 2025.

At the same time, the 2023 police budget funded 336 hires, including 200 uniform officers and 20 communications operators. The 2026 police budget says the current expansion builds on hiring that began in 2022. The chronology shows response times improving during a period of rising budgets and overlapping operational changes. The earlier hiring likely contributed to the response-time improvement alongside Chow-era staffing increases, deployment changes, new 911 technology and falling call volume.

Several changes arrived together, making the improvement a shared result.

Meagher says the lasting test is whether Toronto keeps shifting suitable calls to services with the training to handle them.

“You can’t fill a bucket with no bottom,” he said. As police expand into work beyond their core role, he argues, added officers can be consumed by added tasks. Dispatch changes, new 911 technology and call diversion all helped bring response times down alongside hiring.

Civilian services can take work off the police

Toronto already has one major service helping to divert calls away from police. The Toronto Community Crisis Service sends civilian teams to people experiencing mental-health crises and gives 911 dispatchers another response option.

In 2025, TCCS received 4,482 eligible 911 transfers and resolved 76.7% without police involvement. The City projects annual diversions from 911 rising from about 5,300 in 2026 to more than 10,000 by 2031. Meagher sees the same potential in TTC Community Safety Ambassadors, youth outreach workers and stronger mental-health supports. Each program can reserve officer time for emergencies and investigations.

“You can free up more police officers by removing them from non-police work than by just spending more,” he said.

The TCCS, however, is a significant additional expense for the City, and police spending has continued to grow even as civilian teams take on thousands of calls, leaving no corresponding reduction in the police budget.

Police spending is set to keep rising

The current outlook keeps police spending rising through Chow’s hiring plan. The official figures put net spending at $1.564 billion in 2027, about $131 million above 2026, followed by a further $101.8-million increase in 2028. The hiring plan adds 87 net new officers and 29 civilian professionals in 2027, then 50 officers and 17 civilians in 2028.

As CHW previously covered, mayoral candidate Councillor Brad Bradford has proposed going further by hiring 1,000 new officers during his first term. Using TPS’s 2026 budgeted rate of $20.5 million for 143 net new officers, CHW estimated that 1,000 net new officers would cost about $143.4 million. Bradford has yet to explain how he would fund the plan.

With Chow’s hiring plan continuing and Bradford proposing an even larger expansion, police spending is likely to remain a major pressure on Toronto’s future budgets. Chow is likely to keep facing criticism for the property-tax increases approved during her tenure. The budget record makes policing’s place in that debate clear: for every additional dollar in Toronto’s annual general municipal levy, the police budget grew by about 25 cents.

In other news

By Andrey Levkovski

ROBOT, CHECK MY PERMIT: The City launched a new AI-powered tool on Thursday that checks building permit applications before they are formally submitted. The Building Permit Application Pre-Check scans eligible applications for missing or incomplete information, inconsistencies, and some zoning and Ontario Building Code issues, then produces a report applicants can use to fix problems before City staff begin their review. More than one in five Toronto building permit applications arrive without basic required paperwork, according to TorontoToday. The City says the pilot is intended to cut down on avoidable resubmissions and speed up first reviews.

TARIFF WARS, TORONTO EDITION: The renewed Canada-U.S. trade fight is becoming a Toronto mayoral campaign issue. Mayor Olivia Chow spent Thursday highlighting the City’s existing business-support programs, including the EDGE tax incentive. Its first recipient, National Dry Beverages, is spending more than $18 million expanding its North York plant and says it will add 20 jobs. Councillor Brad Bradford is promising a 25-per-cent property tax cut for roughly 3,500 industrial businesses while the trade dispute continues. The proposal was previously estimated to cost about $30 million annually. Neither candidate presented entirely new ideas, notes Toronto Today’s Aidan Chamandy. Chris Alexander, meanwhile, is pitching a two-year commercial property tax grant for qualifying new businesses, along with loan guarantees and lower licensing fees.

A MASS OF CYCLISTS: Hundreds of cyclists filled Toronto streets Friday evening for a large Critical Mass ride organized amid renewed fights over bike lanes. Mayor Olivia Chow joined the gathering and spoke before riders travelled along Danforth Avenue, past mayoral rival Brad Bradford’s constituency office and toward Queen’s Park. Estimates from participants put attendance somewhere from roughly 700 to more than 1,000. The ride came two weeks after the Ontario Court of Appeal cleared the way for the province’s planned removal of protected lanes on Bloor, Yonge and University, and after Bradford promised to remove the Bloor West lanes in Etobicoke if elected mayor.

THE RACE AT THE END OF AUGUST: A new Pallas Data poll has Chow at 38% among all voters, Bradford at 30% and Alexander at six percent, with 24% undecided. Among decided and leaning voters, Chow leads Bradford 50 to 39. The poll surveyed 808 Toronto voters from August 19 to 21. There’s an interesting wrinkle beneath the horse-race numbers: 48% said they were dissatisfied with Chow’s performance, compared with 37% who approved. Pallas CEO Joseph Angolano argues⁠ Bradford has yet to convince dissatisfied voters that he is a credible replacement.

The poll has been added to City Hall Watcher’s Election Projection site.

More from Matt: on team building, and trash bins

📰 For the Toronto Star last week, I wrote about the work Mayor Olivia Chow has been doing to build a team for a potential second term. Her focus on team-building seems to stand in pretty stark contrast to Councillor Brad Bradford’s lone wolf approach. If he did win, who would be on Team Bradford?

🗞️ For the Star this week, I tackle a question I’ve been seeing a lot lately: what’s this election actually about? Maybe, I argue, it should be about garbage bins. They’re more important than you think.

Look for it in your favourite newspaper.

The week at Toronto City Hall

THURSDAY: 🦧 The Zoo Board meets. They’ll hear some not-so-great news about attendance. Visits in July were way below budget. The month stands as “the fourth lowest July attendance in the Zoo’s 52-year history (including years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic).” Not ideal! The report blames the hot weather and wildfire smoke for making people think twice about spending a day outdoors looking at animals.

NEXT WEEK: More signs of life! The Preservation Board meets Wednesday. The TO Live Board meets on Thursday.

Weekly wrap

📽️ ELECTION PROJECTION: City Hall Watcher’s Election Projection currently gives Mayor Olivia Chow about an 80% chance of winning re-election. View the full projection by Alex Olson.

Recent additions include a very cool visualization of the most likely outcomes: Is the mayoral race going to be a nail-biter or a landslide? The data offers clues.

📊 CouncilScorecard.ca ACCESS CODE: Subscribe to get access.

🗳️ CANDID CANDIDATES: The 2026 Election Candidate Tracker remains available.

🪧 SIGNS OF THE TIMES: 1005 KING ST W: Tim Hortons; 60 SCOTTFIELD DR: Yee Hong Hospice; 1182 KING ST W: Fs8; 64 BATHURST ST: Equinox; 2876 DUNDAS ST W: Mcdonalds; 117 BLOOR ST E: St. Andrews United Church; 30 MUTUAL ST: Ac Hotels; 42 DUFFLAW RD: Toronto Foundation For Student Success; 1080-1082 ST CLAIR AVE W: Mizzica; 3250 MIDLAND AVE: Molly Tea; 1780 MARKHAM RD: Punjabi Haveli; 794 GERRARD ST E: Anytime Fitness; 1 OAK ST: 1Oak Dental; 294 EGLINTON AVE W: Crock A Doodle; 2304 SHEPPARD AVE W: Tim Hortons; 709 QUEEN ST E: McDonalds; 0 REXDALE BLVD: Big Chicken; 1849 YONGE ST: Davisville Medical Dental Centre; 26 LEE CENTRE DR: Shonan Sandwich & Sweet; 438 NUGGET AVE: Burger King; 801 BAY ST: Infinity Mart; 2299 YONGE ST: Poulet Rouge; 1289-1411 LAWRENCE AVE W: Metro; 260 YONGE ST: Simons; 356 HURON ST: Tianjin Auntie’s Bun Restaurant; 0 GIBBS RD: West Square; 333 BAY ST: Shinji; 2197 BLOOR ST W: 850 Degrees Pizzeria; 1090 DON MILLS RD: Crock A Doodle; 1090 DON MILLS RD: The Golden Hive. (Sign Permit Applications since August 24, 2026)

City Hall Watcher #399

Thanks for reading! Next week: a milestone! We’ll mark 400 issues with a wild party and also a summary of lobbying activity from August. It’ll also finally be time to debut SIMCOUNCILLOR.

This marks Andrey’s last issue of City Hall Watcher, as he wraps up his work placement. Thanks to him for all his contributions. It’s been a bunch of nerdy fun.

See you next week! Because of the holiday, the issue will hit your inbox on Tuesday.

There are no take-backs. Candidates can suspend their campaigns between now and October 26, but their names will remain on the ballot regardless. The field is locked.

So, uh, who’s going to win? Since City Hall Watcher’s attempt to develop a time machine is still stuck in a prolonged community consultation phase — some residents have requested additional temporal traffic studies — we can’t say for certain. But we can offer you the next best thing: a projection.

Today, City Hall Watcher is launching its first-ever official Election Projection. In collaboration with Alex Olson, Director of UofT’s Centre for Analytics & AI Engineering, the project will live at projection.cityhallwatcher.com.

View the Election Projection

The projection site includes:

• Current odds for the mayoral race for the three major candidates: Mayor Olivia Chow, Councillor Brad Bradford, and Chris Alexander.

• A collection of all public polls

• An overview of all 25 Council races, with a selection of races to watch based on a whole bunch of factors.

Read on for Alex’s more detailed introduction to the projection project and various nerdy details.

Also in this edition of City Hall Watcher: your final Council Scorecard update of the term, with some housing data updates, and a look at all the last-minute drama in the mayoral race. Surprise retirements! Ward switcheraroos! It was a weird week.

Let’s get into it.

— Matt Elliott & Andrey Levkovski

matt@cityhallwatcher.com / andrey@cityhallwatcher.com / Archives / Subscribe

Building an election projection project

By Alex Olson

When it comes to predictive modelling, there’s a standard rule-of-thumb that the best model is as simple as you can make it without sacrificing capability. For Toronto elections, that means there’s almost no reason to stretch our model past “if there is an incumbent, they will win” — that alone nets you an accuracy rate that would make Nate Silver jealous (94%, in case you’re wondering).

Despite this, and perhaps motivated slightly by the fact that many wards seem to contain multiple candidates I’d call “incumbent-shaped”, I’ve been interested to see what useful information we can surface to help you follow this election.

For the Mayoral race, this is reasonably straightforward. There is a decent record of polling since amalgamation1, which means we can build a model and test if it works historically. My approach draws potential outcomes from a statistical distribution centred on a balanced average of polls, with the range of that distribution calibrated against the accuracy of past Toronto polling. We then draw thousands of outcomes and aggregate to see how often each candidate wins.

I still want to make sure that the model is worth something, though. To do that, I set a series of tests that my approach must meet before we show it anywhere. They fall into two categories. First, does the model beat just looking at the last poll before the election? And second, does it make approximately the same predictions even if we jimmy things around a bit? For the mayoral election, the answer is yes! What we’re showing you does a better job than the polls alone, and it’s sufficiently stable.

Council races are a different story. There are next to no polls done at the ward level, and where they do exist, they’re few and far between. This means we can’t tell you who will win2. However, there’s still useful information out there. In particular, I looked at past election performance across all tiers of government in Toronto – from school board to federal — to identify signals that rise above noise. This is presented alongside Matt’s own Councillor Defeatability Index, as well as what little polling does exist.

In all, I hope the Election Projection gives you the ability to better understand which races are being meaningfully contested, even if we can’t tell you who is most likely to win.

During the election period, I’ll be updating the model periodically and providing quick updates on changes as we see them. I hope you find the site useful — reach out if you have questions.

➡️ View the 2026 Election Projection

Council Scorecard Update: checking the final score for the 2026 term

By Matt Elliott

The Council Scorecard is my ongoing tracker of how often members of Council vote with the mayor on significant items.

Now with its very own fancy-pants web app, I add votes I deem significant after every Council meeting. Votes are considered significant if they’ve attracted a lot of public interest or are particularly indicative of a major ideological or political split amongst members of Council.

As a City Hall Watcher subscriber, you can access the Scorecard at CouncilScorecard.ca, with this brand new passphrase:

Read more

Find out where your councillor ranks. Each entry combines data about council att…

Read more

We’ve also got notes on the people meeting with the traffic cza…

Read more

Council capped off the 2022-2026 term last week, completing their monster of a July meeting agenda in just two days. It had the potential to be a real mega-disaster of a meeting, but councillors — eager to close the book on this term and put their focus on the election — were relatively well-behaved and generally in agree…

Read more

Read more

Because it’s summer, this week I am kicking back and letting some others do the work. Damien Moule has taken a look at Toronto’s famously slow streetcar system and why several supposed “silver bullet” fixes have generally missed the target. If you’ve ever wanted to get deep into the weeds of what “transit signal priority” actually means, this is the newsletter for you.

City Hall Watcher is also welcoming its first-ever reporting contributor this week. Andrey Levkovski will be hanging around City Hall and contributing material to CHW for the rest of the summer. If you need to get in touch, you can email him at andrey@cityhallwatcher.com.

To celebrate this week’s non-Matt contributions, this issue of City Hall Watcher is being sent free to all subscribers. If you dig it, consider becoming a paid subscriber. You’ll get access to this kind of content each and every week, plus the interactive COUNCIL SCORECARD. It supports independent journalism and costs just six bucks a month or $60 a year, plus HST — a bargain and a deal.

✨ This issue runs a bit long. If it gets cut off in your email client, read it on the web.

— Matt Elliott

matt@cityhallwatcher.com / Archives / Subscribe

Toronto’s slow streetcars need more than a quick fix

By Damien Moule

When the Finch LRT opened back in December, there was an outcry about how slow it was1. And not just in niche transit circles. It made the papers. It made the evening TV news. People raced the transit vehicles on foot — and won.

Politicians sprang into action. TTC chair Jamaal Myers introduced a motion at December’s TTC Board meeting to look at improving signal priority and frequency, and to review TTC operating practices for the line to look for ways to speed up the LRT. Days later, at a City Council meeting, Mayor Olivia Chow introduced a motion asking the TTC to improve transit signal priority along the line.

By April, the TTC’s data showed a ten-minute time saving per direction, and by June, another five-minute saving. The $3.7 billion Finch LRT started moving faster than the bus it replaced. There was much rejoicing.

The initial slow speeds of the Finch LRT naturally raised comparisons to the sluggish streetcar network. And so, along with the motions to improve the Finch LRT came requests to investigate how to speed up the streetcars. In the same April report measuring improved speeds on the Finch LRT came a plan from the TTC to begin improving streetcar speeds. This came hot on the heels of the July 2025 approval of the painted Bathurst streetcar lanes that were rolled out ahead of the World Cup, and the December 2025 approval of parking and turning restrictions to speed up the Dundas streetcar.

Now, for those of us who live along a streetcar line, these have been frankly unexpected developments. The streetcars, while iconic, are notoriously the slowest and least reliable part of the TTC, and elected officials have long seemed perfectly happy to leave it that way. Past attempts at improvements, such as the King Street transit priority corridor, have been undermined by spotty enforcement, construction diversions, and frequency cuts.

You might expect that the streetcars finally receiving some focused attention from the TTC Board and City Council would make me happy. But you would be wrong. Instead, the last year has left me exasperated.

The streetcars are slow… like really slow

Before getting to my complaints let’s do some table setting. Toronto’s streetcars are slow. I know I’m not breaking any news by saying that. For as long as I can remember people have been making the joke that it’s usually faster to walk than take the streetcar. But I want to make sure you read that sentence with the right emphasis. It’s not that streetcars are slow. It’s that Toronto’s streetcars are slow.

Jan Scheurer, a professor at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, evaluated the speeds of 16 different streetcar2 systems across multiple years and found that Toronto’s streetcars in 2024 were the slowest of any system in any year reviewed. And not just a little slower. A lot slower.

The TTC has also compared streetcar speeds to those from five other international cities and found the same thing.

Now I am not willing to go so far as to say the Toronto streetcars are definitively the slowest in the world3, but I think it’s clear that Toronto’s streetcar network is one of the slowest major streetcar systems in the world. And it’s also clear that the difference in speeds between the fastest and slowest streetcar networks is quite large.

The never-ending search for silver bullets

Stop me if you’ve heard this before4. The streetcars would be fixed if we just put them in their own lanes. The streetcars would be fixed if we just gave them signal priority. The streetcars would be fixed if we just used wider stop spacing. The streetcar routes would be fixed if we just replaced them with buses.

This search for the one trick that will fix the streetcars has been going on for as long as I can remember. The idea that all a streetcar needs to be good is its own lane has been around since at least the 90s when the Harbourfront Streetcar, and later the Spadina and St. Clair streetcars, were given their own separated lanes. It carried on through Transit City, and Metrolinx seemed to be relying on the same thinking for both the Finch LRT and the above-ground sections of the Eglinton Crosstown. And it was still lurking around in 2025 when Council voted to give the Bathurst streetcar its own lane.

Why is this a problem? Aren’t transit lanes good? Well, they can be good. And they usually are OK, or at least better than nothing. But the search for silver bullets leads to a really bad habit of focusing on the buzzword and not the quality of the improvement. The focus becomes “is the proposal a dedicated streetcar lane?”, and not “will the proposed streetcar lane, you know, work”?

Let’s take the Bathurst painted streetcar lane as an example.

There are multiple ways streetcars get slowed down by cars. Let’s focus on a few of them. Streetcars can be stuck behind a car waiting to make a left-hand turn. They can be forced to slow down while a car turns across or goes straight across its path or does a three-point turn. They can be forced to wait while a car is pulling into an on-street parking spot in the right-hand lane or stopped for a quick drop off (sometimes called curb friction).

A dedicated streetcar lane can tackle all of these problems. But the Bathurst lane did not5. By my count, the design of the transit lanes only blocks left-hand turns from delaying the streetcar at 6 of the 236 intersections along the route, and only half of those were new restrictions. Everywhere else, cars are either still allowed to enter the transit lane directly to make a left turn, or get a dedicated turn lane and signal, which also slows down the streetcar. Even fewer of the streets have been blocked from allowing left-hand turns onto Bathurst7 or travel across the transit lane.

Really, most of what the transit lane is doing in terms of transit priority is removing parking spaces in the curb lane and adding no-stopping regulations (to the extent these are enforced), which reduces curb friction.

That’s not exactly nothing8, but it’s also not good transit priority. However, if all you’re looking for is a silver bullet called “dedicated transit lane”, then job done, time to go home.

What happens if that one silver bullet doesn’t work? We can always just move on to the next one. Which is exactly what I see starting to happen with transit signal priority, only this time the TTC is also adding to the confusion.

Transit signal crossing

Let’s go back to the April report measuring improvements to speeds on the Finch LRT and Eglinton Crosstown surface sections. That was only one part of a larger report to lay out a plan for improvements to the streetcar lines.

If you read the recommendations and summary section of the report, you could be forgiven for thinking that transit signal priority had arrived for the LRTs, been a great success, and would now be rolled out to the streetcars. Two of the four recommendations were to implement transit signal priority measures. Recent transit signal priority enhancements were reported to deliver time savings of up to 42% per intersection. And the round-trip time was reduced by 10 minutes on Eglinton and 20 minutes on Finch.

The only problem? No new9 transit signal priority was rolled out on the Finch or Eglinton LRTs between December and April. What the TTC did instead was called lagging left-turns. Instead of a red light followed by a left turn signal followed by a green light, they changed the intersections to be a red light followed by a green light followed by a left turn signal. The TTC called this transit signal priority in the report. Reporters understood the TTC to be saying that lagging left turns are transit signal priority. But they aren’t.

A lagging left turn changes the order in which the signals in a cycle appear, but it does not change the total amount of red light time in the cycle. If there are 75 seconds of red time between the cross traffic movement and the left turn signal, it doesn’t matter what order those phases are going in — the odds of the LRT vehicle showing up at a red light are mathematically unchanged. All you change is which cars the people on the LRT are likely to see moving instead of them during the red light. With a lagging left turn, they are less likely to see left-turning cars because that happens immediately after the green instead of immediately before it. But they still take the exact same amount of time to turn.

This is in contrast to phase rotation, where the order of the phases are changed depending on whether an LRT is present. So if the normal phase order is cross traffic, left turn, green, that can be dynamically changed to cross traffic, green, left when the LRT is waiting. This reduces the red time the LRT is facing, and so is actually transit signal priority. But if you read the TTC’s report carefully, this wasn’t rolled out on Finch or Eglinton. It was tested at two intersections on Spadina, which showed the 42% improvement referenced in the summary. The TTC is now planning to install phase rotation into the LRT lines, but it certainly wasn’t improving anything in the meantime.

So what actually improved the speeds on Finch and Eglinton? If you read down through the report sections it becomes clearer. The TTC changed the operations of the two LRTs. They reduced dwell times at stops and added operators so that they could swap operators at the end of a trip, so that mandatory breaks wouldn’t delay the vehicles. I also read speculation on social media that the padding from the trip schedules was reduced, and that speed limits were raised to match the adjacent car traffic, but I haven’t seen that confirmed by the TTC.

The TTC didn’t hide these operational changes, but it certainly didn’t emphasize them. Why? I would guess it’s because they aren’t transit signal priority, and everyone wanted transit signal priority. Council asked for transit signal priority. Advocates asked for transit signal priority. So the TTC spent some time and money tinkering with the signals to do nothing, and then also did some other actually effective stuff, and said voila, transit signal priority achieved.

I obviously would have liked for the TTC to communicate better about what it was doing, but this also matters going forward. The same report outlined a host of stale operations rules that are slowing down the streetcars. And the streetcar lines without dedicated lanes (i.e. most of them) won’t be able to use phase rotation because, for the most part, traffic lights along their routes don’t have left turn signals to be rotated. So what can actually be done in the near term to improve most streetcar lines isn’t transit signal priority, and it’s definitely not installing lagging left turns — it’s an improvement to operations (e.g. raising intersection and underpass speed limits). It would be good for the public, Council, the media and advocates to understand that clearly.

The road not altered

Despite our tendency to search for quick fixes and silver bullets, I do think the discussion around streetcars (and surface transit in general) is slowly becoming more sophisticated. The TTC report does acknowledge operations, stop spacing, and switches as contributing to the slow speeds of the streetcars.

However, I don’t think we’ve yet collectively realized how much more is done in other countries, and how much more we could be doing. Transit priority is not one, or three, or five things. It’s dozens of things that all need to be done correctly.

It’s transit signal priority and stop spacing and reliable switches. It’s island platforms and bus bulbs, so passengers aren’t spending precious seconds at every stop walking into traffic lanes to get to the streetcars. It’s level boarding and more doors to make it easier to board and alight, and to avoid deploying a slowly extending ramp for people unable to step up to the streetcars. It’s temporary tracks during construction so that streetcars don’t have to divert every time we tear up a road.

Most importantly, transit priority elsewhere includes a whole suite of tools that we don’t consider in Toronto. These tools change the configuration of the road or the traffic circulation pattern to give transit vehicles priority. They are summarized in a relatively new project called the Transit Priority Atlas which I can’t recommend enough.

I mentioned above that the Bathurst painted lane didn’t remove cars using the lane for left-hand turns at most intersections. There are ways to configure intersections to allow indirect left turns that would stop cars from holding up the streetcar, along Bathurst and elsewhere.

At the risk of becoming traffic lights guy, there is also the fact that the streetcars have to pass through a lot of lights. Have a look at the chart below, which shows the number of stops various TTC routes take along their length. The streetcars not only have a lot of stops compared to the bus routes, but they also go through more traffic signals.

The best traffic signal priority is removing the traffic signal. But to do that, the intersection often needs to be simplified. This can be done by making lateral streets right-in/right-out, or by simply dead-ending them. This would allow the removal of dozens of traffic lights along the streetcar routes.

There are also other ways of reducing the number of cars along a streetcar route. Through traffic can be reduced with contraflow lanes. You can go further and create sections of transit streets. Cities like Zurich and Bologna have adopted limited traffic zones in their downtowns, which limit access to residents, emergency vehicles, people with disabilities, and a limited number of permits for purchase. Bologna takes this a step further with a central “T” which only allows transit vehicles to pass through it. It’s not difficult to imagine something similar for Yonge Street.

I understand why councillors and advocates would have some hesitation in pushing for these changes. It’s been hard enough to get dedicated transit lanes and transit signal priority. These strategies would need to be studied and implemented by Transportation Services, who are not guaranteed to give a warm reception to the ideas.

But I think it’s worth putting the full suite of tools on the table and saying this is what fast streetcars use. We are decades behind other cities and it’s time we caught up. And of course I need to gesture towards the ongoing municipal election and say candidates should support better transit priority.

I’m sure opponents would argue that any given change will only save a minute and that’s not worth the disruption to drivers or loss of parking. But a few changes which each save a minute add up to a few minutes. And for most trips in Toronto, a few minutes is often the difference between worth your time or a waste of time. Suddenly, you have thousands of trips every day that are faster by streetcar. Thousands of cars stay at home. And now you have a streetcar that isn’t just for putting on postcards.

In other news

• City Hall Watcher’s Andrey Levkovski caught up with Parkdale-High Park Council contender Diana Chan McNally at last week’s Planning and Housing Committee. McNally was emphatic about leaving Billy Bishop Airport as it is and said councillors should help residents pressure Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to halt the expansion. “If the City doesn’t have the power, people certainly do. And I think a councillor’s role is also to support and galvanize the community to lobby the federal government to stop this,” she told CHW.

More from Matt: on crime as an election game-changer, and “you shall not pass!”

🎧 I was on CBC’s This is Toronto podcast last week to talk about the Salsa on St. Clair shooting, the political fallout, and whether this is a game-changing moment for the mayoral race. Give it a listen.

🗞️ For the Toronto Star this week, I am also writing about streetcars. Writing about streetcars is this year’s hot summer trend, I think. I’m focusing on the TTC’s new pilot project to track the number of drivers who blow by open doors. I like the idea, but I’m not sure why a pilot is necessary when the problem is so clear.

Look for it in your favourite newspaper.

The week at Toronto City Hall

By Andrey Levkovski and Matt Elliott

MONDAY: 🗂️ The General Government Committee met. They confronted the truth about software for cats and dogs. In 2024, the City entered into a no-bid deal with Kingston, Ontario-based tech company DocuPet to try out a new system for licensing Toronto pets. The deal was pitched as coming at no cost to City Hall, as DocuPet would make money by upselling pet owners on “customizable and stylized licensing tags, as well as other pet-related products.”

Despite some “privacy complaints related to DocuPet’s use of customer information”, Council voted to execute another no-bid deal with DocuPet in 2025, but this time there were costs. The City was on the hook for covering about $136,200 annually in credit card fees and postage costs related to the DocuPet service.

A year later, the bill is going up again, as DocuPet is seeking a four-dollar fee for each license issued and a $2.75 fee for every replacement tag given when the original tag is lost. That adds up to another $298,392 annually, bringing the total annual bill for software that started out as a freebie to $434,592.

That’s a more than 200% increase over the 2025 deal, and an infinite increase over the original zero-dollar deal. (To help pay for the ongoing costs, staff are also proposing adding an automatic inflationary increase to the fee charged to license a cat or a dog.)

And DocuPet will retain the right to upsell members of the public on pet products. Woof.

Still, staff are supportive of the deal, arguing that the deal with DocuPet has allowed them to reduce the staff needed to run the previous in-house pet licensing program. But the committee was not yet convinced. Noting there’s an “issue with the financing”, chair Councillor Paul Ainslie moved to send the item to Council without a committee recommendation. He’s asking for staff to produce “updated financial information related to the proposed contract amendment” in time for next week’s Council meeting.

The committee also considered a $14.2 million deal with Beanfield for internet service, and a notable $508,800 deal with Haywood Hunt — a surveillance company. The City needs the contract so it can continue spying on the crews it hires to do tree maintenance, the report says. This “allows for better oversight and performance of tree maintenance contracts,” apparently. Being a tree spy does sound like a fun job.

TUESDAY: 🗄️ Mayor Olivia Chow’s Executive Committee meets.

They’ll check out some always-fun budget and reserve fund variance reports. The operating budget variance report for 2026 shows that City Hall is running on a razor’s edge, posting a $4.6 million operating budget deficit through the end of April and projecting a $97.4 million deficit at year-end. (Reminder: City Hall is not allowed to post deficits.)

The report lists declining transit revenue and increased labour and fuel costs as the major factors behind the disappointing numbers. Everyone knows what’s causing fuel costs to spike, but the other two are interesting.

Notably, the TTC has seen a 50% decline in post-secondary pass sales following federal changes that limited the number of international students coming to Toronto. The wild winter weather was a major blow to fare revenue, too.

On the labour front, overtime costs are up huge at Toronto Fire, after the provincial government passed legislation that increases eligibility for workplace injury compensation and requires firefighters to receive additional training and qualifications. Collectively, the City estimates these changes have resulted in about $43 million in additional overtime costs.

In better news, the municipal land transfer tax continues to somehow stand stubbornly resilient against the forces of the dismal real estate market. The tax brought in $225 million through the end of April, about 10% above the budgeted amount.

The capital variance report, meanwhile, includes three pieces of news: first, the City is doing a much better job of late spending money. The City is on track to spend 89.9% of its $5.4 billion capital budget by year-end. That continues a positive trend.

Partly as a result of the improved spending rate, the City’s reserve fund balances actually declined in 2025.

Though more capital spending is generally good — better to spend money fixing and building stuff than just let it sit in a bank account — the report warns that the provincial government’s new Buy Ontario Act could have some negative impacts: “The new procurement requirements may result in delays, affecting project delivery due to extended procurement timelines, which could result in deferring project expenditures to later in the year or into future fiscal periods.” Ominous!

The final 2025 budget variance report also reveals that City Hall will not be BFFs with the province this year. In May, Queen’s Park informed Toronto that the City had not met the province’s housing target for 2025, and that there would be no funds coming to City Hall via the Building Faster Fund (BFF).

The committee will also consider a proposed deal with the Toronto Tempo. The WNBA team would lease part of the City-owned property at 701 Fleet Street for 40 years, with two possible 20-year extensions, at the low low price of just one dollar per year. The Tempo want to build a roughly 60,000-square-foot practice centre with two indoor basketball courts near their home arena at Coca-Cola Coliseum.

In return, the City will get at least 2,260 hours in the building every year for public programs, camps and permits, with a focus on women, girls and youth. The Tempo will also build a public park with outdoor basketball courts and washrooms. The deal could get the park open at least ten years earlier than currently planned. The practice centre is expected to open in summer 2028, with the park following that fall.

On paper, that sounds like a slam dunk. It is not completely free to the City, though. The City is on the hook to pay about $800,000 a year to operate the park, washrooms and public programs. Exhibition Place also expects to lose approximately $491,000 in parking revenue in 2027, when the existing parking lot disappears.

Also on the agenda:

• In February 2025, Council approved the creation of an advisory body to consider the thorny question of municipal autonomy. That led to the creation of the Municipal Autonomy and Effective Local Governance Program Advisory Body. The City calls it “MAPAB” for short, which is… not really an accurate acronym, but whatever. The final report of the group is a useful document, outlining the challenges Toronto City Hall has faced in recent years when it comes to autonomy and recommending the City direct legal staff to work on a single-province amendment to Canada’s Constitution, “which could include a new provision giving constitutionally protected status to City Charters.” Staff are not yet ready to fully embrace that path, however. City Manager Paul Johnson is recommending the committee request a further report analyzing the MAPAB’s findings, due Q3 2027.

• The committee will get an update on the Toronto Community Crisis Service, which sends civilian crisis workers to eligible mental health calls. From March 2022 to May 2026, the service received 49,185 calls. In 2025, it received 4,482 eligible calls through 9-1-1 and resolved 76.7% of them without police. Crisis teams also made 11,659 referrals to health and social services. Now the City wants to make the service much bigger. The plan is to move dispatching to Toronto Paramedic Services in 2027, increase the number of calls transferred from 9-1-1 from about 5,300 this year to more than 10,000 a year by 2031, and accept more referrals from hospitals, community organizations, and other institutions. The report estimates the service could eventually receive between 45,000 and 50,000 calls a year. Adopting the recommendation would have no immediate effect on the City’s finances. The 2026 budget already includes $37.3 million for the service. Expansion costs will need to be factored into future budgets. The report says sustaining and expanding the service will require continued investment across different levels of government.

• The Executive Committee will consider who should own the ⁠Spirit Garden at Nathan Phillips Square. The garden opened in 2024 as a permanent place to honour residential school survivors and the children who were lost to their families and communities. It was developed by the Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre in partnership with the City. The Aboriginal Affairs Advisory Committee wants staff to report to the Executive Committee in the second quarter of 2027 on a possible transfer of ownership of the Spirit Garden site at Nathan Phillips Square from the City to Council Fire, an Indigenous non-profit organization.

WEDNESDAY: 🐕 The Dangerous Dog Tribunal meets. They’ll consider appeals to muzzle orders given to Greyhound Milo and American Bulldog mix Big Louis.

🚇 The TTC Board meets.

CEO Mandeep Lali’s monthly report⁠ includes some interesting data from work the transit agency did to prep for a pilot aimed at drivers who pass a stopped streetcar while its doors are open. Before installing cameras on four streetcars, transit checkers manually recorded 145 illegal passes on six routes between December 2025 and March 2026.

Those daily checks found more illegal passes than the Toronto Transit Commission’s ten-year total of passenger-vehicle contact claims. The preliminary results suggest near misses may be common. Shocker.

The nine-month pilot officially starts today. The cameras will measure how often illegal streetcar passing occurs and test the technology’s reliability for future automated enforcement. Basically, it will test whether the camera footage could eventually support tickets. Alas, tickets will not be issued as part of the pilot.

The agenda will also include a discussion of the best way to commemorate the work of the late former TTC chair Howard Moscoe. A report recommends naming the atrium at Yorkdale Station after Moscoe, in part because of Moscoe’s tireless efforts to restore the Arc en Ciel art installation at Yorkdale. After decades in storage, the art is expected to return soon.

In addition, because speeding up streetcars is all the rage these days, Councillor Dianne Saxe has brought a motion to the agenda asking for a report on ways to give some graduated speed to the College streetcar.

THURSDAY: 🚔 The Police Service Board meets.

The cops are asking the board to approve a $10.54-million non-competitive contract with Rampart International for 5,861 Glock G45 duty pistols, 500 compact Glock G43X pistols and 200 training pistols. That is 6,561 pistols altogether. That is a lot of Glocks. 🔫

According to the Police Board report, many of their current pistols are getting old. Some date back to 1992, and replacement parts and ammunition are getting harder and more expensive to buy. Rampart would receive the contract without competition because it is Glock’s exclusive Canadian distributor for military and police customers.

The first $2 million would be reallocated from money budgeted for the new 54 Division police station, with that money scheduled to be returned to the station project through the 2027 budget. Police would seek the remaining $8.54 million through the 2027 capital budget. Staff estimate that lower ammunition and repair costs would make the switch roughly cost-neutral over ten years, with nominal savings of $166,000.

The board will also get an update on the state of the $1.4 billion police budget. Even with the big spending envelope, the cops are on track to post a $15 million deficit this year. The overrun is driven almost entirely by premium pay.

The agenda also includes Chief Myron Demkiw’s annual report, which includes a note making it clear the cops were totally ready to let George Springer ride a police horse, had the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series last fall:

Following post-game comments by Blue Jays player George Springer about celebrating with a ride on a police horse, the Mounted Unit publicly invited Springer to ride Service horse Blue Jay should the team win the World Series. While the Blue Jays did not ultimately secure the title, the exchange reflected the Service’s commitment to approachable, community-focused policing.

🏚️ The Preservation Board meets.

Planning staff are recommending heritage designation for the Weston Lions Arena on Lawrence West. It’s another twist in the long-running saga for the arena, which was built in the late 40s. At one point, the arena was slated for the wrecking ball, as part of a plan to build a new MLSE Launchpad recreation facility on the site. After Premier Doug Ford and a bunch of angry hockey players raised their sticks in protest, the plan was revised to maintain the arena while building a youth sports hub next door.

The board will also consider designating ⁠Simcoe Hall and Convocation Hall, two U of T landmarks that have been listed on the City’s Heritage Register since 1973. ⁠ These buildings score seven out of nine criteria points for their architecture, history and contribution to university life, which is impressive since only two points are needed. Safe to say they pass with honours.

FRIDAY: 🅿️ The Parking Authority Board meets. Their agenda includes a report recommending a seven-month extension of the contract with Shift Transit to operate the Bike Share system. The $14 million deal is presented as a temporary move while staff put together a big RFP for a long-term operator, which is planned to launch in Q1 2027.

A separate budget report shows the Bike Share system continues its uphill climb. Revenue through the end of June was $7.9 million, up $1.5 million compared to 2025.

The agenda also recommends approving a $3.8 million contract to build out a new six-level underground garage in Yorkville.

NEXT WEEK: Council meets, for the last and final time this term. Get hyped.

Weekly wrap

🗳️ CANDID CANDIDATES: The 2026 Election Candidate Tracker has been updated — with new registrations from incumbent councillors Frances Nunziata, Chris Moise, Neethan Shan, Nick Mantas and Alejandra Bravo.

🪧 SIGNS OF THE TIMES: 118 TANGLE BRIARWAY: Tangle Briarway; 4925 STEELES AVE W: Electronic Static Billboard; 790 MILITARY TRL: Popeyes; 437 SPADINA AVE: Puuffy; 240 EGLINTON AVE E: Flossy; 621 SHEPPARD AVE E: Injection Lounge Aesthetics Clinic; 126 MARTIN ROSS AVE: Empire Hardware; 322 CHURCH ST: Student Community Centre; 1401 HUNTINGWOOD DR: Ram Plastics; 1001 QUEEN ST E: New Era; 105 RIVER ST: Aic Tile Studio; 3385 DUNDAS ST W: Fabutan Hush Lash Studio; 3125 STEELES AVE E: Yondr; 2268 KINGSTON RD: Brik Construction Inc.; 941 PROGRESS AVE: Centennial College; 29 BATHURST ST: Setai Dental; 141 BAY ST: CIBC. (Sign Permit Applications since July 13, 2026)

City Hall Watcher #393

Thanks for reading! And thanks to Damien and Andrey for their contributions this week. Andrey and I will be back next week to preview the agenda for the final Council meeting of the term. The agenda isn’t published yet, but I can already tell you one thing about it: it will be long as hell.

You won’t want to miss it. If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, consider mashing the button.

Subscribe now

To start, let’s take a look at the mayoral race. The electoral landscape is a real land of contrasts at the moment. On one side, you’ve got the incumbent, Mayor Olivia Chow, who has signed up but hasn’t really star…

Read more

That’s the total number of agenda matters up for consideration this week as Community Councils for Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke York and Toronto & East York get together for the final time this term. Most agendas this term have been much shorter but with the end of the term looming, they are trying to cram a who…

Read more

Less exciting, but still eventful, was last week’s meeting of Toronto Council. It ended up being a relatively tidy affair, wrapping up at a reasonable hour on the second day. Enjoy the feeling — I suspect the next m…

Read more

This week, it’s the PENULTIMATE meeting of the term. We’ll see debates …

Read more

Anyway, while the soccer action continues, today I’ve brought you a story from frequent contributor Damien Moule about another kind of action: hot housing action.

Damien’s got a look at the major changes to the planning process that will come after Premier Doug Ford’s government passed Bill 98, the “Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act.” It will force the Council elected this October to make some big changes to the Official Plan — I sure hope they’re ready.

Also in this issue: I’ve launched an archive project that collects 17,000+ posts I’ve made during meetings of Toronto City Council over the last 15 years. Did it make me question my life choices? Never.

Speaking of life choices: thanks for choosing to read this newsletter. This issue is being sent out for FREE, but if you want to get this kind of municipal nerdery each and every week, consider becoming a paid subscriber. You’ll be supporting independent local journalism — and that’s a very cool thing to do.

✨ This issue runs a bit long. If it gets cut off in your email client, read it on the web.

— Matt Elliott

graphicmatt@gmail.com / Archives / Subscribe

Doug Ford’s Bill 98 will bring major changes to Toronto’s Official Plan — council candidates should know all about it

By Damien Moule

Toronto is a housing-obsessed city. Polling routinely shows it as a top issue in the city. Some of the key moments at City Council this term were housing fights that drew petitions with thousands of signatures and hours of deputations at committee. So surely a provincial law that upends housing and land-use planning, passed during a municipal election, would not go completely unnoticed by the candidates, the media, and pretty much everyone else, right?

…Right?

You may have heard about Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent on June 2. The bill got a decent amount of press coverage, mostly about the transportation parts. It gives the Ministry of Transportation the ability to set and harmonize transit fares in the GTA, set service standards, and require service on some routes. Some people are worried about that. Toronto City Council, in particular, is worried about that.

The bill also removes requirements for sustainable building design, such as EV charging requirements or bird-friendly window coatings, beyond what’s required by the Building Code. Some people are worried about that, too.

If you are reading a newsletter about Toronto municipal politics and policy, there’s a good chance you are the type of person who also follows news about provincial legislation and that you knew all of that. But if you followed along the main coverage of Bill 98, you might not have read anything1 about the most important aspect of Bill 98: it is the largest change to municipal land use planning in Ontario in decades.

What’s changing?

Land use planning is notoriously complex and dry, but stick with me for a few minutes here before scrolling down to Matt’s updates on happenings at Council. I want to convince you that the changes coming as a result of Bill 98 are a top municipal election priority and that you should be asking prospective councillors about it when they come knocking on your door.

Let’s start with the Official Plan. Remember that? The document which dictates which type of buildings will and won’t be allowed where, as well as transportation and infrastructure policies, community facilities and more?

Bill 98 requires Official Plans for large municipalities in Ontario to have a standard format and contents which do not remotely resemble Toronto’s current Official Plan. So the Official Plan has to be completely rewritten by August 2030, i.e. within the next municipal term.

Along with the standard format will come standard land use designations. These are the tools that every municipality uses to structure which types of buildings are allowed where. Things like neighbourhoods, mixed-use areas, parks, commercial, etc. For each designation, there are associated Official Plan policies about how development will or won’t proceed in those areas.

Three of Toronto’s land use designations, Apartment Neighbourhoods, Institutional Areas (for things like hospitals, universities, government buildings, etc.), and Regeneration Areas (formerly industrial areas that are being redeveloped), do not appear in the new standard list provided by the province. These categories will soon go poof, and their associated policies will either need to be removed from the Official Plan or rewritten for another category. There will also be several new categories, most notably “Major Facilities,” that the city will need to define and create policies for.

There’s more! Several new proposed regulations under the Planning Act were also posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario alongside Bill 98 to support its changes. And these regulations would upend many policies in the current Official Plan.

The first two proposed regulations relate to standardized submission requirements for a complete development application and to potentially large revisions or the elimination of Site Plan Control. I have been reliably informed by friends and family that no one cares about any of the words in the previous sentence, but the upshot is that they will significantly reduce the number of reports, studies, and plans that the City can require developers to submit from 20+ to roughly ten.

The main way the City applies its Official Plan policies is by requiring developers to demonstrate that their proposed buildings are consistent with those policies. Removing the requirement to produce the reports removes the City’s ability to check that the policies were implemented, and so effectively removes a host of Official Plan policies. For example, City Council will have to find new ways to throw literal shade at new developments, because they will no longer be able to require shadow studies.

I will mention two more policy proposals that came along with Bill 98, though I know I’ve pushed my luck with your attention. One is looking at secondary plans and site-specific policies. It may upend the priority given in the Official Plan to local planning exercises over city-wide policy. The other is a change to population and employment projection methodology that will likely increase the amount of housing that Toronto will estimate that it needs.

A maximum minimum

Finally and more importantly, Bill 98 caps the minimum lot size that a municipality can require in urban residential areas. The cap is set by regulation, which the Ministry has proposed at 175 m². For those wondering what that looks like, a typical lot size for a semi-detached Victorian bay-and-gable in the old City of Toronto is roughly2 6 m by 30 m, or 180 m².

The required minimum lot sizes in Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke are mostly between 300 and 600 m², with some notable outliers like the required lot size of 8,000 m² in the Bridle Path3. What this means in practice is that lot severance will be allowed4 and feasible in most of Toronto’s residential areas5.

Why am I talking about this after yammering on about the Official Plan? The current Official Plan land use designation for low-rise residential areas is called capital-N Neighbourhoods. The policies for Neighbourhoods are the conceptual centre of the entire Official Plan. The Plan states that Neighbourhoods policies take priority over everything else. Every other land use category has policies to limit the impact on nearby Neighbourhoods. The key feature of Neighbourhoods policy is that they are meant to be physically stable, and that any development will respect the prevailing character, including in terms of lot size, building type, scale, and density.

With lot subdivision allowed throughout the city, recent changes in Toronto zoning to allow multiplexes, and Major Transit Station Area zoning mandated by the province, the guarantee of physical stability and prevailing character in Neighbourhoods will be gone. Smaller lots with narrower houses — different from the others on the street — and multiplexes will be allowed everywhere. Neighbourhoods near transit will allow midrise apartments. The centre of the Official Plan will fall through.

This is a Big Freaking Deal

Taken together, Bill 98 and its related regulations mean that not only will the Official Plan need to be reorganized to the new standard format, but that many of its policies will have to be removed or reworked, including those at the heart of the Plan. The land use maps will all need to be remade as well.

It would be pointless to try to smash the remnants of the current Official Plan into the new format. City Planning should start from scratch. And because zoning and other features of land use planning in Toronto implement the Official Plan, it seems likely to me that an Official Plan overhaul would be a first step towards an overhaul of those by-laws as well.

Now, to put my cards on the table, I am a fan of the proposed land use regulations under Bill 98. The current post-amalgamation Official Plan has been in place since 2002, and in my estimation, it has been a generational failure6. Housing affordability in Toronto began to deteriorate quickly after it was first adopted. Despite the good intentions of its authors, it has made thousands of people homeless, put a strain on the household budgets of hundreds of thousands more, hurt the local economy, and is deeply unfair. I think the Official Plan desperately needs a reform that will allow more housing in more places, and Bill 98 and the proposed regulations, especially around minimum lot size, will promote that.

But even if you don’t share my perspective, the Official Plan will need to be rewritten, and the councillors elected this fall will be the ones responsible for designing the process to replace it.

Bill 98 has taken restrictions on many types of low-rise development off the table and put limits on what can be asked of developers. Other provincial actions have made high-rises near transit an inevitability. There is a more standardized set of planning tools. But it will still be up to Council to make something good with them7.

This is a once-in-a-generation exercise to create the most important document for the most important municipal power. It will affect the well-being of millions of people for decades. Candidates for office should know that it will happen. They should list it as a priority. You should expect them to be able to answer questions8 about it and outline their vision for the new Official Plan. Anyone who can't shouldn't be elected.

City Hall Watcher LIVE collects and archives 15+ years of Council coverage

By Matt Elliott

For the last couple of Council meetings, I’ve been testing a web app that automatically collects my live coverage on Bluesky and posts it to live.cityhallwatcher.com. People have told me it’s been useful as a simple way to follow the proceedings.

I’ve spent the last couple of weeks refining the app. The design has been updated. There’s a new feature that should let you keep track of your last-read post. Images display better.

In recent meetings, you’ll even see links on each post that take you to the approximate timestamp in the YouTube meeting video that aligns with my coverage. And I’ve coded in lunch break detection, so you’ll know when councillors took lunch. Groundbreaking.

But here’s the really big addition: I’ve collected and archived every thread of Council meeting coverage I’ve ever posted.

That’s nearly 15 years of meeting threads. It’s 166 meetings. It’s 17,201 posts. It’s a hell of a lot of use of the word “CARRIES.” It spans my complete evolution as someone who covers local politics — starting out snarky and more opinionated and ending all gruff and world-weary.

There’s a complete archive. It’s searchable, too. My favourite feature is probably the “From the Archives” section on the main page, which surfaces a random quote on every page refresh. Beware: it’s addictive.

I’m not delusional enough to think that a lot of people are going to want to go back and read my coverage of the debate on removing the Jarvis bike lane, the decision to strip Rob Ford of his mayoral powers, the chaos that ensued after Council got word that Doug Ford was going to cut half their jobs, or the first strange COVID-era virtual meeting.

But as Twitter has transformed into X and become more locked down for users who aren’t logged in — and also more generally unpleasant to use — I’ve become increasingly worried about one day losing access to the archive of information from the years I was only posting my coverage to Twitter. So now it’s got a home. A permanent one, I hope.

I need your help, though: with so many threads and posts, I can’t possibly review this whole thing by myself. I am looking for any reports of anything that appears broken, janky, or missing.

Features I am working on:

• Swapping the screenshots of vote results for a more readable, accessible vote card display.

• Councillor tagging, so you can easily find all posts related to a member of Council.

• Making this an open-source project.

Let me know if there’s anything else that would be useful.

➡️ Access the complete coverage archive and follow along LIVE when Council meets at live.cityhallwatcher.com

More from Matt: on making nice for the World Cup, and the half-baked airport expansion plan

📰 For the Toronto Star last week, I wrote about the City’s push to make things really clean and nice for those attending the FIFA World Cup. The improvements are appreciated, but I’m still wondering why it takes a mega event to motivate a major municipal effort.

🗞️ For the Star this week, I write about the latest on the island airport expansion effort. The provincial and federal governments have us talking about a plan that doesn’t even exist. That shouldn’t fly.

Look for it in your favourite newspaper.

The week at Toronto City Hall

MONDAY: ♿️ The Accessibility Advisory Committee met. They got an update on staff’s work to assess the feasibility of providing a real-time central dispatch system for accessible taxis. Currently, people looking for an accessible ride generally need to book with Wheel Trans in advance, which limits the spontaneity. The update says work is ongoing, with a complete report due in Q1 2027.

🎭 The TO Live Board met. They reviewed the results of a consultation process with performing arts groups about the current state of the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts. “Participants felt that the centre is tired and in need of an upgrade,” the presentation says, but the same groups are also worried that upgrades will require a prolonged closure — they want to make sure they get at least 18 months’ notice before any shutdown.

Also on the agenda: TO Live CEO Clyde Wagner wants to hike the facility fee charge added to tickets by a dollar. The move is expected to raise about $500,000.

TUESDAY: 🗄️ Mayor Olivia Chow’s Executive Committee meets.

They’ll hear that Toronto residents are bonkers for barrels, apparently. An initial offering of free rain barrels was fully claimed in just nine hours.

To offer more barrels of fun, the mayor has a motion to spend another $238,249 — offset by revenue from Toronto Water — to provide another batch of barrels. To make things fairer, the mayor is also recommending limiting the program to one barrel per household this time. (Previously, households could snag two.)

Also on the relatively light agenda:

• The committee will be asked to endorse the construction of a new library branch in the Quayside community on the waterfront.

• At Council’s request, Toronto Hydro has put together a report on its work to support the development of multiplex housing. They note the number of multiplexes they’ve connected to power has been on the rise, from 129 in 2024 to 179 in 2025. This year, they’re on pace to connect about 200.

• A summary of donation activity shows the City received 6,450 individual donations totalling about $1.08 million in 2025. Most were donations made to Animal Services and the Commemorative Tree & Bench Program.

WEDNESDAY: 🐕 The Dangerous Dog Review Tribunal meets. They’ll consider a much-delayed appeal regarding a muzzle order in 2022 issued to Poodle mix Kaibo.

THURSDAY: 🎢 The Exhibition Place Board meets. A report on the agenda looks at whether the Exhibition grounds would be a good place for a casino, and concludes it would not be. “Overall, the available evidence suggests that introducing new casino opportunities may lead to adverse public health and community impacts, particularly for vulnerable populations,” the report says.

The temporary casino operated during the CNE will continue to be allowed to operate, though.

🥖 The Francophone Affairs Advisory Committee meets for the final time this term. They’ll review a list of city departments and agencies that offer some services in French. Reps from the Bureau du Québec à Toronto will also be in attendance to give a presentation. Ooh la la.

FRIDAY: 🪧 The Sign Variance Committee meets. The Nobu Hotel on Mercer Street is looking for approval to put illuminated “NOBU” signage atop the building. But city staff are saying no to Nobu, citing the building’s “significant residential component.” Mixed-unit buildings have different rules regarding signs than office buildings, apparently.

🏗️ The CreateTO Board meets. They’ll consider a request to hire a consultant to compare the cost of building affordable housing in Toronto with costs in other cities. Could be useful.

NEXT WEEK: Council meets, starting on Wednesday.

Weekly wrap

📊 CouncilScorecard.ca ACCESS CODE: Subscribers can access the current code here.

🗳️ CANDID CANDIDATES: The 2026 Election Candidate Tracker has been updated — and now includes a handy map view.

🪧 SIGNS OF THE TIMES: 30 HIGH MEADOW PL: C; 234 MARKHAM RD: North Kabab; 3463 KINGSTON RD: Charging Station Electrical Design; 4211 YONGE ST: 4211 Yonge St; 2220 BLOOR ST W: TD Canada Trust; 234 MARKHAM RD: Afghan Bakery; 1235 WILSON AVE: Hennick Humber Hospital; 1623 QUEEN ST W: Revertsconnect; 85 ELLESMERE RD: McDONALDS; 571 BLOOR ST W: Mirvish Village; 373 FRONT ST E: Canary Landing West Cherry House; 831 GLENCAIRN AVE: Pizza Nova; 2870 EGLINTON AVE E: McDonalds Restaurant; 3571 SHEPPARD AVE E: Healthy Planet; 755 ROYAL YORK RD: Ecole Elementaire Catholique; 10 PLASTICS AVE: Topomath.Ca; 7431 KINGSTON RD: McDonald’s; 2507 YONGE ST: Flight Centre; 220 YONGE ST: R.W & Co; 1 THORA AVE: Vaultra Storage; 152 PARK LAWN RD: Tim Horton’s; 5418 YONGE ST: California Beef Noodle; 50 JOHN ST: Rosemont Residences. (Sign Permit Applications since June 8, 2026)

City Hall Watcher #388

Thanks for reading! And thanks to Damien for his contribution. If you’ve got an idea for some analysis or reporting on a municipal matter, don’t hesitate to send me a quick pitch.

If you enjoyed this issue and you’re not yet a subscriber, I hope you’ll consider joining us. Subscriptions are just six bucks a month or 60 bucks a year, plus tax — it’s a bargain and a deal.

Subscribe now

For subscribers, I’ll be back next week to get you set for the second-to-last Council meeting of the 2022-2026 term. Be warned: I am planning to use the word PENULTIMATE a lot.

The Scorecard, if you’re not familiar, tracks every member of Toronto Council and measures how often they vote with Mayor Olivia Chow on significa…

Read more

To mark the occasion, I’ve brought you a new LOBBYIST WATCH. It’s got notes about elevating waterfront transit, the Weston-funded push to redesign Queen’s Park North, and a potential red flag on the affordable modular housing file.

Plus: the TTC Board’s got a big agenda, with a focus on s…

Read more

So far — with a failed bid in 2014 and a successful one in 2023 — she’s got a 1-1 record. Like the Blue Jays so far this season, she’ll be hoping to move above .500.

Soon after registering, Chow’s c…

Read more

Read more

But more on that later! This week, I bring you an update to one of my favourite pieces of data every year: the…

Read more

Also in this issue: …

Read more

But before that, there’s the not-so-small matter of last week’s Council meeting to cover. Mayor Olivia Chow and councillors met for two days last week to discuss items like island airport expan…

Read more