Feeding Frenzy by Corporate Lobbyist Continues at Toronto City Hall to Pressure City Council to Permit Electric Scooters Despite Their Proven Dangers to Vulnerable People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Feeding Frenzy by Corporate Lobbyist Continues at Toronto City Hall to Pressure City Council to Permit Electric Scooters Despite Their Proven Dangers to Vulnerable People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others

April 23, 2021 Toronto: Toronto City Hall continues to be the target of a relentless high-price, well-connected feeding frenzy by corporate lobbyists for electric scooter rental companies. This is despite overwhelming proof that e-scooters endanger vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, and create serious new accessibility barriers for people with disabilities. Today, the AODA Alliance releases updated documentation proving just how extensive this corporate lobbyists’ feeding frenzy is.

From June 2018 to the present, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have had a staggering 1,711 contacts across City Hall. That includes them having fully 124 contacts with Toronto Mayor John Tory or his office. All those contacts are listed below, filling a breath-taking 87 single-spaced pages. They are all taken from the Toronto Lobbyists Registry.

On October 30, 2020, The AODA Alliance released a detailed report, documenting the extent of this orgy of e-scooter corporate lobbying up to that date. Today’s Update brings that report up to date.

It is clear that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have kept up their non-stop inundation of City Hall since October 2020. For a more detailed analysis of the data up to the end of October, read the AODA Alliance’s October 30, 2021 report on the e-scooter corporate lobbying feeding frenzy in Toronto.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee will consider what to do about e-scooters. Right now it is illegal to ride them in public in Toronto. Disability organizations and advocates are urging Toronto City Council not to lift that ban, and not to conduct a pilot project with e-scooters in Toronto.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, a compelling report was made public by Toronto City staff. That City staff report recommended that e-scooters not be allowed, and that no e-scooter pilot be conducted. It based this on the fact that e-scooters pose a safety danger to the public, including people with disabilities among others. They would also create new accessibility barriers. That City Staff report found that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have not proposed any workable and effective solutions to these dangers.

The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee has twice passed unanimous recommendations to Toronto City Council, that e-scooters not be allowed, on February 3, 2020 and February 25, 2021. In its most recent decision on point, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said there should be no e-scooters allowed, whether rental or private owned, that no e-scooter pilot should be conducted, and that Toronto authorities should enforce the current ban on e-scooters. Disability organizations and advocates strongly support those recommendations.

Mayor John Tory and some members of City Council have been holding off taking a public position on e-scooters until they received a report and recommendation from City staff. They now have a strong City Staff report and recommendation categorically saying that Toronto should say no to e-scooters. We call on Mayor Tory and all City Council members to do just that.

On March 30, 2021, the AODA Alliance made public a comprehensive brief to the City of Toronto on e-scooters. It shows why Toronto must not permit them. It also shows that e-scooter corporate lobbyists, who are behind the push for e-scooters, have made claims about e-scooters that are false, misleading and transparently meritless.

This now boils down to a stark and simple question for Mayor Tory and City Council: Will they stand up for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, whom e-scooters endanger? Will they stand up instead for the e-scooter corporate lobbyists, or will they stand up to the corporate lobbyists?

We have heard from some on City Council and from their staffers that the biggest corporate lobbying effort now going on at City Hall is by the e-scooter corporate lobbyists. The more these corporate lobbyists carry on with this, the more this shows the stark choice that Mayor Tory and City Council has, between listening to people with disabilities or simply serving the interest of the corporate lobbyists.

Below we set out an article on this issue in the April 22, 2021 Toronto Star, which quotes the AODA Alliance. We also set out all the entries in the Toronto Lobbyist Registry on this issue since June 2018.

For more information on the dangers presented by e-scooters, visit the AODA Alliance’s e-scooter web page and the March 30, 2021 AODA Alliance report to City Hall on e-scooters. Also check out the AODA Alliances short online video that describes the dangers that e-scooters pose, especially to vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and children. That video has already been viewed over 1,000 times.

Toronto Star April 22, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/21/toronto-should-not-allow-wider-use-of-e-scooters-says-city-staff.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20current%20regulations%20that%20prohibit,associated%20costs%2C%E2%80%9D%20staff%20wrote

Greater Toronto

City staff recommend not allowing e-scooters

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

City staff are recommending council stay out of the province’s e-scooter pilot project, a decision that would effectively shut the door on legalizing the use of the peppy two-wheeled vehicles on Toronto’s streets.

In a report released Wednesday, city transportation staff said that “based on extensive research and feedback,” they had concluded the problems related to accessibility, safety and insurance posed by e-scooters “remain unresolved,” and solutions proposed by the industry “are not satisfactory.”

“The current regulations that prohibit the use of e-scooters in public spaces make sense as they will prevent an increase in street and sidewalk-related injuries and fatalities, and their associated costs,” staff wrote.

The report will be debated next Wednesday at the city’s infrastructure and environment committee before going to council, which will have final say on whether to approve the recommendation.

E-scooters are motorized, battery-powered versions of the familiar kick-style children’s toy. In recent years, they have enjoyed a boom in popularity around the world, for both private use and as part of app-enabled e-scooter sharing programs. Proponents say they’re an effective “micromobility” solution that could help reduce reliance on polluting vehicles.

But their rapid rise has been met with pushback, and some cities banned them after complaints about riders leaving the vehicles littered on sidewalks and other public spaces at the end of their trips.

The staff report concluded the city lacks sufficient enforcement resources to ensure e-scooters aren’t used on sidewalks, and there are problems securing insurance to cover injuries suffered by riders or pedestrians. It also echoed disability advocates who have warned the vehicles pose hazards to people with mobility issues, who are at risk of tripping over e-scooters if they’re left in the street, or being struck by riders improperly using them on sidewalks.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility For Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, urged council to follow city staff’s advice. Council “should stand up for people with disabilities and must stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists,” he said.

Jonathan Hopkins, director of strategic development for Lime, said the new staff report “sells the city short” and the company hopes council “has more faith in the city of Toronto and its ability to do world class things.”

Report of All Contacts by E-scooter Corporate Lobbyists with Toronto City Hall from June 2018 to April 2021, Recorded in the Toronto Lobbyists Registry

 Bird Canada

  1. January 21, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  3. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  4. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  5. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  6. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  7. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  8. November 3, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  9. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  10. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  11. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  12. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  13. October 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  14. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  15. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  16. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  17. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  18. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  19. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  20. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  21. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  22. June 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  23. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  24. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  25. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  26. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  27. September 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  28. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  29. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  30. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  31. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  32. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  33. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  34. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  35. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  36. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  37. December 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  38. November 1, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  39. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  40. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  41. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  42. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  43. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  44. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  45. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  46. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  47. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack, a Staff of Member of Council.
  48. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack, a Staff of Member of Council.
  49. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  50. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  51. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  52. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  53. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  54. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  55. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  56. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  57. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  58. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  59. July 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  60. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  61. October 21, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  62. October 23, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  63. November 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  64. November 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  65. December 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  66. September 5, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  67. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  68. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  69. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  70. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  71. February 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  72. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  73. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  74. May 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  75. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  76. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  77. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  78. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  79. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  80. September 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  81. September 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  82. October 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  83. November 13, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  84. November 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  85. November 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  86. December 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  87. February 16, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  88. March 30, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  89. November 12, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with David Bellmore of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  90. July 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  91. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  92. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  93. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  94. November 13, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  95. November 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  96. December 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  97. February 16, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  98. March 30, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  99. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  100. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  101. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  102. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  103. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  104. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  105. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lisa Hoffman of Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  106. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  107. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  108. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  109. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  110. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  111. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  112. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  113. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  114. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  115. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  116. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  117. November 1, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Rachel Scott of Office of Councillor Peruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  118. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  119. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  120. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  121. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  122. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  123. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  124. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  125. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  126. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  127. May 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  128. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  129. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Tristan Downe-Dewdney of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  130. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  131. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  132. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  133. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  134. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Urban Planning, Assistant Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  135. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  136. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  137. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  138. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Director of Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Director, Transaction Services of Corporate Real Estate Management, an Employee of the City.
  140. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  145. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  146. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. October 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. November 26, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. November 27, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. November 28, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  151. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  154. January 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  155. January 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  156. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  157. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  158. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  159. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  160. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  161. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  162. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  163. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  164. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  165. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  166. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  167. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  168. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  169. September 30, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, an Member of Council.
  170. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  171. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  172. October 25, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  173. January 10, 2020, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  174. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  175. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  176. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  177. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  178. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  179. February 3, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  180. April 7, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  181. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  182. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  183. February 5, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  184. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  185. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  186. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  187. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  188. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  189. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  190. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  191. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  192. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  193. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  194. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  195. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  196. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  197. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  198. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  199. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  200. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  201. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  202. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  203. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  204. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  205. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  206. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  207. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  208. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  209. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  210. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  211. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  212. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  213. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  214. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  215. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  216. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  217. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  218. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  219. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  220. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  221. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  222. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  223. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  224. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  225. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  226. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  227. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  228. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  229. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  230. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  231. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  232. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  233. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  234. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  235. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  236. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  237. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  238. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  239. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  240. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  241. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  242. February 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  243. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  244. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  245. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  246. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  247. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  248. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  249. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  250. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  251. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  252. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  253. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  254. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  255. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  256. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  257. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  258. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  259. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  260. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  261. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  262. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  263. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  264. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  265. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  266. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  267. December 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  268. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  269. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  270. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  271. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  272. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  273. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  274. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  275. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  276. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  277. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  278. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  279. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  280. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  281. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  282. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  283. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  284. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  285. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  286. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  287. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  288. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  289. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  290. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  291. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  292. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  293. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  294. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  295. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  296. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  297. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  298. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  299. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  300. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  301. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  302. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  303. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  304. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  305. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ashley Millman of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  306. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  307. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  308. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  309. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  310. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  311. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  312. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  313. November 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  314. November 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  315. December 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  316. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  317. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  318. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  319. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  320. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  321. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  322. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  323. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  324. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  325. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brett McCandless of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  326. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  327. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  328. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  329. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  330. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  331. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  332. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  333. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  334. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  335. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  336. September 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  337. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  338. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  339. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  340. November 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  341. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  342. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  343. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  344. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  345. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  346. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  347. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  348. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  349. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  350. April 1, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  351. April 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  352. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  353. April 12, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  354. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  355. April 15, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  356. April 19, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  357. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  358. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  359. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  360. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Diana Gonzalez of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  361. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  362. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  363. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  364. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  365. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  366. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  367. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  368. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  369. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  370. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  371. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  372. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  373. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  374. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  375. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  376. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  377. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  378. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  379. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  380. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  381. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  382. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  383. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  384. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  385. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  386. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  387. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  388. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  389. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  390. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  391. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  392. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  393. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  394. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  395. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  396. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  397. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  398. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  399. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  400. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  401. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  402. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  403. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  404. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  405. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  406. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  407. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  408. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  409. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  410. December 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  411. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  412. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  413. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  414. January 28, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  415. February 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  416. February 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  417. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  418. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  419. March 12, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  420. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  421. March 25, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  422. March 29, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  423. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  424. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  425. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  426. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  427. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  428. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  429. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  430. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  431. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  432. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  433. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  434. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  435. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  436. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  437. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  438. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  439. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  440. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  441. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  442. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  443. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  444. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  445. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  446. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  447. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  448. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  449. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  450. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  451. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  452. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  453. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  454. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  455. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Markus Obrien-Fehr of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  456. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Markus Obrien-Fehr of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  457. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  458. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  459. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  460. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  461. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  462. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  463. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  464. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  465. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  466. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  467. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  468. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  469. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  470. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  471. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  472. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  473. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  474. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  475. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  476. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mustapha Khamissa of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  477. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  478. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  479. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  480. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  481. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  482. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Olivia Klasios of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  483. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  484. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  485. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  486. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  487. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  488. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  489. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  490. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  491. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  492. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  493. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  494. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  495. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  496. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  497. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  498. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  499. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  500. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  501. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  502. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  503. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  504. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  505. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  506. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  507. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  508. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  509. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  510. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  511. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  512. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  513. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  514. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  515. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  516. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  517. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  518. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  519. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  520. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  521. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  522. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  523. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  524. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  525. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  526. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  527. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  528. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  529. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  530. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  531. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  532. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  533. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  534. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  535. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  536. March 29, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  537. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  538. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  539. April 19, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  540. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  541. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  542. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  543. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  544. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  545. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  546. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  547. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  548. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  549. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  550. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  551. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  552. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  553. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  554. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  555. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  556. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  557. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  558. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  559. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  560. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  561. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  562. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  563. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  564. February 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  565. February 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  566. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  567. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  568. March 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  569. March 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  570. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  571. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  572. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  573. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  574. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  575. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  576. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  577. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  578. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  579. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  580. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  581. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  582. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  583. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  584. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  585. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  586. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  587. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Pape Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  588. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Emery Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  589. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dupont by the Castle BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  590. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Duke Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  591. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Downtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  592. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Corso Italia BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  593. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  594. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College Promenade BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  595. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Lakeshore BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  596. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Leslieville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  597. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Italy BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  598. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Portugal on Dundas BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  599. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Lawrence Market BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  600. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Midtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  601. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Mirvish Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  602. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Ossington Avenue BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  603. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Cityplace Fort York BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  604. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  605. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Cabbagetown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  606. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Broadview Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  607. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloorcourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  608. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloor-Yorkville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  609. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloor Annex BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  610. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Regal Heights Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  611. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Riverside BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  612. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Wychwood Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  613. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge + St. Clair BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  614. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of York-Eglinton BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  615. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Gerrard India Bazaar BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  616. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Greektown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  617. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Hillcrest Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  618. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kennedy Road BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  619. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Koreatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  620. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Rosedale BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  621. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Clair Gardens BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  622. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of MarkeTo BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  623. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Beach Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  624. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of The Eglinton Way BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  625. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Waterfront BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  626. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Village of Islington BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  627. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of West Queen West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  628. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  629. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  630. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Parkdale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  631. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  632. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  633. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  634. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  635. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  636. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  637. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  638. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  639. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  640. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  641. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  642. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  643. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  644. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  645. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  646. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  647. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  648. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  649. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  650. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  651. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  652. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Coordinator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  653. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  654. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  655. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  656. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  657. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  658. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  659. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  660. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  661. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  662. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  663. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  664. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  665. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  666. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  667. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  668. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  669. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  670. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  671. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, an Employee of the City.
  672. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  673. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  674. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  675. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  676. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  677. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  678. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  679. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  680. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  681. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  682. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  683. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  684. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  685. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  686. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  687. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  688. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  689. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  690. September 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  691. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  692. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  693. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  694. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  695. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  696. October 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  697. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  698. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  699. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  700. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  701. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  702. January 20, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  703. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  704. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  705. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  706. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  707. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  708. April 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  709. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  710. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  711. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  712. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  713. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  714. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  715. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  716. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  717. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  718. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  719. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  720. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  721. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  722. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  723. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  724. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  725. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  726. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  727. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  728. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  729. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  730. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  731. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  732. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  733. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  734. September 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  735. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  736. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  737. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  738. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  739. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  740. October 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  741. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  742. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  743. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  744. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  745. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  746. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  747. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  748. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  749. January 20, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  750. February 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  751. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  752. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  753. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  754. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  755. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  756. April 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  757. October 21, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  758. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  759. November 5, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  760. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  761. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  762. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  763. October 26, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  764. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, text Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  765. February 4, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  766. November 4, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  767. November 3, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  768. October 20, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  769. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  770. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  771. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  772. November 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  773. February 4, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  774. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  775. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.

 Crestview Strategy

  1. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  3. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  4. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  5. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  6. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  7. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  8. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  9. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  10. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  11. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  12. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  13. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  14. October 23, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  15. November 3, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  16. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Daryl Finlayson of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  17. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Nicolas Valverde of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  18. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Administrator of Uptown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  19. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Danforth Mosaic BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  20. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Gerrard India Bazaar BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  21. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Leslieville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  22. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kennedy Road BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  23. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of CityPlace and Fort York BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  24. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Ossington Avenue BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  25. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Queen Street West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  26. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Trinity Bellwoods BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  27. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Portugal On Dundas BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  28. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Oakwood Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  29. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Regal Heights Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  30. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Clair Gardens BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  31. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Italy BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  32. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Mirvish Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  33. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Rosedale Main Street BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  34. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge & St. Clair, an Employee of Local Board.
  35. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dovercourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  36. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dupont by the Castle BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  37. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kensington Market BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  38. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Korea Town BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  39. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of The Eglinton Way BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  40. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge Lawrence Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  41. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College Promenade BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  42. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Corso Italia BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  43. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Village of Islington BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  44. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Danforth Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  45. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of The Beach BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  46. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of DuKe Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  47. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Emery Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  48. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Fairbank Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  49. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of MarkeTO District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  50. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Harbord Street BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  51. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of GreekTown on the Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  52. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Pape Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  53. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Riverside District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  54. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Wilson Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  55. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of College West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  56. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Dovercourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  57. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Hillcrest Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  58. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Liberty Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  59. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Parkdale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  60. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  61. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of The Waterfront BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  62. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of West Queen West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  63. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  64. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Broadview Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  65. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Wexford Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  66. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Sheppard East Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  67. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  68. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Bloor Annex BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  69. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Bloor-Yorkville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  70. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Downtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  71. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of York-Eglinton BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  72. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Bloorcourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  73. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Bloordale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  74. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  75. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Operations Manager of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  76. October 15, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with General Manager of Economic Development and Culture, an Employee of the City.

 Lyft Canada Inc.

  1. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of Local Board.
  2. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Project, Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  4. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. September 18, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. November 24, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of Local Board.
  8. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  10. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. November 24, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Neutron Holdings Inc.

  1. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Jaye Robinson, Ward 25, a Staff of Member of Council.
  2. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Siri Agrell of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  3. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jon Burnside of Ward 26 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  4. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Christin Carmichael Greb of Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  5. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina, a Member of Council.
  6. April 15, 2020, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  7. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Gord Perks of Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  8. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Michael Thompson of Ward 37 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  9. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Cycling Infras & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. April 21, 2020, Mr. Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., Webinar James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  12. April 21, 2020, Mr. Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., Webinar Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  13. July 7, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  14. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  19. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  20. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  21. April 29, 2020, Ms. Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  22. April 29, 2020, Ms. Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  23. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  24. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  25. October 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  26. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  27. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  28. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  29. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  30. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  31. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  32. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  33. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  34. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  35. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  36. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  37. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  38. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  39. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  40. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  41. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  42. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  43. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  44. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  45. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  46. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  47. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  48. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  49. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  50. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  51. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  52. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  53. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  54. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  55. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  56. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  57. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  58. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  59. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  60. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  61. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  62. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  63. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  64. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  65. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  66. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  67. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  68. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  69. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  70. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  71. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  72. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  73. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  74. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  75. October 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  76. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  77. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  78. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  79. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  80. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  81. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  82. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  83. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  84. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  85. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  86. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  87. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  88. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  89. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  90. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  91. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  92. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  93. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  94. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  95. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  96. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  97. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  98. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  99. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  100. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  101. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  102. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  103. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  104. August 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  105. August 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  106. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  107. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  108. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  109. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  110. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  111. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  112. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  113. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  114. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  115. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  116. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  117. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  118. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  119. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  120. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  121. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  122. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  123. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  124. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  125. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  126. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  127. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  128. March 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., Social Media Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  129. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  130. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Abdullah Sherif of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  131. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  132. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  133. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  134. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  135. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  136. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ani Dergalstanian of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  137. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Ferrari of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  138. March 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Anthony Tersigni of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  139. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  140. February 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  141. October 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  142. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  143. March 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  144. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  145. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  146. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  147. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  148. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  149. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  150. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  151. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  152. April 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  153. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  154. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brett.McCandless of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  155. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  156. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  157. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  158. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  159. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Courtney Glen of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  160. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  161. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  162. July 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  163. July 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  164. August 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  165. September 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  166. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  167. September 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  168. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  169. October 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  170. October 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  171. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  172. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  173. November 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  174. November 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  175. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  176. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  177. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  178. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  179. February 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  180. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  181. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  182. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  183. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  184. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  185. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  186. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  187. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Dino Alic of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  188. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Dino Alic of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  189. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Fertaa Yieleh-Chireh of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  190. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  191. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  192. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  193. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  194. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  195. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  196. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  197. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  198. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  199. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  200. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  201. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  202. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  203. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  204. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  205. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  206. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  207. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  208. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  209. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with John Sinclair of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  210. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  211. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  212. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  213. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  214. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  215. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  216. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  217. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lia Brewer of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  218. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lisa Rainford of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  219. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  220. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  221. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  222. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  223. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  224. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  225. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  226. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  227. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  228. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  229. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  230. March 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  231. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  232. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  233. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Megan Poole of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  234. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  235. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  236. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  237. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  238. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  239. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nicholas Dominelli of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  240. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  241. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  242. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  243. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  244. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  245. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  246. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  247. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  248. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  249. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  250. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rachel Thompson of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  251. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  252. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  253. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  254. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  255. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  256. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  257. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  258. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  259. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  260. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  261. November 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  262. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  263. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  264. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  265. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  266. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  267. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  268. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  269. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  270. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  271. February 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  272. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  273. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  274. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  275. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  276. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  277. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  278. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  279. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  280. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  281. April 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  282. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  283. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  284. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  285. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  286. October 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  287. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  288. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  289. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  290. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  291. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  292. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  293. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  294. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  295. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  296. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  297. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  298. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  299. November 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  300. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  301. May 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mostafa Omran of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), a Member of Local Board.
  302. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  303. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  304. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  305. October 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  306. October 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  307. October 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  308. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  309. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  310. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  311. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  312. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  313. February 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Bike Share of Toronto Parking Authority, an Employee of Local Board.
  314. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Bike Share of Toronto Parking Authority, an Employee of Local Board.
  315. October 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  316. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  317. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  318. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  319. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  320. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  321. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  322. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  323. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  324. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  325. November 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  326. November 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  327. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  328. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  329. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  330. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  331. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  332. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  333. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  334. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  335. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  336. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  337. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  338. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  339. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  340. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  341. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  342. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  343. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  344. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  345. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  346. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  347. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  348. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  349. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  350. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  351. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  352. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  353. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  354. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  355. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  356. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  357. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  358. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  359. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  360. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  361. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  362. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  363. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  364. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  365. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  366. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  367. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  368. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  369. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  370. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  371. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  372. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  373. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  374. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  375. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  376. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  377. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  378. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Parks, Forestry & Recreation, an Employee of the City.
  379. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Fleet Services, an Employee of the City.
  380. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  381. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  382. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  383. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  384. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  385. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  386. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  387. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  388. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  389. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  390. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  391. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  392. May 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  393. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  394. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  395. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  396. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  397. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  398. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  399. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  400. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  401. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  402. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  403. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  404. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  405. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  406. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  407. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  408. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  409. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  410. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  411. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  412. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  413. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  414. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  415. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  416. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  417. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  418. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  419. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  420. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  421. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  422. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  423. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  424. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  425. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  426. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  427. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  428. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  429. December 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  430. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  431. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  432. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  433. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  434. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  435. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  436. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  437. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  438. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  439. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  440. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  441. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  442. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  443. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  444. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  445. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  446. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  447. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  448. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  449. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  450. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  451. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  452. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  453. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  454. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  455. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  456. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  457. May 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  458. June 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  459. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  460. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  461. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  462. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  463. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  464. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  465. August 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  466. August 20, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  467. August 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  468. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  469. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  470. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  471. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  472. October 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  473. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  474. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  475. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  476. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  477. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  478. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  479. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  480. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  481. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  482. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  483. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  484. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  485. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  486. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  487. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  488. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  489. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  490. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  491. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  492. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  493. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  494. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  495. November 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  496. November 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  497. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  498. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  499. December 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  500. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  501. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  502. January 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  503. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  504. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  505. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  506. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  507. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  508. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  509. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  510. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  511. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  512. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  513. March 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  514. March 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  515. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  516. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  517. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  518. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  519. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  520. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  521. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  522. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  523. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  524. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  525. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  526. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  527. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  528. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  529. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  530. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  531. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  532. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  533. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  534. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  535. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  536. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  537. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  538. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  539. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  540. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  541. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  542. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  543. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  544. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  545. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  546. July 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  547. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  548. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  549. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  550. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  551. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  552. July 9, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  553. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  554. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  555. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  556. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  557. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  558. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  559. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  560. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  561. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  562. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  563. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  564. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  565. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  566. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  567. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  568. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  569. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  570. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  571. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  572. July 3, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  573. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  574. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  575. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  576. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  577. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  578. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  579. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  580. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  581. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  582. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  583. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Abdullah Sherif of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  584. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  585. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Ferrari of Councillor Frances Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  586. October 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Anthony Tersigni of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  587. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Councillor Paul Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  588. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ashley Mcdonald of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  589. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  590. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  591. October 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  592. October 26, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  593. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  594. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Carolina Vecchiarelli of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  595. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  596. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  597. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  598. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  599. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  600. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  601. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  602. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  603. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  604. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  605. July 3, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  606. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  607. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Councillor Gord Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  608. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Councillor Mark Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  609. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  610. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lia Brewer of Councillor Joe Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  611. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  612. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Councillor Gary Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  613. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  614. July 7, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  615. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  616. October 7, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to, Teleconference Michael Giles of Councillor Ana Bailão, a Staff of Member of Council.
  617. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Staff of Member of Council.
  618. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  619. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  620. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  621. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Councillor Shelley Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  622. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Councillor John Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  623. July 8, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  624. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  625. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  626. March 1, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  627. March 4, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  628. March 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  629. March 10, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  630. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Councillor Stephen Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  631. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  632. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  633. July 9, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  634. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  635. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  636. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  637. October 8, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Executive Director of Yonge + St. Clair BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  638. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  639. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  640. October 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  641. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  642. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  643. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  644. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  645. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  646. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  647. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  648. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  649. April 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  650. April 11, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  651. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  652. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  653. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  654. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  655. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  656. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  657. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  658. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  659. January 29, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  660. January 30, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  661. April 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  662. April 11, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  663. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Public Consultation Coordinator of Policy, Planning, Finance & Administration, an Employee of the City.
  664. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, an Member of Council.
  665. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, an Member of Council.
  666. February 6, 2020, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  667. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  668. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  669. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Populus Technologies Inc.

  1. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  2. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  4. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  8. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. June 1, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. June 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  12. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  13. July 2, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  14. July 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. June 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. September 27, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  19. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  20. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  21. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  22. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  23. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  24. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  25. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  26. March 9, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  27. March 24, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  28. April 15, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  29. April 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  30. May 8, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  31. May 19, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  32. May 27, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  33. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  34. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  35. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  36. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  37. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  38. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  39. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  40. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  41. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  42. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  43. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  44. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  45. September 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  46. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  47. October 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  48. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  49. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  50. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  51. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  52. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  53. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  54. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  55. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  56. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  57. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  58. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  59. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  60. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  61. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  62. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  63. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  64. June 1, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  65. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  66. June 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  67. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  68. July 2, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  69. July 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  70. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  71. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  72. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  73. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  74. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  75. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  76. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  77. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  78. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  79. June 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  80. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  81. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  82. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  83. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  84. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  85. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  86. September 27, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  87. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  88. October 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  89. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  90. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  91. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  92. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  93. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  94. February 26, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  95. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  96. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  97. March 9, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  98. March 24, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  99. April 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  100. April 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  101. May 8, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  102. May 19, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  103. May 27, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  104. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  105. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  106. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  107. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  108. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  109. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  110. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  111. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  112. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  113. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  114. January 12, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  115. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  116. September 5, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  117. September 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  118. September 10, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  119. September 13, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  120. September 25, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  121. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  122. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  123. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  124. December 23, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  125. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  126. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  127. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  128. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  129. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  130. July 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  131. September 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  132. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  133. January 12, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  134. February 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  135. September 13, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  136. September 25, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  137. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  138. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  140. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met withs Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  145. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  146. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. June 1, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. June 18, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  151. July 2, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. July 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  154. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  155. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  156. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  157. June 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  158. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  159. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  160. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  161. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  162. February 26, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  163. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  164. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  165. March 9, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  166. March 24, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  167. April 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  168. April 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  169. May 8, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  170. May 19, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  171. May 27, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  172. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  173. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  174. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  175. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  176. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  177. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  178. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  179. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  180. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.



Source link

Please Write to the City of Toronto to Support the AODA Alliance‘s New, Comprehensive Brief on Why Toronto Should Not Lift the Ban on Electric Scooters


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Please Write to the City of Toronto to Support the AODA Alliance‘s New, Comprehensive Brief on Why Toronto Should Not Lift the Ban on Electric Scooters

March 30, 2021

            SUMMARY

The AODA Alliance has just submitted a comprehensive brief to the City of Toronto showing why it must not lift the ban on electric scooters (e-scooters). This brief, set out below, brings together and supplements all the work we have done on this e-scooters issue over the past 19 months. We set the brief out below.

The brief begins with a pithy 3-page summary, for those who don’t have time to read it all. We encourage you or any community organization with which you are connected to email Toronto Mayor John Tory, any City Council member you think appropriate, and Toronto City staff. Tell them you support the AODA Alliance’s March 30, 2021 brief opposing e-scooters in Toronto.

Mayor Tory: [email protected] and you can email City staff by writing

City staff: [email protected]

For an easy-to-use online tool to email Mayor Tory and any City Council members you wish, provided courtesy of the March of Dimes of Canada, visit https://www.marchofdimes.ca/en-ca/aboutus/govtrelations/elections/Pages/escooters.aspx

Please quickly write Toronto. It is anticipated that this issue will come up again at the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee on April 28, 2021. We will have more information for you in the coming days.

For more background on this issue, visit the AODA Alliance’s e-scooters web page.

Riding Electric Scooters in Toronto is Dangerous and Must Remain Banned – For Toronto To Allow E-scooters Would be to Knowingly Create New Disability Accessibility Barriers Against People with Disabilities

AODA Alliance brief to the City of Toronto

March 30, 2021

Mayor Tory and Toronto City Council must not unleash dangerous electric scooters in Toronto. Riding e-scooters in public places in Toronto is now banned. It remains banned unless Council legalizes them. The pressure to allow e-scooters is relentlessly being advanced by corporate lobbyists for the wealthy and well-financed e-scooter rental industry. Torontonians, including Torontonians with disabilities, need Mayor Tory and City Council to stand up to the corporate lobbyists, and to stand up for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others whom e-scooters endanger.

The AODA Alliance submits this brief to the City of Toronto in opposition to the proposal to lift the ban on riding e-scooters in public places in Toronto. It should remain illegal for e-scooters to be ridden in public, whether on a rental e-scooter or a privately-owned e-scooter.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance has played a leading role in raising serious disability safety and accessibility concerns with e-scooters. To learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts to protect people with disabilities and others from the dangers that e-scooters pose, visit its e-scooters web page.

This issue will likely be on the agenda at the April 28, 2021 meeting of the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment committee. We ask City staff to incorporate this brief’s findings and recommendations in its forthcoming report to The Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee and the Toronto City Council as a whole.

 1. Summary of this Brief – Don’t Allow E-scooters in Toronto

Toronto should not lift the current ban on riding e-scooters in public places, whether permanently or for a pilot project. For Toronto to allow people to ride e-scooters, whether ones they own or rent, would knowingly and seriously endanger the safety of people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. It would knowingly create new accessibility barriers against people with disabilities. This would fly in the face of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the guarantees to people with disabilities in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Here are key incontrovertible facts overwhelmingly established by objective City staff reports and by public feedback:

  1. Having been forewarned, for the City of Toronto to lift the ban on e-scooters in light of the dangers they pose, as documented in this brief, would expose the City to major claims for knowingly endangering Toronto’s residents and knowingly creating new accessibility barriers against persons with disabilities. For the City of Toronto to do so knowingly is the same as doing so intentionally.
  1. E-scooters will cause an increase in personal injuries, including serious personal injuries to innocent pedestrians and e-scooter riders, burdening Toronto’s overburdened hospital emergency rooms. E-scooters are a silent menace, ridden by unhelmetted, untrained, unlicensed and uninsured riders.
  1. If Toronto allows e-scooters, but bans them from sidewalks, experience in other cities shows for certain that e-scooters will nevertheless regularly be ridden on Toronto sidewalks. This endangers innocent pedestrians. Toronto lacks the law enforcement capacity to effectively police new rules regarding e-scooters, such as a ban on riding or parking them on sidewalks.
  1. If Toronto permits e-scooters, this will create new serious accessibility barriers impeding people with disabilities. This will happen especially in public places like sidewalks where they will be left strewn about, as in other cities that permit e-scooters. They will be a tripping hazard for blind people. They will block accessible paths of travel for people using wheelchairs. Toronto already has far too many accessibility barriers in public places such as sidewalks. E-scooters would make this even worse.
  1. Toronto City staff found no other city that has found an effective way to permit and regulate e-scooters and to effectively enforce those regulations.
  1. To lift the ban on e-scooters will invariably place new financial burdens on the taxpayer. The maximum amount cannot be quantified in advance. This will include added health care costs due to e-scooter injuries, cost of added infrastructure to accommodate e-scooters, added law enforcement costs, added regulatory and monitoring costs, and other liabilities triggered by e-scooters.
  1. Toronto’s mayor and City Council have received strong united opposition to e-scooters from the disability community, reflecting the needs of vulnerable people with disabilities ,seniors and children. This includes two successive compelling unanimous resolutions against e-scooters by the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, strong opposition by many respected disability community organizations, passionate deputations against e-scooters by every person with a disability presenting to City Council committees that have invited deputations on this topic, and emails and phone calls to the mayor and City Council members from many people with disabilities and their supporters.
  1. On July 28, 2020, City Council directed City staff to research disability community concerns with e-scooters. City staff’s research further validated and documented disability community concerns with e-scooters. City staff explored options for addressing these concerns and found that there are no workable solutions that are safe and that avoid the creation of new accessibility barriers. The e-scooter rental industry’s proposed solutions would impose significant cost burdens on the public. They would not effectively solve these public safety and disability accessibility concerns.
  1. It is disturbing that on July 28, 2020, almost half of City Council voted to oppose City Staff conducting research on disability concerns with e-scooters. Had those dissenting Council members succeeded, the important new information that City staff has revealed would never have come to light, to the serious detriment of people with disabilities.
  1. In disregard of these serious dangers, a relentless push for e-scooters in Toronto is mounted by corporate lobbyists for the Canadian arm of international e-scooter rental companies such as Lime and Bird. They unleashed an extensive, well-financed and well-connected lobbying feeding frenzy at City Hall. Some City Council members told the AODA Alliance that this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest corporate lobbying blitz now underway at City Hall. An AODA Alliance report documented that between June 2018 and October 2020, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists had fully 1,384 contacts at City Hall, including 94 with the mayor’s office.
  1. Substantially eviscerating their credibility on this issue, this brief documents that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have made a number of false, exaggerated, misleading and/or transparently meritless claims to support their pressure for Toronto to lift the ban on e-scooters and let them expand their market. If Toronto allows e-scooters, the e-scooter rental companies will be laughing all the way to the bank, while members of the public, including vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and children, will be sobbing all the way to the hospital.
  1. The e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ entire campaign is based on the erroneous assertion that rental e-scooters will significantly reduce traffic and pollution, because instead of driving, people will take public transit, and then rent an e-scooter to ride the last mile to their destinations. Yet data from City staff and from the corporate lobbyists themselves shows that the vast majority of e-scooter rides are NOT taken to connect to public transit. They thus won’t reduce traffic or pollution. Indeed a proportion of e-scooter renters use an e-scooter instead of walking or taking public transit. Moreover, for e-scooters to be effective for this “last mile”, Toronto must be inundated with thousands of e-scooters, so one is available whenever a rider wants one. This exacerbates city clutter and disability barriers.
  1. The public use of e-scooters in Toronto should remain banned in any form, whether privately owned the by the rider, or rented e.g. through a shared e-scooter program. The AODA Alliance opposes any e-scooter rental program, whether run by the e-scooter rental companies directly or by the City of Toronto e.g. through its Bike Share program.
  1. The AODA Alliance agrees with the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, which called on City law enforcement to enforce the current ban on e-scooters. If someone now illegally rides an e-scooter, City Council should mandate law enforcement to confiscate that e-scooter.
  1. The fact that Toronto earlier approved some other shared economy activities, like Uber ride sharing, should not mean the e-scooter corporate lobbyists get a free pass here. Any prior approval of ride-sharing, for example, did not take into account the dangers that e-scooters pose. Each shared economy proposal should be assessed on its own strengths and dangers. Rejecting e-scooters does not preclude City Council from approving other shared economic activities, where it adjudges them safe and appropriate.
  1. We seek the leadership of Toronto Mayor John Tory. We need him and all City Council to stand up for people with disabilities, seniors, children and others endangered by e-scooters. We need Mayor Tory and City Council to stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

 2. The Proof is Overwhelming – E-Scooters Endanger Personal Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others.

Overwhelming evidence shows that allowing e-scooters in Toronto will endanger the safety of the public, including vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. They will also create new accessibility barriers in a city that is already full of too many disability barriers.

 a)Two Strong Resolutions of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee

These concerns are strongly supported by two unanimous motions of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee. Those resolutions were passed on February 3, 2020 and February 25, 2021. The latter reads:

“The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee communicate to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee and City Council, for consideration with the next staff report on electric kick scooters, that:

  1. The Committee does not support the use of any electric kick-scooters (e-scooters) in the City of Toronto; and request that a ban prohibiting their use in all public space remain in place without any exceptions, as they:
  2. create a general safety hazard in the public realm for all Toronto residents;
  3. add further barriers for the elderly and persons living with disabilities;
  4. are poorly enforced when illegally used due to insufficient enforcement resources;
  5. further encumber pre-existing inadequate infrastructure.
  6. The Committee recommends that City Council request the Toronto Police Services Board, the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards to consult with accessibility stakeholders to:
  7. develop a public education campaign to effectively convey the existing by-laws on the prohibition of e-scooters use in all public spaces;
  8. actively scale up city-wide enforcement of the by-law prohibiting use of e-scooters in all public spaces.”

It is especially important for Toronto Mayor John Tory and City Council to pay heed to these unanimous strong resolutions. This is because the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requires cities like Toronto to create such municipal accessibility advisory committees. They exist in order to alert municipal governments to important areas where priority action is needed on accessibility for people with disabilities. This includes, among other things, action needed to prevent the creation of new accessibility barriers. If a municipal government creates a new accessibility barrier after it was warned not to do so by its accessibility advisory committee, that government will be acting in a deliberate, intentional and harmful way, contrary to the AODA’s goal.

 b) Media Coverage Objectively Documents Serious Harms Caused by E-scooters

Here is a sampling of media coverage objectively documenting the harms and injuries that e-scooters can cause.

*E-scooter hit-and-run crash leaves pedestrian, 65, seriously injured in hospital in Greater Manchester, UK

*Woman left with brain injury after being hit by e-scooter when getting off bus in Auckland court hears

*Six e-scooter riders before courts for intoxicated riding – UK pilots

*According to the Edmonton Journal, in Edmonton 94 percent said they saw e-scooters used on sidewalks, 68% said more enforcement needed.

*The Washington Post reported on January 11, 2019 that a 75-year-old man in San Diego tripped over an e-scooter. He was taken to hospital, “where X-rays revealed his knee was shattered in four places”. The article quotes Wally Ghurabi, medical director of the Nethercutt Emergency Center at the UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica. Ghurabi said, “I’ve seen pedestrians injured by scooters with broken hips, multiple bone fractures, broken ribs and joint injuries and soft tissue injuries like lacerations and deep abrasions.” The article also reports incidents involving pedestrians in Dallas, where a 32-year-old man was “left with scrapes on his knee and face, as well as a deep gash above his right eye that required seven stitches”, and Cincinnati, where a 44-year-old woman incurred approximately $1000 in medical expenses after being “throw [n]…to the ground” — both following collisions with e-scooters.

*Euronews reported on June 18, 2019, that Paris intended to implement speed limits and parking restrictions for e-scooters following its “first death on an electric scooter”. The French transport minister also announced a nationwide ban on e-scooters on sidewalks, effective September. A week prior to the announcements, a 25-year-old man riding an e-scooter had died after being hit by a truck. The report details other incidents, involving both riders and bystanders. In Sweden, “a 27-year-old man died in a crash while riding one of the electric vehicles in May”. In Barcelona, “a 92-year-old woman died in August 2018 after she was run over by an e-scooter — making it the first case of a pedestrian being killed by the electric vehicle”.

*On July 26, 2019, CBC News reported that since e-scooters became available in Calgary, “Calgary emergency rooms have seen 60 patients with e-scooter-related injuries”. The report added that “[a] bout a third of them were fractures and roughly 10 per cent were injuries to the face and head”. These figures have triggered a study by the University of Calgary.

*The Guardian reported on August 11, 2019 that Paris had experienced its third e-scooter-related death in four months: “A 30-year-old man has been killed after being hit by a motorbike while riding his e-scooter on a French motorway.” The report went on to state that “ [t] he scooter rider was not wearing a helmet and was reportedly travelling in the fast lane when the motorbike hit him from behind”, despite the fact that “[u] sing scooters on motorways is banned in France”. Moreover, “The day before the accident, a 27-year-old woman suffered serious head injuries after falling from an e-scooter she was using in a cycle lane in Lyon. A few days earlier a 41-year-old man had been seriously injured after falling from his e-scooter in Lille.” Finally, the report provided details on another, earlier e-scooter-related death in France: “An 81-year-old man died after he was reportedly knocked over by an e-scooter in Levallois-Perret, a Parisian suburb, in April.”

*CityNews reported on August 13, 2019, as part of a short survey of European regulations, that “German police say seven people have been seriously injured and 27 suffered minor injuries in scooter accidents since mid-June, saying most were due to riders behaving carelessly.”

*In Austin, an article from 2019 states that almost half of the 190 e-scooter injuries in a three-month period were injuries to the head and 15 percent were traumatic brain injuries. Less than 1 percent of injured riders were wearing helmets.

*In San Antonio, wheelchair users complain of e-scooters being left on sidewalks and ramps; these present a danger to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility. The article notes that the e-scooters create profound obstacles for disabled people who are simply trying to get to work or run daily errands.

 

*An article entitled “Sharing the sidewalk: A case of E-scooter related pedestrian injury” published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in June 2019 cites multiple studies corroborating the occurrence of pedestrian injuries: one from Israel found that, while pedestrians were 8.4% of the patients admitted for e-bike- and e-scooter-related injuries, they “were more severely injured; compared to electric scooter riders and electric bike riders, pedestrians have higher rates of head, face, and neck injuries; traumatic brain injuries; and hospital stays lasting more than a week”.

 c) Major Disability Organizations Unite in Opposition to Allowing E-Scooters

An impressive number of respected community organizations have voiced the same safety and accessibility concerns especially for people with disabilities and seniors. They have called for e-scooters not to be allowed. A January 22, 2020 Open letter in opposition to e-scooters in Ontario cities like Toronto has been co-signed or endorsed by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, March of Dimes of Canada, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the ARCH Disability Law Centre, Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, the Ontario Autism Coalition, the Older Women’s Network, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Guide Dog Users of Canada, Views for the Visually Impaired, Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario and Canadians with Disabilities of B’nai Brith Canada.

 d) All deputants with Disabilities Addressing City of Toronto Committees on E-scooters Raise Serious Safety and Accessibility Objections

Safety and accessibility concerns led every deputant with disabilities and their supporters, speaking at City of Toronto Committee meetings on this issue, to insist that e-scooters must not be allowed in Toronto. This was the unanimous message from all people with disabilities and their supporters who have addressed the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 3, 2020 or February 25, 2021, and who addressed the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee on July 9, 2020.

For example, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, a very long meeting for that Committee, Disability presenters at the meeting were unanimous in voicing total opposition to e-scooters in any form or on any basis in Toronto. John Rae, a blind person over the age of 70, spoke for the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians. He described e-scooters as an e-menace to people with disabilities and seniors. He said that any deployment or testing of e-scooters would be a new disability barrier, flying in the face of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. He said Toronto, including its sidewalks, have been becoming less accessible to persons with vision loss. E-scooters will make this worse. This is an issue of pedestrian safety.

Edward Rice, speaking for B’nai Brith Canada, showed disturbing pictures from Fort Lauderdale Florida, where from a year before, when in a two block area, there were fully 25 e-scooters strewn about the sidewalk. He uses a mobility device. He had to ask strangers to move these out of the way so he could travel on the sidewalk. He called this “embarrassing and humiliating”.

John Mosa, Melanie Marsden and Andrea Hatala together spoke for the GTA Disability Coalition, a network of different disability organizations. They, like Mr. Rice, cited a study of increased emergency room visits in Calgary due to e-scooter use. In Toronto this would compound the discrimination which people with disabilities risk in hospital during COVID-19 due to the Ontario Government’s critical care triage protocol. They identified the barriers to people with disabilities that e-scooters pose, because they are silent and can be difficult to avoid, and because they can be a tripping hazard and mobility barrier on sidewalks. They endorsed the AODA Alliance’s call for e-scooters to be banned, for there to be no e-scooter pilot, and for police to enforce the ban on e-scooters against those now riding them.

Jennifer Griffith, a blind woman who uses a guide dog, described Toronto as an increasingly dangerous and inaccessible city. Her example of dangers are construction sites in the city that she has to try to safely navigate through or around. She described the fear she would face each time she goes out in public if she faces the danger of silent e-scooters injuring her. She would not have heard of a proposal for an e-scooter pilot, had it not been for the AODA Alliance.

Ron Redham is a 60 year old person with a disability who lives in Etobicoke and walks with canes. Having gradually learned how to use canes after having to use a wheelchair, He asked Toronto not to send him and others back on the rehabilitation burdens that he had to go through. He doesn’t want to end up in a wheelchair again. He said in Montreal, 80% of scooters were parked illegally, resulting in them littering the downtown. This led to an early cancellation of their pilot project.

Paul Michaels is from B’nai Brith Canada, a national human rights organization. He has two family members with cerebral palsy. They asked him to share with the Committee their fear that they could not readily maneuver out of the path of an oncoming e-scooter or around a group of e-scooters.

Adam Cahoon said he gets hateful looks when he uses his power wheelchair at full speed, around 8 KPH or so. He said e-scooter scan go over double his speed, making him feel especially vulnerable.

On February 25, 2021, several members of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee also described serious safety and accessibility dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities. For example, a member of Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said that deafblind persons would be especially vulnerable.

 e) Toronto City Staff Confirm the Safety Dangers and New Accessibility Barriers that E-Scooters Would Create in Toronto

Two written City staff reports confirm that e-scooters endanger public safety, including safety for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. They will also create new disability accessibility barriers, even if banned on sidewalks. This is confirmed in the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, and the City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee.

The City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the City’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee included these findings:

* “E-scooters pose a risk to people with disabilities due to their faster speeds and lack of noise. Cities that have allowed e-scooters have observed a high incidence of sidewalk riding by riders, whether permitted or not on sidewalks. Parked e-scooters, especially when part of a dockless sharing system, can pose trip hazards and obstacles. Seniors, people with disabilities, and those with socio-economic challenges could face negative outcomes if injured in a collision or fall. Solutions to enforcement and compliance are still in their infancy.”

* “Vision Zero Road Safety – Risks with E-scooters

The City has a Vision Zero commitment to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities resulting from roadway crashes, particularly around six emphasis areas including pedestrians, school children, and older adults. Replacing car trips with e-scooter trips presents an opportunity to address some road safety issues if e-scooters produce a net safety benefit, especially for these groups. A 2020 International Transport Forum study notes that the risk of hospital admission may be higher for e-scooter riders than for cyclists, but that there are too few studies to draw firm conclusions. While not comprehensive, the emerging evidence of the health impacts associated with e-scooter use warrants a cautious approach to mitigate risks to e-scooter riders, pedestrians, and the City. Some of the findings are below.

New e-scooters users are most likely to be injured with 63 per cent of injuries occurring within the first nine times using an e-scooter. (CDC and City of Austin).

A comparison of serious injury rates between Calgary’s 2019 shared e-scooter pilot and Bike Share Toronto suggests riding a shared e-scooter is potentially about 350 times more likely to result in a serious injury than riding a shared bike on a per km basis, and about 100 times more likely on a per trip basis. This includes a limited sample size, differing definitions for serious injuries, different city contexts (e.g., Calgary allowed e-scooter riding on sidewalks, whereas bicycle riding is not allowed on sidewalks in Toronto) and serious injuries may decline over time as people gain experience riding e-scooters. (Montréal reported few e-scooter injuries for its 2019 pilot, however, it is unclear whether and how data for serious injuries was gathered.) Calculations are based on: 33 ER visits requiring ambulance transport over three months (Jul to Sep 2019) in Calgary for e-scooter-related injuries with a reported 750,000 trips, and average trip length of 0.9km; and 2,439,000 trips for Bike Share Toronto, with 3km average trip length, over 12 months in 2019, and no serious injuries (e.g., broken bones, head trauma, hospitalization) but attributing one for comparison purposes. Further data collection and studies of injuries are needed on a per km basis, by type of trip (i.e., recreational versus commuting, facility type), and by injury type.

The fatality rate for shared e-scooter users is potentially nine to 18 times the rate of bike share-related deaths in the U.S., based on a news report in the Chicagoreader.

Head trauma was reported in nearly one third of all e-scooter-related injuries in the U.S. from 2014 to 2018 – more than twice the rate of head injuries to bicyclists. In a City of Austin study in 2018 over three months, 48 per cent of e-scooter riders who were hurt had head injuries (91 out of 190), with 15 per cent (28 riders) experiencing more serious traumatic brain injuries.

Falling off e-scooters was the cause of 80 per cent of injuries (183 riders); 20 per cent (45 riders) had collided with a vehicle or an object, according to a 2019 UCLA study of two hospital ERs in one year. Just over eight per cent of the injuries were to pedestrians injured as a result of e-scooters (11 hit by an e-scooter, 5 tripped over a parked e-scooter, and 5 were attempting to move an e-scooter not in use).

Hospital data will be key to track injuries and fatalities by type and severity, especially for incidents where no motor vehicle has been involved (e.g., losing control) or for a trip and fall involving improperly parked e-scooters. As an ICD-10 code (international standard injury reporting code) specific to e-scooters will not be implemented in Canada until at least spring 2021, a reliable method to track serious e-scooter related injuries and fatalities presenting at hospitals is currently not available.”

* “Other cities have suspended e-scooter sharing services until after COVID-19 (e.g., Windsor approved a shared e-scooter pilot in April 2020, but has now deferred its pilot until after COVID-19). Prior to the pandemic, a number of jurisdictions (e.g., Boulder, Honolulu, and Houston) had refused to allow or banned the use of e-scooters due to public safety concerns. Key cities with similar population, urban form, and/or climate have not yet piloted e-scooters such as New York City (Manhattan/New York County ban), Philadelphia, and Sydney, Australia.”

* “While staff have considered a potential e-scooter pilot on ActiveTO major road closures, it would pose risks to vulnerable road users and leave the City open to considerable liability and risk due to lack of resources for oversight, education and enforcement at this time. A key purpose of ActiveTO is to provide a mixed use space for physical activity for people of all ages for walking, jogging and human-powered cycling. Piloting a new vehicle type that is throttle-powered and can potentially exceed speeds of 24km/hr poses risks to vulnerable road users in such conditions. It could also lead to confusion about which infrastructure or facilities under ActiveTO are permissible, and this would pose public safety risks that the City does not have resources to manage at this time.”

* “Finally, the risk of injury for new users is high, and could put additional burden on local hospitals and paramedics at this time. For the reasons above, City staff do not recommend permitting e-scooters in ActiveTO facilities in 2020.”

* “If Council were to permit e-scooters to be operated on City streets – without the commensurate resources to provide oversight, education, outreach and enforcement, there would be considerable risks to public safety for e-scooter riders and other vulnerable road users; additional burden on hospitals and paramedics; impacts on accessibility, community nuisance and complaints; impacts on current initiatives to enhance the public realm for COVID-19 recovery efforts, such as CurbTO and CaféTO; and liability and costs to the City. For the reasons above, staff recommend that personal use of e-scooters not be considered until 2021.”

* “Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

Persons with disabilities and seniors have considerable concerns about sidewalk and crosswalk interactions with e-scooter users, as well as concerns regarding trip hazards and obstructions from poorly parked or excessive amounts of e-scooters. The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, a body required under the AODA, recommends that City Council prohibit the use of e-scooters in public spaces, including sidewalks and roads. In other jurisdictions outside of Ontario, some legal action has been undertaken against municipalities by persons injured as a result of e-scooter sidewalk obstructions, as well as by persons with disabilities.“

After City Council directed City staff on July 28, 2020 to do further research on the disability concerns regarding e-scooters, City staff did further research. This further research reinforced the public safety and accessibility concerns addressed above. None of the City staff’s new information refuted or reduced the concerns about the dangers that e-scooters present as raised by disability advocates and others. The City staff’s further research did not support a conclusion that these concerns have been or could be effectively eliminated.

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee included

* “According to the UDV (German Insurers Accident Research) in January 2021, e-scooter riders are 4 times more (or 400% more) likely than bicyclists to injure others, due to e-scooters being illegally ridden on sidewalks.

–     In 21% of e-scooter incidents with personal injury, the victim is not the rider, but another road user. This is due in part to e-scooters being ridden on sidewalks 60% of the time when they should be on the road or bike lane.

According to Austria’s Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KFV) in October 2020, 34% of 573 e-scooter riders observed at several Vienna locations illegally rode on the sidewalk.

–     Even if there was a bike path, 23 percent preferred the sidewalk. If there was only one cycle or multi-purpose lane, 46 percent rode on the sidewalk. If there was no cycling infrastructure, 49 percent rolled illegally on the sidewalk.”

* “Canadian context – City of Calgary

  • No bike share. Only rental e-scooters allowed in Alberta.
  • Allows e-scooter riding on sidewalks.
  • 43% of 311 requests about bad behaviour or conflicts with pedestrians; 42% parking concerns. (total of 769 requests over the pilot period)
  • Now allowing e-scooter use on some roads to reduce sidewalk riding issues. Added slow speed zones and 30 parking zones (2.5% of riders ended trips in parking zones; 10% of the e-scooter fleet was deployed to the parking zones).
  • E-scooters to return via the procurement process. Lowered fleet cap from 2,800 (2020) to 1,500 (2021). Will require licence plates for enforcement.
  • “Likely that e-scooters have the highest rate of injury per transportation mode” but less severe. 43% of EMS e-scooter injuries required surgery (double that of EMS bicycles at 21%). 37% of severe e-scooter injuries had suspected intoxication.
  • 1,300 e-Scooter-related ER visits during the pilot period but may be over-inclusive of other devices referred to as scooters. 75 required ambulance transport, 5% were pedestrians injured.

Canadian context – City of Ottawa

  • No bike share. Personal use and rental e-scooters allowed on roads with max 50km/h limit, bike lanes, and trails/paths that are not National Capital Commission multi-use paths.
  • Lowered max. speed to 20km/hr for e-scooters from the permitted 24km/hr under the provincial pilot. 8km/hr for slow zones, e.g., transit malls/stations.
  • Piloted a fleet of 600 e-scooters with 3 vendors in 2020. Will increase the fleet cap to between 1,200 and 1,500 for 2021 and expand outside the Greenbelt (suburban area).
  • 76% of e-scooter riders surveyed used e-scooters for recreation; 2% to connect to transit (COVID-19 context)
  • Will pilot in 2021 via procurement process. Staff labour costs not included in cost-recovery. Considering designated parking areas. 69% of all survey respondents reported encountering improperly parked e-scooters.
  • No injury data collection with hospitals and not likely for 2021 given the pandemic.
  • Accessibility stakeholders were consulted and raised concerns about sidewalk riding and improper parking, especially barriers for persons with low vision or no vision.”

Despite all the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates e-scooters ‘dangers, the two lead e-scooter rental companies, Bird and Lime, together have campaigned for e-scooters in Toronto in effect as if none of that evidence is true. For example, Bird tried to convey an impression that e-scooters pose no additional danger to public safety, if allowed, and are simply the same as bikes. This defies logic. Unlike bikes, an e-scooter, ridden for the very first time by an utterly inexperienced rider, can silently race faster than 20 kph in seconds, powered by an onboard motor. The faster a vehicle’s speed on impact with an innocent pedestrian, the greater the force applied, and the risk of consequential injury.

Lime has made even more exaggerated claims. It repeatedly told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that rental e-scooters, if allowed, will improve public safety, stating:

“The OECD says in their widely, the most extensive report in the world on micro-mobility that road users will be safer, all road users, if e-scooter and bicycle trips replace travel by car or motorcycle.”

Lime would thus have Toronto believe that the public is at greater danger now, because e-scooters are not allowed. To support this extreme claim, Lime in substance argued that cars are more dangerous to pedestrians than are e-scooters. Is it just a coincidence that this claim serves the economic interests of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists in getting as many e-scooters on the road as possible, claiming in effect that the more e-scooters that are deployed, the safer we all will be?

Of course, cars are much bigger and heavier than e-scooters. They can go much faster than e-scooters. As such, a car can cause greater injuries when it hits a pedestrian.

Lime’s claim rests on fatally flawed premises. First, no one is contemplating banning cars from the road, and replacing them with e-scooters. Second, cars, unlike e-scooters, are not routinely driven on sidewalks, where pedestrians expect and deserve to be able to walk in safety, unthreatened by any motor vehicles. Third, as addressed further below, in cities where e-scooters are allowed, they have not been proven to materially reduce the amount of car traffic on the road.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, the City got a unique opportunity to assess the clash between City staff who say that e-scooters create new safety dangers on the one hand, and e-scooter corporate lobbyists who claim that e-scooters will improve public safety, on the other. Committee members asked both e-scooter corporate lobbyists and City staff to address the clash in the data that each relied upon.

When the answers of City staff and the e-scooter corporate lobbyists are assessed together, the only plausible conclusion is to reject the corporate lobbyists’ claims that e-scooters improve public safety, rather than endangering public safety. City Council is strongly encouraged to prefer the City staff findings. This is so in light of the fact that City staff, acting in the tradition of professional public servants, have provided unimpeachable objective data. In sharp contrast, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’s have a strong economic motive to exaggerate their claims. As is further documented later in this brief, they also have a disturbing track record of false, exaggerated and misleading claims that brings their credibility into question.

Lime Canada conceded that if a city council saw the information about the impact of e-scooters that City staff presented at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, they would vote against e-scooters. Lime also conceded at that meeting that the highest priority risk areas are parking compliance, compliance with not riding on sidewalks, and riding while intoxicated. We emphasize that all those three areas bear directly on creation of new safety dangers and disability accessibility barriers.

Despite those major admissions, to support its claims that e-scooters will improve public safety rather than endangering it, Lime and Bird referred a report from the International Transport Forum ITF of the OECD at the same Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting. However, City staff correctly pointed out several critical features of that report that controvert the corporate lobbyists’ reliance on and claims about it.

First, that report, which the corporate lobbyists called an “OECD report”, was not in fact endorsed or approved by the OECD. To the contrary, it is labelled as a Corporate Partnership Board Report. City staff explained that the corporate partnership board includes e-scooter manufacturers and e-scooter rental companies. The report includes a pivotal disclaimer that:

“Funding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board” and “It has not been subject to the scrutiny of ITF or OECD member countries and does not necessarily reflect their official views or those of the members of the Corporate Partnership Board.”

Second, Bird claimed that the International Transport Forum of the OECD had concluded that a road fatality is not significantly more likely when using a shared standing e-scooter rather than a bicycle, and that the risk of an emergency department visit for an e-scooter rider is similar to that for cyclists. In response, City staff explained that on page 10 and 20 of the report, it says that the hospital rate may be higher for e-scooters, that hospital admissions related to e-scooter incidents may be higher. It is clear that the report does not prove or support the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ claims about it. When City staff met with the e-scooter rental industry on January 20, 2021, City staff were very clear in stating that they do not consider, given the research seen, that that the risk profile of e-scooters is merely the same as bikes.

 3. E-scooters Won’t Materially Reduce Road Traffic, Pollution or Climate Change

E-scooter corporate lobbyists make unsubstantiated claims that to allow e-scooters would materially reduce road traffic and combat pollution and climate change. This lies at the heart of their argument in favour of Toronto permitting e-scooters. For example, Lime told the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that e-scooters can save “a ton of car trips”. It turns out that these claims are untrue.

The corporate lobbyists argue that e-scooters would reduce traffic on the roads and reduce pollution because instead of taking a car to their destination, they would ride public transit to get near their destination, and then rent an e-scooter to ride the last mile from transit to their destination, or to ride the first mile from their destination back to public transit. Eviscerating this claim is the fact that most e-scooter renters do not use e-scooters to connect to transit. The February 25, 2021 City staff presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee indicated that in the Ottawa fall 2020 e-scooter pilot, a survey revealed that only 2% of e-scooter riders did so to connect to public transit. As well, the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee showed that e-scooters are not mainly used to replace car trips:

“While some mode shift from driving to using an e-scooter has occurred in other cities, the majority of e-scooter trips would have been by walking or public transit (around 60% for Calgary and Portland; and 86% in Greater Paris). For example, 55 per cent would have walked instead of using an e-scooter (Calgary). From a Paris area survey, 44 per cent would have walked, 30 per cent would have used public transit, and 12 per cent would have used a bicycle/shared bike; while this study noted that e-scooters had no impact on car equipment reduction, an extrapolation would assume that 14 per cent would have used a car/ridehail/taxi, which still represents a minor shift away from motorized vehicular use.”

Even Lime’s presentation that day only claimed that 20% of their trips are connections to transit. Therefore, fully 80% of e-scooter rides are not for that purpose, even on the most generous statistical claims from the e-scooter industry.

Making this worse, the corporate lobbyists’ claims supporting e-scooters would require Toronto to be flooded with e-scooters. For e-scooters to serve their supposed benefit as a means to connect to public transit in lieu of car rides, people would have to be assured before they leave home that there will always be an e-scooter waiting for them to rent, conveniently available as soon as they get off public transit, to ride that last mile to their destination. Similarly, When they leave their destination to go back home, they’d need an assurance that there would be a rental -scooter waiting for them right there, available ride the first mile back to transit on their way home.

There would therefore have to be a huge number of e-scooters scattered all over Toronto, just in case someone wants to rent them. Short of that, a person has no assurance that they can rely on this mode of travel. Without that assurance, they won’t know if they can get to their destination on time.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, City staff and the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ presentations, together, show without contradiction that the e-scooter companies do not prefer having e-scooters parked at fixed docking stations, such as those now allocated for Bike Share bikes. Rather, they prefer for a rider to be able to leave an e-scooter on Toronto’s sidewalks, tied to a fixed object. City staff told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that docking stations have the advantage of reducing the tripping hazards, sidewalk clutter and accessibility barriers that are created when e-scooters are parked on the sidewalk.

City staff explained that Bike Share corrals are typically 500 meters apart. The e-scooter corporate lobbyists want e-scooters to be within as little as 300 meters to each other. No doubt, this is because the closer be the e-scooter is to a potential renter or market, the more likely the customer is to opt for their product. Of course, the bigger the flood of e-scooters scattered around Toronto, the better it is for the e-scooter industry’s profits. However, this also makes the new barriers against people with disabilities and the safety dangers to them even more prolific.

This all means that there must be a massive urban blight of e-scooters, akin to that seen in some other cities, for this supposed benefit of reduced traffic and pollution to work. So speculative a benefit is hardly worth the proven harms e-scooters cause.

 4. Allowing E-scooters Would Impose Significant New Financial Burdens on the Taxpayer

City staff reports amply support the inevitable conclusion that to lift the ban on e-scooters in Toronto would impose significant but as-yet unquantifiable financial burdens on the taxpayer. This includes among other things, health care and litigation costs arising from personal injuries caused by e-scooters, the cost of creating and maintaining infrastructure to accommodate e-scooters, the cost of enforcing the laws regulating e-scooters if enacted, the cost of City regulating e-scooters, collecting data and monitoring e-scooter use and e-scooter companies. At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, City staff reported that The City’s insurance and risk management people believe that there would be significant costs to the City if a pilot were to be held. The costs to the City of allowing e-scooters would include costs of claims, cost of police enforcement, cost of City Transportation staff dealing with litter issues enforcement, the cost of City data collection and the cost of staff monitoring and providing oversight. Insurance and risk management is finding it difficult to come up with a specific dollar amount for these costs. This resoundingly disproves the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ false claims at the July 9, 2020 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee that there would be no additional costs to the City.

COVID-19 has already imposed massive new costs on Toronto, and on Ontario. Toronto is in no position to suffer these added new additional e-scooter costs. If Toronto can afford to spend more now on Toronto’s infrastructure and environment, it should be spent to reduce the many accessibility barriers facing people with disabilities. It should not be spent to create new disability barriers, as e-scooters would cause.

The June 24, 2020 City staff report to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee found:

“There is a significant risk that the City may be held partially or fully liable for damages if e-scooter riders or other parties are injured. Transportation Services staff consulted with the City’s Insurance and Risk Management office (I&RM) to understand the magnitude of the City’s liability if allowing e-scooters. At this time, loss data is lacking on e-scooters due to generally lengthy settlement times for bodily injury claims. The City has significant liability exposure, however, due to joint and several liability, as the City may have to pay an entire judgement or claim even if only found to be 1 per cent at fault for an incident. The City has a $5M deductible per occurrence, which means the City will be responsible for all costs below that amount. In terms of costs, Transportation Services staff will also be required to investigate and serve in the discovery process for claims.

E-scooter sharing/rental companies typically require a rider to sign a waiver, placing the onus of compensating injured parties on the rider. Riders are left financially exposed due to a lack of insurance coverage and if unable to pay, municipalities will be looked to for compensation (e.g., in settlements and courts). Claims related to e-scooter malfunction have been reported by the media (such as in Atlanta, Auckland, New Zealand and Brisbane, Australia). In 2019, a Grand Jury faulted the City of San Diego for inadequate regulation and enforcement of e-scooter sharing companies. By opting in to the Pilot, the City will be exposed to claims associated with improperly parked e-scooters as evidenced by lawsuits filed by persons with disabilities and those injured by e-scooter obstructions (such as in Minneapolis and Santa Monica, California).”

Beyond the foregoing, the City of Toronto could expose itself to major damages claims if people get injured by e-scooters. As amply documented throughout this brief and on the AODA Alliance’s e-scooters web page, Toronto has ample basis to know that e-scooters present proven safety and disability accessibility dangers. For Toronto to expose Torontonians to e-scooters once it has been alerted to these dangers, injured parties can be expected to claim greater damages. This is because Toronto thereby knowingly endangered its residents and knowingly created new disability accessibility barriers. The City could not credibly defend itself by claiming that it had no idea that it was creating these dangers by allowing e-scooters at the behest of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

 5. No Effective Insurance Solutions Are Now Available

It has been a fundamental requirement of public policy for decades that the public should be assured that there is sufficient insurance in place to cover those who are injured by motor vehicles. That is why driving a car without proper insurance is an offence.

This is an issue which has not been solved for e-scooters, a form of motor vehicle. The City staff’s June 24,2020 report included:

“This report also recommends the need for improved industry standards at the provincial and federal levels for greater consumer protection in the purchase and/or use of e-scooters. While staff are aware that e-scooters are being considered as an open-air transportation option, the absence of improved standards and available insurance for e-scooter riders, coupled with lack of enforcement resources, would risk the safety of riders and the public on the City’s streets and sidewalks, especially for people with disabilities.”

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said that there would be a need for insurance to cover injuries both to the e-scooter rider and an injured pedestrian. We would add that there would also be a need for insurance to cover damage to property due to e-scooter use, and injuries and property loss due to motor vehicle accidents caused by e-scooter use e.g. if a car needs to swerve to avoid an e-scooter, and ends up in a collision causing personal injuries, death and/or property loss.

The City staff February 25, 2021 presentation concluded in substance that no acceptable insurance solutions for the needs that the City staff identified are now established. Solutions that the industry proposed are not sufficient. For example, the industry proposed that a fund be established to cover losses due to e-scooters. City staff were not satisfied that revenues from a fee to be imposed on each e-scooter ride could cover the funds needed for claims and for the infrastructure that would have to be set up to administer such a new claims fund.

We add that whatever be worked out regarding insurance, the e-scooter rental companies should be assigned first and primary liability for any injuries or losses that are caused to anyone by the use of their vehicles. If they want to make their product available in Toronto, in order to make profits, they should shoulder the costs that are caused to others by the use of their product.

In Ontario, a car’s owner is primarily liable for injuries or losses caused by the car, and not just the driver. There is no reason to exempt the e-scooter rental companies from that wise approach. Otherwise, it gives a massive undeserved financial windfall for the e-scooter rental companies.

In the end, insurance, even if properly available, does not eliminate or reduce the dangers to the public including people with disabilities, seniors, children or others. It presupposes that members of the public will be injured by e-scooters. They will have to shoulder the hardships and high costs of bringing law suits to recover damages. Money can help, but cannot eliminate the physical pain, the loss of abilities, and the other hardships that a serious personal injury and civil litigation can inflict. It would be wrong to proceed on the basis that so long as there is sufficient insurance in place, there is no need to worry about the dangers to safety and disability accessibility that e-scooters will create.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Bird complained that third party e-scooter insurance does not exist in North America, that it is not required anywhere else in North America, and that it is not mandated or provided for Bike Share TO. Yet these provide no reason for dismissing insurance issues addressed here, or the need for there to be proper insurance in place. It just gives another compelling reason why Toronto should not lift the ban on e-scooters.

 6. A Pilot with E-Scooters in Toronto Would Endangers Public Safety and Disability Accessibility, and Exposes The City to Major Financial Claims

There are times where it is worthwhile for the City of Toronto to conduct a pilot project with an innovation, to see if it is suitable for wider adoption. However, Toronto should not conduct a pilot project with e-scooters. There are a number of reasons for this. Each, standing alone, is sufficient to reject that idea. Rejecting a pilot here does not mean Toronto is rejecting the idea of ever conducting pilots in other areas of policy that do not present e-scooters’ dangers.

It is essential to expose why e-scooter corporate lobbyists press so hard for a pilot. They do so purely for tactical marketing reasons. They want their product on the Toronto streets, to build their market. They want to shift the burden to those opposing e-scooters to have to fight an uphill battle to get e-scooters removed, once entrenched. They want the inertia to favour them. They want the City to invest money in their product’s entrenchment, so it will be easier to secure a permanent foothold in this city. They want to point to Toronto to leverage other cities to follow suit.

First, there is no real need for an e-scooter pilot in Toronto. No one has identified an appropriate purpose for an e-scooter pilot. A pilot is conducted to answer specific questions, identified in advance. If the pilot is to ascertain if some people would like to ride e-scooters, we know from other cities that they do. If it is to find out if e-scooters will ride on sidewalks even if banned from sidewalks, we have ample evidence that they do. Indeed we already have first-hand proof that e-scooters are freely and openly ridden on Toronto sidewalks even when they are entirely illegal in Toronto.

If the question to be considered is weather e-scooters endanger public safety and disability accessibility, we have sufficient proof from other cities that they do. There is nothing about Toronto or Torontonians that make these dangers any less than for other cities that have allowed e-scooters. To the contrary, City staff’s June 24, 2020 report shows ways in which Toronto presents added problems, if e-scooters are allowed here. It concluded:

“In addition to the experiences in other jurisdictions, several risk factors are unique to the City of Toronto and play a role in informing the recommended approach to e-scooters:

Streetcar tracks: Toronto has an extensive track network (177 linear kilometres) which poses a hazard to e-scooter riders due to the vehicle’s small wheel diameter.

Winter and State-Of-Good-Repair: Toronto experiences freezing and thawing that impacts the state-of-good-repair for roads. A large portion of roads are 40 to 50 years old, with 43 per cent of Major Roads and 24 per cent of Local Roads in poor condition. Coupled with lack of standards for e-scooter wheels (e.g., traction, size), this makes this particular device more sensitive to uneven road surfaces.

High construction activity: In addition to the city’s various infrastructure projects, Toronto has been one of the fastest growing cities with about 120 development construction sites in 2019.

Narrow sidewalks and high pedestrian mode shares in the Downtown Core and City Centres: Most jurisdictions experienced illegal sidewalk riding by e-scooter users, with some business districts saying e-scooters deterred patrons from visiting their previously pedestrian-friendly main streets. This is especially challenging with physical distancing requirements and other COVID-19 recovery programs expanding the use of the City’s sidewalks and boulevards.”

Second, it is universally accepted that it is utterly wrong to conduct an experiment on human beings without their consent. This is especially so where it is known in advance that the experiment poses a danger to them. Imagine the liability that a government would risk if it subjected people to a trial COVID-19 vaccine without their consent, to find out if it works and if it has any dangerous side-effects.

An Toronto e-scooter pilot would be a human experiment without the consent of those endangered by it. This is revealed by the City staff’s presentation at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting. For purposes of gathering data on injuries caused by e-scooters, City staff spoke of collecting data from hospitals before a pilot, during a pilot and after a pilot. City staff explained that the burdens on hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic precluded their being able to gather the kind of data needed before an e-scooter pilot could begin.

Toronto should not follow Ottawa’s reckless conduct. Ottawa conducted a pilot project with e-scooters right in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, without putting in place effective measures for tracking injuries. The Ottawa mayor’s office told AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the night before the pilot’s approval that if people get injured, they can file complaints. Ottawa unfairly shifted the burden to e-scooter victims to produce evidence of harm they suffered, rather than proactively preventing the harm in advance or ensuring that it is accurately tracked during that pilot.

In these circumstances, if Toronto conducts an e-scooter pilot, it risks facing major financial claims by people injured by e-scooters. As noted earlier, injured victims can be expected to argue, as a factor substantially increasing their right to a large damage award that the City of Toronto decided to subject them to the dangers of an e-scooter human experiment without their consent, having been warned in advance of the safety and accessibility dangers that e-scooters create. That claim for damages would be fortified by the fact that the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee twice unanimously recommended against conducting a pilot project with e-scooters, after receiving compelling evidence from multiple sources on the safety and accessibility dangers they pose.

Third, the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report shows that in important ways, the proper legal and operational groundwork has not been done at the provincial or federal level, needed for a pilot project. That report concluded:

* “Although the HTA sets out some e-scooter standards, such as maximum speed and power wattage, due to the nature of urban and suburban conditions such as Toronto’s, City staff recommend that the Province strengthen the device standards for greater rider safety. Based on an extensive literature review, items recommended for further Provincial exploration include a maximum turning radius, a platform surface grip, wheel characteristics (e.g., minimum size, traction, tire width), braking and suspension.

In addition, the Province has not established set fine amounts for offences under the HTA e-scooter regulations. Without this in place, for the police to lay a charge in respect of a violation, a “Part III Summons” is required, which means the police must attend court for each charge laid regardless of severity, and a trial is required for a conviction and fine to be set. This may make it less likely that charges are laid. Fines outside of ones the City could set (e.g. e-scooter parking violations, illegal sidewalk riding) would create workload challenges for Police and courts.

In spite of the Pilot requirement to collect data, there is currently no vehicle type for e-scooters in the Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO) Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR) template used by all police services to report collisions. Unless the Province specifies e-scooters are motor vehicles for the purposes of collision reporting, and has a field for this in its template, e-scooter collisions may not be reported reliably and meaningful collision data analysis will not be possible. In Fall 2019, City staff requested that the MTO add e-scooters as a separate vehicle type, but MTO has not yet communicated they would make this change.”

If Toronto wishes to gather still more information about e-scooters, it should do so without conducting its own pilot experiment on Torontonians, by looking to the personal injuries and disability accessibility barriers that e-scooters created in other cities.

 7. E-Scooter Corporate Lobbyists Have Proposed No Effective Solutions that Will Solve the Problems E-scooters Would Create

City Council will want to know if there are “compromises” i.e. solutions that could allow e-scooters while not making Torontonians suffer from their dangers. The AODA Alliance urges that Toronto should not “compromise” on the safety of its residents. Especially during COVID-19, our political leaders have emphasized that public safety is their number one priority. That should be the case here as well. Compromising on accessibility for people with disabilities should be out of the question, especially when it comes to the danger of creating new accessibility barriers that would compound the many barriers that people with disabilities now suffer from in Toronto.

That said, the question remains whether there are solutions that would not compromise on public safety or on the impermissible creation of new accessibility barriers. City staff commendably gave the e-scooter corporate lobbyists an ample open opportunity to present practical solutions to the dangers that e-scooters create, if such solutions exist. City staff held a meeting with 29 representatives of the e-scooter rental companies on January 20, 2021. E-scooter corporate lobbyists also had the chance to bring solutions to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021.

e-scooter companies have a strong financial incentive to present workable solutions. This would open up the highly-desirable Toronto market to them. They are well –positioned to try out effective solutions elsewhere, if there are any. This is because they operate e-scooter rental operations in a number of other cities.

Those companies are well-aware of their need to come up with solutions. The disability community has been raising our disability-related concerns regarding e-scooters for over a year and a half. Such concerns have been raised in other cities.

Despite these opportunities, e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented no solutions that would in fact solve the serious dangers that e-scooters pose. The February 2021 written staff report and the staff oral presentation on February 25, 2021 to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee reviewed key solutions that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented to City staff. City staff correctly concluded that none effectively solved the problems that e-scooters present, but impose costs on the taxpayer. The February 25, 2021 City staff presentation stated:

“”Potential solutions to address e-scooter sidewalk riding

  • Protected bike lane/micromobility network and placing e-scooter parking on-street so that trips begin/end off the sidewalk
  • Field staff/ambassadors/patrols and enforcement teams
  • Visible, unique identifiable plate numbers (licence plates for rental fleets)
  • E-scooter sidewalk riding detection technologies* (*emerging technology)

Other proposals to address e-scooter sidewalk riding

  • Geofencing pedestrian areas or slow zones
  • Education and warnings (by companies) and fines for riders (by police)
  • Suspensions/bans on repeat offenders (by companies)
  • Decals on sidewalks and signage
  • Audible warnings on the device for the rider and pedestrians

Potential solutions to address improper e-scooter parking

  • Adequate supply of parking areas (and fleet size caps/reviews)
  • Proper parking verification (photo selfies and/or other technologies)
  • Field staff/patrols and enforcement teams (1-2 hr service standards or better)
  • Braille/tactile and unique identifiable numbers on e-scooters (licence plates for rental fleets)
  • Docked stations* like Bike Share Toronto (*dockless preferred or hybrid by companies)

Other proposals for improper e-scooter parking

  • Education and incentives (e.g., discounts for proper parking or penalties for repeat offenders by companies; or fines to the companies that are passed onto the repeat offenders)
  • “Lock-to” parking mechanism (similar to a bicycle lock)
  • Double kick-stand (less likely to topple over); and
  • Onboard diagnostics indicating the device has toppled over.
  • Photo of e-scooter being locked to a hand railing at steps to an entrance by a man wearing a bicycle helmet and business casual work clothes.
  • Photo of e-scooter locked to bicycle parking with a cable. The bike parking is in the shape of a metal loop attached to the sidewalk in San Francisco with a bike lane painted green in the background.”

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation also stated:

“Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions…

Technologies are still emerging and not adequate yet:

  • Geofencing and other technologies to prevent sidewalk riding are not sophisticated enough and would only apply to rental e-scooters.
  • Docking stations for e-scooters has potential but is still in development.
  • Lock-to cables on e-scooters mean they could be locked anywhere (e.g., café fence/railing) including in spots blocking entrance access and paths of travel.
  • There is already a lack of bike parking so this would worsen the number of sidewalk obstructions on narrow and cluttered sidewalks.
  • If Bike Share Toronto were dockless, there would not be enough bike rings to lock the rental fleet… same for dockless rental e-scooter fleets.

Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions

Not enough city resources for enforcement and infrastructure priorities

  • Oversight is very labour- and resource-intensive and depends on enforcement, which is already stretched or non-existent in parts of the City.
  • Licence plates on rental e-scooter fleets could help, but this is a reactive tool and would be a drain on city resources to monitor and enforce.
  • Bigger priorities for limited city resources.
  • Inadequate infrastructure is a bigger priority – not enough sidewalk space or accessible infrastructure; not enough bike lanes/bike lane space; and not enough public transit.
  • Importance of other city priorities before allowing something which poses a hazard and a nuisance for pedestrians and persons with disabilities.

Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions

Impacts on seniors and persons with disabilities on sidewalks

  • COVID-19 has resulted in challenges for persons with disabilities, their caregivers and pedestrians who use sidewalks as a necessity and not for recreation.
  • Allowing e-scooters will pose hazards that affect persons with disabilities, seniors, their caregivers and pedestrians.
  • Risk of severe injury for seniors or persons with disabilities if tripping and falling or struck by an e-scooter.
  • Inability to identify e-scooter rider because of their speed, and that the person’s credit card on the app may not be the person riding the e-scooter.”

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented no information that refuted the City staff assessment of these solutions. None of the information presented by City staff either in its February 2021 report or their February 25, 2021 oral presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee demonstrated any need to subject Torontonians to these dangers in a “pilot project” to see if they would materialize in Toronto. No information was presented to suggest that Toronto would somehow be exempt from these dangers, if it allows e-scooters.

We add the following, which reinforces the City staff’s presentation. Toronto has bike lanes, but it is not a contained network. Moreover, extensive law enforcement would be needed to ensure compliance. Both creating the network and such law enforcement imposes substantial costs on the public. The public should not be required to build massive new infrastructure to let the e-scooter corporate lobbyists make their profits.

At most such bike paths are described as helpful as encouraging e-scooter riders not to ride on sidewalks. Yet such “encouragement” is no assurance that they will comply.

City staff reported that a proposed solution was to use technology such as “geo-fencing” to prevent e-scooters from riding on sidewalks. Using GPS or other technology, the e-scooter itself would supposedly electronically detect when it is going somewhere where it is not allowed to go. City staff correctly concluded that the technology to do this accurately and reliably simply does not exist. We agree. We add that anyone who uses a GPS for directions know that they are not accurate enough to pinpoint whether an e-scooter is on the sidewalk, or mere inches away on the road.

Even if geo-fencing did work, it would only restrict rented e-scooters and not privately owned e-scooters. Yet both rented and privately-owned e-scooters create dangers to people with disabilities.

Lime said that such sidewalk detection technology could help with reminding riders afterwards. The e-scooter rental company could call the offending rider afterwards. Including those with multiple cases of it. This wrongly relies on e-scooter companies with a conflict of interest to lead this activity. It only addresses the problem after the danger has been created, rather than preventing barriers from being created in the first place. Waiting for multiple infractions does not protect the public from one-time riders. This all presumes without proof that the e-scooter companies can effectively track this.

Another proposal from the industry was to have staff educate e-scooter riders. If these staff are to be provided by the City, that would be an unwarranted cost burden on the taxpayer. Even if these staff were to be provided by the e-scooter companies, there would be no realistic possibility of them being situated all over the city to ensure that they reach all or even most e-scooter riders. E-scooter riders would have no obligation to spend time listening to them. There is no assurance that this education would reach many e-scooter riders, or that it would change their behaviour.

The industry’s proposal to require a visible identifiable number to be located on each e-scooter can be partially helpful. However that alone will not materially reduce the problems we have identified.

If an e-scooter rider violates the law, it is not conclusive proof of the rider’s identity to identify the number on the e-scooter, even if a victim can accurately identify that number. The e-scooter companies would have to make available to the public their internal records of rentals, account holders and vehicle numbers. Moreover, the e-scooter rider may not be the same person as the name on the account charged for the e-scooter. This alone would not be sufficient assured proof in court to establish the rider’s identity.

This is also no solution for pedestrians who see a law-breaking e-scooter from the side or from behind, or where the e-scooter is racing too quickly for the pedestrian to read the identification number. Moreover, offending e-scooter riders will quickly learn to cover up the identification number. This solution also depends on the public financing enough law enforcement to catch and successfully prosecute offenders.

Another measure proposed was to add braille and tactile letters to an e-scooter, to enable a person with vision loss to identify it. This presupposes that a person with vision loss trips over an improperly parked e-scooter, and then gropes all over it to find an accessible braille or raised letter identifier. That in turn presupposes that the victim knows that such labels are available, and is prepared to try this groping. This is, far fetched. It also leaves people with vision loss exposed to the e-scooter tripping hazard in the first place.

Lime Canada proposed to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that E-scooter rental companies could require renters to photograph how they park an e-scooter, and send the photo to the rental company for monitoring. This provides no real public protection. The renter could move the e-scooter right after sending in that photograph.

Similarly, it would be problematic to rely on rental companies to impose or collect fines. This would lack needed law enforcement public accountability and safeguards. The public would have to trust the e-scooter companies. Law enforcement should never be parcelled out to a private for-profit company that has such an obvious conflict of interest. Moreover, if the fine is retained by the e-scooter company, that would simply add to their profits.

The industry proposed that they could suspend multiple violators from being able to rent an e-scooter. However, this requires the many serious impediments to proving a violation and a violator’s identity to first be overcome, e.g. the need for massive increases in law enforcement to detect violators. Moreover, a suspended person could simply use a new credit card to create a new account and then resume riding e-scooters.

The industry’s proposal to increase law enforcement would shift more financial burdens to the taxpayer. It also presupposes that if Toronto were to increase its law enforcement spending, e-scooters should be a top priority. We would suggest that there are now other law enforcement priorities that would compete for attention, e.g. ensuring that the public obeys public social distancing requirements during the pandemic.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime conceded that drunk e-scooter riding will require an “enforcement component”. It said there are “some tech tools that some of the companies would come up with to help identify an impaired e-scooter driver. The industry could then deny the intoxicated rider a ride. There is no suggestion that this intoxication technology exists, or that it has been effectively deployed anywhere

The industry proposed that it could message riders regarding restrictions on e-scooter use. This assumes that voluntary compliance would be sufficient. There is no indication that this has been tried and worked in other cities. We would not dispense with drivers licenses and the related training in exchange for car companies messaging their customers on where they are permitted to drive their cars.

The industry proposed that sidewalks could be marked with notifications not to ride e-scooters there. City staff correctly noted that this would create visual clutter. There are many kilometers of sidewalks that would require this. We add that here again, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists once again propose shifting major costs to the taxpayer to enable them to make their profits. It also presupposes that those who illegally would ride e-scooters on sidewalks only do so because they didn’t know it is forbidden, rather than because they don’t have to fear effective law enforcement.

City staff rejected a proposal that e-scooters emit an audible sound. We note that this measure may help somewhat in overcoming the dangers of e-scooters due to their now being silent. However, this would not overcome the dangers when e-scooters are lying on the sidewalk, blocking pedestrians, nor would this prevent injuries when collisions occur. Moreover, these sounds would have to be loud enough to alert a pedestrian well in advance, so that they can try to evade a fast-moving e-scooter racing towards them.

City staff noted that the industry proposed that e-scooter parking be located on the street, to reduce the chances of them being ridden on the sidewalk. We note that with street parking now at a premium, especially in downtown Toronto where the traffic is often congested, there are harms that would flow from further reducing street parking. From a disability perspective, if any new street parking were to be re-allocated, it should be for more disability parking spots, and not for e-scooters.

Moreover, by having e-scooters parked on the street, this would not in any real way reduce the danger of e-scooters being ridden on the sidewalk. An e-scooter rider could simply continue to ride on the sidewalk and then at the end of their ride, park on the street, if permitted.

To address the problems of parking e-scooters, the industry proposed, among other things, providing them with more e-scooter parking locations. This impinges on limited parking spaces already available in Toronto, as noted above. It also shifts yet another cost to the taxpayer, who would be providing free parking for the corporate lobbyists to make their profit.

The option of providing docking stations was discussed. It burdens the taxpayer with providing the space and paying for the docking stations. It adds to urban clutter.

The industry proposed technology to ensure that e-scooters are parked properly. Yet unless there is a huge supply of staff to monitor this, it will not prevent danger to people with disabilities and others before injuries and accessibility barriers impede people with disabilities.

The industry proposed having a patrol team from e-scooter companies to explore and remedy complaints. City staff said that where tried, the minimum service standard has been one to two hours after a violation is reported by the public, especially during a pilot project. We respond that that leaves the danger to pedestrians in place, and only rectifies it after the fact. It also unfairly burdens pedestrians with having to call in complaints, and indeed, with having to know how to do so and at what number. That depends on a chain of events that is not reliable.

Consideration was given for e-scooter companies to provide rate incentives for those who park properly, such as discounts, or rate penalties for those who do not park them properly. That requires someone to effectively police where each e-scooter is parked. The option of fining the e-scooter company directly for improperly parking the e-scooter raised the concern that the e-scooter company could just pass this cost on to the users, rather than it serving to ensure proper parking of e-scooters. Here again, this presupposes that there is the deployment of ample law enforcement deployed all over the city that has time to conduct all the needed enforcement for e-scooters.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, industry representatives gave major priority to the solution of “lock-to”. A cable is attached to the e-scooter so that when parked, it can be locked to a pole or other object. However, this is no solution at all. It still exposes people with disabilities to e-scooters being left all over the place in unpredictable public locations, as new accessibility barriers and tripping hazards. It wrongly converts our sidewalks and other public places into free parking for the e-scooter industry, with the public substantially subsidizing their profits.

Bird claimed at that meeting that the problem of e-scooters being ridden on sidewalks would be dramatically reduced if riders could lock up a rental e-scooter on the sidewalk, using the “lock to” option. It defies logic to argue that this solves the problem of riding e-scooters on sidewalks. A person would ride an e-scooter on a sidewalk, rather than the road, to avoid cars or the many potholes in our roads. Where one can park the e-scooter at the end of the ride does not dictate whether one chooses to ride on the sidewalk rather than the adjacent road en route to one’s destination.

The industry proposed having each e-scooter equipped with a double kickstand to reduce the risk of them falling over when parked. That suffers from the same problems as the lock-to proposal.

Similarly, the industry’s proposal that each e-scooter have an onboard diagnostic mechanism to indicate if the e-scooter has toppled over also has the same deficiencies. It also assumes that the e-scooter companies will flood the city with enough people to immediately remove such an e-scooter before someone trips over it.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime proposed that the industry could share big data with city officials e.g. if there are locations where there are repeat problems with e-scooters. If this is shown the City might wish to protect the public by creating new infrastructure. By this, it appears to mean that if there is a route where e-scooter riders repeatedly ride on the sidewalk, the City might wish to build a separate path.

By this, the industry concedes the risk of repeat violators. It shifts to the public the financial burden of building new infrastructure to avoid people being injured by e-scooters. It provides no assurance that riders who repeatedly use those sidewalks will stop doing so once a separate bike path is built.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime Canada also says that in the shorter term, this could help focus enforcement on those corridors. That too exposes pedestrians to the dangers of e-scooters, and shifts to the public the cost of additional law enforcement.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime claimed that education of riders along with enforcement are “very good tools”. Yet enforcement is a major public cost burden. It starts from the premise that the e-scooter has already caused harm.

We add that Toronto cannot rely on education of riders, since a rider can rent an e-scooter without having to ever speak to a human being from the e-scooter rental company, from whom they could receive that education. Moreover, Lime Canada conceded that education alone is “not enough” to solve the admitted problem of people riding e-scooters on sidewalks. It conceded as well and that there must be “a degree of enforcement” (though it did not specify how much enforcement it conceded to be necessary).

As explained earlier, an e-scooter is a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, Lime’s solution for the problem of bikes creating accessibility barriers when left on sidewalks is to regulate them as if they were non-motorized bikes. Yet that would simply add to sidewalk barriers. In effect, the industry sought the lowest and most permissive degree of regulation possible, with the least accountability.

For decades, our society has regulated motor vehicles far more extensively than bikes. We require the vehicle and driver to each be licensed and insured. We require the driver to complete sufficient training, including safety training under proper supervision, before being allowed to drive in public. Licenses are gradually graduated for drivers as their experience grows. Vehicles must meet rigorous safety standards. In contrast, the e-scooter rental industry seeks to evade all of those regulations, as if an e-scooter were not a motorized vehicle.

 8. E-scooter Corporate Lobbyists’ Numerous False, Misleading and Exaggerated Claims Further Show Why Toronto Should Reject Their Dangerous E-scooter Proposals

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ misleading false and claims, flights of extreme exaggerations and flights of illogic are breathtaking. Toronto Mayor John Tory, City Council and City staff should take their claims with at least a grain ton of salt. They should insist on strong corroboration before accepting any of their claims.

The AODA Alliance’s October 30, 2020 report revealed that these corporate lobbyists have been inundating Toronto City Hall with a huge, well-financed relentless, feeding frenzy of lobbying in the back rooms. Some Councillors have told us that this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest corporate lobbying effort now at City Hall. The AODA Alliance ‘s October 30, 2020 report on this lobbying feeding frenzy gives insight into why in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic when other pressing issues should be a priority, Toronto’s municipal politicians are so seriously considering unleashing e-scooters in Toronto, despite their amply-documented dangers to people with disabilities, seniors and others.

That report shows that entries in Toronto’s official Lobbyist Registry, filling fully 73 pages, reveal that in just the two years from June 2018 to the present, eight e-scooter rental companies and three lobbying firms have documented fully 1,384 contacts with City Hall in person, by phone, by virtual meeting or by email. Among these were at least 112 meetings with City officials and 1,153 emails. These figures only include contacts which corporate lobbyists opted to record in the Toronto Lobbyist Registry during that period.

Amidst this onslaught of corporate lobbyists’ approaches were a dizzying 94 contacts with the Mayor’s Office, including 10 with Mayor Tory himself, 58 with the Mayor’s Senior Advisor, Legislative Affairs Daniela Magisano, 15 with Mayor Tory’s Director of Legislative Affairs Edward Birnbaum, 10 with his Chief of Staff Luke Robertson, and 1 with Mayor Tory’s Deputy Chief of Staff Courtney Glen. As well, among these documented contacts are 368 contacts with members of City Council, 479 contacts with staff of members of council, as well as 352 contacts with other City staff, among others (We surmise that the corporate lobbyists may not have reached a few janitors).

Beyond those address earlier in this brief, corporate lobbyists’ public presentations in support of e-scooters at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting and the earlier July 9, 2020 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting, are replete with the following ten additional falsehoods, exaggerations, and transparently bogus arguments. That they must resort to such meritless arguments to offer further shows that their proposals lack real merit.

As a first example, Bird told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that an important question is whether City Hall continues to ignore the number of e-scooter riders on city streets today, despite the current ban on them, or whether Toronto chooses to regulate this space with “sensible regulations?” It argued that Toronto should lift the ban on e-scooters because some people are now illegally riding privately-owned e-scooters in Toronto.

This falsely suggests that the proper solution to dangerous lawlessness is not to enforce the law, but instead to legalize the dangerous illegal activity. By that reasoning, Canada should lift the ban on unlawful assaults, and regulate assaults instead, since some people illegally assault others. Canada should now lift the ban on heroin and crack cocaine, because some people now illegally use those dangerous drugs.

Instead, the fact that some people are now flouting the law by illegally riding privately-owned e-scooters in Toronto is strong proof that we can expect more flouting of the law by rental e-scooter riders if their use is legalized but banned on sidewalks.

Similarly, Lime relied heavily on the false dilemma that either people will buy their own e-scooters without speed controls, or we can allow rental e-scooters with speed controls. Yet Toronto has the further option of enforcing the law against riding any e-scooters and confiscating any e-scooter ridden illegally in public. That would resolve the whole problem without a necessity of legalizing either owned or rental e-scooters.

Second, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Bird misleadingly described the ban on e-scooters as a “temporary ban”. In fact, the legal ban on e-scooters in Toronto is permanent, unless City Council votes to lift it. Moreover, at present, it can only be lifted for under four years. After that the provincial ban on e-scooters goes back into effect.

Third, Bird told the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that Ottawa’s pilot with e-scooters is the “gold standard” by which Toronto should be guided, as if Ottawa’s experience provides an effective answer to public safety and disability accessibility concerns. Yet Toronto City staff presented earlier at that meeting that Ottawa City staff had not even collected e-scooter injury data. Later at that meeting, CNIB deputed that during the Ottawa pilot, e-scooters were operated unsafely and left in pedestrian clearways throughout the downtown. This caused accessibility barriers and safety hazards. Despite all this, Ottawa is expanding their e-scooter fleet. That means that a key purpose of the pilot, to see their impact on injuries, was disregarded by Ottawa.

CNIB held a public meeting to get feedback from people with vision loss about their experience during the Ottawa e-scooter pilot. It heard alarming stories of safety hazards posed to people with vision loss by e-scooters. There was unsafe operating of e-scooters, regular illegal sidewalk riding of e-scooters and improperly parking e-scooters. 1On a survey about the pilot, 69% of respondents encountered wrongly parked e-scooters. 72% of survey respondents encountered sidewalk riding.

Ottawa City Council nevertheless approved e-scooters for a second pilot despite the staggering data the City itself collected. CNIB warned Toronto not to follow the Ottawa experience. That a leading, e-scooter corporate lobby could point to Ottawa as “the goal standard” shows how dramatically antithetical they are to the vulnerability of people with disabilities.

Lime claimed that in Ottawa, the votes to continue the e-scooter program were nearly unanimous. That only shows the devastating reach of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

Fourth, Bird tried to portray e-scooters as an important mobility aid for people with disabilities. The industry tried to appear as if it were advocating in favour of expanded accessibility for people with disabilities when its core business in fact endangers accessibility for people with disabilities.

Lime claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that they embrace the goal of accessibility for people with disabilities. It told that meeting that 8% of their riders have physical disabilities and use e-scooters as “a liberating tool to explore the city”. Yet e-scooters are not viewed as adaptive disability mobility devices in the disability community.

Lime provided no independently-verified objective evidence to support the claim that 8% of e-scooter riders have physical disabilities. They would seem to have no way to verify this, since their rental customers do not interact with Lime staff when renting an e-scooter. Moreover, even if some e-scooter riders have some sort of physical disability, there is no proof of how many, if any, need the e-scooter to meet a disability mobility need. It is important not to confuse a bona fide disability power scooter, in which a person with a disability is seated, and one of Lime’s very different rental e-scooters on which a rider must stand and balance themselves, while travelling much faster than a disability scooter can.

Fifth, Lime made the over-inflated if not bogus claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that allowing e-scooter rentals will help with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because people will use an e-scooter to go to stores to shop.

Yet e-scooters are not supposed to be used to transport anything other than the person riding it, such as goods bought in stores. It presumes that e-scooter renters can leave their e-scooter scattered anywhere near any store they wish to visit. This threatens the sidewalk litter, accessibility barriers and tripping hazards that e-scooters have presented in other cities like Ottawa. It presumes that those same shoppers would not go shopping, helping out our economy, had it not been for renting an e-scooter. There is no proof that there has been any such surge in economic activity provably linked to e-scooters.

Sixth, an example of misleading use of statistics was Lime’s claim at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that in Calgary, city data shows e-scooter injuries were far, far less than bike injuries. Even if there is such a statistic, it can easily be explained by the fact that there are far fewer e-scooters being ridden compared to the total number of bikes being ridden. Instead, the relevant statistic to use is the number of injuries per kilometer ridden. At that Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime and Bird did not use that relevant measure for injuries, when comparing different modes of travel, whether cars, bikes or e-scooters. They therefore did not account for how many of each kind of vehicle is on the road, or how far they are driven before causing an injury, or the severity of the injury they cause.

Seventh, Lime argued that rental e-scooters have the added protection of in-built speed limits and geo-fencing capabilities, which are not included in e-scooters that people privately buy. As well, as noted earlier, City staff correctly concluded that geo-fencing is not now a reliable technology. As well, to allow rental e-scooters does not assure that people won’t also ride privately-owned e-scooters. Lime advanced the false dilemma that either people will buy their own e-scooters without speed controls, or Toronto can allow rental e-scooters with speed controls. Yet there is the further and preferred option of effectively enforcing the ban on riding any and all e-scooters, and confiscating any illegally-ridden e-scooters.

Eighth, Lime claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that there have been no deaths due to rental scooters because they have speed controls. This claim is dubious. It requires proof that a pedestrian, hit by an oncoming e-scooter at 22 KPH, cannot be killed, but one colliding at 30 or 40 KPH can be killed. No proof of such a medical improbability has been provided.

Ninth, Lime made the unsubstantiated claim at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that e-scooters have a much higher parking compliance rate than do cars. Even if this were assumed to be true, the question is not whether to ban cars. It is whether to allow e-scooters which will create new safety dangers and new disability accessibility barriers. Moreover, cars, even when improperly parked, are not typically left strewn about sidewalks as a tripping hazard and accessibility barrier.

Tenth, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime made the quite exaggerated claim that most major cities outside Toronto had embraced e-scooters, and that unlike Toronto, e-scooters have met with virtually universal acclaim in cities that tried them. This is shown to be misleading, in light of the following information included in the City staff’s presentation to the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting:

“Large Urban Peer Cities

  • Peer cities have banned rental/shared e-scooters from downtowns in Chicago and New York City.
  • No rental/shared e-scooters yet in places such as:
  • Montréal (not for 2021) or Vancouver
  • Massachusetts (e.g., City of Boston)
  • Pennsylvania (e.g., City of Philadelphia)
  • New South Wales (e.g., City of Sydney, Australia)
  • Scotland (e.g., City of Edinburgh), The Netherlands (e.g., Amsterdam), and
  • Others have banned or since banned them, e.g., Copenhagen (city centre), Houston, San Diego (boardwalk ban), etc.
  • NYC (outside of Manhattan only) and Transport for London (UK) pilots not yet underway.”

City staff noted that Montreal, which earlier did a pilot with e-scooters, will not have e-scooters in 2021. Vancouver does not have e-scooters. Hamilton and Mississauga allow privately owned e-scooters. We add that the City of Mississauga Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended that e-scooters not be allowed. We have seen no reason given for Mississauga rejecting that important accessibility recommendation.

City staff noted that London, Waterloo and Windsor are involved in some sort of public consultations on e-scooters which is slowed due to COVID-19. Calgary only allows e-scooter rentals, as is the case for all Alberta. Calgary allows e-scooters on sidewalks, and has no bike share program. Calgary will now allow some use of e-scooters on roads, to reduce sidewalk use.

Calgary staff advised their Council that it is likely that e-scooters have the highest injury rate per transportation mode. 43% of e-scooter injuries that were transported to hospital required surgery, which is twice the rate for bicycle injuries. In Calgary, 37% of e-scooter injuries had suspected intoxication.

City staff also reported that looking at large cities with similar large populations, similar urban densities and similar climate, Chicago and New York City ban rental e-scooters from their downtown areas. There are no rental e-scooters in Montreal, Vancouver, Massachusetts (e.g. Boston), Pennsylvania (such as Philadelphia), New South Wales (such as Sydney). Melbourne requires an e-scooter to have a maximum power of 200 watts. Most e-scooters require a higher wattage than that. There are no e-scooters in Scotland or the Netherlands. They have been banned in the city centre of Copenhagen, Houston, and San Diego’s boardwalk.



Source link

Click here to download in MS Word format “A Deeply Troubling Issue of Life and Death — An Independent Report on Ontario’s Seriously-Flawed Plans for Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Medical Care If COVID-19 Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals



Click here to download in MS Word format “A Deeply Troubling Issue of Life and Death — An Independent Report on Ontario’s Seriously-Flawed Plans for Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Medical Care If COVID-19 Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals



Source link

A Deeply Troubling Issue of Life and Death — An Independent Report on Ontario’s Seriously-Flawed Plans for Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Medical Care If COVID-19 Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals


A Deeply Troubling Issue of Life and Death

An Independent Report on Ontario’s Seriously-Flawed Plans for Rationing or “Triage” of Critical Medical Care If COVID-19 Overwhelms Ontario Hospitals

February 25, 2021

 Part I Introduction

This is an independent report on Ontario’s plans for how to ration or “triage” critical medical care, if the COVID-19 pandemic overloads Ontario hospitals. If there are more patients who need critical care than there are critical care beds, equipment and medical staff to treat them, Ontario has a plan in place for deciding which patients will be refused the critical care they need. To refuse critical care to a patient needing it is akin to a death sentence.

This report reveals new and seriously troubling problems with Ontario’s critical care triage plans. The AODA Alliance believes that this report is the most thorough and up-to-date external examination of Ontario’s current critical care triage plans.

The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates, such as the ARCH Disability Law Centre, have previously unearthed, documented and revealed to the public several serious problems with Ontario’s critical care triage plans. In this report, the AODA Alliance reveals and documents even more previously undetected serious problems. These bear on patients with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. That pandemic has already imposed disproportionate hardships on people with disabilities.

It would be dangerously wrong to think that concern about Ontario’s plans for critical care triage can be relegated to the back burner because COVID-19 infection rates are reducing and the COVID vaccine is arriving. This is because there is a real risk of another surge. The much-more contagious new COVID-19 variants are spreading. Rolling out COVID vaccinations are delayed. There is uncertainty whether those vaccines immunize people from these new variants. Future Government loosening of public lock-downs risks further spread of the virus.

At a January 23, 2021 critical care triage training webinar for doctors and hospitals (discussed further below), a key player in the Government’s critical care triage planning, made it clear that such triage is not some remote hypothetical. Dr. Andrew Baker, Incident Commander on the Ontario Government’s Critical Care COVID Command Centre, said:

“This (i.e. triage) may already be happening. I’ve heard from many people, including leaders from O.H. (note which may refer to Ontario Health), From Steini Brown (Which appears to be a reference to Adalsteinn (Steini) Brown, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health who has been advising the Ontario Government on health issues) presenting on CP24, and others, that the net effect of the system right now is that people, threatened at better than 20% 12-month survival, are not getting usual access to care, with a measurable negative impact on the morbidity and mortality. So we’re being told that this type of decision, these decisions about redirecting incremental resources, are already happening, with a real impact on people’s outcome.”

Over the past ten months, the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates and organizations with whom we are allied, have been trying to discover the critical care triage plans are for Ontario, trying to review these plans once unearthed for possible problems, trying to raise our serious concerns with the Ontario Government, and trying to bring these issues to the public’s attention through conventional and social media. This effort has been made far more difficult because the Government has maintained a pervasive cloak of secrecy over its critical care triage plans and has been substantially unwilling to talk to disability community representatives about its critical care triage plans.

This report’s new findings are summarized as follows:

  1. It would be dangerous to put concern about Ontario’s critical care triage plans on the back burner, just because COVID infection rates are reducing and the vaccine is rolling out. There is a real risk of another COVID-19 surge. As well, a senior Government advisor says triage may already be taking place.
  2. Ontario created a seriously flawed, disability-discriminatory and highly-objectionable online calculator to compute who will be refused needed life-saving critical care during triage or rationing of critical care.
  3. There is a danger that emergency medical technicians (EMTs) could improperly refuse to give a patient critical care they need and want, before the patient even gets to the hospital – an improper backdoor trickle-down form of critical care triage.
  4. This report reveals the transparently erroneous legal strategy devised for defending the legality of Ontario’s critical care triage plan. By this strategy, doctors, hospitals and the Ontario Government would argue that no one can sue them if a triage doctor refuses to give life-saving critical care to a patient who needs it and wants it, so long as they do so following the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. They plan to say that because that document is called a “standard of care” for triage doctors (an inappropriate label for it), it provides a full defence. This report identifies all the fatal flaws in that defence strategy.
  5. Merely proclaiming that human rights should be respected during critical care triage, and that there is no intent to discriminate, provides no defence to the disability-discriminatory January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol
  6. This report reveals an even greater risk under Ontario’s critical care triage plan that each triage doctor can unintentionally become a law unto themselves than the AODA Alliance had previously discovered.
  7. Ontario’s critical care triage plan risks unfairly and arbitrarily providing different amounts of oversight of triage decisions from hospital to hospital.
  8. The training recently provided for frontline critical care triage doctors wrongly minimizes the enormity of their triage decisions and the importance of being legally accountable for them.
  9. A substantially incorrect idea of “equity” was presented to frontline doctors being trained to make critical care triage decisions.
  10. Some of those central to the planning for critical care triage in Ontario call for openness and transparency –something that this report shows to be missing.
  11. The Health Ministry still refuses to talk to the disability community about critical care triage plans, but is clearly talking to the health sector and their insurance companies.
  12. Doctors, hospitals and emergency medical services, should beware the protocol, directions and training they have been given on Critical Care Triage. They would use them in action that endangers patients life at their peril.

An important starting point for this report is that it may become necessary for Ontario to have rationing or triage of critical care services. The AODA Alliance does not dispute this, and has never disputed this. The AODA Alliance continues to argue that more can be done to avert it becoming necessary.

However, if it were to become necessary, Ontario must have a plan and protocol in place to govern it. The AODA Alliance has never disputed the need for such a plan and protocol. To the contrary, it is essential that Ontario be well-prepared for this possible nightmarish development.

If critical care triage is to occur, it must not be left to each triage doctor to decide based on their own beliefs or preferences which patients should be refused critical care, and on what basis. Our core message is that any critical care triage plan and protocol must be legal. They must fully comply with the human and constitutional rights of patients.

One cannot simply dismiss all concerns about unlawful discrimination in critical care triage plans or protocols on the grounds that any such triage “discriminates”, because some patients will be denied life-saving critical care they need. All laws give something to some people, but not others. What the Charter of Rights and the Ontario Human Rights code forbid is discrimination on certain illegal bases, such as one’s disability.

Here is how this report proceeds. Part II of this report gives a detailed background to the events leading to the creation of Ontario’s current critical care triage plans. It identifies the key organizations connected with the Ontario Government that are involved with creating this plan. It summarizes the serious problems with Ontario’s critical care triage plans from a disability perspective, that the AODA Alliance and others have previously revealed.

Readers who already know that background should skip right to Part III. It is the report’s meat and potatoes. Part III describes and documents each of the additional serious problems with Ontario’s critical care triage plan that the AODA Alliance here reveals. These are principally revealed from an analysis of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol that has been sent to all Ontario hospitals, and the January 23, 2021 webinar on that protocol which teaches frontline doctors and hospitals how, when and why to implement that protocol, if Ontario hospitals are directed to ration or triage critical care services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That webinar is the fullest peak behind closed doors to see what is in store under Ontario’s critical care triage plan.

The AODA Alliance puts the Ontario Government, and those designing and planning to implement Ontario critical care triage plans, on notice about these serious new concerns. We call on them to immediately talk to us and other disability advocates about these concerns, and to immediately rectify all these serious problems.

The AODA Alliance is a non-partisan grassroots disability coalition. It advocates for accessibility for 2.6 million Ontarians with disabilities, including in the health care system. It has been focusing for the past eleven months on the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on people with disabilities and advocating for measures to protect their urgent needs during the pandemic. Its efforts on this issue are documented on the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

 Part II Background to This Report and to Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans — for Newcomers to This Issue.

 1. Key Timelines, Organizations, Documents and Sources

In February 2020, Ontario’s Health Ministry secretly decided that Ontario needs to develop a critical care triage protocol, in case one is needed because of the impending COVID-19 pandemic. The Government secretly appointed an external advisory group of physicians and bioethicists to design it. That is the Government’s “Bioethics Table”.

In February and March 2020, the Bioethics Table secretly prepared an original triage protocol, the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. It was not made public. Ontario Health, part of the Ontario Government, secretly sent it to all hospitals in the early 2020 spring.

Word of that protocol quickly leaked to the disability community. On April 8, 2020, over 200 disability organizations sent the Ontario Government and made public an open letter, that decried the March 28, 2020 protocol as disability discriminatory.

In an effort to swiftly offer constructive ideas, the AODA Alliance prepared and made public its April 14, 2020 Critical Care Triage Discussion paper. That Discussion Paper identified key ingredients that a critical care triage protocol should include.

On April 21, 2020, the Ontario Government publicly claimed that the March 28, 2020 critical care triage was only a “draft” even though it was not marked “draft”. It undertook that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and community advocates would be consulted on Ontario’s critical care triage plans.

During the 2020 summer, under the leadership and initial coordination of the Ontario Human Rights Commission the Bioethics Table held several virtual meetings with the AODA Alliance, the ARCH Disability Law Centre and a group of other disability advocates and experts. These disability advocates described serious human rights concerns with Ontario’s plans for critical care triage from the disability perspective. The Bioethics Table shared a revised draft critical care triage protocol. The AODA Alliance made it public on its website on July 16, 2020.

On September 11, 2020, the Bioethics Table submitted a report to the Ontario Government, recommending a framework for conducting critical care triage. The Government did not make this secret September 11, 2020 report public until December 10, 2020, and even then, only after repeated pressure. The Bioethics Table, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the AODA Alliance and many others had called for the Government to immediately release the Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 report.

The Government continued to conceal other documents created in connection with that report, despite our requests to see them all. The Government had shared the Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 report and related secret documents with health care providers over the 2020 fall, at the same time as it was steadfastly refusing to show it to the public or to the disability community.

On October 29, 2020, the Ontario Government quietly rescinded the March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol. Disability community advocates, supported by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, had been calling for months for it to be rescinded. The fact of its rescission was not made public until the Government was pressed on this topic in the Legislature’s Question Period on November 5, 2020.

On December 17, 2020, the Government-appointed Bioethics Table held a rushed virtual roundtable discussion on its just-released September 11, 2020 report on critical care triage. This included the AODA Alliance, some other disability community representatives and some representatives from racialized and Indigenous communities. Those community representatives united in stating that this rushed meeting did not give them enough time to read and fully analyze the September 11, 2020 Bioethics Table report, that their review to date revealed that it has serious human rights problems, and that they all wanted a further chance to give direct input on critical care triage plans. No such further opportunity for input has been provided.

At that roundtable, Dr. Andrew Baker, incident commander with the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, said a new approach to triage, embodying the concerns raised at the roundtable (with which he seemed to find real merit), would in effect have to wait for a future time. That would have to be after this pandemic is over.

On January 12, 2021, the Bioethics Table rendered a new report to the Ontario Government. This report is secret. The AODA Alliance has never seen it.

On January 13, 2021, a new critical care triage protocol was sent to Ontario hospitals. The Government did not make it public. It quickly made its way to the AODA Alliance and others.

The AODA Alliance made the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol public on the AODA Alliance website on January 18, 2021.

The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol states that it was approved by the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre. The Ontario Government has declined to answer an AODA Alliance inquiry about the membership and mandate of the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre. It is an internal Government-mandated body that evidently has been given provincial authority to decide what the critical care triage protocol should be, and when critical care triage should take place in Ontario. It has operated in secret, not in public.

On January 23, 2021, Critical Care Services Ontario held an online webinar to train frontline doctors and hospitals on why, when and how to conduct critical care triage under the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. Critical Care Services Ontario is mandated to coordinate critical care services in Ontario, according to its website.

The AODA Alliance happened to learn about this webinar, and that it is posted on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xatBYgXZHt4. That webinar’s contents are an important source for this report’s findings. Presenters at that webinar included key players in the design, oversight and defence of Ontario’s critical care triage plan.

The AODA Alliance has written the Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott seven times over five months, detailing serious concerns with the Government ‘s critical care triage and asking important questions. None of these letters have been answered, including the AODA Alliance‘s September 25, 2020 letter, its November 2, 2020 letter, its November 9, 2020 letter, its December 7, 2020 letter, its December 15, 2020 letter, its December 17, 2020 letter and its January 18, 2021 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott.

A comprehensive “paper trail” of disability advocacy efforts on this issue from the perspective of patients with disabilities is available on the AODA Alliance website’s health care page. Some key documents, such as the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, the Bioethics Table’s spring-summer draft of that protocol, and the Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 critical care triage report to the Ontario Government were all publicly posted for the first time on the AODA Alliance web page. It appears that the public needs to visit such public interest websites as the AODA Alliance website and the ARCH Disability Law Centre website, rather than the Ontario Government’s website, to find out what is going on in this important area of provincial public health policy, for which the Ontario Government is responsible.

 2. Previously-Revealed Fundamental Problems with the Ontario Government Plans for Critical Care Triage

This report identifies new and additional problems, previously unrevealed, with the Ford Government’s plans for critical care triage in Ontario, if hospitals cannot cope with a surge in the number of patients needing life-saving critical care. These new concerns supplement and build upon the important and disturbing problems with the Government’s critical care triage that the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates have revealed and publicized over the last ten months. Those earlier concerns are summarized as follows:

  1. The Government has not shown that there is valid legal authority to issue a direction to hospitals and physicians on critical care triage. A memo to hospitals cannot direct who lives and who dies. This is an important part of the rule of law in a democracy. See e.g. the AODA Alliance’s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table.
  1. The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol directs disability discrimination against some patients with disabilities who need critical care. It directs the use of the “Clinical Frailty Scale” as a tool for assessing some patients’ eligibility to be refused critical care. That Scale has doctors assess whether patients over age 65 with a progressive disease and needing critical care, can perform eleven activities of daily living without assistance, including dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in and out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, or handling their own finances. This focus on these activities, and the exclusion of any assistance when performing them, is rank disability discrimination. See e.g. the AODA Alliance’s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table, the AODA Alliance’s August 31, 2020 oral presentation to the Bioethics Table and the ARCH Disability Law Centre’s September 1, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table.
  1. The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol does not provide due process to patients needing critical care and who are at risk of being denied that care due to critical care triage. They have no right of input into the decision, and no avenue for a swift appeal if doctors decide to refuse them the life-saving critical care that they need to survive. See e.g. the AODA Alliance’s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table and the January 26, 2021 AODA Alliance Update.
  1. The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol would in effect make each triage doctor a law unto themselves, with sweeping subjective discretion over who should live and who should die, dressed up in the garb of impressive medical jargon. See e.g. the AODA Alliance’s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table and the January 26, 2021 AODA Alliance Update.
  1. The Ontario Government’s senior medical advisors on critical care are urging the Ontario Cabinet to pass an executive order that would suspend the Health Care Consent Act. They want this so doctors could unilaterally withdraw critical care from a patient already receiving it, without that patient’s consent, in order to give that critical care to another patient. The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates have strenuously objected to any such suspension of the Health Care Consent Act. The AODA Alliance has warned that for the Government to try to do so, including if it tried to do so by an order of the Ontario Cabinet, would be tap dancing in a constitutional minefield. See e.g. the February 1, 2021 AODA Alliance Update.

 Part III Cataloguing Serious New Problems with Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plan

  1. Ontario Has Created a Seriously Flawed Online Calculator to Compute Who Will Be Refused Needed Life-Saving Critical Care During Triage

We were deeply troubled to discover from the January 23, 2021 webinar that Ontario has created an online “Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator.” It is supposed to calculate whether a patient will be refused needed life-saving critical care, if critical care triage is directed. It is at the website www.STMRCalculator.ca.

A triage physician can input information about a patient who needs critical care into this short term mortality risk calculator. The calculator then coldly spits out a number that gives the patient’s triage priority score. That number will determine whether a patient is eligible for critical care they need, or whether they will be refused critical care, depending on the level of critical care triage that has been directed. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. James Downar, reportedly the author of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol and a member of the Bioethics Table, stated:

“We’ve actually also got a calculator now that’s online that helps calculate these and gives the sort of –you can punch in some clinical information. It will give you the answer.”

The Government and its Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre and other related health bodies have never announced to the public the existence of this online calculator, to our knowledge. We have seen no indication that it has been successfully field-tested and/or peer-reviewed.

This short term mortality risk calculator is seriously objectionable. First, it wrongly and disrespectfully reduces a life-and-death decision about a seriously ill human being to a cold, digitized computation.

It risks giving triage doctors a false sense that it is the calculator that decides who lives and who dies. That wrongly diminishes a triage doctor’s needed alertness to their responsibility for their action. It is vital for triage doctors to own the triage decisions they make and feel fully responsible and accountable for them. This report later shows further concerns in that regard.

Second, this calculator creates the dangerous false impression that such a life-and-death assessment can in fact accurately and safely become an objective mathematical calculation. Medical science is far from that precise, when it comes to predicting whether a critically ill patient will die within the next year. On the January 22, 2021 edition of CBC Radio’s “White Coat Black Art” program, Dr. Michael Warner, head of the Michael Garron Hospital’s Intensive Care Unit, stated in part:

“What’s different now is we have to essentially guesstimate what would happen a year from now.”

He explained that this is not how treatment decisions are now made, and that doing this would be “very difficult to do…” because doctors will be very busy caring for patients, and not all patients will have this protocol. This head of a Toronto hospital’s ICU said candidly that he is not sure how they would action this in real life “because it’s a policy on paper…” Dr. Warner was asked how confident he is that emergency doctors can use these new rules accurately in a chaotic and stressful environment like an emergency room. Dr. Warner responded in part:

“…so it’s hard to know how we would be able to effectively use a tool that’s written on a piece of paper, where two doctors have to verify someone’s mortality risk and then decide on what to do, if there are patients everywhere, you know, potentially dying. You know, I think we need something written down on paper, so that all these stakeholders can review it and provide their input, but at the end of the day, if we ever have to use it, we may have to improvise.”

Further supporting the serious concern that that this is not a precise mathematical calculation, Dr. James Downar, reportedly the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol’s author, conceded during the January 23, 2021 webinar that triage physicians will be “estimating” a triage patient’s likelihood of surviving for a year after receiving critical care. Dr. Downar said:

“Ultimately this boils down to an individualized assessment for each person. This is not a checklist that applies to everybody, but simply an approach to estimating short term mortality risk, and using tools as appropriate to do that. The clinical criteria the prioritization criteria are based on published data where possible, and in some cases, based on expert opinion, based on the peer review that Andrea referenced.”

Dr. Downar also earlier said during that webinar:

“The focus of this is on the mortality risk at twelve months, not the estimated survival duration for an individual, right? So we know that it can be challenging to predict survival for individuals, but when we are looking at populations based on published data, we can I think be reasonably more sure about risks and certainly within the ranges, the broad ranges that we are talking about here.”

Third, this online calculator uses criteria that are transparently disability discriminatory, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the heading “Frailty”, for patients over 65 with a terminal illness and expected mortality of more than six months, the calculator uses the disability-discriminatory Clinical Frailty Scale, described earlier in this report. As noted earlier, that Scale inquires about the number of activities of daily living that a patient can do without assistance, including dressing, bathing, eating, walking, getting in/out of bed, using the telephone, going shopping, preparing meals, doing housework, taking medication, and handling their own finances. The calculator increases the patient’s frailty rating accordingly.

The AODA Alliance and the ARCH Disability Law Centre have amply shown the Government and the Government’s external advisory Bioethics Table that the Clinical Frailty Scale is replete with unjustifiable disability discrimination. See e.g. the AODA Alliance‘s August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table, the AODA Alliance’s August 31, 2020 oral presentation to the Bioethics Table and the ARCH Disability Law Centre’s September 1, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table. Neither the Bioethics Table nor the Ministry of Health, nor Ontario Health nor the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre have presented any convincing arguments to disprove that the Clinical Frailty Scale is disability discriminatory, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.

That alone would be fatal to this online calculator. However, making this worse, the AODA Alliance has discovered that the online calculator also uses other disability discriminatory criteria. We have not had a full opportunity to investigate the entire calculator from this perspective. However, as an example, for “Cancer”, the calculator rates the following physical ability criteria all of which can be tied directly to a person’s disability:

  • Whether a patient is “Fully active and able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction”
  • Whether a patient is “Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature, e.g., light housework, office work” –
  • Whether a patient is “Ambulatory and capable of all selfcare but unable to carry out any work activities; up and about more than 50% of waking hours” –
  • Whether a patient is “Capable of only limited selfcare; confided to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours” –
  • Whether a patient is “Completely disabled and cannot carry out any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair” – persons in this category receive the worst rating, for getting access to critical care.

The online Calculator does not alert doctors to these as serious human rights concerns. A physician using this online calculator could commit flagrant disability discrimination, without being alerted to this, and thinking it is totally appropriate conduct.

The foregoing examples of disability discrimination contradict the clear statement of the Government’s Bioethics Table in its September 11, 2020 report to the Ford Government as follows:

“To emphasize: the existence of disability must not be used as a criterion on which to deny critical care.”

That important sentence is strikingly missing from the later January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. It is not known whether the Bioethics Table later retreated from that important sentence in its later secret January 12, 2021 report to the Government, which the AODA Alliance and the public have not seen.

Fourth, the Bioethics Table and the Ontario Government including its Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, never consulted the AODA Alliance or, to our knowledge, other disability advocates and experts, on this online calculator. The AODA Alliance has no knowledge whether the Government or its Bioethics Table or its Critical Care COVID Command Centre ever consulted the Ontario Human Rights Commission on this online calculator.

 2. There is a Danger that Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs ) Could Wrongly Refuse to Give a Patient Needed Critical Care Before the Patient Even Gets to the Hospital – Improper Backdoor Trickle-Down Triage

Normally, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) may start critical care supports for a patient en route to hospital, if the patient needs it. The public expects that if an ambulance arrives in an emergency to help a person, the EMTs will do all they can to help save the patient’s life. The public does not expect that an EMT would unilaterally refuse to provide a life-saving measure that the patient needs, out of some thought that a triage doctor at the hospital might later feel trapped by the law that does not allow them to withdraw that critical medical care without the patient’s consent.

Yet to our total surprise and deep worry, almost one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the AODA Alliance learned from watching the January 23, 2021 webinar that if critical care triage is directed for Ontario, instructions may have been given by someone (we don’t know who) to frontline EMTs or may in future be given to them, to the effect that EMTS should not administer some critical care to some patients who need it. Yet such back-door or trickle-down critical care triage should not take place., Certainly EMTs should not be directed to engage in such denial of critical care where needed, absent the patient’s consent to its being denied.

Speakers at the January 23, 2021 webinar, who are involved in planning Ontario’s regime for critical care triage, raised a concern that if EMTs start to apply critical care to a patient before they reach the hospital, then the hospital would not be able to withdraw that critical care afterwards unless the patient consented to its withdrawal. This is because of the Health Care Consent Act.

During the webinar, questions were asked about using the January 13, 2021 triage protocol where a patient earlier had critical care started “in the field” (i.e. before they get to hospital). And where that patient is then brought to the hospital’s emergency room, already receiving critical care. The concern was expressed that under the January 13, 2021 triage protocol, a doctor cannot withdraw critical care from a patient who is already receiving it, unless that patient consents to its withdrawal. In response, Dr. James Downar (a central figure in the design and public defence of Ontario’s critical care triage plan) said:

“Add this to the long list of very good reasons why we should have an executive order to allow withdrawal, for allowing for equity. Because we need to, I think, decrease the consequences of people, you know, mistakenly intubating somebody who should not have been prioritized. You want to make it very easy for people to offer critical care, and not make the mistake of not offering it and only finding out later, because they made a hurried decision, that they should have. That’s what you don’t want.

The ability to withdraw is the ability to offer in marginal or higher mortality risk cases. That’s the way to look at it, right? That’s why it would result in better outcomes for everybody.

I know that the ambulance services emergency services are aware of this document. (Evidently referring to the January 13, 2021 triage protocol) We had conversations with them early in the spring. And they have a sort of surge practices already available where they are going to look at situations where, you know, certain types of resuscitation, they would not initiate resuscitation in certain scenarios. And they are aware of this document, and, to the best of my knowledge, they certainly did in springtime align their practices – Their standards would change in a way that would reflect this document.

So, for example, if we had a maximum surge, that they would not attempt certain types of resuscitation, you know, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lower levels of surge, they would resuscitate people only in situations like having, you know, witnessed arrest and shockable rhythm, for example.

To your point, they should be aligned, and they are, emergency services are aware.”

Dr. Downar was asked if that information would be available. He responded:

“I can’t speak for the emergency services but I can speak to them.”

If there have been any such critical care triage secret directions to EMTs or to emergency services, or if any are being designed or contemplated, we and the public do not know what these directions are, or who is designing, approving them or issuing them. We and the public do not know who would make the potential life-and-death decision to refuse a roadside patient the critical care that they need, or whether there would be any notification to the patient or their family that this backdoor or trickle-down triage is even taking place. If, as Dr. Downar suggested, such directions to EMTs are aligned with the critical care triage protocol that has been sent to hospitals for use by physicians, they would then be replete with the same disability discrimination and due process problems that the AODA Alliance and others have revealed in Ontario’s past and present critical care triage protocols.

We have seen no prior Government policy, public statement, discussion or consultation on this. The Bioethics Table never raised it with us in any of its several virtual meetings with disability advocates and experts last summer. The Bioethics Table had ample opportunity to raise this. To the contrary, all previous discussions have been premised on the idea that critical care triage decisions would be made by doctors and would be made for patients who are already in hospital. The Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 report to the Ford Government includes the following statement, which does not state that EMTs might take any part in deciding whether to withhold needed critical care from a patient, on the grounds that the hospital might later want not to have to continue delivering critical care to that patient:

“”Emergency medical services (EMS), nursing staff, or other staff should promptly notify a patient’s physician whenever a patient is in potential need of critical care. No assumptions should be made about whether a patient meets triage criteria; the patient’s physician is required to make this determination (see Section E for more on this process).

”      If critical care triage is initiated, this should not preclude the transfer of residents from long-term care facilities or other settings to acute care hospitals for acute care, even if their predicted short-term mortality risk would preclude them from receiving critical care.

”      Clinicians should not use prognostic tools for assessing predicted short-term mortality risk if they are not sufficiently trained and skilled with those tools.”

Here again, we do not know if the Bioethics Table withdrew that advice in its subsequent secret January 12, 2021 report to the Ontario Government. For its part, the AODA Alliance foresaw the risk of this backdoor or trickle-down triage and alerted the Government about it back on April 14, 2020. We then warned about the risk that EMTs might decline to treat a patient with a disability out of some thought that they would later be refused critical care at the hospital during a period of critical care triage.

However, it was then unimaginable to us that such misconduct could take place as a calculated direction to all emergency services. The fear was that an EMT might take such backdoor or trickle-down triage decisions upon themselves. The AODA Alliance’s April 14, 2020 Discussion Paper on Ensuring that Medical Triage or Rationing of Health Care Services During the COVID-19 Crisis Does Not Discriminate Against Patients with Disabilities included this:

“8. An ambulance is called to an apartment where a patient with disabilities has contracted COVID-19 and has severe symptoms needing hospitalization. The EMTs are reluctant to take the patient to the hospital. They figure that due to rationing or triage protocols and to that patient’s disabilities, the emergency room doctors would not likely give that patient a ventilator, due to shortage of ventilators.

The EMTs should never use the patient’s disability or their predictions about whether that might lead a doctor to refuse to treat them as a reason or factor to refuse to bring them to the hospital if they otherwise have symptoms warranting a trip to the hospital.”

Even if it were assumed that critical care triage directions should be issued to EMTs and ambulance services (which the AODA Alliance vigourously disputes), the disability community and the broader public should be properly consulted on this well in advance. The Ontario Government and any body involved with this issue should immediately make public any directions or draft directions to any ambulance services or EMTs on possible triage of critical care in advance of arriving at hospital, so the public can know what is now going on. The Government should now reveal who is formulating these instructions, who is approving them, who is issuing them, and what legal authority, if any, they have to do this.

The Government should immediately rescind any instructions that would allow EMTs or emergency services to refuse to provide critical care to a patient who needs it, and who has not agreed to it being withheld. The AODA Alliance reiterates in this context all the concerns regarding critical care triage that disability advocates and experts have been raising with the Government since last April. Supplementing these, there is a serious concern that EMTs have neither the training nor the authority to ration or triage needed critical care.

 3. The AODA Alliance Reveals the Transparently Erroneous Legal Strategy for Defending the Legality of Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans

 a) Unmasking the Legal Defence Strategy

The AODA Alliance has unearthed the fatally flawed legal defence strategy that the Government, its Critical Care COVID-19 Command Centre and the like have evidently crafted to fend off anticipated legal challenges to their plans for deciding which patients will be refused life-saving critical care if the COVID-19 pandemic overloads hospitals, and requires critical care triage. Critical Care Services Ontario, the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, the Bioethics Table, those leading the development and/or implementation of Ontario’s critical care triage plan, the Ontario Government, and those insurance companies and lawyers who would defend doctors and hospitals if sued, have a clear legal defence strategy. They plan to argue that they cannot be successfully sued if a patient dies from a refusal of critical care that they need, so long as the doctors and hospitals followed the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol

This legal defence strategy heavily relies on the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol ‘s title: “”Ontario Adult Critical Care Emergency Standard of Care.” If a patient dies and their family sues for negligence because they were the victims of a refusal of critical care they need during critical care triage, the hospital, its doctors and the Government would plan to argue that they cannot be successfully sued for the patient’s resulting death, because this document sets the “standard of care.” Courts should use this “standard of care “ to assess the medical professionals’ conduct.

They plan to argue that the standard of care is determined by doctors who are experts in the field, and not by lawyers or others. They would argue that the January 13, 2021 triage protocol is the result of expert medical advice and decisions by the Bioethics Table and the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre that approved it. As long as doctors and hospitals stick to the January 13, 2021 triage protocol, they plan to argue that they have fulfilled their professional obligations, and are therefore immunized from being sued or the subject of complaint to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO), the body that licenses and regulates physicians.

The Government, the triage doctors and hospitals would plan to argue that the “standard of care that applies is one that is mainly based on the reasonable and accepted practice expected of a similarly trained doctor in similar circumstances. They would argue that a court relies on medical expert witnesses to identify that standard of care.

From the January 23, 2021 webinar, they clearly intend to argue that the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is just such a standard of care. They would argue that it was created by medical experts for medical experts after a long period of research, investigation and consultation.

This legal defence strategy also serves the Ontario Government’s current political strategy. The Ontario Government is publicly running as far as it can from this issue. In contrast, the Quebec Government has publicly owned this issue by publicly posting a government decree that sets out the terms of critical care triage. By so recognizing, the AODA Alliance is not in any way endorsing Quebec’s Critical Care triage plan.

The Ford Government has repeatedly dodged media questions where it can on critical care triage plans. As noted earlier, the Government has refused to answer the AODA Alliance ‘s seven letters on critical care triage. The Government has not publicly discussed or debated this critical care triage issue in the Legislature, unless the Opposition asks the Government about it in Question Period.

Instead, the Government has in effect hidden behind its advisory Bioethics Table. The Government has repeatedly said that the Ministry of Health has not approved the January 13, 2021 triage protocol. To distance itself from the protocol, it claimed that that protocol instead is experts advising experts.

For example, a February 7, 2021 Globe and Mail news report stated:

“In response to inquiries from The Globe and Mail, Ontario’s Ministry of Health said in a statement that an emergency order, which would need cabinet approval, “is not currently being considered.” It also said it had not yet officially approved any triage protocol and that the bioethics table would continue to discuss the proposals with “stakeholder groups.””

By that strategy, the Government appears to be trying to duck any responsibility for any decisions made that terminate a patient’s life because they are refused critical care during critical care triage. The Government would claim that it is the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, and not the Government, that decided whether, where and how critical care triage will occur. It would claim that the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre is a table of medical experts, getting advice from the advisory Bioethics Table, also a table of experts. The Government can be expected to claim that it does not have to enact a triage protocol or under law, or indeed, to do anything, but let the medical profession just do its work.

This legal strategy was discovered by studying the January 23, 2021 CCSO webinar, and the Government’s few public statements on the triage protocol. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, lawyer Daphne Jarvis, who represents hospitals defending medical malpractice cases, said:

“…and as you’ve heard, it means that the focus shifts from optimizing individual care to maximizing population health outcomes. So, that concept may be new to us, and I can’t say that we have a body of Canadian case law specifically addressing pandemic critical triage situation. But there is a body of case law and medical legal literature that is broadly speaking relevant and that supports this concept.”

She also said:

“So, as you’ve heard, the document it’s more than one document, the document which outlines the emergency standard of care represents a very broad professional and expert consensus that has been developed over a long period of time with a huge amount of work, and it’s the emergency standard of care that assumes no change in the law.”

Ms. Jarvis went on to advise:

“So in short, it’s the best way to mitigate legal risk and to focus in a good faith effort to reduce morbidity and mortality.”

We add that the term “mitigate legal risk” that Ms. Jarvis used in the preceding quotation means “avoid someone successfully suing you.”

Similarly, speaking for the Canadian Medical Protective Association which defends and insures doctors who are sued for medical malpractice, Dr. Steven Bellemare explained:

“So why is the standard of care important? That’s because the standard of care is at the heart of any medical legal matter, be it a lawsuit or College complaint or hospital complaint. If you were to face a lawsuit with regards to a choice to not provide critical care services to a patient or for instance, the court would then seek to answer the question: ‘What would a reasonable physician, of similar training and experience, have done in a similar circumstance?’ That’s ‘s how it will determine whether or not there was negligence at play. And so the question then becomes what would other docs like in Critical Care have done in Ontario at that time, not in British Columbia, not in Quebec because every province is going to have a different approach to that.

So the standard of care usually is derived from expert opinion. We have experts, who are physicians of similar training and experience in similar circumstances as you would be, who provide opinions to the court as to what they would have done in that circumstance.”

Dr. Bellemare further explained:

“So the peer experts set the standard of care and the standard of care changes over time…. There are other ways that we can get to the standard of care, and that includes looking at guidelines or protocols that are published by various regulatory bodies like the CPSO in this case, or by national specialty societies. Finally, very rarely, governments can impose a standard of care. So that’ll be the case in Quebec, for instance, where their emergency triage protocol, if it goes into effect, will be done by decree of the Minister of Health, who will say from now on, this is how we are going to decide who gets access to care.

That’s not the case in Ontario. This is why we are talking about here the emergency standard of care and that’s not chosen by luck. Because this standard of care was created by your peers. It was created with input from critical care specialists. And as such, if and when the COVID-19 Command Centre decides to decree that it will go into place, it will be de facto the way your colleagues will expect you to behave in a time of crisis. And so it will be the way to practice. It will be the standard of care and what your peers will accept.”

 b) The Legal Defence Strategy is Fatally Flawed

Several reasons show why that legal defence strategy is fatally flawed. First, that legal strategy repeatedly and erroneously uses the label “standard of care” in order to try to position the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol as a big shield for doctors, hospitals, and, potentially the Government itself. Yet the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is in truth not a doctors’ “Standard of Care.” The fact that it uses that title, and that the January 23, 2021 webinar presenters repeatedly use that term, does not make it a true standard of care.

In the law of negligence, the concept of a “standard of care” exists for a court to use to measure whether a physician was negligent:

  1. When the doctor diagnoses a patient and decides whether that patient needs medical treatment. The doctor must not be negligent when deciding what the patient’s condition is;
  1. When the doctor decides what treatment to prescribe for the patient. The doctor must not be negligent in choosing the proper treatment to prescribe for the patient, and
  1. When the doctor is delivering a treatment to the patient that they have prescribed. The doctor must not be negligent when treating the patient e.g. when performing surgery.

The Government, doctors and hospitals rely on this “standard of care “ label and this defence strategy at their serious peril. It would be unwise for them to be lulled into a complacent sense that they have nothing to worry about, so long as they follow the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol and repeatedly call it a “standard of care.”

We contend that the concept of “standard of care “ does not apply to a doctor who is deliberately deciding not to give a patient critical care who is known as needing that care. That is instead a triage or rationing decision about allocating scarce public resources, denying that patient services which are covered and assured by provincial health insurance and the Canada Health Act.

This is not a situation where a doctor decides that the patient is not so sick that they need critical care. It is not a situation where the patient does not want to receive critical care. Rather, it is a given in these triage cases that the patient needs it and wants critical care.

If a patient needs critical care, a doctor’s triage decision to refuse them that care (over the patient’s objection) is not done to assess what that patient medically needs, or to deliver to the patient the treatment they medically need. Rather, it is a decision to deliberately allocate scarce resources to another patient instead.

We understand the vexing exigencies that this triage protocol tries to address. However, dressing that protocol up as a “standard of care” is incorrect, inappropriate and misleading. It is designed to secure for doctors, hospitals and possibly the Government the undeserved windfall of the maximum legal protection or immunity from lawsuits.

Second, this legal defence strategy violates the rule of law and basic democratic principles. It in effect turns the medical profession into a state within a state. Under it, democratically elected, politically accountable politicians would not make the rules on who will get a scarce government-funded resource, namely critical medical care, during triage. Instead, unelected physicians and bioethicists would decide whether there will be critical care triage, and if so, who will be refused critical care., They would decide this, behind closed doors, talking to whomever they wish, excluding whomever they wish, accountable to no one, bringing to bear no training or expertise in human rights or constitutional rights.

This wrongly pre-decides that doctors alone should make life-and-death decisions about allocating scarce publicly-funded resources, with no public accountability. Yet it is not for doctors to assign themselves this role, set the rules for their decisions, and to decide how much or how little public accountability they will have for deciding who shall be refused needed life-saving critical care. In a democracy’s publicly funded health care system, decisions on health care rationing criteria, roles and rules are ultimately the Government’s responsibility.

Ontario’s experience illustrates the dangers with this. The Government’s Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre secretly approved the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. By this “standard of care” legal defence strategy, the Government in effect delegates the decision-making authority on this life-and-death issue to that unaccountable, secret body, without the Legislature ever granting it that authority. This is not the open and transparent approach to the COVID-19 pandemic that Premier Ford promised.

We have never been given a chance to meet with the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre. On December 7, 2020, we wrote Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott, asking who is on that body, and what their mandate is. The Government never answered.

That Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre no doubt relied on reports from the Government’s Bioethics Table. As noted earlier in this report, we have seen the Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 report, but not its subsequent January 12, 2021 report. Moreover, in its September 1, 2020 report, the Bioethics Table did not share with the Government or the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre some key parts of our input– parts of our input with which the Bioethics Table evidently did not agree.

Third, that “standard of care” label, even had it correctly applied here (which it does not) cannot excuse or exempt doctors, hospitals or the Government from the serious Charter of Rights and Human Rights Code violations that the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates have raised with the January 13, 2021 triage protocol and with Ontario’s earlier March 28, 2020 triage protocol. The “standard of care” label, even if it were properly applicable here, does not immunize doctors, hospitals or the Government from their duty to comply with the Charter of Rights and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Fourth, if the Bioethics Table gets its wish, and the Ontario Government tries to suspend the Health Care Consent Act so that doctors can withdraw critical care from a patient over that patient’s objection, the “standard of care” label, (even if properly applied here) would not exempt a doctor from the risk of committing a culpable homicide contrary to Canada’s Criminal Code by actively and intentionally withdrawing needed critical care from a patient over their objection.

Fifth, for this “standard of care” label to properly apply, it must first be shown that the physicians who developed it are in fact experts in the rationing of life-saving critical care. However, with great respect to them, they are not. They, and the Ontario medical profession have no prior expertise in rationing life-saving critical care, or in reliably predicting, for triage purposes, which patients will survive for a year after receiving critical care. This is not displaced by any bald claims that the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is evidence-based.

Last summer, the Bioethics Table told us that Ontario’s medical profession has never before had to engage in critical care triage. It is our understanding that doctors are not trained to perform such critical care triage as part of their medical education. As well, neither physicians nor bioethicists must be trained in, nor claim to be experts in, fundamental human rights and constitutional law. That lack of expertise in human rights and constitutional law is amply evidenced by the various deficient critical care triage protocols and the arguments that have been made to defend them.

Sixth, it would be inaccurate to conclude that the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is a compelling “standard of care” to which courts should defer, by virtue of the way it was developed. To justify it, it was said to be more than a decade in the making, the result of extensive work and consultation and reflecting the consensus of relevant expert opinion. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, that over-inflated and exaggerated claim was presented to attendees to support a call for frontline physicians to feel comfortable and safe when using that protocol. Dr. Andrea Frolic, a member of the Bioethics Table and identified as a key player in the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol’s development, said she would explain how the critical care triage protocol came about

“…to reassure you that this isn’t some form of moral improvisation but it’s a practice standard that is more than a decade in the making.”

It is an exaggeration to claim that this triage protocol was over a decade in the making”. The January 23, 2021 webinar was told that some work was done on this topic over a decade ago after the SARS outbreak. After that, no action on it was described at that webinar until last February. One year ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic was first emerging, the original March 28, 2020 critical care triage protocol was prepared in a rush and, we add, in secret.

The public was not given a chance for input into it. The public was not told that a critical care triage protocol was being developed, or that it had been sent to hospitals. The public only learned about it when it was leaked to some within the disability community. That led it to be publicly condemned by over two hundred disability organizations as disability discriminatory.

During the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Andrea Frolic said that the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol was the result of consultations with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and community groups. This omits critical facts. For example, it leaves out the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and community groups like the AODA Alliance publicly objected to key parts of the triage plan and the secretive way it has been developed.

After months of delay, the AODA Alliance and some other disability organizations got a chance to give input on an earlier draft of the critical care triage protocol last summer. It was good to have that opportunity. However it is now clear that several important issues, addressed in this report and elsewhere, were not identified with us for comment at that time e.g. the possibility of directions to EMTs to withhold critical care from some patients who need that care.

It is good that in its September 11, 2020 report to the Ontario Government, the Bioethics Table incorporated some of the input from disability advocates. However, the Bioethics Table rejected a number of key points that disability advocates presented. It similarly rejected key points that the Ontario Human Rights Commission publicly emphasized.

The Bioethics Table gave no reasons for doing so. The Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 report to the Government does not pass on to the Government the important points of input from the disability community and the Ontario Human Rights Commission that the Bioethics Table evidently rejected. Of the points that the Bioethics Table had incorporated, some did not find their way into the later January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. As noted earlier, the Government and its internal Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre did not consult us or the public on this topic. That meant that our input in key respects died before reaching those making the actual decisions on the design of Ontario’s critical care triage plan.

Seventh, any effort by the Ford Government to distance itself from this protocol is misleading and purely cosmetic. The Government appointed its advisory Bioethics Table. The Government undoubtedly created the Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre that approved the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. The Ontario Ministry of Health is a partner in Critical Care Services Ontario. CCSO ran the January 23, 2021 webinar, and clearly is playing a role in the development and implementation of Ontario’s critical care triage plan.

Moreover, during that webinar, Dr. Andrea Frolic acknowledged that the earlier March 23, 2020 critical care triage protocol (the predecessor to the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol) was created under the leadership of herself, Dr. James Downar and others, and was then sent to all hospitals by Ontario Health. Ontario Health is a creation of and part of the Ontario Government. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Andrea Frolic said:

“…So under the leadership of James Downar, myself and others, a draft document was published by Ontario Health and sent to health care organizations back in March.”

  4. Merely Proclaiming that Human Rights Should Be Respected Is No Defence to a Disability-Discriminatory Triage Protocol

Part of the legal strategy to defend the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is to argue that there is no intent to discriminate, and that to the contrary, the protocol states that human rights are to be respected in the triage process. For example, the February 7, 2021 Globe and Mail quoted a key member of the Bioethics table as follows:

“Andrea Frolic, an ethicist and the director of the medical assistance in dying program at Hamilton Health Sciences, who served on the bioethics table until last September, said no protocol is perfect, but the current draft includes safeguards and is designed to protect human rights.

It focuses on the individual patient’s risk of dying, she said, not any disability.”

It is good that the full, lengthy January 13, 2021 triage protocol document (over 30 pages) includes some invocations of human rights. However, this does not immunize that protocol and hospitals or doctors who refuse a patient needed critical care from challenges under the Ontario Human Rights Code and/or the Charter of Rights.

First, the protocol’s references to protecting human rights provide no defence., This protocol first proclaims a commitment to human rights, but then goes on to direct human rights violations, e.g. by using the Clinical Frailty Scale. The Ontario critical care triage plan also urges use of the disability discriminatory Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator, addressed earlier in this report.

Second, it is no defence for the protocol’s authors to proclaim that there was no intent to discriminate. It is well-established that it is not necessary to prove an intent to discriminate, and that the absence of an intent to discriminate is no defence to a human rights or Charter equality rights complaint. We explained this in detail to the Bioethics Table last summer.

Third, as far as we have found, there is no explanation of human rights concerns or how to operationalize them in the triage process, in the all-important short checklists accompanying the January 13, 2021 triage protocol (which we expect is all of that document that busy triage doctors will have time to read) or in the online Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator (which, as detailed above, uses disability-discriminatory criteria) or the January 23, 2021 training webinar that instructed over 1,100 people including frontline doctors on using the January 13, 2021 critical care triage protocol and calculator.

In short, the January 13, 2021 critical care triage protocol’s statements about human rights are little more than window-dressing. They are aimed at outside bodies, seemingly to create the image that human rights are being protected in the critical care triage process.

At the same time, the core messaging to triage doctors is bereft of human rights content. It gives disability-discriminatory instructions to triage doctors. Those triage doctors are not told, for example, that the Bioethics Table, in its earlier September 11 Report, stated the following:

“However, the Bioethics Table learned through its consultation with disability rights experts that the use of CFS in the context of critical care triage raises significant concerns that persons with disabilities, many of whom may need assistance with activities of daily living, would score higher on the CFS than an able-bodied person and that this could lead to the over-triaging of persons with disabilities.”

 5. There is an Even greater Risk that Each Triage Doctor Can Become a Law unto Themselves than the AODA Alliance Previously Identified

As noted earlier, the AODA Alliance previously showed how the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol risks making each triage doctor a law unto themselves. The January 23, 2021 webinar reveals that this risk is even greater. This is so even though attendees at that webinar were erroneously told the opposite. Dr. Andrea Frolic said:

“It is protocol-driven rather than really leaving it up to the discretion of the bedside clinician.”

First, during that webinar, Dr. James Downar recommended that in advance of having to make critical care triage decisions, physicians should survey their hospital case load to identify those patients who might be likely to be subject to triage. He advised doctors to assess those patients’ short term mortality risk in advance. This is so that if those patients later get sicker and need critical care, those assessments will already be completed. Dr. Downar stated:

“So many people on this call who may not operate in the critical care area might be asking, okay, when to assess criteria. Do you only wait until they meet eligibility criteria. And it’s probably not a good idea to wait. Again, you should not be making triage or deprioritization decisions for people who have not had full assessments done. Informal or casual assessments may lack rigour, and they can anchor future decision-making, and so it’s probably best to avoid these sort of informal assessments.

But early assessments before they become critically ill will be very helpful for things like bed planning or establishing what information you might need to get some more certainty. So probably a good idea to try to get ahead in many cases, in some certain situations, and so this is less time pressure.

And so again you also don’t want to it on literally everybody, because these are not going to be easy conversations and they may compromise the therapeutic alliance and cause frustration. And it’s probably not feasible to do it for literally everybody admitted to hospital. So we’re just going to propose a bit of an approach for how to maybe prioritize your assessments. …

…I would say you’d probably best to focus on people who you think are most likely to deteriorate in the near future, or people who are most likely to actually be de-prioritized, depending on the level of triage that you’re at. So, everybody under your care, if for example you’re an MRP (i.e. most responsible physician) on the ward or in an emerge, it’s not a bad idea to think about just quickly scanning over and doing an initial assessment yourself of the criteria, and saying okay I think this person might meet Level 1 criteria for de-prioritization. I should probably, and if we’re at Level 1, triage now, I should probably take everybody who I think might be a Level 1, and make sure that I do formal assessments on those individuals first, so that if there is a decision to be made, it will be less time-pressure, and do a full assessment on those individuals.”

This may at first seem efficient. However, it gives a huge unmonitored, unaccountable and potentially arbitrary discretion to each doctor to unilaterally decide which patients to subject to an early short term mortality assessment. They could thereby formulate early first impressions of their patients for triage purposes.

Each doctor is left to decide for themselves who to subject to this pre-screening, and by what process. Once so pre-screened, a patient that is rated to have a high mortality risk might find themselves singled out for earlier triage from critical care, to their detriment, simply because they were unlucky enough to have a doctor earlier decide to pre-screen them.

The doctor need not forewarn their patients that they are being subjected to this pre-screening. There is no due process for patients to guide or constrain this process.

As a second way that triage doctors risk becoming a law unto themselves, during the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Steven Bellemare said the intent of the January 13, 2021 triage protocol is to remove subjectivity from triage decisions. However he conceded that different people can read a document differently. From this, we conclude that there is in the protocol the very kind of subjectivity or wiggle room that can lead to different doctors taking different approaches to the same patient profile. Dr. Bellemare said:

“One of the key issues to consider is to think about whether or not the people in your hospital, your team, have clarity with regards to the intention of the emergency standard of care, and with regards to its application. And, you know, it’s meant to standardize the approach, but again, even though you may read the same document, people may think of it differently, and interpret it differently.

It goes a long way to help make sure that things are standardized and protocolized, but I think we have to think seriously about the value of simulation, in applying this protocol, and if you play a leadership team in your hospital, I would invite you to think about when is the time to actually think about running some drills, to apply this protocol. Because the time to start thinking about these issues is not when it is decreed that it is going into place, into application. It’s right now, which is why we’re having these conversations.

And so again, whether you’re looking at it from the point of view of patient safety and equity or even from the point of view of medical legal risk, the intent of this protocol is to try to take as much subjectivity out of the hands of the individual docs and to make it as clear and standardized for everyone. And so I invite you to think about that, and even as to whether or not your hospital will have a team looking at these decisions or whether or not, because the protocol allows for deciding at the individual level, will these decisions be made individually by a treating physician or by a team.”

The element of subjectivity in this protocol contributes to each triage doctor becoming a law unto themselves, whether or not they are ever aware of this. It corroborates Dr. James Downar (reportedly the protocol’s author) telling us at meetings of the Bioethics Table last summer that there is subjectivity to the application of the protocol’s Clinical Frailty Scale, as the AODA Alliance confirmed in writing in its August 30, 2020 written submission to the Bioethics Table. That written submission states the following, which was immediately made public and whose accuracy has never been disputed:

“In discussions with some members of the Bioethics Table, Dr. James Downar candidly acknowledged that there is subjectivity in how the CFS would be applied to a specific patient. That is fatal to its use for critical care triage.”

This is also consistent with the opinion of the Michael Garron Hospital’s head of intensive care Dr. Michael Warren, quoted earlier in this report, who told CBC Radio with reference to this protocol that despite it, doctors may “guesstimate” and “improvise” when it comes to assessing whether a patient is likely to survive for more than one year. Of necessity, guestimates and improvisations provide ample room for subjectivity on the part of a well-intentioned triage doctor.

As a third development that contributes to each triage doctor becoming a law unto themselves, the January 23, 2021 webinar attendees were instructed that a patient’s admission to critical care is on a trial basis. Dr. Downar stated:

“For those who do meet prioritization criteria and again are admitted, they are admitted for a trial of critical care. Obviously, as we all would say, it is a trial, and you communicate appropriately.”

We dispute this characterization of critical care for a patient. Who is the judge of the “trial”? How long does the trial last? What appeal would there be if there is a dispute between patient and doctor over the “trial’s” duration, conduct or results? To characterize admission to critical care as a “trial” gives a sweeping, open-ended discretion to doctors to apply their own subjective standard to that “trial”.

As a fourth subtle feature that contributes to each triage doctor becoming a law unto themselves, the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is ambiguous on the presumptions and burden of proof that a triage doctor should apply when making an assessment of a patient’s likelihood of surviving for at least a year after admission to critical care. Should the doctor presume that the patient will survive that long unless their clinical assessment proves otherwise? And if so, should the doctor not exclude the patient from critical care unless the doctor is certain that the patient has less than a year to live, upon admission to critical care? Does the patient being assessed for triage get the benefit of the doubt?

During the webinar, the room for a lack of clarity on this became clear to us, though not necessarily to the webinar’s attendees. Dr. Downar stated:

“It is entirely possible that you may not be certain and I think you need to be up-front and honest about that, right? If there’s a situation where you just don’t know, you don’t have enough information, it’s important to indicate that, and then also indicate that probably the person should be receiving critical care pending a re-assessment if it would be otherwise indicated, but also be very clear about what information you might need, and set on a path of trying to gather that information to resolve the uncertainty.”

While that describes Dr. Downar’s view, absent clarity on this, different doctors are free to set their own rules in their own minds on which presumptions to make and on the degree of certainty to require. That in turn gives each triage doctor even more discretion, further making each a law unto themselves.

One might at first think that it is not appropriate to talk about burdens or standards of proof when it comes to medical decisions. However, these are highly relevant. A patient’s access to life-saving critical care is on the line. Triage doctors are here being assigned to allocate this scarce resource, applying this triage protocol. That makes features like the burden and standard of proof entirely central for decisions that doctors would make.

A fifth subtle way that doctors can become a law unto themselves, each deciding critical care triage issues based on their own sense of who should get triaged out, emerges from the candid though seriously disturbing recognition during the January 23, 2021 webinar that if doctors are not given the power to withdraw critical care from a patient over their objection, some doctors will be more reluctant to give some patients needed critical care in the first place. Dr. Andrew Baker, incident commander on Ontario’s Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre gave this as a reason why the Ford Government should suspend the Health Care Consent Act – a measure to which we strenuously object.

What Dr. Baker described would be a subtle form of covert critical care triage. In it, a doctor departs from their traditional role of only deciding who gets critical care by an assessment of whether that patient needs it. There is no articulated standard to govern this. Thus, how much each triage doctor would do it is left to them to decide.

 6. Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plan Risks Unfairly and Arbitrarily providing Different Amounts of Oversight of Triage Decisions from Hospital to Hospital

The AODA Alliance previously showed that the January 13, 2021 critical care triage protocol provides no due process for patients whose lives are at risk during critical care triage. Making this worse, we learned from the January 23, 2021 webinar that each hospital is free to decide whether critical care triage decisions will be made by two doctors or by a more thorough and extensive review team. As quoted at greater length earlier in this report, Dr. Steven Bellemare told the January 23, 2021 webinar attendees:

“And so again, whether you’re looking at it from the point of view of patient safety and equity or even from the point of view of medical legal risk, the intent of this protocol is to try to take as much subjectivity out of the hands of the individual docs and to make it as clear and standardized for everyone. And so I invite you to think about that, and even as to whether or not your hospital will have a team looking at these decisions or whether or not, because the protocol allows for deciding at the individual level, will these decisions be made individually by a treating physician or by a team.”

The amount of scrutiny and oversight of critical care triage decisions therefore could arbitrarily vary from hospital to hospital. Patients facing such a danger to their life deserve greater and more consistent protection. The level of scrutiny should not be left to each hospital to decide. There is no indication that the Government will monitor these inconsistent practices from hospital to hospital around the province, or will report on them to the public.

  7. The Training for Frontline Critical Care Triage Doctors Wrongly Minimizes the Enormity of Their Critical care Triage Decisions and the Importance of Being Legally Accountable for Them

It is very harmful that the January 23, 2021 webinar minimized and downplayed for triage doctors the enormity of their decision to deny a patient needed critical care. It also harmfully encouraged them not to be mindful of the possible legal consequences of refusing a patient needed critical care. It is inevitably in the nature of critical care triage that if triage occurs, some patients will thereby die. However, it is harmful to dilute, downplay or minimize the doctor’s role in this. It is also harmful to minimize the importance of being alive to their legal accountability for it, or to use incorrect or misleading euphemisms to describe a triage decision.

As a first illustration, it was wrong for Dr. Andrea Frolic to encouraged doctors not to refer to a withdrawal of critical care from a patient as a “withdrawal” of care. Yet that is what it is. Dr. Frolic said:

“I really appreciated the comment in the Q and A that we should stop using the term ‘withdrawing care’. I really appreciate being called on, on that, because in fact care should never be withdrawn from patients. But certain treatments specifically invasive treatments might be withheld or withdrawn in this context, and I think one of the ways that we can continue to form trusting alliances with patients and families is by emphasizing what we will continue to. We will continue to medically manage patients. We will continue to palliate patients. We will continue to offer psycho-emotional support and comfort care.”

To a critical care patient who needs and is receiving critical care, a physician suddenly taking that critical care away from them over the patient’s objection is “withdrawing care.” The fact that the patient would then be offered a lesser level of care which can’t save their life does not change the fact that there has been a withdrawal of the very care they need and want to try to save their life.

As a second illustration of this, Dr. James Downar, reportedly the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol’s author, incorrectly said that refusing critical care should not be called an “exclusion.” He preferred to euphemistically describe this as prioritizing. Dr. Downar said:

“Again, we’ve looked over a number of different approaches to how to implement or how to protocolize a triage approach, and we tried to pull together, you know, sort of different ideas about, you know, sort of how to, you know, decide about risk, and benefit and how to try to make a system that that would be proportionate to need rather than more categorical in nature, while still being somewhat objective and rigourous. And this is what we came up with, was essentially to try to determine a prioritization system, and to be very clear, this is prioritization, not exclusion, right? And so we are at the point of running out of resources, nobody is excluded ever. They’re just a matter of prioritization.”

Yet contradicting this, if a patient is ranked too low for purposes of critical care triage, they would be excluded from receiving critical care. To the patient who is refused care, they don’t feel “prioritized”. They feel that they have been refused critical care and that they have been excluded from refusing critical care. Indeed, Dr. Downar later talked during the webinar about the fact that if critical care triage is to occur, certain groups of patients will be excluded or not given critical care, depending on the level of triage that is proclaimed.

As a third illustration, the webinar wrongly and subtly downplayed a triage doctor’s responsibility for the enormity of what a triage decision means for a patient who is denied needed critical care. Frontline doctors were told in effect in connection with their decision to deny a patient needed critical care that they should not feel a sense of “agency.” (I.e. that the doctor’s refusing a patient needed critical care, is an agent that contributes to the patient’s death) This was said to be because it is the pandemic and patients’ health problems that are killing people. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Andrea Frolic said:

“And I think one of the most challenging things it puts us in the position very uncomfortably of imagining that we have personal agency in the life or death of patients that we are applying this protocol to. Of course, this is in some ways an illusion, because it is the pandemic that forces these decisions upon us as well as the underlying conditions of the patients and the resources available to us. But nevertheless, it can create a real sense of real moral, hazard and injury as we anticipate being the ones to ultimately render a decision.”

Dr. Frolic also stated:

“There’s no getting out of the experience of moral injury for us who are facing this pandemic, but our hope is that it can be mitigated by the knowledge that this is going to prevent deaths and that it is a standard of practice that is going to be used across the province. It’s very efficient to use once mastered and it allows you in conversations with patients and families to de-personalize the decision, and really to focus on caring for your patient knowing that in the end, you are not the one making the life-and-death decision based on this protocol.”

This dangerous and erroneous message is further driven home by the online Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator that the webinar encourages triage doctors to use. As addressed earlier in this report, that calculator depersonalizes and dehumanizes the critical care triage process by letting a triage doctor think that they just need to key into a website in their observations of a patient and then the calculator will decide on the patient’s short term mortality risk. That signals to the doctor that it is not the doctor’s ultimate decision, but that of an online calculator.

Of course, a patient’s physician is not responsible for the fact that the patient needs critical care to live. However, that does not reduce the fact that if a doctor decides to refuse critical care to a patient who needs and wants it, the physician’s decision contributes to accelerating that patient’s death.

It is important for any doctor making a life-and- death critical care triage death decision to feel a keen sense of responsibility for it, heightened by their awareness that there can be real legal consequences for it. Yet to the contrary effect, and as a fourth illustration, the January 23, 2021 webinar harmfully but authoritatively undermined any such sense of personal responsibility and legal accountability. The law exists to help make professionals like physicians feel that they can be held accountable for their actions. Yet speaking for the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), the company that provides physicians’ medical malpractice insurance and that funds their defence, Dr. Steven Bellemare told doctors in substance that as long as they follow the January 13, 2021 triage protocol they should not worry about being sued. Dr. Bellemare said:

“With that said, the message, the key message that I want you to hear today is that the CMPA is there for you. …We’ve always been there for you and we’ll continue to be there for you. So my message is really: Don’t worry about the potential for medical legal problems. Don’t worry about the potential for College complaint or a lawsuit, because sometimes, despite your best efforts, they can still happen. We will not let you down. We’ll be there to protect you at those moments.”

 8. A Substantially Incorrect Idea of “Equity” Was Presented to Frontline Doctors Being Trained to Make Critical Care Triage Decisions

The AODA Alliance raises a serious concern with the misunderstanding of “equity” during training given to frontline doctors on how to implement critical care triage in Ontario. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, presenters made several unparticuarlized references to the importance of “equity” in the critical care triage process. However, the only specific description of an “equity” concern was given by presenter Dr. Andrea Frolic. She said that if doctors cannot unilaterally withdraw critical care from a patient who is already receiving it, this could create an inequity between some patients already receiving critical care on the one hand, and patients in the lineup to get into critical care on the other. Dr. Frolic stated:

“So we want to recognize we are using the word triage to describe the situation about the allocation of a scarce resource in a way that is fair and transparent and equitable, and in alignment with this standard. So the STMR (i.e. the short term mortality risk ) and the tools are basically identical between the emergency standard of care and a protocol that would include the provision to allow for the rare occasion when withdraw of life-sustaining treatment in the ICU would be required without the consent of the patient and family.

To allow that particular aspect of the Health Care Consent Act would need to be altered by an executive order of Cabinet, and it was felt that while that executive order is not currently in place, it was very important to begin to socialize the emergency standard of care, the STMR tools, and to prepare our communities, our health care colleagues and health care system for implementation, whether or not the executive order comes down.

But there is a lot of concern around the province among clinical colleagues and advocates around really ensuring that there is equity in the application of this standard, recognizing that without the executive order, it could introduce inequity, where it would only apply to people waiting for critical care, or people who become critically ill later, and it doesn’t apply to people who already had the benefit of critical care, who happen to sicken earlier and are already in the ICUs there are many conversations happening with members of our Government and Critical Care Command Centre and other stakeholders to really try to work out how to proceed. But I think the important thing at this point is to continue to socialize the emergency standard of care, get familiar with these tools, prepare your organizations and your regions for implementation, and to stay tuned as Dr. Baker has indicated that when this document or this process does get triggered, there will be clear direction around how it gets implemented, where it gets implemented, and whether it is the emergency standard or the protocol that includes patients already in ICU.”

Yet this is not an actionable equity, equality or human rights issue under the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Charter of Rights. It is bad enough that doctors were not trained on true human rights issues that the Ontario critical care triage plan raises. It makes things worse that they are misdirected into this so-called “equity” issue which is far removed from the core equality and equity issues that should be their priority.

This misunderstanding was exacerbated during this webinar when Dr. Steven Bellemare told frontline doctors, being trained to conduct critical care triage, that the aim is to treat all patients the same when it comes to critical care triage. Yet the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear for decades that at times, treating all people the same can itself result in unlawful discrimination. Similarly, Dr Bellemare said:

“ As Daphne was mentioning, not only is this emergency standard of care an important step in decreasing the medical legal risk that you might face as a physician or even that a hospital might face, but more importantly it’s also a critical way to ensure that every patient has a just, equitable and consistent access to a limited resource, which is critical care. And so by enacting an emergency standard of care, essentially, we’ll be making sure that everyone in Ontario on a population basis gets treated the same way.”

 9. Some of Those Central to the Planning for Critical Care Triage in Ontario Call for Openness and Transparency

Contradicting the Government’s relentless secrecy that has surrounded Ontario’s critical care triage plans over the past year (described above), medical leaders in the development and implementation of Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans have stressed the importance of openness and transparency in the approach to critical care triage in Ontario. For example, at the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Andrew Baker, incident commander on the Government’s Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, said:

“I think it’s exceptionally important for our group and the system in general to be completely transparent. More problems are created by the appearance or the actual withholding of information than are created by sharing it openly.”

 10. The Health Ministry Still Refuses to Talk to The Disability Community About Critical Care Triage Plans, But is Clearly Talking to the Health Sector and Their Insurance Companies

From the January 23, 2021 webinar, we discovered that the Ford Government is in direct discussions with the health care sector, including with the insurance companies that insure hospitals and physicians for lawsuits for negligence and malpractice. We understand that the aim is to secure the maximum protection for doctors. Speaking for the Canadian Medical Protective Association, Dr. Steven Bellemare said:

“ And be aware that the CMPA is always working with governments and with HIROC which is the insurance company for the hospitals, about this issue. We’re in constant communication. We make representations on your behalf to make sure that if and when this goes into place, you’ll have the best protections possible.”

This is consistent with the troubling agenda on this issue voiced by the Government-appointed Bioethics Table. Its September 11, 2020 report to the Ford Government on critical care triage called for triage doctors to be protected from liability for their triage decisions. Yet as noted earlier in this report, those making such life-and-death decisions should never feel that they are immunized from legal responsibility for their decision, whatever they do. That report recommended:

“The following steps should be immediately taken in order to further develop and implement an approach to critical care triage in the context of a major surge in demand in Ontario:

…Ensure liability protection for all those who would be involved in implementing the Proposed Framework (e.g., physicians, clinical teams, Triage Team members, Appeals Committee members, implementation planners, etc.), including an Emergency Order related to any aspect requiring a deviation from the Health Care Consent Act.”

 Part IV Conclusion — Doctors, Hospitals and Emergency Medical Services, Beware the Protocol, Directions and Training You Have Been Given on Critical Care Triage

Physicians, hospitals, emergency medical services and others should all beware the protocol, directions and training in Ontario on critical care triage. These all raise serious human rights and constitutional concerns. They follow them at their peril.

The AODA Alliance and other disability advocates have unsuccessfully tried to raise many such concerns with the Ford Government and with its advisory Bioethics Table. The Health Ministry won’t talk to the AODA Alliance or answer its detailed letters that raise concerns in this area. The Bioethics Table in substance rejected key parts of our advice, gave no reasons for doing so, and did not even communicate to the Government our advice that it rejected in its September 11, 2020 report to the Government.

Similarly, the Government’s Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, which appears to be calling the shots on when and where critical care triage would occur, and how it is to be conducted, has similarly not spoken to us to get our input. It approved the seriously deficient January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol.

It would be unwise for anyone to rely on the deeply-flawed legal defence strategy that has been formulated to defend the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol and those who implement it. The paper trail showing the serious problems with the Ontario plan for critical care triage is very public. It has been shared widely with the media.

It would similarly be very unwise to rely on the core messages conveyed to frontline doctors and hospitals in the January 23, 2021 webinar. That webinar tried to give its audience a strong sense that doctors and hospitals can with great confidence use the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol and rely on it as a defence to any legal responsibility for any deaths of patients that result. That webinar’s troubling message was that doctors should stick together as a team in this critical care triage effort, especially in the face of the expected anger and upset that will come from patients who are refused critical care and their families.

For example, the webinar’s co-host David Neilipovitz said this regarding the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol in the webinar’s introduction:

“We want you all of you to have reassurance in how it was created, with equity, fairness, proportionality, autonomy, accountability and other underlying principles directing its creation.”

Those watching that webinar would not have any idea that serious human rights and constitutional objections have been raised by disability advocates and by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to Ontario’s plan for critical care triage. They would have no idea that these have either been rejected or have not even been considered by those approving that plan, and that no reasons for rejecting these concerns have been given.

For example, the webinar’s 1,100 viewers would have no idea that serious human rights concerns about the use of the Clinical Frailty Scale as a triage tool have been raised by the AODA Alliance, by the ARCH Disability Law Centre, by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and by others. If physicians use the critical care triage short checklist or the online Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator, they will have no idea about these concerns, and will not be alerted to any human rights considerations that should come into their minds.

Doctors, hospitals and others should be worried about the seriously flawed legal defence strategy that has been formulated to respond to human rights and constitutional concerns, such as those raised by disability advocates. By this strategy documented earlier in this report, the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol will offer the world an outward-facing proclamation of a commitment to respecting human rights. “We are human rights-focused people,” Dr. James Downar told TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin in a broadcast recorded on the day the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol was being sent to all Ontario hospitals.

Yet, a very different picture is painted by the key inward-facing tools that frontline doctors will use in busy emergency rooms during the chaos that would ensue if COVID-19 overloads hospitals so much that critical care triage is required, and the webinar that trains them on how to use those tools. The January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol’s short critical care triage checklist, the Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator and the January 23, 2021 webinar that gives training on how to use them says nothing whatsoever about human rights, with one misleading exception. The webinar reports to attendees that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and advocacy groups were consulted in the protocol’s development, as if to boost that protocol’s dependability, without also explaining that the protocol includes features that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and advocacy groups had opposed. During the January 23, 2021 webinar, Dr. Andrea Frolic said:

“…and so in the intervening months there has been very careful relooking and examination and redrafting of that early version to really align with professional ethics and principles. It’s meant extensive stakeholder engagement with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, advocacy groups and community stakeholders, as well as consultation with medical experts to really refine the core tool of this standard of care which is the Short Term Mortality Risk assessment.”

That webinar’s discussion of the law primarily as focused on “risk management”. As noted earlier, that is a euphemistic way of saying the risk that a doctor and/or hospital may get sued if a patient dies as a result of refusing them life-saving critical care they need. There was no discussion of the patient’s legal rights. This is a distorted one-sided perspective.

That webinar lulls attendees to think that the critical care triage protocol has been thoroughly lawyered, that a defence is available for its users, that maximum legal protections for them is being discussed with the Ford Government, and that they in substance need not worry about lawsuits. That is misleading and dangerous, from the perspective of patients. For example: Dr. Andrea Frolic said

“The CPSO has already come out publicly to support this emergency standard, if required. It has undergone extensive legal review by multiple legal experts. It is a peer-reviewed and evidence-based standard, and Dr. James Downar, who follows, will speak to the development and its enactment.”

Of the two lawyers and one CMPA doctor who jointly presented at the January 23, 2021 webinar, none had ever discussed with us any of the constitutional, human rights or other concerns that the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates have been raising over the past ten months with Ontario’s critical care triage plan. None of their comments during this webinar responded to or even mention any of these concerns.

Webinar attendees were repeatedly told that the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol incorporates principles of fairness, equity and ethics, among other things. Attendees were not told that disability advocates like the AODA Alliance disputed this, and have raised the serious concern, among other things, that it is utterly lacking in due process or procedural fairness for patients.

That webinar did not encourage provision of due process for patients and families facing the prospect of critical care triage. The webinar’s discussion of dealing with patients and families focused on clarifying during a patient’s admission to hospital if patient and family want critical care, and if not noting it on the file. It focused on giving the patient and family the bad news and reasons for it, once a triage decision was made to their detriment. There was nothing about getting the patient’s input during the triage decision-making deliberation.

That webinar properly conceded that there is a risk of triage doctors acting on unconscious bias when making critical care triage decisions in the absence of a proper triage protocol. However, in its effort to market the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol to frontline doctors and hospitals, it creates the incorrect impression that that protocol eliminates the danger of implicit bias. Dr. Andrew Baker, incident commander on the Government’s Ontario Critical Care COVID Command Centre, said:

“And then of course if we don’t have a plan that has all the benefits that is included in this one, there’s the potential for implicit bias and divergent approaches.”

That webinar encourages doctors around Ontario to now run simulations of critical care triage decisions, in order to become familiar with using the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol. From the simulation example provided to the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates last summer at our request by the Bioethics Table (lead by Dr. James Downar, there is much room for all Ontarians to worry. At the very least, each hospital should immediately make public the content and results of such simulations. The Ford Government should track these, document the extent to which they lead to consistent or inconsistent results, and immediately make that all public in real time.

No doubt, frontline doctors do not want the responsibility of deciding who lives and who dies during critical care triage. There is no suggestion here that they do. However, that does not diminish any of the concerns that this report identifies.



Source link

New Report Reveals that At Majority of Ontario’s School Boards, Each School Principal Is a Law Unto Themselves, With Arbitrary Power to Exclude a Student From School – Real Risk of a Rash of Exclusion of Some Students with Disabilities When Schools Re-Open


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Report Reveals that At Majority of Ontario’s School Boards, Each School Principal Is a Law Unto Themselves, With Arbitrary Power to Exclude a Student From School – Real Risk of a Rash of Exclusion of Some Students with Disabilities When Schools Re-Open

July 23, 2020 Toronto: Parents of a third of a million Ontario K-12 students with disabilities have much to fear when schools re-open. A ground-breaking report by the non-partisan AODA Alliance (unveiled today, summary below) shows that for much of Ontario, each school principal is a law unto themselves, armed with a sweeping, arbitrary power to refuse to allow a student to come to school. If schools re-open this fall, there is a real risk of a rash of principals excluding some students with disabilities from school, because well-intentioned, overburdened principals won’t know how to accommodate them during COVID-19.

The Education Act gives each school principal the drastic power to refuse to admit to school any “person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils…”. A survey of Ontario’s 72 school boards, unveiled today, shows that a majority of school boards have no policy reining in their principals’ sweeping power. Ontario’s Ministry of Education gives principals precious little direction. Principals need not keep track of how many students they exclude, or for how long, or for what reason, nor need they report this information to anyone. School Boards are left largely free to do as little as they wish to monitor for and prevent abuse of this power.

This is especially worrisome for students with disabilities. Disproportionately, it’s students with disabilities who are at risk of being excluded from school.

Today’s report details how the most vulnerable students can unjustifiably be treated very differently from one part of Ontario to the next. Of Ontario’s 72 School Boards, only 33 Boards have been found to have any policy on this. Only 36 School Boards even responded to the AODA Alliance survey. Only 11 Boards gave the AODA Alliance a policy. A web search revealed that another 22 Boards have a policy on this.

As for the minority of 33 boards that have any policy on point, this report documented wild and arbitrary differences from Board to Board. Some Board policies have commendable and helpful ingredients that all boards should have. Some Board policies contain unfair and inappropriate ingredients that should be forbidden. For example, no Board should impose on a student or their family an arbitrary time limit for presenting an appeal from their exclusion to school.

“Every student facing the trauma of an exclusion from school deserves full and equally fair procedures and safeguards,” said AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. “The current arbitrary pattern of patchwork injustice cries out for new leadership now by the Ford Government.”

COVID-19 escalates this issue’s urgency. The Ministry of Education should head off a rash of new exclusions from school this fall before it happens, by immediately directing School Boards to implement common sense restrictions on a principal, outlined in the report, on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

Download the entire AODA Alliance report on Refusals to Admit A Student to School by visiting https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/july-23-2020-AODA-Alliance-finalized-refusals-to-admit-brief.docx

The AODA Alliance’s COVID-19 web page details its efforts to ensure that the urgent needs of people with disabilities are met during the COVID-19 crisis.

The AODA Alliance‘s Education web page details its ongoing efforts over the past decade to tear down the many barriers impeding students with disabilities in Ontario’s education system.

Introduction and Summary of the AODA Alliance’s Report on the Power of Ontario School Principals to Refuse to Admit a Student to School

I. Introduction and Summary

(a) What’s the Problem?

For years, Ontario’s Education Act has given every Ontario school principal the drastic power to refuse to admit to school any “person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils…”. A student can be excluded from school for part or all of the school day. This report uses the terms “refusal to admit” and “exclusion from school” or simply “exclusion” to mean the same thing.

When a principal refuses to admit a student to school, that violates that student’s right to go to school to get an education. Under the Education Act as interpreted or applied by the Ontario Government and school boards, a student can be excluded from school for days, weeks or even months.

Ontario’s Ministry of Education has given School Boards and principals very little direction on how this sweeping power may be used. School Boards are therefore left largely free to do as much or as little as they wish to ensure that this power is not abused by an individual school principal.

A School Board can develop a policy on how a principal can use the power to refuse to admit a student to school; however, a School Board does not have to do so. If it does adopt a policy, it does not have to be a good policy.

(b) Taking Stock – The AODA Alliance Surveys Ontario School Boards

The AODA Alliance therefore conducted a survey of Ontario’s major School Boards to find out what their policies and practices are regarding the exclusion of students from school. The non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance advocates for accessibility for people with disabilities, including for students with disabilities. See its website’s Education page.

This report makes public the results of the AODA Alliance‘s survey and investigation. It reveals an arbitrary patchwork of different policies around Ontario, unjustifiably treating the most vulnerable students differently from one part of Ontario to the next. There is a pressing need for the Ontario Government to step into the gap, to protect students, and especially students with disabilities.

In an error which the AODA Alliance regrets, the survey was inadvertently not earlier sent to one board, the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board, before this report was written. It has just done so, and will make public an addendum to this report if a response is received that alters the results expressed in this report. This error does not diminish this report’s findings or recommendations.

School Boards were asked (i) if it has a policy on when-and-how its school principals can refuse to admit a student to school, (ii) whether the Board tracks its principal’s use of this power, and (iii) how many students have been excluded from school. The AODA Alliance sent its survey to School Boards twice, once in 2019, and once in 2020. The Council of Directors of Education retained private legal counsel to get legal advice before responding to this survey.

(c) The Survey Revealed an Arbitrary Patchwork of Wildly Varying Local Requirements

Of Ontario’s 72 School Boards, only 33 Boards have been found to have a written policy or procedure on refusals to admit a student to school. Only 36 School Boards responded to the AODA Alliance’s survey. Of those, only 11 Boards gave the AODA Alliance their policy or procedure on refusals to admit.

Six School Boards told the AODA Alliance that they have no policy on refusals to admit. An extensive web search by the AODA Alliance revealed that another 22 School Boards have a written policy or procedure on this topic. In a number of cases, these were not easy to find. Taken together, a large number of Ontario School Boards revealed a troubling lack of openness and accountability on this subject.

This report’s analysis of the 33 policies or procedures on refusals to admit, as obtained by the AODA Alliance, revealed that there are wild variations between the written policies of School Boards across Ontario on excluding a student from school. Some are very short and say very little. Others are far more extensive and detailed.

As for safeguards for vulnerable students and their parents in the face of an exclusion from school, there are arbitrary and unjustified differences from Board to Board. Some Board policies have commendable and helpful ingredients that should be required of all School Boards. Some Board policies contain unfair and inappropriate ingredients that should be forbidden. For example, no Board should use a refusal to admit to facilitate a police investigation, or set an arbitrary time limit in advance for an appeal hearing from a refusal to admit, or give a student or their family an arbitrary time limit for presenting such an appeal.

There is no justification for such wild variations from Board to Board, from no policy, to policies that say very little, to substantially better policies. Every student facing an exclusion from school deserves fair procedures and effective safeguards. Every School Board should meet basic requirements of transparency and accountability in their use of this drastic power. No compelling policy objective is served by leaving each School Board to reinvent the wheel here.

(d) The Urgently Needed Solution: Action Now by the Ontario Government

This situation cries out for leadership on this issue by Ontario’s Ministry of Education. The failure of so many School Boards to even have a policy in this area, the unwillingness of so many School Boards to even answer questions about their policy on this issue, and the fact that policies are so hard to find on line combine to create a disturbing picture. For too much of Ontario, well-intentioned school principals are left to be a law unto themselves. The AODA Alliance expects that these hard-working and dedicated principals neither asked for this nor would like this situation to remain as is.

This issue has serious implications for students with disabilities. Refusals to admit a student to school disproportionately burden some students with disabilities.

The COVID-19 crisis escalates the urgency of this issue. When schools re-open this fall, there is a real risk that there could be a rash of more refusals to admit some students with disabilities to school. This threatens to be the way some overwhelmed and overburdened principals will cope with the stressful uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ministry of Education should head off this problem before it happens, by immediately directing School Boards to implement some basic and overdue requirements for refusals to admit a student to school. The Ministry should then develop a comprehensive and broader set of mandatory requirements for all School Boards when exercising the power to refuse to admit a student to school.

Examples of helpful requirements that the Ministry of Education should require, and that this report documents as now in place in one or more School Boards include the following:

  1. Refusals to admit should be recognized as an infringement of the student’s right to go to school to get an education, and as raising potential human rights issues, especially for students with disabilities. The Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over the Education Act and the power to refuse to admit a student to school.
  2. A refusal to admit should only be imposed for a proper safety purpose. A student cannot be refused admission to school for purposes of discipline.
  3. Maximum time limits should be set for a refusal to admit, with a process for considering how to extend it if necessary and justified.
  4. A refusal to admit a student to school should only be permitted in very rare, extreme cases, as a last resort, after considering or trying all less intrusive alternatives. A principal should be required to take a step-by-step tiered approach to deciding whether to refuse to admit a student to school, first exhausting all less restrictive alternatives, and first ensuring that the student’s disability-related needs have been accommodated as required under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
  5. It should not be left to an individual principal to unilaterally decide on their own to refuse to admit a student to school. Prior approval of a higher authority with the School Board should be required, supported by sufficient documentation of the deliberations.
  6. A principal should be required to work with a student and their family on issues well before it degenerates to the point of considering a refusal to admit. The School Board should be required to have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed.
  7. A principal should be required to immediately send a letter to the parents of a student whom they are refusing to admit to school, setting out the facts and specifics that are the reasons for the exclusion from school. A senior Board supervisor that approved the decision should be required to co-sign the letter. The letter should also be signed by the Director of Education if the student is to be excluded from all schools in the Board.
  8. A School Board that excludes a student from school should be required to put in place a plan for delivering an effective educational program to that student while excluded from school, including the option of face-to-face engagement with a teacher off of school property. This plan should be monitored to ensure it is sufficient.
  9. If a student is excluded from school, the School Board should be under a strong duty to work with the student and family to get them back to school as soon as possible.
  10. A School Board that excludes a student from school should be required to hold a re-entry meeting with the student and family to transition to the return to school.
  11. Any appeals to the Board of Trustees for the School Board from a refusal to admit should assure fair procedures to the student and their family. An excluded student should at least have all the safeguards in the appeal process as does a student who is subjected to discipline.
  12. The appeal should be heard by the entire Board of Trustees, and not just a sub-committee of some trustees. An appeal hearing should be held and decided quickly, since the student is languishing at home.
  13. A Board of Trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the School Board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the School Board to justify the exclusion from school, and not on the student trying to go back to school. At an appeal hearing, the principal should first present why the exclusion from school is justified and should continue, before the student or parents are asked to show why the student should be allowed to return to school.
  14. When an appeal is launched, the School Board should be required to first try to resolve the issue short of a full appeal hearing.
  15. A student’s record of a refusal to admit to school should not stain the student’s official school record.
  16. If a School Board directs that a student can only come to school for part of the school day), the same safeguards for the student should be required as for a student who is excluded for the entire day.
  17. Any policy in this area should be periodically reviewed and updated.



Source link

AODA Alliance to Present Tomorrow at Virtual Meeting of Toronto’s Infrastructure Committee to Oppose Allowing Electric Scooters – Submits Detailed Brief that Shows A City Staff Report Proves E-Scooters Endanger Public Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AODA Alliance to Present Tomorrow at Virtual Meeting of Toronto’s Infrastructure Committee to Oppose Allowing Electric Scooters – Submits Detailed Brief that Shows A City Staff Report Proves E-Scooters Endanger Public Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities

July 8, 2020

Tomorrow, July 9, 2020 starting at 9:30 am, the City of Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee will consider if the City should take steps to allow electric scooters (e-scooters) in Toronto. The AODA Alliance is scheduled to make a deputation to the Committee. The Committee meeting will be live-streamed at this link: http://www.youtube.com/torontocitycouncillive

The AODA Alliance has just filed a detailed brief with the City’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee, set out below. It documents in exquisite and exhaustive detail that the City of Toronto’s June 24, 2020 E-Scooters Staff Report amply proves that e-scooters would endanger public safety, lead to injuries and even deaths, create barriers to accessibility for people with disabilities, and force the taxpayer to shoulder new financial burdens. That Staff Report also shows that the supposed social benefits of e-scooters reducing road traffic and pollution are in effect unproven.

“If this gets approved, the taxpayer will get stuck paying the expenses while e-scooter rental companies, who are pushing for their product to get into Toronto, will earn the profits and try to dodge liability for injuries they cause,” said David Lepofsky, Chair of the non-partisan AODA Alliance that has spearheaded advocacy to protect people with disabilities from the dangers that e-scooters pose. “In the middle of this COVID-19 crisis, don’t our City Council members have more important priorities to deal with?”

The only proper conclusion that flows from this City Staff Report is that Toronto should continue to ban e-scooters. Yet the Staff Report instead wrongly proposes that the City of Toronto take steps towards allowing e-scooters. It does not explain why this should be done in the face of the known dangers that the Staff Report shows e-scooters create. We anticipate that the City has been the subject of relentless pressure behind closed doors by corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies that have been trying to dominate this debate.

The City Staff Report proposes working towards a pilot project in Toronto with e-scooters. The AODA Alliance brief shows that this would be nothing less than a human experiment on the public and would endanger the public, including people with disabilities, without their consent. Human experimentation on non-consenting people is universally condemned.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance

For more background, visit the AODA Alliance e-scooters web page.

Don’t Introduce Electric Scooters to Toronto, Since A City Staff Report Shows They Create Dangers to Public Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Brief to the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee on Proposal to Allow Electric Scooters in Toronto

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

July 8, 2020

Via email: [email protected]

1. Introduction and Summary

The AODA Alliance calls on the City of Toronto and its Infrastructure Committee to categorically reject the proposal before its July 9, 2020 meeting to take steps towards permitting electric scooters (e-scooters) in Toronto. The City of Toronto and its Infrastructure and Environment Committee should instead focus 100% of their time on the horrific COVID-19 crisis that now engulfs us all. If the Committee feels it must do something short of an outright rejection of e-scooters, it should simply direct City staff to do more research on the harms that e-scooters have caused in places where they are allowed.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance has played a leading role in raising serious disability safety and accessibility concerns with e-scooters. To learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts to protect people with disabilities and others from the dangers that e-scooters pose, visit its e-scooters web page.

The detailed and well-researched June 24, 2020 City of Toronto Staff Report on e-scooters shows that to allow e-scooters in Toronto will endanger public safety, send both e-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians to our hospital emergency rooms, require significant new law enforcement efforts and impose new financial burdens on the taxpayer to cover added costs that e-scooters will trigger. The Staff Report also shows that e-scooters do not bring the great benefits for reduced car traffic and pollution that the corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies claim.

The Staff Report’s detailed analysis supports only one conclusion, namely that e-scooters should not be allowed. Yet despite all e-scooters harms and dubious benefits, the Staff Report proposes instead (without convincing explanation) that the City take steps towards conducting a pilot with e-scooters, deferring a decision to early 2021. This may be because the City has been subjected to relentless pressure from corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies, who are the driving force behind this issue.

In the face of the dangers from e-scooters that the Staff Report reveals, the Report only says that the action it recommends “…reduces the likelihood of e-scooter risks to riders, impacts on people with accessibility needs, community nuisance, and liability to the City…” The Staff Report does not claim that these dangers would be eliminated, or even that they would be substantially reduced. It only says that those risks would be “reduced.” That could be a mere microscopic reduction. Torontonians–especially those with disabilities–deserve better protection.

The City of Toronto should not conduct a “pilot project” with e-scooters to find out how they will work out. The Staff Report shows from the experience with e-scooters elsewhere that the problems that e-scooters present have already been borne out in practice. Moreover, to run a “pilot project” on Torontonians is to conduct a human experiment on them, without their consent, knowing that e-scooters present dangers to public safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. It is wrong to experiment on non-consenting human beings, and especially those who are vulnerable.

It is good that the Staff Report does not recommend actually unleashing e-scooters on Toronto now, with the COVID-19 crisis nearing the end of its fourth month, with no end in sight. With the COVID-19 pandemic working such havoc on our society, Toronto and its residents have far greater priorities to contend with than meeting the needs of those who want to race around this city on e-scooters.

It is unfair for the City of Toronto and its Infrastructure Committee to be bringing this issue forward in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis. City Council and Committee meetings are not open to the public to physically attend. Members of the public are struggling to cope with the multiple pressures that they face, compounding over the past 16 weeks. At the start of July, many are trying to just get something of a holiday, if possible. For its part, the AODA Alliance is overloaded with issues on which to advocate for people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. For the City of Toronto to force us to divert our volunteer advocacy efforts to this e-scooter issue now is just one more unfair hardship.

If the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee is looking for a new and important priority agenda item to address, it should work comprehensively on making Toronto’s infrastructure fully accessible to people with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires Toronto, including its infrastructure, to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, under 4.5 years from now. Toronto is not anywhere close to being on schedule to reach that goal.

2. E-Scooters Endanger Public Safety Causing Injuries and Deaths

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, our hospitals and emergency rooms were backlogged, resulting in the scourge of hallway medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed unprecedented added demands and pressures on our health care system, including our hospitals.

The Staff Report’s analysis amply shows that if e-scooters are allowed, this will lead to an increase in personal injuries, both to e-scooter riders and innocent pedestrians. Of course, this will create additional demands and pressures on over-burdened hospital emergency rooms. The Staff Report states:

“The City has a Vision Zero commitment to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities resulting from roadway crashes, particularly around six emphasis areas including pedestrians, school children, and older adults. Replacing car trips with e-scooter trips presents an opportunity to address some road safety issues if e-scooters produce a net safety benefit, especially for these groups. A 2020 International Transport Forum study notes that the risk of hospital admission may be higher for e-scooter riders than for cyclists, but that there are too few studies to draw firm conclusions. While not comprehensive, the emerging evidence of the health impacts associated with e-scooter use warrants a cautious approach to mitigate risks to e-scooter riders, pedestrians, and the City. Some of the findings are below.

New e-scooters users are most likely to be injured with 63 percent of injuries occurring within the first nine times using an e-scooter. (CDC and City of Austin)

A comparison of serious injury rates between Calgary’s 2019 shared e-scooter pilot and Bike Share Toronto suggests riding a shared e-scooter is potentially about 350 times more likely to result in a serious injury than riding a shared bike on a per km basis, and about 100 times more likely on a per trip basis. This includes a limited sample size, differing definitions for serious injuries, different city contexts (e.g., Calgary allowed e-scooter riding on sidewalks, whereas bicycle riding is not allowed on sidewalks in Toronto) and serious injuries may decline over time as people gain experience riding e-scooters. (Montréal reported few e-scooter injuries for its 2019 pilot, however, it is unclear whether and how data for serious injuries was gathered.) Calculations are based on: 33 ER visits requiring ambulance transport over three months (Jul to Sep 2019) in Calgary for e-scooter-related injuries with a reported 750,000 trips, and average trip length of 0.9km; and 2,439,000 trips for Bike Share Toronto, with 3km average trip length, over 12 months in 2019, and no serious injuries (e.g., broken bones, head trauma, hospitalization) but attributing one for comparison purposes. Further data collection and studies of injuries are needed on a per km basis, by type of trip (i.e., recreational versus commuting, facility type), and by injury type.

The fatality rate for shared e-scooter users is potentially nine to 18 times the rate of bike share-related deaths in the U.S., based on a news report in the Chicago reader.

Head trauma was reported in nearly one third of all e-scooter-related injuries in the U.S. from 2014 to 2018 – more than twice the rate of head injuries to bicyclists. In a City of Austin study in 2018 over three months, 48 per cent of e-scooter riders who were hurt had head injuries (91 out of 190), with 15 per cent (28 riders) experiencing more serious traumatic brain injuries.

Falling off e-scooters was the cause of 80 percent of injuries (183 riders); 20 percent (45 riders) had collided with a vehicle or an object, according to a 2019 UCLA study of two hospital ERs in one year. Just over eight per cent of the injuries were to pedestrians injured as a result of e-scooters (11 hit by an e-scooter, 5 tripped over a parked e-scooter, and 5 were attempting to move an e-scooter not in use).

Hospital data will be key to track injuries and fatalities by type and severity, especially for incidents where no motor vehicle has been involved (e.g., losing control) or for a trip and fall involving improperly parked e-scooters. As an ICD-10 code (international standard injury reporting code) specific to e-scooters will not be implemented in Canada until at least spring 2021, a reliable method to track serious e-scooter related injuries and fatalities presenting at hospitals is currently not available.”

“Finally, the risk of injury for new users is high, and could put additional burden on local hospitals and paramedics at this time. For the reasons above, City staff do not recommend permitting e-scooters in ActiveTO facilities in 2020.”

“Cities that initially allowed e-scooters on sidewalks have since banned them due to safety issues (pedestrian deaths and injuries), e.g., France, Spain, Singapore and San Diego; and other jurisdictions such Ottawa’s National Capital Commission have banned e-scooters on mixed use trails/paths.

E-scooters have been prohibited also from mixed use paths or in parks because of the intermixing with people and children on foot, who are slower, and also making unpredictable movements when using public space for leisure and recreational purposes. In cities such as Berlin, Paris and Tel Aviv, where e-scooters are permitted for operation on roads or bike lanes, and not sidewalks, there have been compliance and enforcement issues with these rules. Some cities (such as Atlanta) and countries (such as the UK) have accelerated bicycle infrastructure projects after e-scooter fatalities, and in anticipation of expanding micro mobility. In May 2020, the UK announced a £250 million emergency active travel fund – the first stage of a £2 billion investment supporting cycling, walking and bus-only infrastructure.”

“Paris and Singapore banned e-scooters from being used on sidewalks. This ban occurred as a result of pedestrian deaths from e-scooter collisions on sidewalks.”

“In the City of Austin, 63% of injuries occurred within the first nine rides of using an e-scooter. About 50% are head injuries and 35% are fractures. Less than 1% wore helmets. (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and City of Austin)”

“In Chicago, 10 pedestrians were sent to the emergency room after being hit by e-scooter users in their 4 month pilot project. There were a total of 192 emergency room visits related to e-scooters in these 4 months.”

As well, the PowerPoint that City staff presented at the February 3, 2020 meeting of the City of Toronto’s Accessibility Advisory Committee noted these statistics from Calgary:

“Calgary mid-pilot report for period approx. July to mid-October 2019:

  • 33 ER visits requiring ambulance rides, one of these was a pedestrian; 677 ER visits total”

3. E-Scooters Endanger Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities

The Staff Report also shows that e-scooters endanger safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. It states:

“E-scooters pose a risk to people with disabilities due to their faster speeds and lack of noise. Cities that have allowed e-scooters have observed a high incidence of sidewalk riding by riders, whether permitted or not on sidewalks. Parked e-scooters, especially when part of a dockless sharing system, can pose trip hazards and obstacles. Seniors, people with disabilities, and those with socio-economic challenges could face negative outcomes if injured in a collision or fall. Solutions to enforcement and compliance are still in their infancy.””

“Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

Persons with disabilities and seniors have considerable concerns about sidewalk and crosswalk interactions with e-scooter users, as well as concerns regarding trip hazards and obstructions from poorly parked or excessive amounts of e-scooters. The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, a body required under the AODA, recommends that City Council prohibit the use of e-scooters in public spaces, including sidewalks and roads. In other jurisdictions outside of Ontario, some legal action has been undertaken against municipalities by persons injured as a result of e-scooter sidewalk obstructions, as well as by persons with disabilities.”

The Staff Report’s recommendations to take steps towards allowing e-scooters in Toronto are directly contrary to the strong, unanimous recommendation to the City of Toronto by the statutorily-mandated Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee. As the Staff Report notes, that Committee recommended that e-scooters not be allowed in Toronto. The Staff Report states:

“On February 3, 2020, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended City Council prohibit e-scooters for use in public spaces including sidewalks and roads, and directed that any City permission granted to e-scooter companies be guided by public safety, in robust consultation with people living with disabilities, and related organizations serving this population.””

The City staff’s PowerPoint, presented to the February 3, 2020 meeting of the City of Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee also identified this feedback that the City had received:

“Key Stakeholder Feedback So Far

  • Accessibility / persons with disabilities groups
  • Visually-impaired/blind cannot hear or see e-scooter riders, trip hazards with e-scooters, collisions and near collisions/friction on sidewalks and serious injuries from losing balance and falling, no insurance, challenges with enforcement / claims
  • Pedestrian-related – walkability, friction on sidewalks, trip hazards, collisions”

The Staff Report’s recommendations to take steps towards allowing e-scooters in Toronto are also totally contrary to the strong recommendations of 11 disability organizations in the January 22, 2020 open letter sent by the AODA Alliance to the mayors and councils of all Ontario municipalities, set out in this brief’s appendix.

4. If E-Scooters Are Allowed in Toronto, They Will Be Ridden on Sidewalks Even If That is Forbidden

Any consideration of e-scooters must operate on the premise that e-scooter riders will ride e-scooters on sidewalks, even if this is strictly banned. This contributes to the dangers to the public including people with disabilities. The Staff Report states:

  • “Cities that have allowed e-scooters have observed a high incidence of sidewalk riding by riders, whether permitted or not on sidewalks.”
  • “Most jurisdictions experienced illegal sidewalk riding by e-scooter users…”
  • “E-scooter riders will also likely ride on sidewalks, even if not allowed.”

(from feedback from a focus group of Toronto cyclists)

5. E-Scooters Will Saddle the Taxpayer With Financial Burdens While the E-Scooter Rental Companies Make the Profits

The Staff Report demonstrates that to allow e-scooters will inflict new costs and financial burdens on the taxpayer. The AODA Alliance takes the position that these burdens should not be inflicted on the public, especially after our society has had to suffer the crushing financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis, an impact that is continuing with no end in sight. If more public money were now to be spent, it should not be on the costs that the City of Toronto would have to shoulder due to the introduction of e-scooters.

The Staff Report states:

* “There is a significant risk that the City may be held partially or fully liable for damages if e-scooter riders or other parties are injured. Transportation Services staff consulted with the City’s Insurance and Risk Management office (I&RM) to understand the magnitude of the City’s liability if allowing e-scooters. At this time, loss data is lacking on e-scooters due to generally lengthy settlement times for bodily injury claims. The City has significant liability exposure, however, due to joint and several liability, as the City may have to pay an entire judgement or claim even if only found to be 1 percent at fault for an incident. The City has a $5M deductible per occurrence, which means the City will be responsible for all costs below that amount. In terms of costs, Transportation Services staff will also be required to investigate and serve in the discovery process for claims.”

“If Council were to permit e-scooters to be operated on City streets – without the commensurate resources to provide oversight, education, outreach and enforcement, there would be considerable risks to public safety for e-scooter riders and other vulnerable road users; additional burdens on hospitals and paramedics; impacts on accessibility, community nuisance and complaints; impacts on current initiatives to enhance the public realm for COVID-19 recovery efforts, such as CurbTO and CaféTO; and liability and costs to the City. For the reasons above, staff recommend that personal use of e-scooters not be considered until 2021.”

“FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Funding and resources required in various programs for the following will be included as part of future budget submissions for consideration during the budget process to address the financial and additional staff resources required to: manage implementation, operational, and enforcement issues of e-scooters in Toronto; and the resolution of e-scooter issues, including, but not limited to, injury/fatality and collision investigations and data collection and tracking (e.g., in consultation with health agencies and/or academic partners, Toronto Police Services, and others), further standards development for e-scooter device design, and consultations on proposed by-law changes with accessibility and other stakeholders.”

The key proponents of e-scooters are the e-scooter rental companies that stand to profit from their use. The Staff Report shows that e-scooter rental companies take active steps to dodge any liability for the damage that their e-scooters cause. The Staff Report also shows that the insurance industry does not have the insurance products needed in this area. City staff explored the possibility of injury claims being covered by The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. That fund is financed by the taxpayer. That option would again let e-scooter rental companies reap the profits while the taxpayer covers the consequent costs.

The Staff Report states:

“E-scooter sharing/rental companies typically require a rider to sign a waiver, placing the onus of compensating injured parties on the rider. Riders are left financially exposed due to a lack of insurance coverage and if unable to pay, municipalities will be looked to for compensation (e.g., in settlements and courts). Claims related to e-scooter malfunction have been reported by the media (such as in Atlanta, Auckland, New Zealand and Brisbane, Australia). In 2019, a Grand Jury faulted the City of San Diego for inadequate regulation and enforcement of e-scooter sharing companies. By opting in to the Pilot, the City will be exposed to claims associated with improperly parked e-scooters as evidenced by lawsuits filed by persons with disabilities and those injured by e-scooter obstructions (such as in Minneapolis and Santa Monica, California).

The insurance industry does not currently have insurance products available for e-scooter riders. In Fall 2019, City staff explored whether the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund could be expanded or if a similar kind of fund in principle could be created to address claims where e-scooter riders or non-users are injured and their expenses are not covered by OHIP, nor by other insurance policies (e.g., homeowner’s or personal auto). Further research and consultation would be needed to look into these considerations.

It will be critical to ensure that insurance evidenced by e-scooter sharing companies will cover their operations for all jurisdictions operated in (e.g., all cities nationally or internationally). Further, there needs to be full indemnification for the municipality by e-scooter sharing companies, and not limitations in their indemnification contracts.”

6. Stronger Provincial Regulations Needed Before Even Starting with E-Scooters

Even if the City Council were to consider moving forward at all with e-scooters, the Staff Report’s analysis shows that any municipal consideration of this should be deferred until key missing action by the Ontario Government has been taken. The Staff Report shows the need for stronger provincial regulations on e-scooters safety to be enacted as an important precursor to introducing e-scooters. The Staff Report states:

“Although the HTA sets out some e-scooter standards, such as maximum speed and power wattage, due to the nature of urban and suburban conditions such as Toronto’s, City staff recommend that the Province strengthen the device standards for greater rider safety. Based on an extensive literature review, items recommended for further Provincial exploration include a maximum turning radius, a platform surface grip, wheel characteristics (e.g., minimum size, traction, tire width), braking and suspension.

In addition, the Province has not established set fine amounts for offences under the HTA e-scooter regulations. Without this in place, for the police to lay a charge in respect of a violation, a “Part III Summons” is required, which means the police must attend court for each charge laid regardless of severity, and a trial is required for a conviction and fine to be set. This may make it less likely that charges are laid. Fines outside of ones the City could set (e.g. e-scooter parking violations, illegal sidewalk riding) would create workload challenges for Police and courts.”

“In spite of the Pilot requirement to collect data, there is currently no vehicle type for e-scooters in the Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO) Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR) template used by all police services to report collisions. Unless the Province specifies e-scooters are motor vehicles for the purposes of collision reporting, and has a field for this in its template, e-scooter collisions may not be reported reliably and meaningful collision data analysis will not be possible. In Fall 2019, City staff requested that the MTO add e-scooters as a separate vehicle type, but MTO has not yet communicated they would make this change.”

“This report also recommends the need for improved industry standards at the provincial and federal levels for greater consumer protection in the purchase and/or use of e-scooters. While staff are aware that e-scooters are being considered as an open-air transportation option, the absence of improved standards and available insurance for e-scooter riders, coupled with lack of enforcement resources, would risk the safety of riders and the public on the City’s streets and sidewalks, especially for people with disabilities.”

(Among the Staff Report’s recommendations)

“3. City Council requests that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation amend the Motor Vehicle Collision Report to add electric kick-scooters as a vehicle type and to treat e-scooters as a motor vehicle for reporting purposes….

  1. City Council requests that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General establish set fines for violations of O. Reg. 389/19, Pilot Project – Electric Kick-Scooters, and communicate these set fines to Toronto Police Services through an All Chiefs Bulletin.

  1. City Council requests that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation strengthen its standards and specifications for e-scooters in O. Reg. 389/19, Pilot Project – Electric Kick-Scooters based on the latest best practice research.”

7. Substantial Effective Enforcement Would Be Needed But Has Not Been Planned For

The Staff Report repeatedly recognizes the importance of rule enforcement regarding the use of e-scooters. The AODA Alliance adds that it is deeply troubling that the City of Ottawa allocated no additional funds for enforcement during its current pilot with e-scooter and appears to have imposed no fine for law-breakers.

The Toronto Staff Report does not spell out how many enforcement officers would be needed to effectively enforce e-scooter rules if allowed in Toronto, or what this would cost the taxpayer to enforce (including court resources). As noted above, certain key standards are missing which would be important for effective enforcement. The Staff Report states:

“Solutions to enforcement and compliance are still in their infancy.”

“Other key issues raised in the consultations include lack of enforcement and adequate infrastructure; and questions about environmental sustainability, public space and the potential for clutter and safety hazards particularly for people with disabilities.”

“In general, jurisdictions do not have the capacity to enforce compliance. For example, Tel Aviv has a unit of 22 inspectors dedicated to enforcing that e-scooters do not ride on sidewalks. These inspectors are able to issue tickets for sidewalk violations, but only the police have the authority to issue tickets to riders not wearing helmets, as required by law. 21,000 tickets for sidewalk offenses were issued in 2019.”

8. Toronto Is Especially Ill-Suited For E-Scooters

The Staff Report’s contents give additional reasons why Toronto is in reality especially ill-suited for allowing e-scooters. The Staff Report states:

“In addition to the experiences in other jurisdictions, several risk factors are unique to the City of Toronto and play a role in informing the recommended approach to e-scooters:

Streetcar tracks: Toronto has an extensive track network (177 linear kilometres) which poses a hazard to e-scooter riders due to the vehicle’s small wheel diameter.

Winter and State-Of-Good-Repair: Toronto experiences freezing and thawing that impacts the state-of-good-repair for roads. A large portion of roads are 40 to 50 years old, with 43 percent of Major Roads and 24 percent of Local Roads in poor condition. Coupled with lack of standards for e-scooter wheels (e.g., traction, size), this makes this particular device more sensitive to uneven road surfaces.

High construction activity: In addition to the city’s various infrastructure projects, Toronto has been one of the fastest growing cities with about 120 development construction sites in 2019.

Narrow sidewalks and high pedestrian mode shares in the Downtown Core and City Centres: Most jurisdictions experienced illegal sidewalk riding by e-scooter users, with some business districts saying e-scooters deterred patrons from visiting their previously pedestrian-friendly main streets. This is especially challenging with physical distancing requirements and other COVID-19 recovery programs expanding the use of the City’s sidewalks and boulevards.”

9. Toronto Should At Least Defer Discussion of E-Scooters Until After the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over

The Staff Report’s analysis supports the conclusion that any actual introduction of e-scooters in Toronto should not take place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Staff Report states:

“Other cities have suspended e-scooter sharing services until after COVID-19 (e.g., Windsor approved a shared e-scooter pilot in April 2020, but has now deferred its pilot until after COVID-19). Prior to the pandemic, a number of jurisdictions (e.g., Boulder, Honolulu, and Houston) had refused to allow or banned the use of e-scooters due to public safety concerns. Key cities with similar population, urban form, and/or climate have not yet piloted e-scooters such as New York City (Manhattan/New York County ban), Philadelphia, and Sydney, Australia.”

“While staff have considered a potential e-scooter pilot on ActiveTO major road closures, it would pose risks to vulnerable road users and leave the City open to considerable liability and risk due to lack of resources for oversight, education and enforcement at this time. A key purpose of ActiveTO is to provide a mixed use space for physical activity for people of all ages for walking, jogging and human-powered cycling. Piloting a new vehicle type that is throttle-powered and can potentially exceed speeds of 24km/hr poses risks to vulnerable road users in such conditions. It could also lead to confusion about which infrastructure or facilities under ActiveTO are permissible, and this would pose public safety risks that the City does not have resources to manage at this time.”

“If Council were to permit e-scooters to be operated on City streets – without the commensurate resources to provide oversight, education, outreach and enforcement, there would be considerable risks to public safety for e-scooter riders and other vulnerable road users; additional burden on hospitals and paramedics; impacts on accessibility, community nuisance and complaints; impacts on current initiatives to enhance the public realm for COVID-19 recovery efforts, such as CurbTO and CaféTO; and liability and costs to the City. For the reasons above, staff recommend that personal use of e-scooters not be considered until 2021.”

10. E-Scooters Not Shown to Significantly Reduce Road Traffic or Pollution

The corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies claim that if e-scooters are allowed, this will reduce road traffic. The Staff Report shows that e-scooters do not bring the major benefits that the corporate lobbyists claim. The Staff Report states:

“While some mode shift from driving to using an e-scooter has occurred in other cities, the majority of e-scooter trips would have been by walking or public transit (around 60% for Calgary and Portland; and 86% in Greater Paris). For example, 55 per cent would have walked instead of using an e-scooter (Calgary). From a Paris area survey, 44 per cent would have walked, 30 percent would have used public transit, and 12 per cent would have used a bicycle/shared bike; while this study noted that e-scooters had no impact on car equipment reduction, an extrapolation would assume that 14 per cent would have used a car/ride hail/taxi, which still represents a minor shift away from motorized vehicular use.”

“Transportation accounts for about 38% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Toronto (2017). E-scooters are promoted as a near-zero local GHG transportation option as the electricity grid in Ontario is very low-carbon. A 2019 study based on life-cycle analysis suggests that average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per e-scooter mile travelled were half the amount associated with a car, but 20 times than that of a personal bicycle. Suggesting that reliance on e-scooters alone to shift people out of cars and to reduce GHGs and environmental impacts may not be entirely effective. Environmental impacts of e-scooters include disused e-scooters arising from the device’s short lifespan, toxic materials from battery waste, and emissions from the manufacturing, shipping, and maintenance of sharing fleets. In May 2020, Jump reportedly scrapped thousands (possibly 20,000) still functional e-bikes, and in June 2020, an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 Circ e-scooters were scrapped in the Middle East.”

The main reason for allowing e-scooters (beyond the profits of e-scooter rental companies) would be that they are fun to ride. The AODA Alliance proposes that this is hardly a reason to incur the dangers to safety, to accessibility for people with disabilities and the greater financial burdens on the taxpayer. The Staff Report states:

“The key appeal and popularity of e-scooters is that they are fun and convenient, particularly to people under the age of 35. They are often used for recreation and touring, but can also be used as a method of commuting or for taking short utilitarian trips. They reduce effort and sweat from exertion compared to human-powered kick-scooters and bicycles. They also enable people to go farther distances than on foot. A large part of the convenience is that there is no need to search for parking as there is with a car; adding to that e-scooters are easy to access, if folded and carried with the user, or if available through a dockless sharing system where the devices are widely available on the street.”

11. Steps that Must Be Taken If the City of Toronto Nevertheless Allows E-Scooters Despite Their Dangers

If e-scooters are to be allowed, over the many objections and despite all the evidence showing their dangers and lack of proven benefits, these requirements should be mandatory:

  1. a) Riding an e-scooter on any sidewalk should be strictly prohibited with a very substantial law enforcement presence and with very steep penalties, including a lifetime ban on using e-scooters. A mere fine is insufficient for such dangerous conduct.
  1. b) The rental of e-scooters should be prohibited with steep penalties for renting an e-scooter.
  1. c) There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like public location, except in a municipally-approved rack that is located far out of the path of pedestrian travel. If an e-scooter is left on a sidewalk or other public place that is not such a rack, it should be subject to immediate confiscation and forfeiture, as well as a strict penalty.
  1. d) If e-scooter rentals are allowed, e-scooter rental companies should be liable for loss or injuries caused by any renter of the company’s e-scooter, with no waiver of this liability being permitted.
  1. e) There should be a ban on parking an e-scooter within 250 meters of a public establishment serving alcohol.
  1. f) If e-scooters are permitted, they should be required to make an ongoing clearly audible beeping sound when powered on, to warn others of their approach.
  1. g) The speed limit for e-scooters should be set much lower than 24 KPH, such as 15 KPH.
  1. h) An e-scooter driver should be required to successfully complete training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and to get a license. This should not be simply done through a smartphone, where a person can simply click that they read the training materials, even if they did not.
  1. i) Each e-scooter should be required to have a vehicle license whose number is visibly displayed.
  1. j) An e-scooter’s owner and driver should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or damages that the e-scooter causes to others.
  1. k) E-scooter drivers of any age should be required to wear a helmet, and not just those under 18.
  1. l) A very small number of e-scooters should be permitted in any pilot, such as 250.
  1. m) If e-scooter rentals are to be permitted, a rider must be required to register their own name for each ride, and not merely rely on an app which could be signed up under a friend’s name. It should be made easy to identify a rented e-scooter–rider. The identity of the renter should be mandatorily disclosed on request to any person alleging that they were injured by the e-scooter.
  1. n) If e-scooter rentals are to be allowed via a “BikeShare” regime, the law should require that the e-scooter parking stations be located in a place that cannot block accessibility for people with disabilities. (Note: the draft bylaw included in the Staff Report imposes no such requirement)
  1. o) If the City is to take any further steps, it should convene an actual (not virtual) town hall meeting on e-scooters once the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided, to bring together both people with disabilities and the e-scooter rental companies for a joint public meeting to discuss all issues, at which the City’s leadership should be present.

Appendix – January 22, 2020 Open Letter from Major Disability Organizations

Open Letter

January 22, 2020

To: Hon. Premier Doug Ford

Via Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Room 281, Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario

M7A 1A1

And to: All Members of the Ontario Legislature

And to: The Mayors and Councils of All Municipalities in Ontario

Copy to: The Hon. Raymond Cho, Minister for Accessibility and Seniors

Via email: [email protected]

College Park 5th Floor

777 Bay St

Toronto, ON M7A 1S5

And copied to:

The Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation

Via email: [email protected]

5th Floor

777 Bay St.

Toronto, ON M7A 1Z8

I. Introduction

The undersigned community organizations and groups ask the Ontario Government and Ontario municipalities to take the actions listed below to protect the public, and especially Ontarians with disabilities, from the danger to public safety and the accessibility of their communities that is created by the Ontario Government’s new regulation on electric scooters (e-scooters). This regulation lets municipalities choose to permit people to use e-scooters in public.

On November 27, 2019, the Ontario Government announced a new regulation. It lets Ontario municipalities allow the use of e-scooters for a pilot of up to five years. An e-scooter is a motor vehicle that a person rides standing up. It can be very quickly throttled up to fast speeds of at least 24 KPH. It is silent even when ridden at fast speeds.

This Ontario regulation lets e-scooters be ridden on roads as well as sidewalks. It does not require a rider to have a driver’s license, or to have training in the e-scooter’s safe use or in the rules of the road. It does not require the e-scooter’s driver or owner to have insurance.

The e-scooter model does not have to be certified as safe by the Canada Safety Association or other recognized certifying body. The e-scooter need not have a vehicle license, or display a license number, that could help identify the vehicle in the case of an injury.

The Ontario Government said that this pilot is to study use of e-scooters. However, the regulation has not required a municipality that permits e-scooters to study their impact, or to report any study to the public. There has been no showing why five years is needed.

II. E-Scooters Endanger Public Safety, Especially for People with Disabilities

Unlicensed, untrained, uninsured people racing on silent e-scooters in public places, including sidewalks, endanger the public, and especially people with disabilities. Ontarians with disabilities and others will be exposed to the danger of serious personal injuries or worse. Pedestrians cannot hear silent e-scooters racing towards them. This is especially dangerous for people who are blind or have low vision or balance issues, or whose disability makes them slower to move out of the way.

In jurisdictions where they are allowed, e-scooters present these dangers. Ontario does not need a pilot to prove this. In an August 30, 2019 CityTV report, the Ontario Government stated that it had compromised between protecting public safety on the one hand, and advancing business opportunities and consumer choice on the other, when it first designed its proposal for a five-year e-scooter pilot.

III. E-Scooters Will Create New Accessibility Barriers for People with Disabilities

The new Ontario e-scooter regulation will also lead to the creation of serious new accessibility barriers against accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities. In jurisdictions where e-scooters are allowed, e-scooters are frequently left lying in public, strewed around sidewalks and other public places.

Leaving e-scooters on sidewalks is central to the plans of at least some businesses who want to rent e-scooters in Ontario, according to a September 10, 2019 Toronto Star article. The companies that rent e-scooters to the public provide a mobile app. Using that app, anyone can pick up an e-scooter, rent it, ride it to their destination, and then leave it in a random place on the sidewalk or other public place for another person to later pick it up and rent it.

For people who are blind, deafblind or have low vision, e-scooters can be a serious and unexpected tripping hazard. There is no way to plan a walking route to avoid them. They should not have to face the new prospect of e-scooters potentially lying in their path at any time.

Leaving e-scooters randomly on sidewalks also creates a serious, unpredictable new accessibility barrier for people using a wheelchair, walker or other mobility device. An e-scooter can block them from continuing along an otherwise-accessible sidewalk. People with disabilities using a mobility device may not be able to go up on the grass or down onto the road, to get around an e-scooter blocking the sidewalk. Sidewalks or other public spaces should not be made available to private e-scooter rental companies as free publicly-funded parking spaces.

Under the Charter of Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Ontario Government and municipalities are required to prevent the creation of new accessibility barriers against Ontarians with disabilities. As the 2019 final report of the most recent Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation, by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley revealed, Ontario is behind schedule for becoming accessible by 2025. The Onley report found that Ontario remains a province full of “soul-crushing barriers”. The introduction of e-scooters will create new barriers and make this worse.

IV. Measures In Place Don’t Effectively Remove These Serious Dangers to Public Safety and Disability Accessibility

The Ontario Government’s November 27, 2019 announcement of its new e-scooter regulation did not refer to any disability concerns. The Government announced some restrictions on use of e-scooters. However, those measures do not effectively address the serious concerns raised here.

The Government lists some optional recommended “best practices” for municipalities. Those don’t remove the dangers to public safety or accessibility for people with disabilities. In any event, no municipality is required to implement them.

The regulation permits the use of e-scooters on sidewalks if a municipality wishes. It has restrictions on the speed for riding an e-scooter on sidewalks, and on the rider leaving an e-scooter on the ground, blocking pedestrian travel. However, these are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Municipalities don’t have enforcement officers on every sidewalk to catch offenders. When a pedestrian, including a person with a disability, is blocked by an e-scooter abandoned on the sidewalk, there is no way to identify the rider who left it there. A pedestrian who is the victim of a hit and run, will find it extremely difficult if not impossible to identify who hit them. E-scooter rental companies are not made responsible for their e-scooters endangering public safety or accessibility.

E-scooters will increase costs for the taxpayer, including hospital and ambulance costs and law enforcement costs. The Ontario Government has not announced any new funding for municipalities for these costs.

The new Ontario regulation leaves it to each municipality to decide whether to allow e-scooters, and if so, on what terms. This requires Ontarians with disabilities to advocate to hundreds of municipalities, one at a time, to protect their safety and accessibility in public places. Ontarians with disabilities don’t have the resources and capacity for this.

It would not be sufficient for e-scooter rental companies to launch a campaign to urge renters not to leave e-scooters on sidewalks, or for e-scooter rental companies to make it a condition on their mobile app that the user will not leave a rented e-scooter on a sidewalk. People routinely agree to mobile app conditions without reading them. This does not excuse e-scooter rental companies from e-scooters’ known dangers.

V. Actions We Ask the Ontario Government and Ontario Municipalities To Take

(i) Actions We Ask The Ontario Government To Take
  1. E-scooters should not be allowed in public places in Ontario. There should be no pilot project in Ontario because it would endanger public safety and disability accessibility. If the Ontario Government wants to study e-scooters, it should study their impact on public safety and disability accessibility in other jurisdictions that have allowed them.
  1. If, despite these concerns, the Ontario Government wants to hold a trial period with e-scooters, it should suspend its new Ontario e-scooters regulation until it has implemented measures to ensure that they do not endanger the public’s safety or accessibility for people with disabilities.
  1. If Ontario holds an e-scooter pilot, it should be for much less than five years, e.g. six months. The Ontario Government should retain a trusted independent organization with expertise in public safety and disability accessibility to study e-scooters’ impact. It should make public the study’s findings.
  1. If despite these dangers, Ontario allows the use of e-scooters in public in Ontario, the Ontario Government should first enact and effectively enforce the following strong province-wide mandatory legal requirements for their use. Ontarians with disabilities should not have to advocate to each of the hundreds of Ontario municipalities to set these requirements:
  1. a) Riding an e-scooter on any sidewalk should be strictly prohibited with strong penalties.
  1. b) The rental of e-scooters should be prohibited, because the rental business model is based on e-scooters being left strewn about in public places like sidewalks.
  1. c) There should be a strict ban on leaving an e-scooter in a public sidewalk or like public location, except in a municipally-approved rack that is located well out of the path of pedestrian travel. If an e-scooter is left on a sidewalk or other public place that is not such a rack, it should be subject to immediate confiscation and forfeiture, as well as a strict penalty.
  1. d) If e-scooter rentals are allowed, rental companies should be required to obtain a license. They should be liable for loss or injuries caused by any renter of the company’s e-scooter.
  1. e) There should be a ban on parking an e-scooter within 250 meters of a public establishment serving alcohol.
  1. f) If e-scooters are permitted, they should be required to make an ongoing clearly audible beeping sound when powered on, to warn others of their approach.
  1. g) The speed limit for e-scooters should be set much lower than 24 KPH, such as 15 KPH.
  1. h) An e-scooter driver should be required to successfully complete training on its safe operation and on the rules of the road, and to get a license.
  1. i) Each e-scooter should be required to have a vehicle license whose number is visibly displayed.
  1. j) An e-scooter’s owner and driver should be required to carry sufficient liability insurance for injuries or damages that the e-scooter causes to others.
  1. k) E-scooter drivers of any age should be required to wear a helmet, and not just those under 18.
  1. If the Ontario Government does not impose all the safety and accessibility requirements in Recommendation 4 above, then it should pass legislation that empowers each municipality to impose all the preceding requirements.
(ii) Actions We Ask Each Municipality in Ontario To Take
  1. To protect the safety of the public, including people with disabilities, and to avoid creating new barriers to accessibility impeding people with disabilities, no municipality should allow e-scooters in their community.
  1. If a municipality nevertheless decides to allow e-scooters, it should impose all the requirements in Recommendation 4 above. It should not allow e-scooters for more than six months as a pilot project, while undertaking the study on their impact on public safety and accessibility for people with disabilities.

In proposing these seven measures, we emphasize that nothing should be done to reduce or restrict the availability or use of powered mobility devices used by people with disabilities, which travel at much slower speeds and which are a vital form of accessibility technology.

Signed,

  1. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance
  2. March of Dimes of Canada
  3. Canadian National Institute for the Blind
  4. ARCH Disability Law Centre
  5. Spinal Cord Injury Ontario
  6. Ontario Autism Coalition
  7. Older Women’s Network
  8. Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
  9. Guide Dog Users of Canada
  10. Views for the Visually Impaired
  11. Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario



Source link

Download in MS Word format the AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 finalized brief to the Ontario Government on what needs to be done to meet the needs of students with disabilities during the transition to school re-opening



Download in MS Word format the AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 finalized brief to the Ontario Government on what needs to be done to meet the needs of students with disabilities during the transition to school re-opening



Source link

Please Email the Ontario Government to Support the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief on Measures Needed to Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities Now and During the Transition to Schools Re-Opening


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Please Email the Ontario Government to Support the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief on Measures Needed to Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities Now and During the Transition to Schools Re-Opening

June 18, 2020

          SUMMARY

Working at warp speed, the AODA Alliance has finalized and submitted its brief to the Ontario Government on what must be done to meet the needs of at least one third of a million students with disabilities in kindergarten to Grade 12 now and during the eventual transition to schools re-opening. We set out that 23-page brief below.

We invite and encourage you to email the Ontario Government right away to support our brief’s 19 recommendations. Those recommendations are set out and described throughout the brief. To make it easier for you, at the end of the brief is an appendix that lists all the recommendations together in one place.

You can support us by emailing the Government at this address: [email protected] If you are part of a disability community organization, please get your organization to write the Government to support our recommendations. Of course, we encourage you to add any thoughts, experiences or recommendations that you wish.

It is good if you can use your own words when you write the Government. If you don’t have time, you might just wish to say something like this:

“I support the recommendations made in the AODA Alliance’s June 18, 2020 brief to the Ontario Government on what needs to be done to meet the needs of students with disabilities now and during the transition to re-opened schools.”

We thank everyone who took the time to read over the draft of this brief that we circulated for comment on June 11, 2020. We got fantastic feedback. We drew heavily on that feedback as we finalized this brief.

This finalized brief makes all the 17 recommendations that were in our draft brief (with some minor improvements) with one exception. Based on feedback we received, we removed our draft recommendation 13(b) in the draft brief. It had recommended that schools re-open for vulnerable students first. Our finalized brief replaced that recommendation with this, in #13(b):

“The COVID-19 IEP of each student with disabilities should tailor their plans for the return to school to meet their individual needs. Students with disabilities who need this accommodation should be afforded a chance to return to the school facility early so they can be oriented to any changes to which they need to adjust in the COVID-19 era.”

This finalized brief adds two new recommendations, 18 and 19. These propose that the Government and school boards across the board make more use during the COVID-19 pandemic of the Special Education Advisory Committee that each Ontario school board is required to have, if they are not doing so now.

In addition to writing the Government to support our recommendations, we encourage you to send this brief to your local school board and school trustees. Encourage them to take the actions we recommend in this brief.

For more background on these issues, please visit the AODA Alliances COVID-19 web page and our education web page.

Stay safe, and let us know what you do to help us press for these reforms. Email us at [email protected]

          MORE DETAILS

A Brief to the Ontario Government on Key Measures Needed to Address the Learning Needs of Students with Disabilities in Ontario During the COVID-19 Crisis Both During Distance Learning and During The Transition to the Eventual Re-Opening of Schools

Submitted by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

www.aodaalliance.org [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

To: The Hon. Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education

Via email [email protected]

June 18, 2020

 Introduction

The AODA Alliance submits this brief to the Minister of Education for Ontario, in response to the Ministry of Education’s public consultation on the transition to school re-opening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan grassroots coalition of individuals and organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit: https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated more than ten years for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our membership from the ODA Committee’s broad, grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

We have been widely recognized by the Ontario Government, by all political parties in the Ontario Legislature, within the disability community and by the media, as a key voice leading the non-partisan campaign for accessibility in Ontario. In every provincial election since 2005, parties that made election commitments on accessibility did so in letters to the AODA Alliance.

Among our many activities, we led a multi-year campaign to get the Ontario Government to agree to develop an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA to tear down the many barriers that impede students with disabilities in Ontario’s education system. Our years of efforts to advocate for accessibility for students with disabilities are documented on our website’s education page.

Our efforts and expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities have been recognized in MPPs’ speeches in the Ontario Legislature, and beyond. Our website and Twitter feed are widely consulted as helpful sources of information on accessibility efforts in Ontario and elsewhere. We have achieved this as an unfunded volunteer community coalition.

The Government must pay special heed to the input it receives from the disability community including parents of students with disabilities . Input to the Government from other organizations can fail to effectively address the specific experience and needs of students with disabilities . The recommendations in this brief are gathered together in a list in the appendix appearing at the end of this brief. Our position in this brief is summarized as follows:

  1. a) The COVID-19 crisis has imposed disproportionate added hardships on people with disabilities. As part of this, it has led to disproportionate, serious hardships being inflicted on students with disabilities in Ontario schools. These hardships are exacerbated by no small part by serious pre-existing problems and disability barriers that have faced students with disabilities for years in Ontario’s education system, which have been made even worse for too many students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  1. b) In this brief we address the needs of all students with disabilities, using the inclusive definition of “disability” in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act . We do not limit our recommendations to the narrower group of students whose disability falls in the narrower definitions of “special education “ or “exceptionality” that the Ministry of Education uses.
  1. c) To date, the provincial response to the problems facing students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic has been substantially insufficient. The AODA Alliance offers 19 recommendations in this brief, to effectively address this, starting now and into the fall. Our fuller recommendations for comprehensive and long term reforms in the form of a strong and effective Education Accessibility Standard are set out in the AODA Alliance’s October 10, 20-19 Framework for the promised Education Accessibility Standard.
  1. d) While students are not able to go to school this spring due to the COVID-19 crisis, students with disabilities are experiencing wildly different learning experiences. Some are making good progress. Some are making much less progress. Some are making no progress or are losing ground. Some are getting extensive educational supports from their school board. Some are getting much less support. Some are getting little if any support. Conditions and supports can vary widely, even within the same school board and by students with the same disability.
  1. e) There is a pressing need for a comprehensive Ministry of Education plan of action to address the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.
  1. f) There is a need for a provincial “Students with Disabilities Command Table” at the Ministry of Education.
  1. g) The Ministry must prevent a rash of principals refusing to admit some students with disabilities to school when schools re-open.
  1. h) There is a need for specific COVID-19 Individual Education Plans for individual students with disabilities before and during the transition to return to school.
  1. i) There is a need for Provincial and School Board Rapid Response Teams to be established to address recurring urgent needs of students with disabilities.
  1. j) A surge of specialized supports for students with disabilities is needed when schools re-open.
  1. k) School boards must plan for the needs of students with disabilities who cannot themselves ensure social distancing.
  1. l) The Ministry must ensure the full accessibility of digital platforms used for remote classes or “synchronous learning”.
  1. m) The Ontario Government must immediately ensure the digital accessibility of Ontario Government and TVO online learning resources.
  1. n) The Ministry of Education and school boards must stop making some learning resources available only in PDF format as this creates accessibility barriers.
  1. o) One size fits all does not fit for return to school.
  1. p) There is a need for a rapid method to spread the word to teachers and parents about effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities during COVID-19.
  1. q) Distance learning must be effectively provided for students who cannot return to school right away when schools re-open.
  1. r) The Ministry of Education should now create provincial resources for parents to prepare their students for the return to school.
  1. s) New protocols are needed for safe school bussing for students with disabilities.
  1. t) The Ministry should ensure the very active engagement of each school board’s Special Education Advisory Committee.

This brief builds on extensive involvement of the AODA Alliance during the COVID-19 crisis, advocating for the needs of people with disabilities across society. On June 11, 2020, we made public a draft of this brief, and solicited public input on it. We were very gratified by the supportive and helpful feedback we received. We have drawn heavily on that feedback to produce this finalized brief. We are urging one and all to share their own advice and recommendations with the Ontario Government during this important consultation.

 1. Pressing Need for A Comprehensive Ministry of Education Plan of Action to Address Needs of Students with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Crisis

Since the COVID-19 crisis began, the AODA Alliance has repeatedly urged the Ontario Government to develop and announce a comprehensive plan to meet the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. This has been needed so over 70 school boards don’t have to each re-invent the wheel in deciding what the needs of students with disabilities are and how best to meet them. To date, the Ontario Government has not done what we have urged.

The need for this comprehensive provincial plan remains pressing during the period of distance learning due to school closures. It is also needed to ensure that students with disabilities’ needs are met across Ontario when schools eventually re-open. Ontario needs to also be prepared in the event of the realistic possibility that distance learning will have to continue in the fall, either because school re-opening is further delayed, or because a second wave of COVID-19 would require another round of school closures.

To date, the Ontario Government has primarily focused its education strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic on students without disabilities. Almost as an afterthought, it then reminded school boards that they should also accommodate students with special education needs.

The plan for students with disabilities should, to the extent possible, be included in the Ministry’s overall plan for school re-opening.

We therefore recommend that:

#1. The Ministry of Education should immediately develop, announce and implement a comprehensive plan for meeting the learning needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. This plan should include during this time of distance learning, during an eventual return to school, and in case of a future COVID-19 wave that requires another round of school closures. To the extent possible, this plan should be an integral part of the Ministry’s overall plan it is developing for school re-opening.

 2. Need for a Provincial “Students with Disabilities Command Table”

To deal with the need for rapid planning during the COVID-19 crisis, the Ontario Government has commendably set up its own “command tables” to deal with critical areas, like health care planning and planning for the safe operation of the economy during this crisis. This enables the Government to have critical expertise at the table to make rapid and key decisions.

There is a pressing need for a “students with disabilities command table” within the Government to plan for the learning needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. No such table or concentrated expertise centre exists now within Ontario’s Ministry of Education. We have been pressing for this for three months. That table needs to be staffed by professionals with focused expertise on providing education to students with disabilities.

This is not meant to be an advisory or consultative table. It needs to be a planning and implementation table that can quickly and nimbly make decisions and effectively connect with the frontlines in the education system, where the action is.

This need is not fulfilled by the Minister of Education having had some consultative meetings with the Minister’s Advisory Committee on Special Education (MACSE), which still has vacancies, or with the AODA K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. Those bodies are only advisory. They do not have the capacity of a Ministry command table. Of course, it is good that they have been consulted.

We therefore recommend that:

#2. The Ministry of Education should immediately establish a “Students with Disabilities Education Command Table” to oversee the development and implementation of a Government action plan for meeting the urgent learning needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, and to swiftly react to issues for students with disabilities as they arise.

 3. Preventing a Rash of Refusals to Admit Students with Disabilities to School When Schools Re-Open

Ontario’s Education Act lets a school principal refuse to admit to school any “person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils…”. Disability advocates have repeatedly criticized this as an excessive, arbitrary and unfair power. The Education Act and the Ministry of Education leave to school boards and individual principals an extremely wide discretion over when, how and why to exclude a student from school under this power. The Education Act does not even require principals to give a parent their reasons for excluding a student from school. It does not cap the duration of the student’s exclusion from school. It does not require a school board or the Ministry to keep track of how often or why students are excluded from school under this power.

Disproportionately, this excessive power has been used against students with disabilities, leading them too often to be excluded from school altogether or allowing them to attend school only for reduced hours. Long before the COVID-19 crisis, parents’ and students’ advocates have called for this power to be reduced and regulated. See for example the January 30, 2019 joint news release by the AODA Alliance and the Ontario Autism Coalition. To date, the Ontario Government has not made any significant reform of this power.

In September 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released an updated policy on accessible education for students with disabilities. Its recommendations to the Ontario Government included, among other things:

“9. Identify and end the practice of exclusion wherein principals ask parents to keep primary and secondary students with disabilities home from school for part or all of the school day (and the role that an improper use of section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act may be playing in this practice).”

There is a serious risk that some principals will feel at liberty to use this power to exclude some students with disabilities from school during school re-openings in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before any effective vaccine is invented and widely available. This is especially so if school boards do not now effectively plan for the inclusion and accommodation of students with disabilities at school during the transition to school re-opening. They may do so either because they don’t know how to accommodate some students with disabilities during social distancing, or because the Ontario Government and/or their school board has not given them the staffing, directions and resources they need to be able to effectively include and accommodate those students at school for part or all of the school day. Such exclusions from school raise serious human rights concerns and are contrary to the student’s right to an education.

With all the uncertainties and pressures anticipated during the transition back to school, a principal can be expected to feel a real temptation to use the power to refuse to admit such students to school during a COVID-19 school re-opening. This is so because it would seem to solve the problem of having to plan for those students’ needs at school.

The need to reform practices regarding a school principal’s power to refuse to admit a student to school for part or all of the school day has therefore become even more pressing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The AODA Alliance considers this a major priority. It is essential that school re-openings this fall do not lead to a rash of principals’ refusals to admit any number of students with disabilities to school. Such a rash of exclusions would thereby create two classes of students, those allowed to return to school and those who are excluded from school, especially if this disproportionately divides along disability lines.

The Ontario Government has commendably been willing to give directions to a school board about the use of its power to refuse to admit students to school in other contexts. It can and should do so here as well. The Ontario Ministry of Education has very recently given directions to the Peel District School Board to keep and report data on exclusions of students from school by race. In directive number 9, the Ministry stipulated that:

“The Board shall centrally track disaggregated race-based data on suspensions (in-school and out-of-school), expulsions and exclusions, and report publicly through the Annual Equity Accountability Report Card.”

We therefore recommend that:

#3. The Ministry of Education should immediately issue a policy direction to all school boards, imposing restrictions on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school, including directions that:

  1. a) During the re-opening at schools, students with disabilities have an equal right to attend schools for the entire school day as do students without disabilities. The power to refuse to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should not be used in a way that disproportionately burdens students with disabilities or that creates a barrier to their right to attend school.
  1. b) A principal who refuses to admit a student to school during the school re-opening process should be required to immediately give the student and their family written notice of their decision to do so, including written reasons for the refusal to admit, the duration of the refusal to admit and notice of the family’s right to appeal this refusal to admit to the school board.
  1. c) A principal who refuses to admit a student to school for all or part of the school day should be required to immediately report this in writing to their school board’s senior management, including the reasons for the exclusion, its duration and whether the student has a disability. Each school board should be required to compile this information and to report it on a bi-monthly basis to the board of trustees, the public and the Ministry of Education (with individual information totally anonymized). The Ministry should promptly make public on a provincial basis and a school board by school board basis the information it receives on numbers, reasons and durations of refusals to admit during post- COVID-19 school re-opening.

 4. Need for Specific COVID-19 Individual Education Plans for Individual Students with Disabilities Before and During Transition to Return to School

For each student with disabilities, distance learning during COVID-19 will have created different deficits and challenges. The transition back to school will present challenges and needs that will vary from student to student.

Students’ IEPs were all written earlier this past school year while students were in school. They were written with no contemplation of the COVID-19 crisis or the challenges and hardships of distance learning and then of a later transition back to school. All students with disabilities will need their IEP modified to address these unforeseen needs.

As an immediate measure, students with disabilities each now need a customized COVID-19 –specific IEP to be created and implemented. This should not be limited to students whose disability fits within the narrow and incomplete definition of “exceptionality” in Ontario, which leaves out some disabilities. It should be provided to any student that has a disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code. It should not be limited to students whose disability has been formally “identified” at an Identification and Placement Review Committee.

This COVID-19 IEP would not replace the student’s existing IEP. It would not replace the usual IEP development process when school is back in usual operation. This COVID-19 IEP is meant as an immediate, temporary or interim measure to address these hitherto-unanticipated events and related learning needs. IEPs are supported to deal, among other things, with transition needs. Both the transition to distance learning and the later transition to school re-opening fit well within that rubric.

The COVID-19 IEP should be developed now and over the summer, not in the fall when students are already back in school. This may well require new resources to enable this to be developed over the summer.

As noted earlier, there is a real possibility that distance learning will continue in September, or may have to later resume due to a resurgence or a second wave of COVID-19. These COVID-19 IEPs need to now anticipate and effectively address each of these possible eventualities.

The development of each student’s COVID-19 IEP should start with a direct phone conversation as soon as possible between the student’s teacher and the family. They should discuss where the gains and gaps have been, the concerns for the fall that are anticipated and how best to address them. The COVID-19 IEP should be developed in close consultation with the family and, where appropriate, the student.

We therefore recommend that:

#4. For each student with disabilities, each school board should now:

  1. a) Contact the family of each student with disabilities, preferably by phone rather than email, to discuss and identify the student’s progress during the school shutdown, the student’s specific and individualized disability-related deficits and needs arising from and during distance learning due to the COVID-19 crisis and the student’s needs and challenges related to eventual transition to school (including any vulnerabilities of other family members due to the COVID-19 pandemic), and;
  1. b) Create a COVID-19 IEP to set specific goals and activities to effectively address their disability-related needs during distance learning, and in connection with transition back to school.

 5. Need for Provincial and School Board Rapid Response Teams to Be Established to Address Recurring Urgent Needs of Students with Disabilities

During the COVID-19 crisis, Ontario’s education system continues to try to navigate uncharted territory. No matter how much planning for the needs of students with disabilities takes place as we here recommend, unexpected surprises will crop up. School boards and the Ministry of Education each need to be able to quickly detect these, and to nimbly respond to them. Traditionally, large organizations are not always the best at rapid and nimble adaptations in the midst of great uncertainty.

Parents, teachers and principals need a central point in the school board to report difficult challenges. Each school board needs to quickly feed this information to a single point at the Ministry that is staying on top of things, for rapid responses to recurring issues around the province.

We therefore recommend that:

#5. The Ministry of Education should assign staff to assist its Students with Disabilities Command Table by serving as a central rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards.

#6. The Ministry should direct that each school board shall establish a similar central rapid response team within the board to receive and act on feedback from teachers, principals and families about problems they are encountering serving students with disabilities during the COVID-19 period, that will quickly network with other similar offices at other school boards, and that can report recurring issues to the Ministry.

 6. Surge Needed in Specialized Supports for Students with Disabilities

All students will have fallen behind to varying extents during the months when schools were closed. This hardship falls especially on students with disabilities who have additional specialized curriculum to learn, related to their disabilities, or who need specialized supports to learn which are unavailable during distance learning.

When students return to school, students with disabilities who need those supports will need a surge in the hours of support provided to them to help them catch up and adjust to the return to school. School boards cannot simply pull those resources out of the air. School boards will need added funding to hire those staff. They will need provincial help in finding them where there are shortages.

For example, students with vision loss are unable to get the full benefit of teachers of the visually impaired (TVIs) teaching hands-on braille reading when schools are closed. When schools re-open, school boards will need to engage additional TVIs to help ramp up the surge in TVI hours to be provided to students. There is now a shortage of TVIs in Ontario. The Ministry will need to lead a concerted effort to create a surge of TVIs to help school boards fill this gap during the return to school. Comparable needs can similarly be identified for students with other disabilities where such specialized educational support is needed.

We therefore recommend that:

#7. The Ministry of Education should plan for, fund and coordinate the provision by school boards of a surge in specialized disability supports to those students with disabilities who will need them when students return to school.

 7. Planning for Needs of Students with Disabilities Who Cannot Themselves Ensure Social Distancing

As an illustration of the last issue discussed, any return to school while COVID-19 continues to exist in our community will require students to engage in social distancing. If schools re-open, they will be doing so mindful of the fact that many students will not be able to consistently and reliably engage in social distancing, frequent hand washing and other important protective activities. Many are too young to ensure that they can fully understand the need to do so and comply. For some older children, it may seem cool to periodically break the rules. For many, it will be impossible to remain attentive to these precautions all the time.

For any number of students with disabilities, social distancing and related safe practices may pose additional challenges. For some, wearing a mask may not be possible due to such things as sensory integration or behavioural issues.

Some students with disabilities require an education assistant (EA) or special needs assistant (SNA) for all or part of the day to fully take part in school activities. For some of these students, it will not be possible to remain two meters away while providing the support or assistance that the student needs. Some will require close assistance for eating, hand-washing and other personal needs.

Pre-COVID-19 staffing levels for EAs and SNAs were too often inadequate. They did not account for these important additional requirements. EAs and SNAs were not experienced with or trained for this before COVID-19. It is not sufficient to now send them an email with instructions, or a link to a training video, and thereafter to assume that they will be fully equipped to consistently and reliably handle these duties. In addition to new in-person training, they will need to have constant access to good quality personal protective equipment (PPE), like masks.

It is also important to employ enough EAs and SNAs so that they don’t have to split their time among multiple schools or venues, lest they pose a greater risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus from place to place among vulnerable students.

We therefore recommend that:

#8. The Ministry of Education’s plan for school re-openings must include detailed directions on required measures for ensuring that students with disabilities are safe from COVID-19 during any return to school. This requires additional planning in advance by school boards and additional funding to school boards to hire and train the additional SNAs and EAs they will need to ensure the safety of students with disabilities. It also requires safeguards to ensure that an EA or SNA does not work at multiple sites and risk transmitting the COVID-19 virus from one location to another.

 8. Ensuring Full Accessibility of Digital Platforms Used for Remote Classes or “Synchronous Learning”

We do not here wade into the dispute between the Ford Government and some teachers’ unions about whether or when a teacher should conduct online classes for their students in real time over the internet, sometimes called “synchronous learning”. We insist, however, that whenever an online real time class or synchronous learning takes place, or any other online meeting involving students with disabilities or their parents in connection with their education, it must be conducted via a fully accessible digital meeting platform.

When the Ontario Government moved our education system from the physical classroom to the virtual classroom in late March, it should have ensured from the start that the choice of digital meeting platforms was fully accessible. The Ontario Government did not do so, nor did it monitor school boards to see what platforms they were using. The Ontario Government dropped the ball on this critical accessibility concern, to the detriment of students, teachers and parents with disabilities. The Ministry of Education took the erroneous position that it was up to each school board to decide which online virtual meeting platform to use, based on the board’s assessment of its local needs. Yet these disability accessibility needs do not vary from school board to school board. They are the same across Ontario. The Ministry wastefully leaves it to each school board to investigate the relative accessibility of different virtual meeting platforms.

As a belated partial attempt to address this problem, the Minister of Education wrote school boards on or around May 26, 2020 about several issues regarding distance learning. That memo stated, among other things:

“Boards must ensure that the platforms they use for connecting with students and families are fully accessible for persons with disabilities.”

However, that direction provides no assistance to school boards on which platforms to use or avoid, or how to figure this out. It still leaves it to each school board to investigate this as much or as little as they wish, and then to duplicate the same investigations of this issue over and over across Ontario. We have seen no indication that the Minister’s direction led any school boards to change what they were doing in this regard.

This issue remains a live one and will continue into the fall. It is not clear when schools will re-open. Our education system may still be running on 100% distance learning at the start of the fall school term. Even when schools re-open, there is a real likelihood that some distance learning will continue in some blended model of in-school and distance education. As noted earlier, if a second wave of COVID-19 hits, as has happened elsewhere, requiring another round of school closures, Ontario will have to return to 100% distance learning.

At least one school board has improperly prohibited the use of Zoom, even though it is at least as accessible as, or more accessible than, other platforms. The Ministry of the Attorney General did its own comparison of digital meeting platforms, for use by the courts. The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has decided to use Zoom as its platform for virtual court proceedings. If Zoom is safe enough for the Superior Court of Justice, there is no reason why a school board should prohibit its use.

Canada’s largest school board, TDSB, has announced that it is using Webex for parent-teacher meetings. This is so even though Webex has real accessibility problems. Such a practice should not be allowed.

We have heard examples of quite inaccurate information on this topic from some in the school board sector. Parents should not have to fight about this, one school board at a time, especially in the middle of a pandemic.

This topic requires ongoing effort and leadership by the Ministry. By August, there could well have been changes to the relative accessibility of different virtual meeting platforms. School boards need to operate based on current information.

We therefore recommend that:

#9. The Ministry of Education should immediately engage an arms-length digital accessibility consultant to evaluate the comparative accessibility of different digital meeting platforms available for use in Ontario schools. This should involve end-user testing. The Ministry should immediately send the resulting report and comparison to all school boards and make it public. This should be revisited as the fall approaches, in case there have been changes to the relative accessibility of different virtual meeting platforms. The Ministry should direct which platforms may be used and which may not be used for virtual or synchronous classes or parent/school meetings, based on their accessibility.

 9. Ensuring Digital Accessibility of Ontario Government and TVO Online Learning Resources

Over three months into the COVID-19 crisis, the Ontario Government has still not ensured that the online content that it provides to school boards, teachers, parents and students meets accessibility requirements for computer-users with disabilities. The AODA Alliance has been raising concerns with the Government about this since early in the pandemic. We have seen no public commitment to the needed corrective action. We have raised our concerns at senior levels within TVO and the Ministry of Education. The Government and TVO were required to comply with these accessibility requirements well before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We therefore recommend that:

#10. The Ministry of Education should immediately direct TVO to make its online learning content accessible to people with disabilities, and to promptly make public a plan of action to achieve this goal, with specific milestones and timelines.

#11. The Ministry of Education should make public a plan of action to swiftly make its own online learning content accessible for people with disabilities, setting out milestones and timelines, and should report to the public on its progress.

 10. Stop Making Some Learning Resources Available Only in PDF Format

Throughout this pandemic, as well as beforehand, the Ministry of Education and too many school boards have continued to make important digital information available to the public, including to parents, teachers and students, only in pdf format. That format can present accessibility problems for people with disabilities. When a document is made public in PDF format, it should also be made public in an accessible format, such as MS Word. This is an important time to start this long-overdue practice.

We therefore recommend that:

#12. The Ministry of Education should direct all its staff and all school boards that whenever making digital information public in a PDF format, it must at the same time also be made available in an accessible format such as an accessible MS Word document.

 11. One Size Fits All Does Not Fit for Return to School

To avoid chaos, a return to school should not be done all at once using a one-size-fits-all approach. Because we are in uncharted waters, it makes sense to go about this gradually and to try different approaches at different locations to see what works. We must avoid students with disabilities being again treated as after-thoughts who have to try to fit into a chaotic situation that was not designed with their needs in mind.

One suggestion that some have raised is to enable students with disabilities to return to school first, and for teaching staff to ensure their needs are met, before trying to also cope with an onslaught of all other students. Some have raised with us a concern that this might turn out to be a form of segregation, and could be detrimental for some of those students.

We therefore recommend that:

#13. The provincial plans for return to school should include these features:

  1. a) Rather than having all students across Ontario return to school at once, in a one-size-fits-all strategy, the Ontario Government should lead a strategic return to school process, trying out different approaches to see what works most effectively. For example, opening a few schools first to detect recurring problems and plan to prevent them would assist with opening of other schools across Ontario.
  1. b) The COVID-19 IEP of each student with disabilities should tailor their plans for the return to school to meet their individual needs. Students with disabilities who need this accommodation should be afforded a chance to return to the school facility early so they can be oriented to any changes to which they need to adjust in the COVID-19 era.

 12. Need for A Rapid Method to Spread the Word to Teachers and Parents About Effective Teaching Strategies for Students with Disabilities During COVID-19

Teachers and parents of students with disabilities are struggling around Ontario to cope with distance learning and the barriers it can create for many students with disabilities. Teachers and parents are creating novel work-arounds to address this.

Yet the Ontario Government has not been effectively canvassing the frontlines of teachers and parents to gather these up and share them around the province, so all can benefit without having to re-invent the wheel in the midst of a traumatic pandemic. We have called on the Ontario Government for the past three months to do this without success. We modelled one way of doing this by our successful May 4, 2020 online virtual town hall on teaching students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis (jointly organized with the Ontario Autism Coalition). As far as we have been able to learn, the Ontario Government has neither taken up that idea nor has it shared with school boards the link to our May 4, 2020 virtual town hall so that they can all benefit from it. We have repeatedly asked the Ministry of Education to share that link with school boards.

In the meantime, to fill this gap, several school boards have commendably been trying to address this need themselves. They have themselves been compiling good ideas and sharing them within their own board.

This is a huge and wasteful duplication of effort. The Ontario Government should be centrally accumulating and compiling all these resources, as well as researching what other jurisdictions have compiled from their own experience. These should be rapidly made available to frontline teachers and parents in a way that is easy to access, not by a blizzard of endless links that few if anyone will have the time to explore.

This effort should have been done weeks ago. Nevertheless, it is still not too late, since distance learning will remain part of our lives in whole or in part until a vaccine for COVID-19 is created and widely administered.

It is important that any such resources be themselves fully accessible to teacher, school staff, students and family members with disabilities. We regret that we have no assurance of this. On June 15, 2020, the Ontario Government announced in a news release that it was now making available new teaching materials during the COVID-19 crisis, under the headline: “Ontario Develops Additional Learning Materials for Students and Teachers”. The AODA Alliance promptly wrote senior officials at the Ministry of Education to ask what steps were taken to ensure that these new educational materials are accessible to people with disabilities, and asking what was done to include tips for teaching students with disabilities. The Ministry has not answered as of the time this brief was submitted.

We therefore recommend that:

#14. The Ministry of Education should immediately put in place an effective proactive team to gather teaching strategies for students with disabilities during distance learning from frontline teachers, parents and school boards and make these easily available to the frontlines on an ongoing basis, in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities. These should be supplemented by strategies that the Ministry researches from other jurisdictions that have innovated creative solutions.

 13. Distance Learning Must Be Effectively Provided for Students Who Cannot Return to School

When schools re-open, each school board will have a duty to accommodate its students with disabilities in school unless the school board can prove that it is impossible to do so without undue hardship. There may be some students who cannot return to school when others do. Their disability may make it impossible to accommodate them in school under the restrictions that apply during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some students may not be able to return to school because their parents or other family members with whom they live are so medically vulnerable or immuno-compromised that the family must take heightened precautions to avoid the risk of contracting COVID-19.

In those cases, even if other students are learning at school, the school board must provide effective and accessible distance learning for those students who must remain at home. This may include home visits from teaching staff. In this, students with disabilities must be more effectively and consistently served during distance learning than was the case in the spring.

We therefore recommend that:

#15 The plans for return to school must include measures for ensuring that those who cannot return to school at the same time can secure effective distance learning, including home visits (with social distancing) from teaching staff.

 14. Creating Provincial Resources for Parents to Prepare Their Students for Return to School

Some students with disabilities will need extensive preparation at home for their eventual return to school, including learning about social distancing and other new school practices due to COVID-19. Some parents will need a great deal of time to deal with this. Each school board or teacher and family should not have to duplicate these efforts by inventing their own curriculum, social stories or other resources.

We therefore recommend that:

#16. The Ministry of Education should prepare teaching materials for teachers and parents to use, addressing different disability-related learning needs, for preparing students with disabilities for the return to school, to address such changes as social distancing.

 15. New Protocols Needed for Safe School Bussing

There were ample problems with bussing of students with disabilities to school before the COVID-19 crisis. In any return to school, heightened safeguards will be needed, including frequent sanitization of busses, ensuring students are seated more than 2 meters from each other and ensuring that the driver has PPE and doesn’t risk spreading COVID-19. It is not realistic to expect that this will all simply happen with private sector bussing companies who employ casual and part time drivers working at low wages.

We therefore recommend that:

#17. The Ministry of Education should create, fund and effectively enforce new standards for safe bussing practices for students with disabilities during any return to school while COVID-19 remains a community threat.

 16. Ensure Very Active Engagement of Each School Board’s Special Education Advisory Committee

Each Ontario school board is required to have a Special Education Advisory Committee to advise it on special education issues. We understand that some have met regularly during the school closures, using conference calls or virtual online meeting platforms. Others have not met regularly, from what we have heard.

SEACs have a great deal to offer in this area. In making our recommendations about SEACs, we note that SEACs are not required to include representation regarding students with all kinds of disabilities. They are instead required only to have members that represent families whose students whose disability falls within the more limited definition of “exceptionality” that the Ministry of Education uses. Of course, it is open to a school board to have its SEAC have a more inclusive membership. It is also open to SEAC members to speak to any needs of any students with disabilities . School boards and the Ontario Government must ensure that they get input regarding students with any and all kinds of disabilities.

It is essential that each school board ensures that its Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) is meeting at least once per month, if not more, during the COVID-19pandemic, including during the transition to re-opening. While they usually don’t meet during the summer, they should meet if possible during the 2020 summer. They should be fully engaged in planning for the needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 period.

Their volunteer efforts would have more impact if the Ministry of Education took two easy steps. First, the Minister should create a virtual network or listserv to enable SEACs to share their work with each other. No such network now exists. As well, the Ministry should collect input from all Ontario’s SEACs on their concerns and advice given during the COVID-19 era, as this is a readily-available avenue to more front-line experience of students with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

#18. Each school board should ensure that its Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) meets at least once per month, and preferably more often, during the COVID-19 crisis, to give its board ongoing input into planning for students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

#19. To get the most from the volunteer work of SEACs around Ontario, the Ministry of Education should:

  1. a) Create and maintain a listserv or other virtual network of all Ontario SEACs, to enable them to share their efforts with all other SEACs around Ontario, and
  1. b) Frequently gather input from SEACs around Ontario about the experiences of students with disabilities during the COVID-19crisis.

Appendix – List of Recommendations

#1. The Ministry of Education should immediately develop, announce and implement a comprehensive plan for meeting the learning needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis. This plan should include during this time of distance learning, during an eventual return to school, and in case of a future COVID-19 wave that requires another round of school closures. To the extent possible, this plan should be an integral part of the Ministry’s overall plan it is developing for school re-opening.

#2. The Ministry of Education should immediately establish a “Students with Disabilities Education Command Table” to oversee the development and implementation of a Government action plan for meeting the urgent learning needs of students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis, and to swiftly react to issues for students with disabilities as they arise.

#3. The Ministry of Education should immediately issue a policy direction to all school boards, imposing restrictions on when and how a principal may exclude a student from school. including directions that:

#4. For each student with disabilities, each school board should now:

  1. a) Contact the family of each student with disabilities, preferably by phone rather than email, to discuss and identify the student’s progress during the school shutdown, the student’s specific and individualized disability-related deficits and needs arising from and during distance learning due to the COVID-19crisis and the student’s needs and challenges related to eventual transition to school (including any vulnerabilities of other family members due to the COVID-19 pandemic), and;
  1. b) Create a COVID-19 IEP to set specific goals and activities to effectively address their disability-related needs during distance learning, and in connection with transition back to school.

#5. The Ministry of Education should assign staff to assist its Students with Disabilities Command Table by serving as a central rapid response team to receive feedback from school boards on recurring issues facing students with disabilities and to help find solutions to share with school boards.

#6. The Ministry should direct that each school board shall establish a similar central rapid response team within the board to receive and act on feedback from teachers, principals and families about problems they are encountering serving students with disabilities during the COVID-19 period, that will quickly network with other similar offices at other school boards, and that can report recurring issues to the Ministry.

#7. The Ministry of Education should plan for, fund and coordinate the provision by school boards of a surge in specialized disability supports to those students with disabilities who will need them when students return to school.

#8. The Ministry of Education’s plan for school re-openings must include detailed directions on required measures for ensuring that students with disabilities are safe from COVID-19 during any return to school. This requires additional planning in advance by school boards and additional funding to school boards to hire and train the additional SNAs and EAs they will need to ensure the safety of students with disabilities. It also requires safeguards to ensure that an EA or SNA does not work at multiple sites and risk transmitting the COVID-19 virus from one location to another.

#9. The Ministry of Education should immediately engage an arms-length digital accessibility consultant to evaluate the comparative accessibility of different digital meeting platforms available for use in Ontario schools. This should involve end-user testing. The Ministry should immediately send the resulting report and comparison to all school boards and make it public. This should be revisited as the fall approaches, in case there have been changes to the relative accessibility of different virtual meeting platforms. The Ministry should direct which platforms may be used and which may not be used for virtual or synchronous classes or parent/school meetings, based on their accessibility.

#10. The Ministry of Education should immediately direct TVO to make its online learning content accessible to people with disabilities, and to promptly make public a plan of action to achieve this goal, with specific milestones and timelines.

#11. The Ministry of Education should make public a plan of action to swiftly make its own online learning content accessible for people with disabilities, setting out milestones and timelines, and should report to the public on its progress.

#12. The Ministry of Education should direct all its staff and all school boards that whenever making digital information public in a PDF format, it must at the same time also be made available in an accessible format such as an accessible MS Word document.

#13. The provincial plans for return to school should include these features:

  1. a) Rather than having all students across Ontario return to school at once, in a one-size-fits-all strategy, the Ontario Government should lead a strategic return to school process, trying out different approaches to see what works most effectively. For example, opening a few schools first to detect recurring problems and plan to prevent them would assist with opening of other schools across Ontario.
  1. b) The COVID-19 IEP of each student with disabilities should tailor their plans for the return to school to meet their individual needs. Students with disabilities who need this accommodation should be afforded a chance to return to the school facility early so they can be oriented to any changes to which they need to adjust in the COVID-19 era.

#14. The Ministry of Education should immediately put in place an effective proactive team to gather teaching strategies for students with disabilities during distance learning from frontline teachers, parents and school boards and make these easily available to the frontlines on an ongoing basis, in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities. These should be supplemented by strategies that the Ministry researches from other jurisdictions that have innovated creative solutions.

#15 The plans for return to school must include measures for ensuring that those who cannot return to school at the same time can secure effective distance learning, including home visits (with social distancing) from teaching staff.

#16. The Ministry of Education should prepare teaching materials for teachers and parents to use, addressing different disability-related learning needs, for preparing students with disabilities for the return to school, to address such changes as social distancing.

#17. The Ministry of Education should create, fund and effectively enforce new standards for safe bussing practices for students with disabilities during any return to school while COVID-19 remains a community threat.

#18. Each school board should ensure that its Special Education Advisory Committee(SEAC) meets at least once per month, and preferably more often, during the COVID-19 crisis, to give its board ongoing input into planning for students with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

#19. To get the most from the volunteer work of SEACs around Ontario, the Ministry of Education should:

  1. a) Create and maintain a listserv or other virtual network of all Ontario SEACs, to enable them to share their efforts with all other SEACs around Ontario, and
  1. b) Frequently gather input from SEACs around Ontario about the experiences of students with disabilities during the COVID-19crisis.



Source link