After Winning the Battle in Toronto Last Spring, AODA Alliance and Other Disability Advocates Now Call on London City Council Not to Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others by Allowing 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/

After Winning the Battle in Toronto Last Spring, AODA Alliance and Other Disability Advocates Now Call on London City Council Not to Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others by Allowing Electric Scooters

August 30, 2021

        SUMMARY

Will it ever end? Now It’s London Ontario that is considering the possibility of legalizing electric scooters (e-scooters). Due to the Ford Government, we must fight this battle in one city after the next. It was the Ford Government that gave municipalities the power to allow e-scooters. Premier Ford ignored all disability concerns and acted instead at the behest of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

With this issue now rearing its ugly head in London Ontario, the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates are now hitting the ground running, in an effort to avert this danger to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others who live in or visit London. On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at noon, this issue is an agenda item on the City of London’s Civic Works Committee. The AODA Alliance is one of the disability organizations that have sent in written submissions to that Committee, asking London to say no to e-scooters. The AODA Alliance’s August 27, 2021 brief to the London Civic Works Committee is set out below.

We understand that London’s Accessibility Advisory Committee has commendably recommended that London say no to e-scooters. Earlier this year, the AODA Alliance and several other disability organizations and advocates convinced the Toronto City Council to unanimously say no to e-scooters. We are now trying to convince London to do the same thing, without burdening people with disabilities with the hardship of having to mount another hard-fought campaign to protect our safety and accessibility. We need London City Council to stand up for people with disabilities, seniors and others, and to stand up to the e-scooter rental companies’ corporate lobbyists.

We have asked London’s Civic Works Committee to allow for a deputation by the AODA Alliance at its August 31, 2021 meeting. We understand that no final votes on the e-scooters issue are expected at that meeting.

You can watch the August 31, 2021 London Civic Works Committee meeting live-streamed on Youtube on the City of London’s Youtube stream at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmRugRQ2sUo

For more details on the battle that people with disabilities have fought in Ontario over the past two years to avert the danger that e-scooters pose for them, visit the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooter page.

Riding Electric Scooters in London is Dangerous and Must Remain Banned — AODA Alliance brief to the City of London Civic Works Committee

August 27, 2021

Via email: [email protected]

On its agenda for its August 31, 2021 meeting, the Civic Works Committee of London City Council has an agenda item regarding the possibility of allowing electric scooters (e-scooters) in the City of London. The AODA Alliance submits this brief to London’s Civic Works Committee on that agenda item, and requests an opportunity to make a presentation or deputation at that meeting via whatever virtual platform is being used.

In summary, London City Council must not unleash dangerous e-scooters in London. Riding e-scooters in public places in London is now banned and remains banned unless City Council legalizes them.

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 AODA Alliance strongly commends the London Accessibility Advisory Committee for recommending that e-scooters should not be allowed in London. The AODA Alliance asks the City of London Civic Works Committee to follow that advice, and to recommend the following:

  1. London should not permit the use of e-scooters, and should not conduct a pilot project with e-scooters.
  1. If the City of London is going to explore the possibility of allowing e-scooters, e-scooters should not be permitted if they present any risk to the health or safety of people with disabilities, seniors, children or others, or if they are prone to create new accessibility barriers that would impede people with disabilities within London.
  1. At the very least, if this issue is not simply taken right off the table, before proceeding any further, City staff should investigate the dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. A public consultation on that issue should be held, beyond a purely online digital survey form.

London should benefit from the extensive and commendable work done on this issue in Toronto. This past spring, Toronto City Council voted unanimously not to allow e-scooters, after very extensive consideration of the issue. Toronto City Staff undertook the most thorough investigation of this issue of any Ontario municipality, as far as we have been able to discover.

An initial July 2020 Toronto City Staff Report, supplemented by a second February 2021 Toronto City Staff report, together amply show that e-scooters endanger public safety in communities that have permitted them. Riders and innocent pedestrians get seriously injured or killed. They especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities. Blind people cannot detect silent e-scooters that can accelerate at them at over 20 KPH, driven by unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmeted fun-seeking riders. Left strewn on sidewalks, e-scooters are tripping hazards for people with vision loss and an accessibility nightmare for wheelchair users.

It is no solution to just ban e-scooters from sidewalks. The Toronto City Staff reports, referred to above, document the silent menace of e-scooters continuing to be ridden on sidewalks in cities that just ban them from sidewalks. London would need police officers on every block. Toronto City Staff reported to Toronto City Council last summer that no city that allows e-scooters has gotten enforcement right.

E-scooters would cost taxpayers a great deal. This would include new law enforcement, OHIP for treating those injured by e-scooters, and lawsuits by the injured. London has far more pressing budget priorities.

Especially with COVID still raging, London City Council should not be considering the legalization of dangerous e-scooters. In Toronto, a stunning well-funded behind-the-scenes feeding frenzy of back-room pressure by corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies had inundated City Hall with for months. The corporate lobbyists want to make money on e-scooter rentals, laughing all the way to the bank, while injured pedestrians sob all the way to hospital emergency rooms. That the Toronto City Council unanimously said no to e-scooters despite this massive corporate lobbying should signal to London how important it is to stand up for people with disabilities and others endangered by e-scooters.

London City Council should not conduct an e-scooter pilot. A pilot to study what? How many of people living in or visiting London will be injured? We already know they will, from cities that have allowed them. It would be immoral to subject people in London to a City-wide human experiment, especially without their consent, where they can get injured. The call for a “pilot project with e-scooters is just the corporate lobbyists’ ploy to try to get their foot firmly planted in the door, so it will be harder to later get rid of e-scooters.

London, like the rest of Ontario, already has too many disability barriers that impede accessibility for people with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires London and the rest of Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. To allow e-scooters would be to make things worse, not better, by creating new barriers impeding people with disabilities.

E-scooters create problems for businesses, as well as for people with disabilities. That is why Toronto’s Broadview Danforth BIA made an April 26, 2021 submission to the City of Toronto, set out below, that urged that e-scooters not be allowed. That BIA includes a part of Toronto that has similarities to downtown London.

Since we allow bikes, why not e-scooters? An e-scooter, unlike a bike, is a motor vehicle. As such, they should not be exempt from public safety regulations that apply to motor vehicles. A person who has never ridden an e-scooter can hop on one and instantly throttle up to race over 20 KPH. A person cannot instantly pedal a bike that fast, especially if they have never ridden a bike. In any event, London already has bikes. It does not need the dangers of e-scooters.

The July 2020 Toronto City Staff Report 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.

London should now call a stop to its exploration of e-scooters. Its residents with disabilities, its seniors and others should not have to mount an advocacy effort like the one that was necessary in Toronto to prevent the City from exposing its residents and visitors to the proven dangers that e-scooters pose. This is so especially while they along with all others must continue trying to cope with the pandemic.

Please make London easier and not harder for people with disabilities, seniors and others to get around. Protect those who need safe, accessible streets and sidewalks, not the interests of corporate lobbyists.

These references to banning e-scooters do not refer to the very different scooters that some people with disabilities use for mobility devices. Those mobility devices are now permitted and of course, should remain permitted.

Learn more about the dangers that e-scooters pose to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, by visiting the AODA Alliance e-scooter web page and by watching the AODA Alliance’s short, captioned video on this issue. Read the AODA Alliance’s March 30, 2021 detailed brief to Toronto City Council on e-scooters. Read the January 22, 2020 open letter to all municipalities and to Premier Doug Ford co-signed by 11 disability organization, that oppose e-scooters in Ontario.

Learn more about the AODA Alliance by visiting www.aodaalliance.org, by following @aodaalliance on Twitter, by visiting our Facebook page at www.facebook.com or by emailing us at [email protected].

April 26, 2021 Written Submission to the City of Toronto by the Broadview Danforth Business Improvement Area

April 26, 2021

TO: Infrastructure and Environment Committee Clerk

FROM: The Broadview Danforth BIA

RE: Item: 1E21.7 Pilot Project: Electric Kick-Scooters

I’m writing on behalf of the 355 business members in the Broadview Danforth BIA to support the recommendation being made by the General Manager, Transportation Services to decline the option to participate in O.Reg 389/19 Pilot Project for Electric Kick-Scooters. Our comments below can be shared with the Infrastructure and Environment Committee — meeting on April 28, 2021.

We have reviewed the components related to this proposed pilot project and have serious concerns that it would be very difficult to implement in a manner consistent with public safety and order.

Following a presentation made by Janet Lo from Transportation Services to BIAs, our key concerns are as follows:

Safety issues related to people with disabilities who use our sidewalks and wouldn’t be able to safely continue doing so if e-scooters were allowed on sidewalks.

Safety issues related to all people using sidewalks — the potential of e-scooters being left on the sidewalks or tied to benches, tree guards etc. and falling over will lead to potential tripping hazards.

Lack of clarity on insurance coverage for riders, e-scooter rental companies and the general public who may be injured by e-scooter riders. Lack of City/police resources to enforce any kind of e-scooter laws. At the moment we have cyclists improperly using the roads and bike lanes and enforcement is almost non-existent. It’s impossible to believe that enforcement will be available for e-scooters. Our businesses are fighting for their survival during this pandemic and the last thing we need is for customers to feel unsafe using our sidewalks.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our feedback on this issue.

Albert Stortchak

Board Chair

Broadview Danforth BIA



Source link

Tell the Health Care Standards Development Committee If You Support the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations on What the Promised Health Care Accessibility Standard Should Include, Spelled Out in the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief


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/

Tell the Health Care Standards Development Committee If You Support the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations on What the Promised Health Care Accessibility Standard Should Include, Spelled Out in the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief

August 5, 2021

         SUMMARY

On August 3, 2021, the AODA Alliance submitted its final brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. It gives our feedback on its initial or draft recommendations on what should be included in the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard. The Health Care Accessibility Standard is needed to tear down the many barriers that impede people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system.

We want the Health Care Standards Development Committee to incorporate our recommendations into its final report to the Ontario Government. Our finalized brief includes all the recommendations and other content that was in our draft brief that we circulated for public comment on July 23, 2021. There has only been very minor editing and fine-tuning.

Below we set out the 67 recommendations that our brief makes. To download and read the entire brief that explains these recommendations, visit https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/August-3-2021-finalized-AODA-Alliance-Brief-to-Health-Care-Standards-Development-Committee.docx

Help us build support for our cause. Please email the Health Care Standards Development Committee. Tell the Committee if you support our recommendations. You can write them at: [email protected]

If you or an organization with which you are connected is writing a submission to the Health Care Standards Development Committee it would be great if your submission could state that you endorse the AODA Alliance ‘s recommendations in its August 3, 2021 brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. As well, any individual or organization can simply write that Standards Development Committee at the email address listed above, and just say something like:

“I support the recommendations that the AODA Alliance sent the Health Care Standards Development Committee in its August 3, 2021 Brief.”

The deadline for submitting feedback to the Committee is August 11, 2021. Even if you miss that deadline, it can always help to send in an email any time that supports our recommendations.

Do you want more background on this issue? Explore the time line of our efforts to get a strong Health Care Accessibility Standard by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

Now 917 days have passed since the Ford Government received the blistering final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Ford Government has announced no plan to implement that report.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at [email protected].

         MORE DETAILS

List of the AODA Alliance August 3, 2021 Brief’s Recommendations

Where the following recommendations by the AODA Alliance refer to the “Initial Report”, that is the Health Care Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report in which that Committee sets out draft proposals for what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include.

#1 Throughout the Initial Report, action recommendations should be revised to go beyond providing disability accommodations to patients with disabilities, and making plans for barrier-removal and prevention, so as to also spell out specific measures that must be undertaken to remove and prevent recurring disability barriers to health care services.

#2 The Health Care Accessibility Standard’s primary focus should be on specifying detailed actions to remove and prevent barriers, not by overloading people with disabilities with redundant separate consultations with one hospital after the next across Ontario.

#3 The Standards Development Committee should explicitly and comprehensively make recommendations for the entire health care system, and not merely for the small fraction of the health care system that hospitals comprise. At a minimum, the Standards Development Committee should make a strong recommendation that the Health Care Accessibility Standard must address disability barriers in the entire health care system, and not merely in the hospital sector. It should specify that all health care providers should be required to remove and prevent the same barriers, in terms at least as strong as the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

#4 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should cover and apply to all public and private health care programs, services and products available in Ontario, whether or not OHIP covers them. It should cover all health care providers and professions, whether or not Ontario recognizes, regulates or licenses them. It should cover ambulances and other vehicles which can transport patients in connection with health care services. It should cover all parts of Ontario. It should address accessibility barriers that are distinctive to the north, to remote communities, as well as the distinctive barriers facing different racialized, ethnic or other communities within Ontario.

#5 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should address the accessibility needs of patients with any kind of disability, and the accessibility needs of any patients’ support people with any kind of disability. The term “disability” should be defined broadly to include any permanent or episodic disability within the meaning of the AODA or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

#6 The Committee’s final report should clearly state that to make hospitals accessible to people with disabilities, much more is needed than addressing training, accountability and sensitivity within hospitals.

#7 The Initial Report should not recommend that smaller obligated organizations always or presumptively get more time to comply with the Health Care Accessibility Standard than do larger obligated organizations. This especially should not take place in circumstances where smaller organizations can comply more quickly than larger organizations.

#8 The Initial Report should be revised to describe the Standards Development Committee’s mandate as achieving the removal and prevention of disability barriers, the accessibility of health care services, and inclusion of people with disabilities in the health care system. It should not describe the goal as merely making the health care system more accessible or more inclusive, or merely reducing barriers.

#9 The long term objective of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should be to ensure that Ontario’s health care system and the services, facilities and products offered in it, become fully accessible to all patients with any kind of permanent or episodic disabilities and to any support people with disabilities for any patient, by 2025, the AODA’s deadline, by requiring the removal and prevention of the accessibility barriers that impede people with disabilities, and by providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process to learn about and seek disability-related accommodations tailored to a person’s individual disability-related needs. It should aim to ensure that patients with disabilities can fully benefit from and be fully included in the health care services and products offered in Ontario’s health care system on a footing of equality. It should aim to eliminate the need for patients with disabilities and any support people with disabilities to have to contend with and fight against health care accessibility barriers, one at a time, and the need for health care providers to have to re-invent the accessibility wheel one health care facility or one health care provider at a time. It should aim for health care services, facilities and products in Ontario to be designed and operated based on accessibility principles of universal design.

#10 The Initial Report’s vision of an accessible health care system should be expanded to include the following:

  1. a) The health care system will be designed and operated from top to bottom for all its patients, including patients with all kinds of permanent or episodic disabilities, as disability is defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The health care system will no longer be designed and operated from an implicit starting point of aiming predominantly to serve the fictional “average” patient, who is too often assumed to have no disabilities.
  1. b) Patients with disabilities, and where needed, any patients’ support people with disabilities, will be able to effectively communicate with health care providers and health care staff in connection with requesting or receiving health care services and products throughout each stage of the healthcare process. This will include face-to-face interactions, telephone or alternates to telephone use, accessible information and forms as well as alternate arrangements for providing one’s signature. For example, health care facilities and ambulances will be equipped with needed equipment to ensure effective communication with people with communication-related disabilities.
  1. c) Patients with disabilities, and where needed, any patients’ support people with disabilities will be able to get and receive information relevant to their health care needs in private, e.g., when giving information at a health care provider’s office or when seeking or receiving information about their medication at a pharmacy, rather than in a public place where others can overhear. Effective procedures will protect the confidentiality of private information relating to patients with disabilities who rely on others to assist them with communication.
  1. d) Information technology and applications which patients can use at home, or at a health care facility in connection with seeking and receiving health care services, will be designed based on principals of universal design and will be accessible to and usable by patients with disabilities, and where needed, to patients’ support people with disabilities. Where needed for effective communication, health care facilities will also provide alternatives to telephone use including email, text, video and authorized human assistance.
  1. e) Health care products, and any instructions for their use, will be designed and available based on principles of universal design so that people with disabilities and not just people with no disability can use and benefit from them.
  1. f) Support services such as sighted guides for visually impaired patients and attendant care will be available to patients with disabilities who need them while going to or at a facility to receive health care services.
  1. g) Publicly funded appointments for receiving health care services will be sufficiently long to enable those patients with a disability, who need more time, to be able to receive the health care services they need. If a patient with disabilities cannot attend a health care provider’s premises due to their disability, there will be in place measures whenever therapeutically possible for remote appointments or home visits.
  1. h) Patients will be free to use their own accommodation supports, such as service animals, when seeking or obtaining health care services and products.
  1. i) New Government strategies, services and facilities in Ontario’s health care system will be proactively designed from the start and operated to fully include the needs of patients with disabilities. Those responsible at the provincial and local levels for leading, overseeing and operating Ontario’s health care system will have strong and specific requirements to address disability accessibility and inclusion in their mandates and will be accountable for their work on this issue. Ontario’s disability community will have effective input into public decisions on the design and operation of Ontario’s health care system to ensure that existing disability accessibility barriers are removed and no new ones are created.
  1. j) An accessible health care system is one where people with disabilities can work in a barrier-free workplace.

#11 The Initial Report should not merely recommend that an obligated organization “consider accessibility.” It should instead require specific actions that will achieve accessibility.

#12 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require each health care facility and health care provider to create a welcoming environment for patients with disabilities and any patients’ support people with disabilities to seek accommodations for their disabilities when receiving health care services.

#13 Each major health care facility such as each hospital should be required to establish a permanent committee of its board to be called the “Accessibility Committee.” This Accessibility Committee should have responsibility for overseeing the facility’s compliance with the AODA, and with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so far as they guarantee the right of people with disabilities to fully participate in and fully benefit from the health care services that the facility provides. It should endeavour to reflect the spectrum of disability needs.

#14 Each major health care facility such as each hospital should be required to establish or designate the position of Chief Accessibility/Accommodation Officer, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. Their mandate, responsibility and authority should be to ensure proper leadership on the facility’s accessibility and accommodation obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the AODA, including the requirements of this accessibility standard. This responsibility may be assigned to an existing senior management official.

#15 Beyond the specific measures to remove and prevent barriers set out in the Health Care Accessibility Standard and in other accessibility standards enacted under the AODA, each health care facility and health care provider should be required to periodically and systematically review its health care services, facilities, equipment and products to identify recurring accessibility barriers that can impede the provision of health care services to patients with disabilities. A comprehensive plan for removing and preventing these accessibility barriers should be developed, implemented and made public with clear timelines, with clear assignment of responsibilities for action, monitoring for progress, and reporting to the facility’s accessibility committee. This plan should aim at all accessibility barriers that can impede patients with disabilities from fully benefiting from the facility’s health care services, whether or not they are specifically identified in the Health Care Accessibility Standard or in any other AODA accessibility standards.

#16 The Initial Report should be expanded to recommend specific, detailed accessibility requirements in the built environment of hospitals and other health care facilities such as those recommended in Appendix 1 to this brief. The goal of these should be that the built environment in the health care system, such as hospitals and any other places where health care services are provided, including the furniture there, will all be fully accessible to people with disabilities, and will be designed based on the principle of universal design. For example:

  1. a) The front area or drop-off areas for a hospital or other health care facility should be accessible, with automatic power doors that do not require a button to be found and pressed, and with tactile walking surface indicators both to warn when a person is walking into a driving area and to guide a person to the facility’s entrance. All other entrances and exits should be fully accessible, with automatic power door operators and an accessible path of travel to the door. This includes entrances from indoor or underground parking to the health care facility.
  1. b) Inside the health care facility, major public areas such as emergency room doors should always be fully accessible and have automatic power door openers.
  1. c) For the benefit of patients and others with learning and cognitive disabilities, vision loss or other disabilities that can affect mobility or way-finding, hospitals and other health care facilities should have way-finding markings in important areas such as the main lobby from the front door to the help desk and other major routes such as to main elevators, including colour contrasted markings such as a carpeted path or tactile walking surface indicators.
  1. d) Hospitals and other health care facilities with elevators should have accessible elevators that can accommodate people using mobility devices. They should also have accessible elevator buttons (with braille and large print on or beside each button), braille and large print floor numbers just outside elevator doors, and audible floor announcements on elevators. Elevator button panels should be consistent in layout from one elevator to the next.
  1. e) Health care facilities, including hospitals, should never install “destination elevators” which require a person to pre-select the floor to which they are going before entering the elevators. These present unfixable accessibility problems.
  1. f) Hospitals and other health care facilities should have accessible signage throughout, including braille and large print, for key locations. For example, public bathrooms should have accessible braille and large print signs on them. These signs should be placed in consistent and predictable locations.
  1. g) Where a health care facility has power doors that require a button to be pushed (i.e., they don’t open automatically), the button should always be located throughout the health care facility in a consistent place to make it easier to find. The button should be located near the door, so that a slow-moving individual can make it through the open door after pressing the button before the door closes. The button should always be located on the wall, and not on a free-standing post or bollard.
  1. h) Despite weaker requirements in other AODA accessibility standards, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should set out specific and strong requirements for the accessibility of any electronic kiosks in hospitals and other health care facilities, such as:
  1. i) specifying their required end-user functionality that effectively address recurring known needs arising from specific disabilities, and,
  1. ii) ensuring that they are at an accessible height e.g., for those using a wheelchair or other mobility device.

As a starting point, see the US Access Board’s standard for accessible electronic kiosks.

  1. i) Patient consultation or treatment rooms should have enough space to enable people using mobility devices to navigate in them and reach any treatment or consultation area. They should have enough space to enable a Sign Language interpreter to be positioned in the room to interpret for a deaf patient or support person.
  1. j) Movable furniture such as desks, tables or chairs should not obstruct accessible paths of travel around a facility where health care services are delivered, such as a doctor’s office, e.g., in their hallways or treatment rooms.
  1. k) Major health care facilities should provide accessible waiting areas for accessible transit pickup and drop-off, close to the pickup/drop-off point, with clear sight lines.
  1. l) Major health care facilities such as hospitals should be designed to avoid major sensory overstimulation or acoustic overloads, such as bright lights, loud music, large atrium areas, or frequent loud announcements. This is especially important in treatment areas or hospital rooms.
  1. m) Throughout a health care facility, proper colour contrasting should be required to assist people with low vision and cognitive disabilities, such as around elevator opening, doorways, and on the edge of stairs and handrails.
  1. n) Health care facilities should be required to have accessible bathrooms so that all patients can use the facilities, including adult change tables, sufficient transfer space and maneuvering room for mobility devices.
  1. o) Major health care facilities should include sensory rooms for people with sensory overload issues, such as in hospital emergency rooms.
  1. p) In a health care facility, all stairs and staircases, including “feature staircases” (included as aesthetic design enhancements) should be accessible, e.g., with tactile warnings at the top and bottom of each set of stairs, no open risers and with proper colour contrast on railings and step edges. There should never be curving staircases.
  1. q) Health care facilities should provide charging areas for electric mobility devices.
  1. r) Hospital rooms should be able to accommodate a patient’s mobility device so they can keep theirs with them and readily available when admitted to hospital.
  1. s) In a health care facility, waiting areas, isolation areas, breastfeeding rooms, staff areas and volunteer areas should be designed to be accessible.
  1. t) Accessible and bariatric paths of travel should be provided in health care facilities.
  1. u) Despite the more limited provisions regarding the provision of accessible parking spaces in other AODA accessibility standards, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should set higher and more specific requirements for accessible parking spaces for health care facilities, such as:
  1. i) requiring a greater number of accessible parking spots for the facility, where possible.
  1. ii) requiring that the accessible parking spots be located as close as possible to the doors of the health care facility.

iii) requiring that at least some of the accessible parking spots have larger dimensions to accommodate larger accessible vans, so that a passenger with a disability can park in that spot and have sufficient room to exit the vehicle, and

  1. iv) requiring that there be accessible curb cuts and an accessible path of travel from the accessible parking spots to the health care facilities’ entrances.
  1. v) Health Care facilities should have designated snow-piling areas outside, to prevent snow from being shoveled onto accessible paths of travel.
  1. w) Major health care facilities such as hospitals should provide service animal relief areas close to the facility’s door, covered wherever possible, with an accessible path of travel to them.
  1. x) When a major new health care facility like a hospital is being designed, or a major new wing or renovation is being planned, especially if public money is helping fund it, a properly trained and qualified accessibility consultant should be required to be engaged on the project from the very beginning. Their accessible design advice should be transmitted unedited to the Government or other organization for whom the project is being built and should be made public. Direct consultation with end-users with disabilities should be part of the design process from the beginning.

#17 The standard should require that:

  1. a) Each hospital patient’s bed should have an accessible means for a patient with disabilities to notify the nursing station of a health care need, not just a button or pull-string that they may not be able to reach and operate.
  1. b) Furniture such as seating in health care facilities should be designed with accessibility features and positioned in a manner that does not block accessible paths of travel.
  1. c) A Help Desk should be positioned immediately inside the main entrance of any major health care facility, including hospitals, to assist patients, including patients with disabilities, to get directions or help to their destination within the facility, or to request other accommodation supports.
  1. d) In any discrete department or area where health care services are provided, (such as an area for day surgery), the check-in desk should be located immediately adjacent to the entrance to that area, so that patients and support people with disabilities can easily reach it after entering the room or area.
  1. e) Accessible public service counters should be installed, even in existing health care facilities, with a specified height requirement, no glass barrier creating barriers for people with hearing loss and knee space for people using a mobility device.
  1. f) A large health care facility like a hospital should have rest areas along routes through the building so that people with fatiguing conditions can stop and rest along their route to get health care services.
  1. g) Health care facilities such as hospitals should have emergency areas of refuge with separate ventilation in case of fire, so that people with disabilities who cannot escape the building have safe areas to wait, while being protected from life-threatening smoke.
  1. h) The Ontario Government should make available to health care facilities and providers: guides on accessible procurement including procurement of accessible furniture, lists of vendors of accessible furniture. The Ontario Government should provide a hub for procuring accessible furniture to help health care facilities and providers reduce the cost of their acquisition.

#18 the Ministry of Health should within one year survey all offices of physicians, chiropractors, occupational and physiotherapists and other like health care providers where they provide direct health care services to patients, on the extent to which their premises are accessible for patients with disabilities. The Ministry should make public a report on the results of this survey (anonymized).

#19 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should set specific technical requirements for the accessibility of diagnostic and treatment equipment. As a starting point, the Health Care Standards Development Committee should consider the accessible medical diagnostic equipment standards that the US Access Board has formulated. The needs of patients with all kinds of disabilities, and not only those with mobility disabilities, should be met by the technical requirements that the Health Care Accessibility Standard sets.

#20 The Ontario Government should impose a strict funding condition on the purchase or rental of any new health care diagnostic or treatment equipment anywhere in the health care system requiring that it must be accessible to patients with disabilities and designed based on principles of universal design, in compliance with the technical standards to be included in the Health Care Accessibility Standard.

#21 The Ontario Government should be required to make readily available to health care providers and facilities, and to the public, an up-to-date list of accessible health care diagnostic and treatment equipment and venders, so that each health care provider and facility does not have to re-invent the wheel by re-investigating these same issues.

#22 To save money, the Ontario Government should be required to attempt to negotiate bulk purchasing of accessible diagnostic and treatment equipment so that health care facilities and providers can obtain them at lower prices.

#23 When health care facilities and providers purchase, rent or otherwise acquire new or replacement diagnostic or treatment equipment, these should be required to be accessible to patients with disabilities and to be designed based on principles of universal design.

#24 Health care facilities and providers should survey their existing diagnostic or treatment equipment, and take the following steps to address any accessibility problems they have, if that equipment is not now being replaced:

  1. a) Identify where the nearest place is where a patient can get diagnosis or treatment services where there is accessible diagnostic and treatment equipment, and to help facilitate the access of the patient with disabilities to health care services from that provider or facility.
  1. b) Adopt and implement an interim plan to make any readily achievable accessibility improvements to the health care facility’s or provider’s existing diagnostic or treatment equipment.
  1. c) Develop plans to purchase, rent or otherwise acquire accessible diagnostic or treatment equipment over a period of up to five years.

#25 These accessibility/universal design requirements should also apply to consumer health care products, such as for example, pill bottles.

#26 Because Ontario’s system for electronic health care records has been centrally created, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the Ontario Government and any provincial agency that is responsible for overseeing the design, procurement or operation of the system for electronic health care records to ensure that these records will be kept and available in accessible formats for patients and support people with disabilities, and, as a related benefit, to health care providers and their staff with disabilities, except where technically impossible. PDF format should not be treated as being an accessible format.

#27 Individual health care organizations or facilities, including laboratories, that create their own health care records in electronic form should also be required to ensure that they are readily available in accessible formats for patients with disabilities and any patients’ support people with disabilities, and, as a side benefit, for health care providers and their staff with disabilities, except where technically impossible.

#28 All the Initial Report’s recommendations on training on accessibility laws should be revised to explicitly include training on the accessibility requirements regarding people with disabilities in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

#29 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require training on disability accessibility, disability human rights and disability Charter obligations for existing health care professionals as a condition of continuing in practice.

#30 The Ontario Government should be required to impose a condition of its funding for post-secondary education programs to train anyone in a health care discipline, profession or field, that the college or university that offers that degree or course must include a sufficient designated and mandatory curriculum on meeting the needs of patients with disabilities.

#31 Wherever possible, any new health care facility or provider receiving public funds that is setting up a new location should be required to locate at or near an accessible public transit stop on an accessible public transit route, with an accessible path of travel from the public transit stop to the health care facility or provider. Similarly, where an existing health care facility or provider is going to move to another location, it should be required to attempt to relocate to a location that is on an accessible public transit route.

#32 Where it is medically possible for a patient to take part in a health care service without physically attending at the health care facility or provider, an option should be provided for taking part remotely, e.g., via Facetime or other remote video conferencing. The Health Care Accessibility Standard should also require the removal of the OHIP barrier to funded physicians house calls.

#33 Where OHIP or a health care facility or provider has a policy or practice of permitting only one health issue per visit, an exception should be created for patients with disabilities for whom transportation to the health care facility is impeded by accessibility barriers.

#34 A health care facility or provider should not be permitted to charge a late fee or a missed appointment fee where a patient with a disability has in good faith attempted to attend on time but was made late or precluded from attending by transportation barriers (such as being made late for the appointment by the community’s para-transit service).

#35 When the Ontario Government is undertaking planning for new health care services, or for improvements to health care services, it should be required to include in those plans, and to make public, requirements to ensure that wherever possible, health care services and facilities are provided in locations on accessible public transit routes, with an accessible path of travel from the accessible public transit stop to the facility or provider.

#36 The 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard should be amended to set accessibility requirements for public transit stations and stops, as the joint July 31, 2017 AODA Alliance/ARCH brief to the Transportation Standards Development Committee recommended.

#37 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should set technical specifications to ensure the full accessibility of ambulances and other vehicles that transport patients, including patients with disabilities, to or from health care services. See also below re: the need to include equipment in those vehicles for communication with patients with communication-related disabilities.

#38 Any health care facility or provider, including such places as doctors’ offices and pharmacies, should be required to designate an accessible private area where patients with disabilities can give and receive private information in connection with their health care services or products without others being able to overhear this.

#39 Health care facilities and providers should be required to notify all patients, including patients with disabilities, of their right to have their health care needs and issues discussed and information exchanged in a private location, and should instruct their staff, including any who deal with patients or the public, of their duty to fully respect this right.

#40 Without limiting the information and communications to which this part of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should apply, it should address:

  1. a) Information or communications needed to provide a health care provider with the patient’s history, needs, symptoms or other health problems.
  1. b) Information and communications regarding the patient’s diagnosis, prognosis or treatment, including any risks, follow-up or other health care services to secure.
  1. c) A health care facility’s discharge instructions.

#41 Health Care facilities should be equipped with assistive listening devices to enable patients with hearing loss and support people with hearing loss to be able to effectively communicate e.g., at nursing stations, help desks, and when dealing directly with health care providers.

#42 Health care-related products such as prescription and non-prescription medications should be provided when needed with accessible labels, instructions or users’ manuals, available in accessible formats. Those who sell or rent these to the public should be required to regularly notify the public, including their customers, that accessible labels, instructions, and users’ manuals are available on request. See e.g. work on developing standards and practices for accessible prescription drug container labels by the US Access Board. See also the February 6, 2020 news release announcing that the Empire chain of stores, including all Sobeys Stores, will provide accessible prescription labels to customers with disabilities free of charge on request. If they can, so can all other drug stores.

#43 Where a health care facility or health care provider provides information about their services or facilities in print or via the internet, they should be required to ensure that their website meets current international accessibility requirements along prompt time lines, even if the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard does not now require this. Currently, the Information and Communication Accessibility Information and Communication Accessibility Standard has too many exemptions, leaves out too many providers of goods and services, and has timelines that are too long. Whether or not those exemptions, exclusions and long timelines are justified for other sectors, they are unjustified for a sector as important as the health care sector.

#44 Ambulances and other vehicles that transport patients should include equipment to facilitate communication with patients with communication disabilities, such as remotely-accessed sign language interpretation and other communication supports.

#45 The Ontario Government should be required to set up hubs or centralized services to enable health care facilities and providers, including small providers, to quickly and easily access communication supports needed for patients with communication-related disabilities (for example Sign Language interpreters and real time captioning). The Ontario Government should fund these services as part of its funding of the health care system, in furtherance of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Eldridge decision.

#46 Any prepared information on health care conditions, treatment instructions, prognoses, risks, laboratory or other test results and the like which a health care facility or provider makes available to patients, whether in print or electronic form, should be made available at the same time on request in an accessible format. The standard should direct that PDF format is not sufficient to be accessible, and that if information is available in a PDF document, it should also be posted in an accessible format such as HTML or MS Word. Health care facilities and providers should be required to notify patients, including patients and their support people with disabilities, that any hard copy or electronic documents provided to them can be requested and obtained in an accessible format on request.

#47 Where a health care facility or provider asks patients or their support people to use information technology hardware or software in connection with the delivery of health care services (such as asking them to fill out their medical history on a portable computer or tablet device), the facility or provider shall:

  1. a) In the case of new or updated information technology or equipment to be acquired, ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities and is designed based on principles of universal design;
  1. b) In the case of existing information technology now being used, retrofit to be accessible except where this would pose an undue hardship and,
  1. c) For those people who prefer this option, ensure that patients with disabilities or their support people with disabilities are assisted to use that technology, in private, at the same time as others would use it, where this would not reduce their access to the health care services to which it pertains.

#48 The Ontario Government should be required to develop and make public a strategy for ensuring that health care promotion initiatives in Ontario are accessible to people with disabilities. For example, it should require that:

  1. a) All advertisements for health care promotion should have captioning and audio description.
  1. b) All mail-out, printed and online materials focusing on health promotion should be required to be in accessible formats, regardless of any exemptions in the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard.

#49 Hospitals and other major health care facilities should be required to provide support services for patients with disabilities when needed to ensure that those patients can fully access and benefit from the health care services that the facility offers, to let patients know about the availability of these services, and to annually publicly report on the number of staff available to provide this support, such as:

  1. a) Attendant care.
  1. b) Assistance with meals.
  1. c) Assistance with being guided to and getting around the health care facility e.g., for patients with vision loss or cognitive disabilities.

#50 In a hospital or other major health care facility, there should be one nurse at each nursing station designated to receive training and to be responsible for addressing the needs of patients with complex needs due to their disability.

#51 Each health care provider and facility should be required to put in place a system and designate a person to solicit and receive requests from patients or their support people for disability accommodations in connection with health care services or products.

#52 Each health care provider or facility should be required to make readily-available to the public, including to their patients, in an accessible format, information about how to identify themselves in advance to the health care provider as having disability-related accessibility or accommodation needs, and to ask to arrange for these needs to be met.

#53 Each hospital and larger health care facility should be required to collect anonymized information on disability-related accessibility and accommodation requests received from or on behalf of patients with disabilities, to assist that health care provider or facility in planning for future disability accessibility and accommodation. This anonymized information should be available for study by the Government or other health policy planners.

#54 The Chief Executive Officer of any hospital or large health care facility should be required to annually review the information that the facility has collected on the requests for disability accessibility and accommodation that the facility has received and report to the board of directors on measures that could improve the facility’s capacity to meet these needs.

#55 Each health care profession’s self-governing college should be required to:

  1. a) Review its public complaints process to identify any barriers at any stage in that process that could adversely affect people with disabilities filing a complaint, or about whom a complaint is filed.
  1. b) Develop a plan for removing and preventing any accessibility barriers identified, whether or not those barriers are specified in any current AODA accessibility standards.
  1. c) Publicly report to its governing board of directors and the public on these barriers and the college’s plans to remove and prevent such barriers, in order to achieve a barrier-free complaints process.
  1. d) Establish and maintain a standing committee of its governing board of directors responsible for the accessibility of the services that the college offers the public, including, but not limited to its public complaints process.
  1. e) Consult with the public, including people with disabilities, on barriers that people with disabilities experience when seeking the services of the health care professionals that that profession regulates, to be shared with the board’s Accessibility Committee. To avoid duplication of efforts and burdens on the disability community, several regulatory colleges can jointly undertake this consultation.

#56 The Ministry of Health should be required to designate a senior official at the “Assistant Deputy Minister” level as the leading public official who is responsible for ensuring accessibility, accommodation and inclusion for patients with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. They should be responsible for ensuring that any policies, plans or proposals regarding the health care system are screened to ensure that they will not create any new barriers for patients with disabilities, and will instead remove barriers.

#57 The Ministry of Health should be required to conduct a system-wide review of the health care system for any systemic barriers, in consultation with the public including people with disabilities. It should identify and make public a plan to remove and prevent systemic or system-wide barriers that impede patients with disabilities from receiving accessible health care, along time lines that the Health Care Accessibility Standard will set.

#58 Each hospital and other major health care facility should be required to establish and regularly publicize a dedicated disability accessibility/accommodation complaints hotline, to trigger prompt action when problems are raised.

#59 The Ministry of Health should be required to establish and regularly publicize a hotline to receive complaints about accessibility problems facing patients and support people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. The Ministry should be required to annually publish a report with an anonymized summary of the substance of complaints received and action taken to prevent their recurrence.

#60 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the creation of authoritative, well-trained system navigators to assist patients with disabilities and their support people to navigate Ontario’s health care system.

#61 The OHIP fee schedule should be revised to provide for added time to serve the needs of patients with disabilities who need more time for assessment, diagnosis and treatment, to eliminate the harmful financial incentive that the Ontario Government now creates for physicians to avoid treating taking on those patients.

#62 Each hospital and major health care facility should be required to establish a committee of those employees and volunteers with disabilities who wish to voluntarily join it, to give the facility’s senior management feedback on the barriers in the health care facility that could impede patients with disabilities or any patients’ support people with disabilities, and/or employees/volunteers with disabilities.

#63 The Health Care Standards Development Committee should endorse the recommendations regarding health care services in the Initial Report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools.

#64 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 15 regarding the conduct of an after-the fact review of the problems facing people with disabilities in accessing health care during the COVID-19 pandemic should be revised so that this review is an Independent Review conducted by trusted and respected persons who are independent of the Government and of the health care system.

#65 The Initial Report should recommend that the Health Care Accessibility Standard

  1. a) Require the Government to immediately rescind the January 13, 2021 critical care triage protocol and all directions and training materials relating to it, and should direct that these are not to be followed or considered appropriate under any situation.
  1. b) Require the Ontario Government to immediately make public all versions of the critical care triage protocol that have been in force in Ontario, or distributed to hospitals, as well as any critical care triage protocol or directions to ambulances or other emergency services, and any reports that the government received from the Government-appointed Bioethics Table.
  1. c) Require that if critical care triage is directed to occur during this or other emergencies, the Government shall make public on a daily basis the number of patients who are refused or denied critical care that they need and want, due to critical care triage.
  1. e) Require that the Clinical Frailty Scale shall not be used as a tool to decide who is to ever be refused critical care they need and want.
  1. f) Forbid the use or distribution of the “Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator” that was made available under the auspices of Critical Care Services Ontario to all Ontario hospitals.

#66 the Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the Government to ensure the availability of remote or distance delivery of health care services where medically feasible, and where patients with disabilities face barriers attending at a health care office or facility to receive such services.

#67 The Initial Report should be expanded to list a full range of disability barriers reported to the Standards Development Committee in access to health care during the pandemic.



Source link

In a Detailed Report Card Delivered During National AccessAbility Week, the Ford Government Gets a Blistering “F” Grade for Its Three Year Record Since Taking Office on Action to Make Ontario Accessible for 2.6 Million Ontarians with Disabilities


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In a Detailed Report Card Delivered During National AccessAbility Week, the Ford Government Gets a Blistering “F” Grade for Its Three Year Record Since Taking Office on Action to Make Ontario Accessible for 2.6 Million Ontarians with Disabilities

May 31, 2021 Toronto: During National AccessAbility Week, the non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance releases a report card (set out below) on the Ford Government’s record for tearing down the barriers that people with disabilities face, awarding the Government an “F” grade.

When he was campaigning for votes in the 2018 election, Doug Ford said that our issues “are close to the hearts of our Ontario PC Caucus” and that:

“Too many Ontarians with disabilities still face barriers when they try to get a job, ride public transit, get an education, use our healthcare system, buy goods or services, or eat in restaurants.”

Yet three years after taking office, people with disabilities are no better off, and in some important ways, are worse off, according to today’s new report card. Passed unanimously in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Ontario Government to lead this province to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Ontario is nowhere near that goal with under four years left. The Ford Government has no effective plan to meet that deadline.

This report card’s key findings include:

  1. The Ford Government has no comprehensive plan of action on accessibility, 851 days after receiving the Report of David Onley’s AODA Independent Review.
  1. The Government has not ensured that public money will never be used to create new accessibility barriers.
  1. The Ford Government has failed to enact or strengthen any accessibility standards under the AODA.

 

  1. The Ford Government has announced no new action to effectively ensure the accessibility of public transportation.

 

  1. The Ford Government imposed substantial and harmful delays in the work of Five important AODA Standards Development Committees that was underway before the Government took office.

 

  1. The Ford Government has repeatedly violated its mandatory duty under the AODA to make public the initial or final recommendations of a Government-appointed Standards Development Committee “upon receiving” those recommendations.

 

  1. The Ford Government has failed for 3 years to fulfil its mandatory duty to appoint a Standards Development Committee to review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard.

 

  1. The Ford Government has made public no detailed plan for effective AODA enforcement.

 

  1. In a waste of public money, the Ford Government diverted 1.3 million dollars into the Rick Hansen Foundation’s controversial private accessibility certification process. This has resulted in no disability barriers being removed or prevented.

 

  1. The Ford Government unfairly burdened Ontarians with disabilities with having to fight against new safety dangers being created by municipalities allowing electric scooters.

 

  1. The Ford Government’s rhetoric has been harmfully diluting the AODA’s goal of full accessibility.

 

  1. The Ford Government has given public voice to false and troubling stereotypes About disability accessibility.

 

  1. The Ford Government has failed to effectively address the urgent needs of Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

  1. The lives of vulnerable Ontarians with disabilities are endangered by the Ford Government’s secret plans for critical care triage during the COVID-19 pandemic, If hospitals cannot serve All critical care Patients.

“We keep offering the Ford Government constructive ideas, but too often, they are disregarded,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance which campaigns for accessibility for people with disabilities. “Premier Ford hasn’t even met with us, and has turned down every request for a meeting.”

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has had to resort to a court application (now pending) to get the Ford Government to fulfil one of its important duties under the AODA, and a Freedom of Information application to try to force the Ford Government to release its secret plans for critical care triage if the COVID-19pandemic worsens, requiring rationing of critical care.

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

Twitter: @aodaalliance

 A Report Card on the Ford Government’s Record, After Three Years in Office, on Achieving Disability Accessibility

May 31, 2021

Prepared by the AODA Alliance

 Introduction

This year’s National AccessAbility Week takes place when Ontario’s Ford Government is completing its third year of a four year term in office. This is an especially appropriate time to take stock of how well the Ford Government is doing at advancing the goal of making Ontario accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, the deadline which the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enshrines in Ontario law.

It is with a strong sense of frustration that we award the Ford Government a failing “F” grade for its record on this issue.

The Ontario Public Service includes quite a number of public officials who are deeply and profoundly dedicated to the goal of tearing down barriers impeding people with disabilities, and preventing the creation of new disability barriers. They have commendably found quite a number of willing partners within the disability community (both individuals and disability organizations), and among obligated organizations in the public and private sectors. These partners are also committed to the goal of accessibility, and have in their spheres of influenced tried to move things forward. To all these people we and people with disabilities generally are indebted.

For example, several Standards Development Committees have been appointed under the AODA to craft recommendations on what enforceable AODA accessibility standards should include to be strong and effective. They have invested many hours, trying to come up with workable recommendations.

As well, over the past three years, the Ontario Government has continued to operate voluntary programs that have existed for years to contribute to the goal of accessibility. The Ford Government has also, we believe, improved things by freeing its Standards Development Committees from excessive involvement by Public Service staff. This has enabled those staff to support the work of those committees, while leaving them free to do their own work, devising recommendations for the Government.

However, all of that cannot succeed in bringing Ontario to the goal of an accessible province by 2025, without strong leadership by the Ontario Government and those who steer it. This has been the conclusion of three successive Independent Reviews, conducted under the AODA, by Charles Beer in 2010, by Mayo Moran in 2014 and by David Onley in 2018.

Over the past three years, we regret that that leadership has continued to be lacking. The result is that Ontario is falling further and further behind the goal of an accessible province by 2025. Less and less time is available to correct that.

This report details several of the key ways that the Ontario Government has fallen far short of what Ontarians with disabilities need. As the Government’s mandatory annual report on its efforts on accessibility back in 2019 reveals, the Government’s prime focus has been on trying to raise awareness about accessibility. As has been the Ontario Government’s practice for years, that 2019 annual report was belatedly posted on line on the eve of the 2021 National AccessAbility Week, two years after many of the events reported in it.

Decades of experience, leading to the enactment of the AODA in 2005, has proven over and over that such awareness-raising and voluntary measures won’t get Ontario to the goal of accessibility by 2025, or indeed, ever. As always, the AODA Alliance, as a non-partisan coalition, remains ready, willing, able, and eager to work with the Government, and to offer constructive ideas on how it can change course and fulfil the AODA’s dream that the Legislature unanimously endorsed in May 2005.

1. The Ford Government Has No Comprehensive Plan of Action on Accessibility, 851 Days After Receiving the Report of David Onley’s AODA Independent Review

We have been urging the Ford Government to develop a detailed plan on accessibility since shortly after it took office, to lay out how it will get Ontario to the AODA’s mandatory goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. It has never done so.

In December 2018, the Ford Government said it was awaiting the final report of former Lieutenant Governor David Onley’s Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, before deciding what it would do regarding accessibility for people with disabilities. On January 31, 2019, the Government received the final report of the David Onley Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement. Minister for Accessibility Raymond Cho publicly said on April 10, 2019 that David Onley did a “marvelous job.”

The Onley report found that Ontario is still full of “soul-crushing” barriers impeding people with disabilities. It concluded that progress on accessibility has taken place at a “glacial pace.” It determined that that the goal of accessibility by 2025 is nowhere in sight, and that specific new Government actions, spelled out in the report, are needed.

However, in the 851 days since receiving the Onley Report, the Ford Government has not made public a detailed plan to implement that report’s findings and recommendations. The Government has staged some media events with the Accessibility Minister to make announcements, but little if anything new was ever announced. The Government repeated pledges to lead by example on accessibility, and to take an all-of-Government approach to accessibility. But these pledges were backed by nothing new to make them mean anything more than when previous governments and ministers engaged in similar rhetorical flourishes.

2. The Government Has Not Ensured that Public Money Will Never Be Used to Create New Accessibility Barriers

In its three years in office, we have seen no effective action by the Ford Government to ensure that public money is never used to create new disability barriers or to perpetuate existing barriers. The Ontario Government spends billions of public dollars on infrastructure and on procuring goods, services and facilities, without ensuring that no new barriers are thereby created, and that no existing barriers are thereby perpetuated.

As but one example, last summer, the Ford Government announced that it would spend a half a billion dollars on the construction of new schools and on additions to existing schools. However, it announced no action to ensure that those new construction projects are fully accessible to students, teachers, school staff and parents with disabilities. The Ontario Ministry of Education has no effective standards or policies in place to ensure this accessibility, and has announced no plans to create any.

3. The Ford Government Has Enacted or Strengthened No Accessibility Standards

In its three years in power, the Ford Government has enacted no new AODA accessibility standards. It has revised no existing accessibility standards to strengthen them. It has not begun the process of developing any new accessibility standards that were not already under development when the Ford Government took office in June 2018.

As one major example, the Ford Government has not committed to develop and enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, to ensure that the built environment becomes accessible to people with disabilities. No AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard now exists. None is under development.

This failure to act is especially striking for two reasons. First, the last two AODA Independent Reviews, the 2014 Independent Review by Mayo Moran and the 2019 Independent Review by David Onley, each identified the disability barriers in the built environment as a priority. They both called for new action under the AODA. Second, when he was seeking the public’s votes in the 2018 Ontario election, Doug Ford made specific commitments regarding the disability barriers in the built environment. Doug Ford’s May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out his party’s election commitments on disability accessibility, included this:

  1. a) “Your issues are close to the hearts of our Ontario PC Caucus and Candidates, which is why they will play an outstanding role in shaping policy for the Ontario PC Party to assist Ontarians in need.”
  1. b) “Whether addressing standards for public housing, health care, employment or education, our goal when passing the AODA in 2005 was to help remove the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating more fully in their communities.”
  1. c) “Making Ontario fully accessible by 2025 is an important goal under the AODA and it’s one that would be taken seriously by an Ontario PC government.”
  1. d) “This is why we’re disappointed the current government has not kept its promise with respect to accessibility standards. An Ontario PC government is committed to working with the AODA Alliance to address implementation and enforcement issues when it comes to these standards.

Ontario needs a clear strategy to address AODA standards and the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions. We need Ontario’s design professionals, such as architects, to receive substantially improved professional training on disability and accessibility.”

4. The Ford Government Has Announced No New Action to Effectively Ensure the Accessibility of Public Transportation

Just before the 2018 Ontario election, the Ontario Government received the final recommendations for reforms to the Transportation Accessibility Standard from the AODA Transportation Standards Development committee. Since then, and over the ensuing three years in office, the Ford Government announced no action on those recommendations. It has not publicly invited any input or consultation on those recommendations. At the same time, the Ford Government has made major announcements about the future of public transit infrastructure in Ontario. As such, barriers in public transportation remained while the risk remains that new ones will continue to be created.

 5. The Ford Government Imposed Substantial and Harmful Delays in the Work of Five Important AODA Standards Development Committees that was Underway Before the Government Took Office

When the Ford Government won the 2018 Ontario election, the work of five AODA Standards Development Committees were all frozen, pending the new Minister for Accessibility getting a briefing. Any delay in the work of those committees would further slow the AODA’s sluggish implementation documented in the Onley Report.

Those Standards Development Committees remained frozen for months, long after the minister needed time to be briefed. We had to campaign for months to get that freeze lifted.

Over four months later, in November 2018, the Ford Government belatedly lifted its freeze on the work of the Employment Standards Development Committee and the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee. However it did not then also lift the freeze on the work of the three other Standards Development Committees, those working on proposals for accessibility standards in health care and education.

We had to keep up the pressure for months. The Ford Government waited until March 7, 2019 before it announced that it was lifting its freeze on the work of the Health Care Standards Development Committee and the two Education Standards Development Committees. It was as long as half a year after that announcement that those three Standards Development Committees finally got back to work.

In the meantime, the many unfair disability barriers in Ontario’s education system and Ontario’s health care system remained in place, while new ones continued to be created. The final enactment of new accessibility standards in the areas of health care and education was delayed commensurately, as was the enactment of revisions to strengthen Ontario’s 2011 Information and Communication Accessibility Standard and Ontario’s 2011 Employment Accessibility Standard.

6. The Ford Government Has Repeatedly Violated Its Mandatory Duty Under the AODA to Make Public the Initial or Final Recommendations of a Government-Appointed Standards Development Committee “Upon Receiving” Those Recommendations

Section 10(1) of the AODA requires the Government to make public the initial or final recommendations that it receives from a Standards Development Committee, appointed under the AODA “upon receiving” those recommendations. The Ontario Government under successive governments and ministers has wrongly taken the approach that it can delay making those recommendations public for months despite the AODA‘s clear, mandatory and unambiguous language.

The Ford Government has certainly taken this troubling approach. It delayed some two years before making public the final recommendations of the Employment Standards Development Committee earlier this year. It delayed some six months before making public the final recommendations of the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee last year. It delayed over five months before making public the initial recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee earlier this month. It has delayed over two months so far in making public the initial recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee.

As a result, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has brought a court application, now pending, to seek an order compelling the Ford Government to obey the AODA. This is especially disturbing, because the Government is leading by such a poor example when it comes to the AODA. Its delay in complying with s. 10 of the AODA slows the already-slow process of developing and enacting or revising accessibility standards under the AODA.

7. The Ford Government Has for 3 Years Failed to Fulfil Its Mandatory Duty to Appoint A Standards Development Committee to Review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard

The AODA required the Ontario Government to appoint a Standards Development Committee to review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard by the end of 2017. Neither the previous Wynne Government nor the current Ford Government have fulfilled this legal duty. This is a mandatory AODA requirement.

The Ford Government has had three years in office to learn about this duty and to fulfil it. We flagged it for the Government very soon after it took office in 2018.

8. The Ford Government Has Made Public No Detailed Plan for Effective AODA Enforcement

During its three years in office, the Ford Government has announced no public plan to substantially strengthen the AODA’s weak enforcement. Three years ago, the Ford Government inherited the previous McGuinty Government’s and Wynne Government’s multi-year failure to effectively and vigourously enforce the AODA. What little enforcement that took place fell far short of what people with disabilities needed, as is confirmed in both the 2015 Moran Report and the 2019 Onley Report. The failure to effectively enforce the AODA has contributed to Ontario falling so far behind the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

 

9. In a Waste of Public Money, the Ford Government Diverted 1.3 Million Dollars into the Rick Hansen Foundation’s Controversial Private Accessibility Certification Process

The only significant new action that the Ford Government has announced on accessibility over its first three years in office was its announcement over two years ago in the April 11, 2019 Ontario Budget that it would spend 1.3 million public dollars over two years to have the Rick Hansen Foundation’s private accessibility certification process “certify” some 250 buildings, belonging to business or the public sector, for accessibility. In two years, this has not been shown to lead to the removal or prevention of a single barrier against people with disabilities anywhere in the built environment. It has predictably been a waste of public money.

The Ford Government did not consult the AODA Alliance or, to our knowledge, the disability community, before embarking on this wasteful project. It ignored serious concerns with spending public money on such a private accessibility certification process. These concerns have been public for well over five years. The Ford Government gave no public reasons for rejecting these concerns.

A private accessibility certification risks misleading the public, including people with disabilities. It also risks misleading the organization that seeks this so-called certification. It “certifies” nothing.

A private organization might certify a building as accessible, and yet people with disabilities may well find that the building itself, or the services offered in the building, still have serious accessibility problems. Such a certification provides no defence to an accessibility complaint or proceeding under the AODA, under the Ontario Building Code, under a municipal bylaw, under the Ontario Human Rights Code, or under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If an organization gets a good -level accessibility certification, it may think they have done all they need to do on accessibility. The public, including people with disabilities, and design professionals may be misled to think that this is a model of accessibility to be emulated, and that it is a place that will be easy to fully access. This can turn out not to be the case, especially if the assessor uses the Rick Hansen Foundation’s insufficient standard to assess accessibility, and/or if it does not do an accurate job of assessing the building and/or if the assessor’s only training is the inadequate short training that the Rick Hansen Foundation created.

For example, the Ford Government got the Rick Hansen Foundation to certify as accessible the huge New Toronto Courthouse now under construction. Yet we have shown that its plans are replete with serious accessibility problems. The Rick Hansen Foundation’s assessor never contacted the AODA Alliance to find out about our serious concerns with the courthouse’s design before giving it a rating of “accessible.”

The Rick Hansen Foundation’s private accessibility certification process lacks much-needed public accountability. The public has no way to know if the private accessibility assessor is making accurate assessments. It is not subject to Freedom of Information laws. It operates behind closed doors. It lacks the kind of public accountability that applies to a government audit or inspection or other enforcement. For more details on the problems with private accessibility certification processes, read the AODA Alliance’s February 1, 2016 brief on the problems with publicly funding any private accessibility certification process.

10. The Ford Government Unfairly Burdened Ontarians with Disabilities with Having to Fight Against New Barriers Being Created by Municipalities Allowing Electric Scooters

It is bad enough that the Ford Government did too little in its first three years in office to tear down the many existing barriers that impede people with disabilities. It is even worse that the Government took action that will create new disability barriers, and against which people with disabilities must organize to battle at the municipal level.

When the Ford Government took office in June 2018, it was illegal to ride electric scooters (e-scooters) in public places. In January 2019, over the strenuous objection of Ontario’s disability community, the Ford Government passed a new regulation. It lets each municipality permit the use of e-scooters in public places, if they wish. It did not require municipalities to protect people with disabilities from the dangers that e-scooters pose to them.

Silent, high-speed e-scooters racing towards pedestrians at over 20 KPH, ridden by an unlicensed, untrained, uninsured joy-riders, endanger people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. Leaving e-scooters strewn all over in public places, as happens in other cities that permit them, creates physical barriers to people using wheelchairs and walkers. They create tripping hazards for people with vision loss.

Torontonians with disabilities had to mount a major campaign to convince Toronto City Council to reject the idea of allowing e-scooters. They were up against a feeding-frenzy of well-funded and well-connected corporate lobbyists, the lobbyists who clearly hold sway with the Ontario Premier’s office.

Unlike Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor have allowed e-scooters, disregarding the danger they now pose for people with disabilities. Some other Ontario cities are considering allowing them.

Thanks to the Ford Government, people with disabilities must now campaign against e-scooters, city by city. This is a huge, unfair burden that people with disabilities did not need, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a cruel irony that the Ford Government unleashed the danger of personal injuries by e-scooters at the same time as it has said it wants to reduce the number of concussions in Ontario.

11. The Ford Government’s Rhetoric Has Been Harmfully Diluting the AODA’s Goal of Full Accessibility

A core feature of the AODA is that it requires Ontario become “accessible” to people with disabilities by 2025. It does not merely say that Ontario should become “more accessible” by that deadline.

Yet, the Ford Government too often only talks about making Ontario more accessible. In fairness, the previous Ontario Liberal Government under Premier Dalton McGuinty and later Premier Kathleen Wynne too often did the same.

This dilutes the goal of the AODA, for which people with disabilities fought so hard for a decade. It hurts people with disabilities. It is no doubt used to try to lower expectations and over-inflate any accomplishments.

 

12. The Ford Government Has Given Public Voice to False Troubling Stereotypes About Disability Accessibility

 

Two years ago, the Ford Government publicly voiced very troubling and harmful stereotypes about the AODA and disability accessibility during National AccessAbility Week.

In 2019, during National AccessAbility Week, NDP MPP Joel Harden proposed a that the Legislature pass a resolution that called for the Government to bring forward a plan in response to the Onley Report. The resolution was worded in benign and non-partisan words, which in key ways tracked Doug Ford’s May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance. The proposed resolution stated:

“That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Ontario should release a plan of action on accessibility in response to David Onley’s review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act that includes, but is not limited to, a commitment to implement new standards for the built environment, stronger enforcement of the Act, accessibility training for design professionals, and an assurance that public money is never again used to create new accessibility barriers.”

Premier Ford had every good reason to support this proposed resolution, as we explained in the June 10, 2019 AODA Alliance Update. Yet, as described in detail in the June 11, 2019 AODA Alliance Update, the Doug Ford Government used its majority in the Legislature to defeat this resolution on May 30, 2019, right in the middle of National Access Abilities Week.

The speeches by Conservative MPPs in the Legislature on the Government’s behalf, in opposition to that motion, voiced false and harmful stereotypes about disability accessibility. Those statements in effect called into serious question the Ford Government’s commitment to the effective implementation and enforcement of the AODA. They denigrated the creation and enforcement of AODA accessibility standards as red tape that threatened to imperil businesses and hurt people with disabilities.

13. The Ford Government Has Failed to Effectively Address the Urgent Needs of Ontarians with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

All of the foregoing would be enough in ordinary times to merit the “F” grade which the Ford Government is here awarded. However, its treatment of people with disabilities and their accessibility needs during the COVID-19 pandemic makes that grade all the more deserved.

In the earliest weeks, the Government deserved a great deal of leeway for responding to the pandemic, because it was understandably caught off guard, as was the world, by the enormity of this nightmare. However, even well after the initial shock period when the pandemic hit and for the year or more since then, the Ford Government has systemically failed to effectively address the distinctive and heightened urgent needs of people with disabilities in the pandemic.

People with disabilities were foreseeably exposed to disproportionately contract COVID-19, to suffer its worst hardships and to die from it. Yet too often the Government took a failed “one size fits all” approach to its emergency planning, that failed to address the urgent needs of people with disabilities. This issue has preoccupied the work of the AODA Alliance and many other disability organizations over the past 14 months.

Two of the areas where the Government most obviously failed were in health care and education. This is especially inexcusable since the Government had the benefit of a Health Care Standards Development Committee, a K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and a Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to give the Government ideas and advice throughout the pandemic. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee delivered a detailed package of recommendations for the pandemic response four months into the pandemic. Yet those recommendations have largely if not totally gone unimplemented.

The Government repeatedly left it to each school board, college, university, and health care provider to each separately figure out what disability barriers had arisen during the pandemic, and how to remove and prevent those barriers. This is a predictable formula for wasteful duplication of effort, for increased costs and workloads, all in the middle of a pandemic.

For example, the Ford Government largely left it to each frontline teacher and principal to figure out how to accommodate the recurring needs of students with different disabilities during distance learning. The Government relied on TVO as a major partner in delivering distance learning to school students, even though TVO’s distance learning offerings have accessibility barriers that are unforgivable at any time, and especially during a pandemic.

As another example, the Ford Government did not properly plan to ensure that the process for booking and arranging a COVID-19 vaccine was disability-accessible. There is no specific accessible booking hotline to help people with disabilities navigate the booking process from beginning to end.

There is no assurance that drug stores or others through whom vaccines can be booked have accessible websites. We have received complaints that the Government’s own online booking portal has accessibility problems. Arranging for a barrier-free vaccination for People with Disabilities is even harder than the public is finding for just booking a vaccination for those with no disabilities.

14. The Lives of Vulnerable People with Disabilities are Endangered by the Ford Government’s Secret Plans for Critical Care Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic, If Hospitals Cannot Serve All Critical Care Patients

The AODA Alliance, working together with other disability organizations, has also had to devote a great deal of effort to try to combat the danger that vulnerable people with disabilities would face disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical care if the pandemic overloads hospitals, leading to critical care triage. The Ford Government has created new disability barriers by allowing clear disability discrimination to be entrenched in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol. Even though formal critical care triage has not yet been directed, there is a real danger that it has occurred on the front lines without proper public accountability e.g. by ambulance crews declining to offer critical care to some patients at roadside, when called via 911.

The Ford Government has allowed a concerted disinformation campaign to be led by those who designed the Ontario critical care triage protocol, and who are falsely claiming that there is no disability discrimination in that protocol.

Further Background

Further background on all of the issues addressed in this report card can be found on the AODA Alliance’s web site. It has separate pages, linked to its home page, addressing such topics as accessibility issues in transportation, health care, education, information and communication, the built environment, AODA enforcement, and disability issues arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, among others. Follow @aodaalliance



Source link

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