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

As The Ford Government Back-Pedals and Scrambles to Re-Invent Its Response to the COVID-19 Crisis, Will It Make Public and Fix Its Disability-Discriminatory Critical Care Triage Plans?


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/

As The Ford Government Back-Pedals and Scrambles to Re-Invent Its Response to the COVID-19 Crisis, Will It Make Public and Fix Its Disability-Discriminatory Critical Care Triage Plans?

April 22, 2021

            SUMMARY

The Ford Government appears shell-shocked, as it flip-flops, back-tracks and scrambles to respond to the imminent threat that Ontario will run out of space and staff to deliver life-saving critical care to all patients who need it.

Here are yet more recent developments in the non-partisan campaign to try to ensure that people with disabilities will not face disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical care, if that care is rationed or “triaged.” Regrettably, the Government has shown no willingness to lift the fog of secrecy over its critical care triage plans, to talk directly to disability advocates and organizations about it, or to fix the serious problems with its critical care triage protocol and plans.

1. The Latest Developments in a Nutshell

  1. On Tuesday night, April 20, 2021, a very successful online virtual public forum was held to discuss the critical care triage issue as it affects people with disabilities. Key speakers were AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky and ARCH Disability Law Centre Executive Director Robert Lattanzio. We are thrilled that an impressive 280 people took part. They got action tips on how to help with our fight against the danger of disability discrimination in critical care triage, if triage takes place.

We all wish there was more time to take all the questions that so many wanted to ask. A huge thank you goes to all who helped organize this event, and all who took the time to attend it.

  1. The disability objections to Ontario’s controversial critical care triage protocol and plans were raised on Tuesday, April 20 and Wednesday April 21, 2021 in the Ontario Legislature’s Question Period. Below, you can read these exchanges and our reflections on them.
  1. On Wednesday, April 21, 2022, Ontario New Democratic Party disabilities critic Joel Harden held a virtual Queen’s Park news conference, focusing on disability objections to Ontario’s critical care triage protocol and plans. The speakers that MPP Harden invited to make remarks included AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, ARCH Disability Law Centre legal counsel Mariam Shanouda, and Disability Justice Network of Ontario co-founder Sarah Jama. The AODA Alliance appreciated the opportunity to contribute to this event. As a non-partisan coalition, we take part in news conferences convened by any of the political parties to which we are invited, where the event provides a helpful platform to raise our issues.

Arising out of this well-attended news conference, the NDP issued a news release on April 21, 2022, set out below. It includes a quotation from AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky setting out our position. It includes quotations from the other speakers as well.

  1. The influential publication QP Briefing ran a strong article on April 21, 2021, arising from that day’s news conference. We set it out below.
  2. The April 22, 2021 online edition of the Ottawa Citizen includes a guest column on the triage issue by NDP disabilities critic Joel Harden. We also provide it for you in this Update.

2. Yet More Reflections on Ongoing Ford Government Failure to Respond to Our Disability Concerns with Its Critical Care Triage Protocol and Plans

  1. We have gotten more and more feedback from people with disabilities about the critical care triage disability objections. We keep hearing that people are frightened and angry. As if the COVID-19 pandemic was not bad enough, this issue makes them feel even more vulnerable and at risk.

At the same time, the message we all hear from the public around Ontario over the past six days has been louder than ever: The Ford Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic needs a major re-think, and fast. We’ve added that this rapid re-think needs to include Ontario’s critical care triage protocol and plans.

  1. In the Legislature’s Question Period this week, the Ford Government offered the public evasions and contradictions on this issue.

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021, Health Minister Christine Elliott made a statement that many understood as denying that there even is an Ontario critical care triage protocol.  She stated:

“I think one thing is really important, Speaker, and I would say to the member opposite, through you, that the speaker is alleging that there is a triage protocol in place in Ontario. There is not; there is not.”

This, of course, would contradict the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, which has been posted on the AODA Alliance website for three months. It would contradict the January 23, 2021 online webinar provided by Critical Care Services Ontario which tries to convince doctors to ready themselves to use that protocol if it becomes necessary. It would contradict the interview on the April 21, 2021 CBC Ottawa Morning radio program in which Dr. James Downar, the author or co-author of that protocol, defended it.

On Twitter, a number of members of the public angrily denounced the Minister’s statement. The next day, April 21, 2021, Health Minister Christine Elliott acknowledged that there is a critical care triage protocol, but said it has not yet gone into operation. She stated:

“I can certainly advise the member that no triage protocol has been activated or approved by the government of Ontario.

There have been discussions. I understand that there were a number of disability groups that were concerned with respect to a previous draft that was prepared earlier this year. That was then reviewed with the human rights commission. There have been a number of discussions about modifications to it. But nothing has been activated, nothing has been approved by this government.”

  1. The Health Minister said that there were objections from disability groups to an earlier draft of the critical care triage protocol. That is true. However, we have repeatedly made public that we also object to the most recent version of it, the one issued to hospitals dated January 13, 2021.
  2. Also in the Legislature, the Ford Government refused to answer a clear, simple and direct question on what instructions regarding critical care triage have been given to ambulance crews. In Question Period on April 21, 2021, MPP Joel Harden asked Health Minister Elliott:

“Speaker, I want to ask the minister, who is very well versed in these issues: What instructions have been sent out and drafted to emergency medical technicians, ambulance services or health professionals about who will live and who will die in our ICUs?”

The Minister’s response did not answer this important question. The AODA Alliance asked the Health Minister the same thing two months ago in our February 25, 2021 letter to her. The Government has never answered that question or that letter.

In Health Minister Elliott’s April 21, 2021 answer in Question Period, an impression may be created that the Government has been consulting on the critical care triage protocol. No one has consulted us on the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol.

  1. In its defence, the Ford Government said it is now reaching out to others outside Ontario, to see if they can bring more doctors, nurses and other needed health professionals to help out in Ontario’s intensive care units. This is a much-needed measure. It could avert the need for any critical care triage.

However, we must ask why the Ford Government was not doing this weeks and months ago, when it was given ample early warning that Ontario was at risk of critical care overload. Had it done so, we would not be facing the imminent danger we now are confronting. The Ford Government could have had in place detailed emergency plans to shuttle health care professionals to Ontario, with prior clearances from the relevant licensing bodies so they can work here in this emergency. This further illustrates Ontario’s failure to properly prepare.

For more information on these issues, visit the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

            MORE DETAILS

Ontario Hansard April 20, 2021

Question Period

COVID-19 RESPONSE

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier. For months, experts including members of the Premier’s own science table have been sounding the alarm about dangerously high ICU levels, and today we learned that there are over 760 people fighting for their lives in Ontario ICUs, Speaker.

But the Premier failed to act. They failed to implement paid sick days. They failed to vaccinate workers in hot spots, and now ICUs in communities like Brampton are overflowing. Pediatric hospitals are sacrificing their beds. Patients are being transferred to hospitals around the province outside of their communities, and doctors and nurses are being put in the horrific position of having to make decisions on who will receive life-saving supports and who will not.

Speaker, why—with all of the evidence in front of this government; all of the warnings from their own science tables and medical experts—does this government continue to ignore the crisis in our ICUs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We have been listening to the experts all along. We have been listening to their evidence. I think one thing is really important, Speaker, and I would say to the member opposite, through you, that the speaker is alleging that there is a triage protocol in place in Ontario. There is not; there is not.

What we are doing is building capacity in our hospitals. We are making sure there are two aspects to what we need to deal with here. We need to blunt the transmission of COVID-19 in communities, as well as, right now, we need to build capacity in our hospitals, which are we are doing.

We are in contact with the CEOs of the hospitals on virtually a daily basis. They are working very hard to create spaces.

We are creating capacity so that everyone in Ontario who needs to be admitted to hospital and needs to be in an intensive care bed will have a bed available for them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Health, that response shows us how out of touch with reality this minister is. Doctors are sounding the alarm bells and this government continues to ignore their pleas for help. The government is following a pattern of denying the problem and acting too late.

Now the government is begging other provinces for help, but refusing the federal government’s assistance and the assistance of the Red Cross. Speaker, health care systems in other provinces are also fighting COVID-19. They need their health care workers just as much as we do. It was this Premier’s responsibility and this Minister of Health’s responsibility to help protect people here in Ontario, and they failed to do that at every step of the pandemic.

This is a national and global failure and it is upsetting and heartbreaking to know that they could have acted and they chose not to. With months to plan for this crisis, why did this Premier fail to address the issues causing ICU capacity to rise, and why does the government think it’s another government’s responsibility to come and clean up their mess?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask members to please take their seats and allow the Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that what you’re suggesting is simply not the case. Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have been working hard to make sure that we have both the health human resources—

Ms. Sara Singh: Why are people dying?

Hon. Christine Elliott: —and the physical capacity in order to deal with what’s been happening. We have created—

Interjection.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I don’t know if the member opposite really wants to hear me, she’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Minister of Health to take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member for Brampton Centre to come to order. I’m going to ask the government House leader to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Always innocent.

I’m going to recognize the Minister of Health to conclude her response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. To continue, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have created over 3,100 new hospital beds, which is the equivalent of six new community hospitals. We have also added 14% to intensive care capacity, which is significant in the context of this pandemic.

We have also added resources in order to be able to deal with the health human resources that we need. We have allowed for the deployment of people from one sector to another.

Finally, I would say with respect to what’s happening with other provinces and other organizations coming in to help us, we’re very grateful for the help that’s being offered by the other provinces and we’re very grateful to the federal government for their offer of assistance from the Red Cross as well. We know that we need help right now. We have the physical capacity. We need some more health human resources and we are using those resources to make sure everyone who needs help will get help in our hospitals.

Ontario Hansard April 21, 2021

Question Period

COVID-19 RESPONSE

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Minister of Health. As many people have already raised this morning, our ICUs are near the breaking point. We’re getting close to 100 patients now being treated in our ICUs, but despite this fact, the government has refused to make public its plans for critical care triage in those ICUs. We don’t know. People with disabilities and their loved ones and advocacy organizations still don’t know what has been negotiated in secret and what actually will happen when those life-and-death decisions take place but, at home, Dr. David Neilipovitz, the ICU director at the Ottawa Hospital told CBC News, “It would be naïve for us to think that triage or changes in the standard of care have not already come about.” Let’s think about that.

Yesterday, the minister rose in this House and said there is no clinical triage protocol, but we know that hospitals received one on January 13. We also know that a training was done for medical professionals on YouTube on the 23rd of January.

Speaker, I want to ask the minister, who is very well versed in these issues: What instructions have been sent out and drafted to emergency medical technicians, ambulance services or health professionals about who will live and who will die in our ICUs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can certainly advise the member that no triage protocol has been activated or approved by the government of Ontario.

There have been discussions. I understand that there were a number of disability groups that were concerned with respect to a previous draft that was prepared earlier this year. That was then reviewed with the human rights commission. There have been a number of discussions about modifications to it. But nothing has been activated, nothing has been approved by this government.

What we are doing instead is to create the capacity so that we can care for all the patients that come into our hospital, whether they’re COVID patients or emergency patients that come in otherwise. We have created over 3,100 beds since this pandemic began, increased our intensive care capacity by 14%.

We are looking at bringing in other health professionals from other provinces and other countries so that, notwithstanding having the creation of those spaces, we will also have the health human resources in order to be able to operate them safely, carefully and professionally.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. Joel Harden: Earlier today, I was joined by disability rights leaders for a media conference, all of whom are calling upon this government to make public its plans for critical care triage. Speaker, I know this minister served as Patient Ombudsperson for this province for years and knows full well that every patient, physiotypical, neurotypical or not, has a right to their care at the point of service. But the minister also should know that hospitals got a critical triage protocol on January 13, that a training has been conducted. So I must admit my extreme frustration that today, when our ICUs are nearing capacity, we are still hearing, “There are no plans.”

Speaker, let me say very clearly for this House, “I didn’t know,” at this point: not an acceptable answer. “I was just following orders,” at this point: not an acceptable answer. “Please forgive me” to disabled patients and their loved ones: not an acceptable answer.

Will you make sure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against in the ICUs: yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I’ll ask the members to make their comments through the Chair. The Minister of Health to respond.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The rights of people with disabilities has been one of my strongest passions since I got to this place 15 years ago, and I don’t need to take any instructions from anybody—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ha!

Hon. Christine Elliott: —including the leader of the official opposition, about this issue. I have always stood up for the rights of people with disabilities—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order. The member for Northumberland–Peterborough South, come to order.

The Minister of Health, please reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The rights of people with disabilities have been one of the issues that we have cared about and dealt with as part of this entire pandemic. The rights of people with disabilities are equally as important as the rights of anybody else. That is something that I’ve always stood by, that

I always will stand by. I can assure the member opposite that no triage protocol has been approved. A draft was circulated in January. That was not approved by this government. It was something that had been discussed. But I understand that the rights of people with disabilities have been brought forward. I asked them—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre, come to order. The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, come to order.

The minister, please conclude her response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I asked that this issue be dealt with, with the people with disabilities groups, as well as with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. There have been numerous discussions, but nothing has been activated yet, and I can assure you nothing has been approved at this point. We are working to make sure—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

QP Briefing April 21, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.qpbriefing.com/2021/04/21/solicitor-general-brushes-off-disability-advocate-concerns-about-triage-protocol/

SOLICITOR GENERAL BRUSHES OFF DISABILITY ADVOCATE CONCERNS ABOUT TRIAGE PROTOCOL

Home Health And COVID-19 Solicitor General Brushes Off Disability Advocate Concerns About Triage Protocol

Solicitor general brushes off disability advocate concerns about triage protocol

Asked about concerns raised by disability advocates for months that the provincial triage guidelines discriminate against them, Ontario’s solicitor general got upset.

“There is no triage protocol being used,” Sylvia Jones said, cutting off the question from QP Briefing. “I am very frustrated that you continue to suggest that there is a triage protocol in place in the province of Ontario in our hospitals. Talk to the hospital CEOs, talk to the minister of health. It is not accurate.”

Jones and Health Minister Christine Elliott said the government has not approved a plan for deciding who lives and who dies should Ontario intensive care units run out of life-saving equipment.

But while it has not been officially triggered, the preparation for the nightmare scenario is real.

Hospitals received training on draft guidelines, which leaked in January, and are preparing to use them.

Doctors and nurses have told reporters that due to rising case counts in the third wave of COVID-19, triage decisions could be days away. Some say that while the protocol has not been implemented, decisions to ration or triage care are already happening, including the cancellation of scheduled surgeries.

And advocates for people with disabilities say they worry that if and when the time comes, they will be seen as less deserving of care than someone without disabilities, because of two key parts of the protocol.

One is the inclusion of the “clinical frailty scale,” which outlines how dependent people are on others to live their lives.

It “asks questions like, can you get dressed yourself, without assistance? Can you go grocery shopping without assistance? Can you use a telephone without assistance?” said Mariam Shanouda, a lawyer with Toronto’s ARCH Disability Law Centre. “And if you answer no, I can’t do any of these things without assistance, then you are less likely to access critical care. This is disability discrimination in a nutshell.”

The other major issue is that doctors are asked to estimate patients’ likelihood of surviving the next 12 months. That timeline is too long, advocates say, and could force medical staff to “guesstimate”

“Guessing is not science,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance. “And it doesn’t become science because the person doing it, or who’s being mandated to do it, has a white coat on and a stethoscope.”

Another issue is that advocates don’t know whether the protocol from January is unchanged, or whether a new version is being prepared. Lepofsky said the government refuses to answer any of his calls.

“The solution is for the government to immediately make public their step-by-step plan for rolling this out, which they obviously have, so we can know what they’re planning to do,” he said.

The Ministry of Health should speak directly to disability advocacy groups like his, “so we can have input into this, rather than having to communicate with the human shields behind whom they’re hiding, such as the Bioethics Table,” he said.

And each hospital that’s done a triaging drill should make the results of that drill public, “so the public can know how much these simulations for triage might vary, depending on which hospital you happen to go to,” Lepofsky said.

Opposition leaders also called for transparency.

Green Leader Mike Schreiner said he shares the concerns of disability advocates, and argued the government should release the guidelines publicly.

He also noted that ODSP payments have not gone up recently, despite the fact that “Ontarians with disabilities have borne a disproportionate burden in this pandemic.”

Liberal health critic John Fraser said Ontario is “dangerously close to asking clinicians to decide who gets care and who doesn’t. The government needs to be open and transparent about the status of the triage protocol. I think the disability advocates have a legitimate concern. The government should have been listening from the start and needs to engage with them now.”

In question period on Wednesday, Joel Harden, the NDP critic for accessibility and persons with disabilities, quoted Dr. David Neilipovitz, the ICU director at the Ottawa Hospital, who told CBC: “‘It would be naive for us to think that triage or changes in the standard of care have not already come about.’ Let’s think about that,” he said.

“Yesterday, the minister rose in this house and said there is no clinical triage protocol, but we know that hospitals received one on January 13. We also know that a training was done for medical professionals on YouTube on the 23rd of January. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, who is very well versed in these issues: what instructions have been sent out and drafted to emergency medical technicians, ambulance services or health professionals about who will live and who will die in our ICUs?”

Elliott repeated that there is no official triage protocol yet.

“There have been discussions,” she said. “I understand that there were a number of disability groups that were concerned with respect to a previous draft that was prepared earlier this year. That was then reviewed with the human rights commission. There have been a number of discussions about modifications to it. But nothing has been activated, nothing has been approved by this government.”

It was indeed reviewed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in December, but the organization still disapproves. Chief Commissioner Ena Chadha sent a letter to Elliott in March outlining concerns with the draft protocol and called on the government to publicly release it.

Harden said “there are no plans” is “not an acceptable answer.”

Elliott disagreed.

“The rights of people with disabilities has been one of my strongest passions since I got to this place 15 years ago,” she said, “and I don’t need to take any instructions from anybody—”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath interjected, “Ha!”

“—including the leader of the Official Opposition, about this issue,” Elliott finished.

Ottawa Citizen Online April 22, 2021

Originally posted at https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/harden-ontarios-covid-triage-protocol-must-respect-rights-of-the-disabled

Opinion Columnists

Harden: Ontario’s COVID triage protocol must respect rights of the disabled

Just over a year ago, 200+ community organizations urged the Ford government to remove disability discrimination from the triage guidance. The response so far: silence.

Joel Harden

The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario is accepting adult critical care patients due to the growing severity of the COVID-19 crisis. PHOTO BY ERROL MCGIHON /Errol McGihon

These are perilous times in Ontario. On April 16, 2021, a record-breaking 4,812 new COVID-19 cases were recorded.

At the moment, more than 750 patients are being treated in Ontario’s ICUs. For the first time in its 47-year history, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario is accepting adult COVID-19 patients who require critical care.

There is a real possibility that by the end of the month, hospitals will have to ration or “triage” critical care due to surging COVID case counts. Triage refers to how hospitals will decide who gets life-saving care if ICUs are overwhelmed with COVID patients and they run out of beds.

Along with disability and human rights leaders, I am deeply concerned that the Doug Ford government’s current clinical triage protocol includes disability discrimination, and hasn’t been developed with adequate consultation.

What’s wrong with the triage protocol that was circulated to hospitals on Jan. 13, 2021? Firstly, it includes a “clinical frailty scale,” meaning that a patient over the age of 65 with a progressive disease (Alzheimers, Muscular Dystrophy etc.) will be evaluated based on how they can perform 11 different activities of daily living without assistance. This is blatantly discriminatory against people with disabilities, millions of whom require varying degrees of assistance to live their fullest lives.

Secondly, it includes criteria that assess the patient’s likelihood of mortality one year from their admission to hospital. Even ICU doctors have conceded that such assessments are “guesstimates” rather than an exact science. This leaves the door open to subjective judgments about a person’s quality of life that could discriminate against people with disabilities, as opposed to a shorter-term assessment of mortality.

No one is suggesting that Ontario shouldn’t have a triage protocol in place if ICUs are filled to maximum capacity. What we are saying is that the protocol must respect human rights and the rule of law. It also needs to be discussed openly and transparently, but this government has taken the opposite approach.

Members of the government’s own bioethics table have criticized the secrecy with which the government has been handling its approach to clinical triage. Noting that the process must be “informed, transparent, inclusive, reasonable and subject to revision in light of new information or legitimate concerns or claims,” they believe that Ontario has failed to meet these requirements.

News media have also reported that the Ford government is considering suspending parts of the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA), which requires doctors to obtain consent from a patient or their substitute decision maker before they withdraw critical care.

It is unacceptable for the government to make life-and-death decisions by a secret memo. If they are considering suspending the HCCA, they must make the details public and have a proper debate in the legislature.

Just over a year ago, 200+ community organizations wrote to the Ford government urging it to remove disability discrimination from the province’s triage protocol. For more than a year, the government has been aware of these concerns and had ample time to consult with disability and human rights leaders in developing its clinical triage protocol.

How has the Ford government responded? With complete silence. It has ignored direct appeals from disability groups, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the opposition, all of whom have expressed concerns with the Jan. 13 “emergency standard of care” triage protocol.

What message does this send to the 2.6 million people with disabilities who live in Ontario? People with disabilities are more likely to get COVID-19, and to be seriously impacted by the virus. This government must assure them that they won’t face any discrimination in the awful event that triage becomes necessary.

It’s time to stop the secrecy surrounding critical care triage. It’s time for the Ford government to remove disability discrimination from its clinical triage protocol.

Joel Harden is the NDP MPP for Ottawa Centre and opposition critic, accessibility and persons with disabilities.

New Democratic Party April 21, 2021 News Release

NDP MPP Joel Harden, disability rights advocates call on Ford to remove disability discrimination from triage protocol

QUEENS PARK — MPP Joel Harden (Ottawa Centre), the NDP’s critic for Accessibility and Persons with Disabilities, called on the Ford government to withdraw disability discrimination from Ontario’s clinical triage protocol and immediately hold a public consultation on how care will be triaged if ICUs become too overwhelmed to fully treat everyone.

Harden was joined at a Wednesday morning press conference by David Lepofsky, Chair of the AODA Alliance, Sarah Jama, Co-founder of the Disability Justice Network of Ontario, and Mariam Shanouda, Staff Lawyer at ARCH Disability Law Centre, all of whom are expressing deep concerns about the protocol and the secrecy surrounding it.

“We should never have gotten to the point where critical care triage became a possibility, but the Ford government’s choice to put money and politics ahead of public health has brought ICUs to the breaking point,” said Harden. “The government must remove disability discrimination from its triage protocol, and assure people with disabilities that they won’t be deprioritized for life-saving critical care.”

The Ford government continues to ignore human rights concerns raised by disability rights leaders, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission about its approach to clinical triage. They have not held open consultations, and it was disability organizations and the opposition, not the government, that made public the January 13, 2021 triage protocol which was sent to hospitals.

“This entire process has been cloaked in secrecy,” said Harden. “That’s wrong, and it’s time for the government to stop making life-and-death decisions behind closed doors.”

Quotes:

David Lepofsky, Chair, AODA Alliance
“Our non-partisan grassroots coalition agrees that Ontario must be prepared for the possibility of critical care triage, but Ontario’s plan must include a triage protocol, mandated by the Legislature, that does not violate the Charter of Rights or the Ontario Human Rights Code by discriminating against people with disabilities or denying them due process. They have already disproportionately suffered the hardships of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

 

Sarah Jama, Co-founder, Disability Justice Network of Ontario
“We are in a time of deep crisis, and need to offer paid sick days and increase social assistance rates for community members without work from home jobs, or a safety net. But rather than make these preventative policy decisions, our government has created conditions where doctors must rank who gets to live and who gets to die.”

 

Mariam Shanouda, Staff Lawyer, ARCH Disability Law Centre
“Health care, including critical care during a pandemic, must be available free from unlawful discrimination. This is a life and death non-partisan issue. The choice must not be whether we have no triage plan or one that discriminates. And let’s be clear, the current plan is discriminatory and will disproportionately impact persons with disabilities who have already disproportionately experienced devastating consequences from this pandemic.”



Source link

Great News! New Toronto City Staff Report Recommends that Toronto Not Allow Electric Scooters – Sign Up to Tell Toronto’s Infrastructure Committee’s April 28, 2021 Virtual Meeting To Say No To E-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/

Great News! New Toronto City Staff Report Recommends that Toronto Not Allow Electric Scooters – Sign Up to Tell Toronto’s Infrastructure Committee’s April 28, 2021 Virtual Meeting To Say No To E-Scooters

April 21, 2021

            SUMMARY

Today we report on two important developments in our campaign to keep electric scooters banned in Toronto.

1. Sign Up to Speak to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee about E-scooters on April 28, 2021

We urge you to email or call the City of Toronto right away to sign up to tell Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee at its virtual meeting on Wednesday, April 28, 2021 to say no to e-scooters in Toronto. You should just send a request by email to [email protected] or phone the City Clerk at 416-397-4592.

Making it even easier to sign up, we thank the March of Dimes of Canada for creating a simple online link to sign up to present to that Committee.

In your email, you might just say:

I request a chance to speak to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee at its April 21, 2021 meeting on the topic of e-scooters.

You will get 3 to 5 minutes to speak. You don’t have to use all the time. For ideas on what to say, you might wish to check out the AODA Alliance’s pithy and handy E-scooters Action Kit. Another easy-to-use resource is the AODA Alliance‘s short captioned online video which explains the whole issue for you. It has been viewed almost 1,000 times in the two months since it was created.

We want as many people as possible to present the disability perspective on e-scooters to the Toronto Infrastructure Committee. You can speak right from your home or work. You don’t have to go to City Hall. The meeting will be virtual, not in person, over WebEx. You can connect via your computer, tablet or smartphone, or you can just dial in from an old-fashioned phone. The City Clerk will send you instructions. You can also file a written brief, but you don’t have to do so in order to speak at the meeting.

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists will be trying to get a loud presentation at the Committee in favour of e-scooters. We need you to help urge City Council to stand up for people with disabilities, seniors and others, whom e-scooters endanger, and for them to stand up to the well-financed e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

2. Toronto City staff Recommend that Toronto Not Allow E-scooters

An important Staff Report has just been made public by City of Toronto staff, on the e-scooters issue. We set it out below.

In this excellent report, City staff clearly recommend to Toronto City Council that e-scooters not be allowed in Toronto, either privately owned e-scooters or rental e-scooters. As a result of the advocacy efforts that we and others mounted last summer, Toronto City Council had directed City staff to investigate disability and insurance issues regarding e-scooters. Today’s report fulfils that direction. City staff concluded that e-scooters present real dangers for public safety and disability accessibility. The e-scooter rental companies have not presented any workable way to overcome those concerns. Therefore, City staff recommend that Toronto should not conduct a pilot with e-scooters.

We strongly endorse that recommendation and that report. We offer this short public statement about that report:

“The City Staff Report shows overwhelmingly that Toronto should not allow electric scooters. E-scooters endanger the safety of vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and everyone. They would create many new accessibility barriers for people with disabilities in public places. Toronto has been getting more inaccessible for people with disabilities, and must not create any more new barriers.

City Council should follow the advice of City staff, and leave in place the ban on e-scooters. It should stand up for people with disabilities, and must stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists who are unleashing a feeding frenzy of lobbying at City Hall.”

Several City Council members, as well as Toronto Mayor John Tory, have held off taking a position on e-scooters until they received a report and recommendation from City staff. They now have that report and recommendation. It accords with strong recommendations from the disability community. It also accords with two strong unanimous recommendations from the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, appointed under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

If a City Council member were now to vote in favour of e-scooters and an e-scooter pilot, they would be caving in to the immense pressure from the e-scooter corporate lobbyists, and disregarding the advice of City staff and the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee. They would be putting corporate profits above individual safety and disability accessibility. With Toronto full of so many disability barriers, we cannot afford to create any more barriers.

For more information on the dangers that e-scooters present, we invite you to:

  1. Read the April 21, 2021 Toronto City staff report, which we set out below.
  1. Read the AODA Alliance’s detailed March 30, 2021 brief to the City of Toronto on the dangers that e-scooters present to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, and
  1. Check out the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooter web page.

            MORE DETAILS

City of Toronto Staff April 21, 2021 Report to City Council on Electric Scooters

REPORT FOR ACTION

 

[Title]

Date: April 14, 2021

To: Infrastructure and Environment Committee

From: Barbara Gray, General Manager, Transportation Services

Wards: All

Summary

An electric kick-scooter (or e-scooter) is a new vehicle type operated by standing on a board with two small wheels and using a throttle on a handle stick. They are only allowed for use on private property in Ontario, unless a municipality has opted-in to the Province’s e-scooter pilot project which runs from January 1, 2020 to November 27, 2024. This requires amending municipal by-laws on where e-scooters would be allowed for use in public spaces.

After receiving a report from City staff in July 2020 on e-scooters that included concerns from disability groups and residents, City Council directed Transportation Services to report back on the accessibility and insurance issues, including:

safety, especially for people living with disabilities and seniors, when encountering 1) e-scooters illegally operating on sidewalks and 2) trip hazards or obstructions from poorly parked or numerous rental e-scooters on sidewalks;

lack of city resources for enforcement and the major challenges of enforcing moving violations on sidewalks, parking obstructions and vandalism;

problems with indemnification agreements with e-scooter rental companies and liability of e-scooter riders if injured or injuring others; and

lack of insurance and medical coverage, and the significant liability exposure to the City when no other party provides compensation, leading to costs associated with claims, litigation and settlement.

Based on extensive research and feedback, this report concludes that accessibility barriers, safety concerns and insurance issues remain unresolved for privately owned and rental e-scooters. The solutions proposed by e-scooter industry participants are not satisfactory in addressing the concerns from the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, disability groups, residents, and City staff. Accordingly, City staff recommend that Toronto not opt-in to the e-scooter pilot. 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. This aligns with the City’s Vision Zero Road Safety goals, including consideration of impacts on pedestrians and persons living with disabilities.

Recommendations

The General Manager, Transportation Services, recommends that:

  1. City Council decline the option to participate in O.Reg 389/19 – Pilot Project – Electric Kick-Scooters.

 

Financial IMPACT

Transportation Services confirms that there are no financial implications resulting from the recommendation included in this report.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information.

Decision History

On February 25, 2021, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee affirmed that it does not support the use of e-scooters, including any pilot project, and requested a ban without exception. The Committee also recommended that City Council request Toronto Police Services, Transportation Services and Municipal Licensing and Standards to consult accessibility stakeholders to develop a public education campaign on existing by-laws prohibiting e-scooter use in public spaces and actively scale up enforcement.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.DI14.1

On July 28-29, 2020, City Council directed the General Manager, Transportation Services, to report back on referral Item 14.10 to address issues identified by the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, including insurance issues.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.IE14.10

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

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.DI7.3

On October 2-3, 2019 City Council, directed the General Manager, Transportation Services, to report on an oversight and management program for e-scooters on City roadways, including possibly adding e-scooters to the bike share fleet as a way of managing e-scooters, to ensure a safe and accessible transportation network for all users during the proposed Provincial pilot project. City Council also prohibited e-scooter use on City sidewalks and pedestrian ways, and parking, storing or leaving an e-scooter on any street, sidewalk and pedestrian way.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.IE7.13

On April 25, 2019, the Infrastructure and Environment Committee requested a report back on a proposed regulatory framework, safe road design and intersection requirements for low-speed wheeled modes under 25 km, including but not limited to electric wheelchairs, scooters, cargo cycles, and e-assist cycles in Toronto.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.IE4.5

Comments

Background

E-scooters are a two-wheeled, battery-powered vehicle with a narrow board that the rider stands on and steers using a handle stick and using a throttle for acceleration (see Figure 1).

On January 1, 2020, Ontario Regulation 389/19 Pilot Project – Electric Kick-Scooters under the Highway Traffic Act came into effect for a five-year period subject to conditions. In order to allow e-scooters in public spaces within its jurisdiction, municipalities need to opt-in to the pilot. This requires revising a municipality’s by-laws on where e-scooters would be allowed for use such as on streets and paths, as well as managing oversight such as collecting data on collisions, injuries and fatalities and remitting reports to the Ministry of Transportation.

At its meeting on July 28-29, 2020, after receiving a report from City staff on e-scooters that included concerns from disability groups and residents, City Council referred Item 14.10 E-Scooters – A Vision Zero Road Safety Approach back to City staff and directed Transportation Services to report on accessibility issues raised by the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee (TAAC), including insurance issues.

Key concerns include:

safety and accessibility concerns, in particular for people living with no vision/low vision and seniors, when encountering 1) e-scooters illegally operating on sidewalks and 2) trip hazards or obstructions from poorly parked e-scooters or numerous rental e-scooters on sidewalks;

lack of city resources for enforcement and major challenges enforcing moving violations on sidewalks, parking obstructions and vandalism;

issues and problems with indemnification agreements with e-scooter rental companies, and liability of e-scooter riders if injured or injuring others; and

lack of available insurance and medical coverage (e.g. for rehabilitation, lost wages, and medical costs not covered by OHIP) and the significant liability and cost exposures associated with claims, litigation, and settlement to the City when no other party is able to provide compensation.

 

 

Accessibility Issues & Stakeholder Feedback

Following the July 2020 Council report referral back to staff, e-scooter companies were invited to propose solutions to the aforementioned issues at several stages of Transportation Services Division’s research. Companies were asked to submit information by e-mail in August 2020, which generated questions from companies to staff and further clarification and requests for information in Fall/Winter 2020 (and up to the drafting of this report). An interactive and facilitated e-scooter industry group meeting was held on January 20, 2021 with 29 participants representing 15 companies. The material provided by the industry engagement was incorporated into City staff’s presentation to the TAAC.

Throughout 2020 and continuing in 2021, Transportation Services staff have received many concerns regarding e-scooters, including letters to the Mayor, from residents and several local and Canada-wide accessibility and human rights organizations (see Attachment 1 – List of Accessibility Stakeholders). The letters to the Mayor can be found with Item DI14.1 Electric Kick-Scooters (E-scooters) – Accessibility Feedback – Attachment 1 – Letters from Stakeholders.

Consultation included tele-meetings with key accessibility organizations and a special meeting of the TAAC on February 25, 2021 including deputants who experienced e-scooter pilot projects in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and Ottawa. Three e-scooter companies also made deputations at this meeting. Transportation Services staff also presented on March 3, 2021 to TTC’s Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit’s (ACAT) Service Planning Sub-Committee.

Key concerns include:

 

additional barriers created for pedestrians and persons with disabilities who use sidewalks out of necessity, especially people living with no vision/low vision, users of mobility assistive devices, or older adults encountering illegal sidewalk riding or poorly parked e-scooters;

significant challenges and difficulties with enforcing moving violations (i.e., lack of policing resources to witness/enforce illegal e-scooter use on sidewalks, ‘hit and runs’, and the inability to identify the e-scooter rider); and

how someone injured by an e-scooter rider or trip hazard caused by an improperly parked e-scooter would be compensated for damages (e.g., rehabilitation, lost wages, and medical costs).

At its February 25th meeting, the TAAC unanimously passed a motion to communicate to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee and City Council that they do not support the use of any e-scooters including a pilot project in the City of Toronto, and requested that a ban prohibiting e-scooter use in all public space remain in place without any exceptions. The TAAC also recommended a public education campaign for, and enforcement of, the existing by-laws banning public e-scooter use.

The feedback from residents, accessibility stakeholders and the TAAC indicates that solutions posed for privately-owned and rental/shared e-scooters are not satisfactory in addressing accessibility and safety issues.

Lack of Adequate Solutions to Accessibility and Safety Concerns

Technologies proposed by e-scooter companies are still experimental and do not prevent illegal sidewalk riding and conflicts with pedestrians and persons with disabilities. Sidewalk detection technologies (e.g., using camera data, vibration pattern data, or onboard braking patterns) are still experimental for e-scooter rental companies; and would not apply to privately owned e-scooters. These technologies also do not prevent e-scooter use/conflicts on sidewalks, but take effect once e-scooters are already on sidewalks which is reactive, rather than preventive.

There are not enough city resources for enforcement, and there are inherent problems with enforcing e-scooters that are difficult to overcome, such as requiring police enforcement to be present for incidents on sidewalks and the problem of identifying an e-scooter rider given their speed and no licence plates on devices that are privately owned. Also, the identity of the person renting the e-scooter may not be the person riding the e-scooter if rented/shared. Such enforcement is highly labour- and resource-intensive, and in many ways, infeasible.

“Lock-to” cables are not an effective solution because rental e-scooters could then be locked anywhere including as obstructions. Adding a cable to e-scooters enables them to be locked to spots blocking entrances, paths of travel or even inside transit shelters attached to the bench (a concern of TTC’s ACAT members). E-scooter rental companies note that personally-owned bicycles can be locked to posts/bike rings; however, this is not a fair comparison for rental fleets. Bike Share Toronto bicycles are “docked”, not dockless. Over 6,800 bike share bikes must be docked at Bike Share Toronto stations. Allowing thousands of rental e-scooters to use lock-to cables (essentially being dockless) would create significant pressure on existing bike parking in the City and numerous obstacles on sidewalks.

Residents and accessibility stakeholders say that “lock-to” e-scooters would worsen the number of sidewalk obstructions on already narrow and cluttered sidewalks. While docking stations for e-scooters may have potential, such technologies are still emerging.

Allowing e-scooters will add further barriers, and introduce hazards and distress at a time when COVID-19 has resulted in greater challenges for seniors, persons living with disabilities and their caregivers who use sidewalks as a necessity and not for recreation. Concerns raised include not only the risk of serious injury or fatality to persons with disabilities if tripping and falling or struck by an e-scooter, but the additional concern of being deprioritized for care, given an overburdened health care system and the need for triaging patients during the pandemic.

A scan of other jurisdictions on sidewalk e-scooter riding and non-rider injuries is included in Attachment 2 – Research Scan of Accessibility Issues in Other Jurisdictions.

 

Insurance and Liability Issues Are Not Resolved

Transportation Services, in consultation with the City’s Insurance and Risk Management Section (IRM), also concludes that insurance and liability issues remain unresolved for both privately owned and rental/shared e-scooters, for the reasons below.

Insurance products are not commercially available in Canada for e-scooters. Coverage is available, however, for pedal-assisted / power-assisted bicycles through home, tenant or condo insurance. Such insurance covers personal liability arising from the ownership, use or operation of e-bikes that meet the definition in the policy’s wording for power-assisted bicycle (e-bike). In the event that a pedestrian is injured by an e-bike user, and that e-bike is covered under the homeowners, tenant or condo insurance policy, then their insurance policy would respond subject to any policy limits and exclusions.

E-scooter companies are not providing full indemnification and first and third party insurance coverage to riders. To protect the City and e-scooter riders, rental companies must provide full indemnification for the City, and first and third party insurance coverage for e-scooter riders. This is similar to coverage available in the U.K. for their e-scooter trials, and also similar to liability insurance requirements in other countries such as France, Germany and Malta. Liability insurance held by e-scooter companies themselves (e.g., commercial general liability insurance) does not extend to protect the rider.

First party coverage would address e-scooter rider injuries such as falls; and

Third party coverage would address e-scooter rider liability to third parties such as pedestrians or cyclists (e.g. in collisions or tripping incidents).

There have been demonstrated difficulties in obtaining full indemnification from e-scooter companies. Municipalities have had disagreements with e-scooter companies over indemnification clauses (e.g., Chicago, Oakland) and pursued legal action against e-scooter companies for not complying with the indemnification clauses contained in their agreements (e.g., City of Riverside, California).

E-scooter companies have denied responsibility for losses on municipal property (public infrastructure) where they deem infrastructure conditions to be a contributing factor of the loss. Existing infrastructure design and minimum maintenance standards do not contemplate e-scooters and their particular features, such as small wheels and their device geometry. In addition, there are several risk factors unique to Toronto, such as:

an extensive streetcar track network of approximately 177 linear kilometres which poses a hazard to e-scooter riders due to the vehicle’s small wheels;

freezing and thawing from winters that impact the state-of-good-repair for roads. A large portion of roads are 40 to 50 years old, with about 43 per cent of Major Roads and 24 per cent of Local Roads in poor condition. Coupled with lack of mechanical standards for e-scooter wheels (e.g., traction/size), this makes this particular device more sensitive to uneven surfaces;

street conditions are affected by the city’s high volume of construction projects (e.g., approximately 120 development construction sites in 2019); and

narrow sidewalks and high pedestrian mode shares in the Downtown Core and City Centres increase the likelihood of friction on sidewalks with illegal e-scooter operation on sidewalks and poorly parked e-scooters.

Through feedback at the January 2021 industry group meeting, e-scooter companies have raised issues about the cost of obtaining and providing first and third party insurance coverage for riders; and the challenges of finding viable insurance providers. E-scooter rental companies will need to actively engage and partner with the insurance industry to address this concern, to protect e-scooter riders and avoid becoming a burden on the City and subsequently its taxpayers.

Comparisons to insurance requirements for bike share programs are not appropriate, as City staff discussed at the January 2021 industry group meeting, as the risk profile of e-scooters is not the same as those of bicycles. The reasons are based on the design differences and safety research including, but not limited to, the following:

E-scooters have a higher injury rate per mile than bicycles; e-scooter riders are twice as likely or 100% more likely to be injured from pavement cracks, potholes, signposts or lip of curb than bicyclists (IIHS, 2020).

E-scooters with their small wheels are less stable/controllable and more susceptible to road irregularities, and more likely to crash on poorly maintained roads than bicycles; and their manufacturers should explore safety features like larger wheels, a fork rake, steering stabilisation, indicator lights and a seat. (ITF/OECD, 2020, pp.38-40).

Data from two facial trauma centres in Paris show a trend toward an increase in severe head and neck injuries requiring surgery caused by the use of e-scooters (Hennocq et al., 2020).

There is still lack of protection for e-scooter riders with inadequate device safety standards and lack of available insurance. There are also ineffective solutions as of yet to address underage e-scooter riding and intoxicated e-scooter riding. Without full indemnification for the City and first and third party insurance coverage (including adequate thresholds) and upfront fees/funds held by the City, e-scooter riders and non-riders, as well as the City and subsequently, its taxpayers, are then exposed to the significant costs of responding to claims and litigation.

Long-Term Micromobility Options for the Public

While e-scooter trips have been said to overtake bike share trips – this has been in part due to the removal of bike share options in cities (e.g., Calgary and Hamilton in Canada, and Bloomington, Boise, Boulder, Dallas, Denver, Fort Collins, Knoxville, San Antonio and Seattle in the U.S.) and interestingly, bike share is being brought back again. Most recently, the City of San Francisco has been asked by its central area councillor/District 5 Supervisor (Dean Preston) for a publicly-owned and managed bike share and not a system run by private operators that does not meet the city’s mobility needs and interests.

In this respect, the City of Toronto may be ahead of the micromobility curve for serving the public’s interests. The 2020 Bike Share Toronto expansion added 1,550 bikes, 300 e-bikes and 160 stations to the system. Toronto’s system now has 6,850 bikes and 625 stations total, with more than 360,000 users in 2020. Bike Share Toronto is also integrated with transit at 43 TTC stations and 9 GO Transit stations. Almost 3 million trips were generated on Bike Share Toronto in 2020. Other large, urban peer cities in Canada are also focusing on bike share and e-bike share, like Montréal and Vancouver.

In Summary

 

Based on extensive research and feedback, this report concludes that accessibility barriers, safety concerns, and insurance issues remain unresolved for privately owned and rental e-scooters. The solutions proposed by e-scooter industry participants are not satisfactory in addressing the concerns from the TAAC, disability groups, residents, and City staff. Accordingly, City staff recommend that Toronto not opt-in to the e-scooter pilot, as there are not adequate protections for e-scooter riders and non-riders. 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. This aligns with the City’s Vision Zero Road Safety goals, including consideration of impacts on pedestrians and persons living with disabilities.

Contact

Elyse Parker                                                                    Janet Lo

Director, Policy and Innovation                   Senior Project Manager

Transportation Services                                Transportation Services

Tel: 416-338-2432                                                         416-397-4853

Email: [email protected]                      [email protected]

Signature

Barbara Gray

General Manager, Transportation Services

attachments

Attachment 1: List of Accessibility Stakeholders

Attachment 2: Research Scan of Accessibility Issues in Other Jurisdictions

 

 

Attachment 1: List of Accessibility Stakeholders

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance

Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians

ARCH Disability Law Centre

B’nai Brith Canada – League of Human Rights

Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB) – Toronto Visionaries Chapter

Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB)

Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario

Guide Dog Users of Canada

March of Dimes of Canada

Older Women’s Network

Ontario Autism Coalition

Spinal Cord Injury Ontario

TTC Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit (ACAT)

Views for the Visually Impaired

Walk Toronto

Attachment 2: Research Scan of Accessibility Issues in Other Jurisdictions

 

A research scan on e-scooters indicates that illegal sidewalk riding is an unresolved problem:

 

According to the UDV (German Insurers Accident Research) in January 2021, e-scooter riders are four times 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 per cent preferred the sidewalk. If there was only one cycle or multi-purpose lane, 46 per cent rode on the sidewalk. If there was no cycling infrastructure, 49 per cent rolled illegally on the sidewalk.

Tel Aviv has a unit of 22 inspectors dedicated to enforcing that e-scooters do not ride on sidewalks. 21,000 tickets for sidewalk offenses were issued in 2019. (Globes, 2020)

Pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries resulting from e-scooter incidents have occurred (e.g., in France, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, U.K. and U.S), and data is under-reported for e-scooter incidents involving pedestrians:

“Non-riders, mainly pedestrians, represent between 1% and 14% of standing e-scooter related injuries… A major caveat is the likely under-reporting of injuries, a phenomenon that may be greatest among pedestrians. Their injuries may be treated as falls and, as such, lie outside the traditional scope of traffic safety data (Bekhit et al., 2020). Police data from Santa Monica found pedestrians to be involved in 7% of shared micromobility collisions (City of Santa Monica 2019b).” (ITF/OECD, 2020)

Data gaps exist, for example, when studies “explicitly excluded patients aged 55 and older on the grounds that mobility scooter injuries may be misinterpreted as standing e-scooter injuries. Such a protocol should be avoided because it may exclude a number of pedestrian injuries genuinely involving e-scooters.” (ITF/OECD, 2020)

According to a UCLA study of two hospital Emergency Rooms (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). (Trivedi et al., 2019)

Non-riders accounted for 16 per cent of Emergency Medical Services referred injuries related to e-scooters in a study in Copenhagen. (Blomberg et al., 2019)



Source link

National CBC News Covers Disability Discrimination Problems with Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Protocol — Protocol’s Defenders Make Transparently Bogus Arguments to Defend It


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/

National CBC News Covers Disability Discrimination Problems with Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Protocol — Protocol’s Defenders Make Transparently Bogus Arguments to Defend It

April 20, 2021

            SUMMARY

Over the past week, media coverage of disability discrimination objections to the Ford Government’s critical care triage plans has ramped up. It is fuelled by the frightening rise in new COVID-19 cases and the overload crisis in Ontario intensive care units (ICUs). Here is the latest and some reflections on the bogus arguments that have been made by the defenders of the Governments triage plans. When such obviously bogus arguments are made, it is clear they have no stronger defence to offer for their actions.

This recent news makes it clear that denial of life-saving critical care could well be going on now, a terrifying thought since the Ford Government has not approved critical care triage to begin. In the April 18, 2021 edition of CBC TV’s “The National”, addressed further below, Dr. David Neilipovitz ICU director at the Ottawa Hospital, stated, in the context of ambulance attendants withholding critical care:

“…It would be naïve for us to think that triage or changes in standard of care have not already in effect come about.”

(Note: Full quotation later in this Update)

This recent media reporting also confirms a serious concern we raised most recently almost two months ago, and earlier, fully one year ago. In Ontario, if critical care triage takes place, life-saving critical care may not only be refused to a patient who needs it by doctors in ICUs, but as well, by ambulance crews, long before the patient reaches the hospital, when the ambulance arrives at your home or office in response to an emergency call.

This is even more terrifying. Read on for the details.

 1. The Latest Media Coverage

  1. As a major step forward, on Sunday evening, April 18, 2021, CBC TV’s national newscast “The National” included a lengthy 7-minute report on Ontario’s critical care triage protocol and our objections to it. Seven minutes on a national newscast is a big deal. This is the news story that exposed the danger of ambulance crews, and not just doctors, denying life-saving critical care to a patient if triage is directed for Ontario. You can watch it online at any time at http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1887030339766

Related to this, CBC News online posted a major story on this issue on April 19, 2021. We set it out below. Below you will also find reflections on both of these reports where the bogus arguments in defence of Ontario’s critical care triage plans can be found.

  1. On Thursday April 15, 2021, CBC Radio Thunder Bay’s Superior Morning and CBC Radio’s Ontario Morning each included interviews with AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky. On Friday, April 16, 2021, he was interviewed on this topic on CBC Radio Windsor’s Windsor Morning, CBC Radio Toronto’s Metro Morning, and CBC Radio London’s London Morning. The Superior Morning interview is available on CBC’s website any time

We were invited on five of CBC’s eight morning radio programs in Ontario to address this issue. We’d be happy to oblige the other three programs! They just have to contact us at [email protected]

  1. On April 14, 2021, the National Post ran an article on the critical care triage issue, briefly referencing the AODA Alliance objections. We set it out below.
  1. On April 13, 2021, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky was interviewed on Dahlia Kurtz’s new Canada-wide program on Sirius XM Radio. We were delighted to be part of that program’s first week on the air.
  1. On Tuesday, April 13, 2021, David Lepofsky was interviewed on this topic by journalist Karlene Nation on Sauga Radio in Mississauga.
  1. On Monday, April 12, 2021, David Lepofsky was also interviewed on this topic on AMI Radio, a service of Accessible Media. This interview is available on AMI’s website.

Amidst all this coverage, we are eager for other media outlets to step up. For example, the Toronto Star and Global News earlier covered this issue, but have not covered it in months. We are always ready to give them any help we can.

Our objections to Ontario’s critical care triage protocol are also getting extensive attention on social media. The AODA Alliance and others have been busy tweeting on Twitter on this topic. We are getting Many retweets and supportive messages, including from people with no prior connection to the AODA Alliance. Please retweet our tweets. Follow @aodaalliance

On Twitter, some members of Doug Ford’s own Bioethics Table have echoed our concerns with the critical care triage protocol. Here are the relevant parts of two examples:

  1. @LisaSchwartz224: Supporting this request from @DavidLepofsky as explained in https://healthydebate.ca/opinions/icu-triage/ @sanixto @lforman @PMCEthics @PandemicEthics

@DavidLepofsky: @BillBlair @RosieBarton @ONgov So @fordnation Doug Ford, while you’re at it, how about also pulling back your disability-discriminatory #CriticalCare #triage protocol & your Government’s refusal to meet with us to address major human disability concerns? #accessibility #OnHealth #onpoli

Alison K Thompson @PandemicEthics: The Ontario COVID-19 Science Table members and the Bioethics Table members have collectively given thousands of hour of labour pro bono to @FordNation on behalf of Ontarians. I wish I had realized earlier that we were just window dressing….

 2. CBC Confirms Danger that Critical Care Triage May Be Undertaken By Ambulance Crews Before a Patient Even Reaches Hospital

The national news story that ran on the April 18, 2021 edition of CBC’s The National established for the first time that we have seen in the media that critical care triage can include emergency medical technicians (EMTs) refusing life-saving care to a patient before they even get to the hospital. We earlier warned about this danger. For example, EMTs arriving at your home to respond to a medical emergency may not resuscitate some patients. This would be appalling.

In the April 18, 2021 edition of CBC TV’s The National, Dr. David Neilipovitz ICU director at the Ottawa Hospital had this exchange on camera:

“CBC: Will you get into a situation where ambulance attendants are told ‘Don’t intubate anyone?’

Dr. David Neilipovitz: Yeah, that can happen. It would be naïve for us to think that triage or changes in standard of care have not already in effect come about.”

We wrote Health Minister Christine Elliott about this worrisome danger back on February 25, 2021. She and the Ford Government have never answered. Here is what we asked:

“This new report also reveals that instructions may have been given or may be given to Ontario emergency services and EMTs on the possibility of not starting critical care supports in some situations for an emergency patient who needs and wants them, before reaching the hospital, if critical care triage has been directed for Ontario. This would be done so that hospitals don’t feel obligated to continue giving that patient critical care. We ask you to let us know if any such instructions have been given or have been designed or contemplated, by whom and to whom, with and with what authority? If so, we ask you to give us a copy of those instructions, past or present, and any draft instructions being considered.”

 3. Reflections on What is Being Said Now to defend the Ford Government’s Disability-Discriminatory Critical Care Triage Protocol and Plans

In the CBC national coverage, the defences offered for the disability discrimination in the Ontario critical care triage protocol are flat wrong.

Bogus Defence #1

The first bogus defence is for the Ontario Government’s defenders simply to deny reality. In the CBC News online story below, Dr. James Downar, author or co-author and lead defender of Ontario’s critical care triage protocol, denies there is any disability discrimination. He has earlier done this in other media. The April 19, 2021 CBC News online report states:

“Ottawa’s Downar, one of the numerous doctors and ethicists behind the drafting of the protocols, replies that no one is being discriminated against based on a disability. Rather, the triage protocols try to save the most lives possible, he said, by prioritizing scarce ICU resources on patients who are most likely to survive.

The criteria that reference dressing or bathing oneself or going shopping, Downar said, do so only for patients with certain underlying conditions — in this case, cancer or frailty syndrome — who fall critically ill with COVID-19. And that’s because those kinds of assessments have been shown in research studies to be strong predictors of whether people with those underlying conditions will survive in the ICU, he said.

Dr. James Downar, who co-wrote Ontario’s ICU triage protocol, acknowledges it may have disproportionate effects on some groups. But he says it’s better than having no protocol and leaving it up to chance or vulnerable to doctors’ unconscious biases. (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute/The Canadian Press)

“People with literally the same disabilities could have totally different mortality risks and thus would be treated very differently. So it’s absolutely not a triage based on disability,” Downar said.”

Similarly, in the April 18, 2021 report on CBC’s The National, Dr. David Neilipovitz ICU director at the Ottawa Hospital, stated:

“In my opinion, and for what it’s worth, is that disabilities do not factor in as a major factor to limit care.”

Totally disproving that bogus defence, here are two illustrations of clear ways that a patient’s disability would explicitly be held against them when a doctor decides how likely the patient is to survive for one year, and hence be prioritized or deprioritized for critical care. First, the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol directs the use of the “Clinical Frailty Scale” as a tool for assessing some patients’ eligibility to be refused critical care, for patients over 65 with a progressive disease (like arthritis or multiple sclerosis). That Scale has doctors assess whether those patients, 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.

Second, for patients with cancer, the critical care triage protocol’s online 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; confined 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.”

Both those doctors, denying disability discrimination, certainly should know what the Ontario critical care triage protocol says. After all, Dr. Downar wrote or co-wrote it. Dr. David Neilipovitz heads the Ottawa Hospital Critical Care Department.

The fact that doctors will assess a patient’s likely one year mortality is no answer to this concern. The critical care triage protocol makes disability a clear criterion for assessing that one year mortality risk for some patients.

Bogus Defence #2

In the quotation above, Dr. Downar argued that there is no disability discrimination because two people with the same disability might be assessed very differently. Here is that quotation again from the April 19, 2021 CBC News online report, set out in full below:

“”People with literally the same disabilities could have totally different mortality risks and thus would be treated very differently. So it’s absolutely not a triage based on disability,” Downar said.”

That argument rests on the fatally flawed premise that disability discrimination only occurs if all people with the same disability are treated identically under the Ontario critical care triage protocol. That, however, is not how the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Charter of Rights’ equality disability rights provisions work.

Bogus Defence #3

It appears from the April 19, 2021 CBC News online report that Dr. Downar also tried to defend the Ontario critical care triage protocol by stating that it does not discriminate based on disability, because patients with certain named stable disabilities are not subject to assessment for critical care triage by considering if they can perform 11 activities of daily living without assistance. Repeating an argument he has made elsewhere in the media, (but not explicitly using his name here), the CBC report states:

“Protocols in both Ontario and Quebec have explicit language that doctors are not to rely on someone’s disability in assessing their mortality risk. A frailty syndrome assessment is excluded, for instance, for people with “long-term disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy), learning disabilities or autism.””

What that bogus argument boils down to is this: The critical care triage protocol does not discriminate against all people with disabilities. It only discriminates against some people with disabilities. Therefore, it does not discriminate against anyone based on disability.

That, of course, is no defence to disability discrimination. It is disability discrimination to discriminate against some patients because of some disabilities, without discriminating as well because of some other disabilities.

Compare this bogus argument to the context of racial discrimination. If a company refused to hire black people, it would be no defence to a claim of racial discrimination that the companied did hire some people from other racialized communities and only held a person’s racialized situation against them if their skin is black.

Bogus Defence #4

The fourth bogus defence put forward in this media reporting is that the Ontario critical care triage protocol is better than having no protocol at all. The online April 19, 2021 CBC article states:

“Downar says any protocol is better than none, which could leave decisions vulnerable to doctors’ unconscious biases — or an even cruder determination: first come, first served.”

This bogus defence presupposes that the only way to do critical care triage is with the disability discrimination spelled out in the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, and with no due process for patients. We do not agree. It is now clear that fully six members of The Government’s external advisory Bioethics Table also disagree with the general position presented in defence of the Ontario critical care triage protocol.

If those designing, approving and defending this protocol have so impoverished an approach to human rights, the Ford Government needs to find new people to design the triage protocol and plan who have a better approach.

4. Reminder Register to Attend Tonight’s Virtual Public Forum on Addressing the Disability Discrimination in Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Protocol and Plan

Please register to join us and other concerned disability organizations tonight at 7:30 p.m. for a virtual information session to learn more about Ontario’s triage protocol and why it matters.

LEARN MORE AND REGISTER NOW! (ASL and closed captioning will be available)

For background on the AODA Alliance’s efforts to battle the danger of disability discrimination in critical care triage, visit the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

            MORE DETAILS

 CBC News Online April 19, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-ontario-icu-triage-1.5992188

As ICUs fill up, doctors confront grim choice of who gets life-saving care

Ontario’s protocol for critical-care triage worries disability rights advocates

Zach Dubinsky, Terence McKenna, Joseph Loiero, Albert Leung

A health-care worker cares for a COVID-19 patient in the ICU at Toronto’s Humber River Hospital. A number of Ontario medical professionals fear that they may be forced to start triaging ICU patients within weeks. (Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press)

Hospitals are shifting critically ill patients around, looking for any empty bed. Nurses and doctors are putting in exhaustion-defying amounts of overtime. Some provinces are opening new intensive care unit capacity.

But it may not be enough to stave off a point no one wants to reach in the pandemic — when only a handful of ICU beds remain but a greater number of patients need those spots.

That point is drawing perilously close in Ontario and possibly parts of Saskatchewan, even as some other provinces don’t have a single hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

It means some of the hardest decisions health-care providers ever face will have to be made: who gets potentially life-saving care and who doesn’t.

“There are people who could be saved by critical care who aren’t going to get it,” said Dr. James Downar, a palliative and critical-care physician in Ottawa who co-wrote Ontario’s ICU protocol for when that awful moment strikes.

He hopes the protocol won’t be needed.

Ontario’s latest COVID-19 modelling ‘catastrophic,’ doctor says

Families torn apart. Workers at a breaking point. Inside a hospital system hit hard by 3rd wave of COVID-19

“It’s a difficult, difficult job to make such a call … and I hope it doesn’t happen.”

Decisions about how to ration life-saving care are never easy, Downar said — and this one has been not only arduous but controversial. Bioethicists and human rights groups have raised concerns that Ontario’s protocol discriminates against people with disabilities.

Downar says any protocol is better than none, which could leave decisions vulnerable to doctors’ unconscious biases — or an even cruder determination: first come, first served.

Level 1 triage could come in weeks

Ontario’s protocol is a work in progress and hasn’t officially been published, but the latest 32-page draft to be widely circulated among doctors looks like this:

Two physicians will independently assess any patient needing an ICU bed for their “short-term mortality risk” or STMR — their likelihood of death within 12 months.

At the lowest level of triage, Level 1, anyone with short-term mortality risk greater than 80 per cent is de-prioritized for an ICU bed.

If the COVID-19 situation worsens and triage moves to Level 2, anyone with an STMR over 50 per cent is “not prioritized for critical care.”

If ICUs get even more strained and go to Level 3, only people with a less than 30 per cent risk of dying within the next year would be prioritized for a spot.

Level 1 triage might be reached within Ontario in the next two weeks if current trends continue.

Quebec has a similar ICU protocol in place, inspired by Ontario’s, that also contemplates bands of mortality risk at 80, 50 and 30 per cent.

Withdrawal of care would need government approval

An even more drastic scenario, contemplated but not yet a possibility, is that doctors could take people off life support to free up ICU space for someone deemed to have a higher chance of survival. For that to happen, the provincial government would have to enact new regulations.

That hasn’t happened yet, but one Ottawa woman says she already worries critical-care physicians are under increasing pressure from having to treat so many ICU patients.

Nadine Tabbara, left, poses with her father, Souheil Tabbara, 74, who entered the ICU at Ottawa Hospital on Feb. 1 with severe COVID-19. (Submitted by Tabbara family)

Nadine Tabbara said her 74-year-old father, Souheil, contracted COVID-19 and was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital intensive care ward Feb. 1 and put on a ventilator. He can’t speak or move his limbs.

Tabbara said doctors told her they want to withdraw life support because he is not getting better, but she worries the worsening COVID situation might be affecting his care.

“The ICU is full and the doctors are overwhelmed,” she said. “And I think they may be rushing to decisions like this.”

The hospital told the family its decision was medically motivated and it would have recommended the same approach even without COVID-19.

“Hospital capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has not influenced access to critical care at all and does not influence decisions on moving to palliative care,” Ottawa Hospital said in a statement. “The decision to move patients from critical care to palliative care is one that no health-care worker takes lightly.”

With Ontario’s intensive care units approaching a breaking point, doctors are preparing to use triage protocols to determine which of the sickest patients there is capacity to save. 7:16

Protocol violates human rights, groups allege

One major problem with the province’s ICU decision-making protocol, a number of human rights groups and bioethics experts say, is that it risks only deepening inequities in health care.

Some of the more fiercely contested criteria for mortality risk, to be used in assessing critically ill COVID-19 patients with cancer or seniors suffering from a condition known as “frailty,” consider things like whether a patient is “capable of only limited self-care” or can dress, bathe, eat or walk without assistance, and whether they can handle their finances or go shopping.

Lawyer David Lepofsky calls Ontario’s ICU triage plan ‘raging, cruel disability discrimination, by doctors who say this is science and government that won’t even answer.’ (Simon Dingley/CBC)

“The only way to describe this is as raging, cruel disability discrimination, by doctors who say this is science and government that won’t even answer,” said lawyer and disability rights activist David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, which has been campaigning to reform the Ontario ICU protocol since an early version emerged last spring.

“It explicitly makes having a disability count against you, and that is flagrantly contrary to the human rights code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Pandemic made ‘exponentially scarier’

Lepofsky said doctors’ decisions on who lives and who dies won’t be subject to appeal, which denies patients and their families a fundamental right.

“If we had the death penalty, you’d have right to trial and due process,” he said.

Vivia Kay Kieswetter, a seminary student at Trinity College in Toronto and advocate for people with disabilities who has an autoimmune disorder, said reading Ontario’s ICU triage protocol has made the pandemic “exponentially scarier” for her.

“This is something that has been a source of additional stress and anxiety for those with disabilities over the course of this pandemic,” she said.

COVID-19 patients arriving ‘back to back’ at Vancouver General Hospital’s ICU, doctor says

VIDEO: ‘Very anxious’: ICU nurse describes what it’s like to treat COVID patients

Six of the bioethicists on the panel that helped draft the protocol published a dissent last week. They say the protocol doesn’t properly recognize that people with disabilities, Indigenous patients or people of colour could disproportionately be scored at a higher short-term mortality risk because of pre-existing inequities in society that weigh on their health “well before people are brought to the doors of an ICU.”

“Judgments about mortality risk in the short or long term, functional status or clinical frailty scores compounds health inequities by failing to … [consider] social disadvantage,” the dissenting bioethicists wrote.

‘Absolutely not … based on disability’

Ottawa’s Downar, one of the numerous doctors and ethicists behind the drafting of the protocols, replies that no one is being discriminated against based on a disability. Rather, the triage protocols try to save the most lives possible, he said, by prioritizing scarce ICU resources on patients who are most likely to survive.

The criteria that reference dressing or bathing oneself or going shopping, Downar said, do so only for patients with certain underlying conditions — in this case, cancer or frailty syndrome — who fall critically ill with COVID-19. And that’s because those kinds of assessments have been shown in research studies to be strong predictors of whether people with those underlying conditions will survive in the ICU, he said.

Dr. James Downar, who co-wrote Ontario’s ICU triage protocol, acknowledges it may have disproportionate effects on some groups. But he says it’s better than having no protocol and leaving it up to chance or vulnerable to doctors’ unconscious biases. (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute/The Canadian Press)

“People with literally the same disabilities could have totally different mortality risks and thus would be treated very differently. So it’s absolutely not a triage based on disability,” Downar said.

Protocols in both Ontario and Quebec have explicit language that doctors are not to rely on someone’s disability in assessing their mortality risk. A frailty syndrome assessment is excluded, for instance, for people with “long-term disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy), learning disabilities or autism.”

Still, Downar acknowledged that the effect of using short-term mortality risk to triage patients for ICU care “is going to necessarily affect some demographic groups more than others.”

“What we lack is a way to correct for it that would be fair, objective and that everybody would agree on. It’s not that we haven’t looked…. But so far we have yet to see one that would be fair.”

 The National Post April 14, 2021

Originally posted at https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/surging-like-absolute-crazy-ontario-hospitals-pray-they-dont-reach-last-resort-stage-in-third-wave

‘Surging like absolute crazy’: Ontario hospitals ‘pray’ they don’t reach last-resort stage in third wave

The triage protocol would mean choosing which patients should be offered potentially life-prolonging care

Author of the article: Sharon Kirkey

A tent city has been erected in the parking lot of Toronto’s Sunnybrook hospital to handle a surge in COVID-19 cases. PHOTO BY PETER J. THOMPSON/NATIONAL POST/FILE

The idea of people being removed from intensive care, unhooked from ventilators that might have saved them to make room for someone else more likely to survive is almost unfathomable, says the president and CEO of Canada’s largest university hospital.

“I believe we’ll fight that one as long as humanly possible, and I pray we never get to the point of having to consider that,” said Dr. Kevin Smith, head of Toronto’s University Health Network and co-chair of Ontario’s COVID-19 critical care table.

Staged withdrawals of life-support from people with low chances of survival are not part of a 32-page emergency triage protocol that would be enacted should Ontario ICU’s become saturated.

“Only the provincial government can take the steps necessary to enable physicians to withdraw life-sustaining treatment without consent” in order to give that care to someone with better prospects, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario said in a notice to physicians last week.

The triage protocol would, however, mean choosing which new patients should be offered potentially life-prolonging care — who to admit and who not to admit to the ICU, whether for COVID or a heart attack.

Hospitals are working flat out to avoid enacting the protocol — transferring hundreds of patients from hot spots to communities with extra space, cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up 700 critical care beds, and redeploying nursing and other health-care staff.

“Is it optimal and what we’d love to be doing? No. It’s where we find ourselves at this point in this rapid growth of the pandemic,” Smith said.

Admissions to ICUs have not only been rising, people are arriving in emergency rooms needing intensive care — immediately. “The virus has attacked them, literally, so quickly, it over came them so fast” that some are arriving in emergency desperately ill, before even having been tested for COVID, said Vicki McKenna, a registered nurse and provincial president with the Ontario Nurses Association.

As of midnight Monday, 1,892 people were in intensive care in Ontario hospitals, roughly a third — 623 — with COVID.

Should the number of people — with or without COVID — needing critical care approach 3,000, “that’s when we’re going to be precariously close to having to consider other options, and much less attractive options,” Smith said.

Those options include treating ICU patients outside ICUs, staffing ratios “we wouldn’t be very pleased by or comfortable with,” more field hospitals, bringing in doctors who don’t normally practise in hospitals, air lifting patients to Sudbury or Thunder Bay, “and, of course, last resort, thinking about the triage tool,” Smith said.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

A recent study found that the neighbourhoods in Toronto and Peel region that had the most essential workers and lowest incomes had the great number of COVID-19 cases.

What the numbers fail to tell us about how and where COVID-19 spreads

According to a Statistics Canada report last month, this country saw 13,798 more deaths than would be expected by mid-December of 2020, based on previous years and after accounting for the aging population.

How ‘excess deaths’ show COVID-19’s real impact

Nationally, more than 3,000 people with COVID were being treated in hospital each day over the past seven days, a 29 per cent increase over the previous week. ICU admissions are up 24 per cent.

The number of deaths has averaged around 30 a day for several weeks, a dramatic drop from the peaks of wave one and two, when Canada saw the highest rates of nursing home deaths globally. Deaths are down because jurisdictions prioritized seniors in long-term care and retirement home for vaccines.

But if rapidly spreading variants make more people severely ill, that mortality trend could change, federal health officials warned Tuesday.

British Columbia saw a record 121 people with COVID in critical care on Monday, and hospitalizations are starting to stretch the capacities of some hospitals in Metro Vancouver, the Vancouver Sun reported. Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry is pleading with British Columbians to not leave their neighbourhoods as the fearsome Brazilian P.1 variant spreads. Quebec is also reporting a rise in hospitalizations and ICU admissions.

Under an emergency protocol for a major surge developed for Ontario hospitals, those with the best chance of surviving 12 months would be given priority for an ICU bed.

In Ontario, “we’re moving patients like absolute crazy; we’re surging like absolute crazy,” one critical care specialist said. Ontario quietly issued emergency orders last week allowing hospitals to transfer patients to other hospitals, if needed, without their consent.

About 1,300 to 1,400 people have been shuttled around the province so far, mostly from the GTA to southern Ontario, and “it isn’t without the realization of how stressful that is for families,” Smith said.

Ontario reported 3,670 new COVID cases Tuesday, down from Sunday’s 4,456 record high. But infections are based on exposures a week or so ago. And hospital admissions and deaths lag infections by a week or two.

Today’s ICU admissions reflect when case numbers in Ontario were in the 2,000-range, said Ottawa critical care physician Dr. James Downar. “Very likely the stay-at-home order, coupled with the delayed March (school) break, will have the effect of blunting and flattening this a little bit. But that’s going to take a while.”

Among his concerns, “super-loading” nurses. Ontario already had the worst registered nurse-to-population ratio of all Canadian provinces before the pandemic. ICU nurses are highly specialized and after 14 months of the pandemic are burning out.

Normally in the ICU, it’s a one-to-one, nurse-patient ratio. Occasionally, they might have two patients. “But when they get added, and loaded up, that’s when the situation is unbearable for the nurse, and very high concern of course for the number of patients they’re trying to care for at any one time,” McKenna said.

Under an emergency protocol for a major surge developed for Ontario hospitals, those with the best chance of surviving 12 months would be given priority for an ICU bed. The protocol includes a “short-term mortality risk” calculator physicians could use to input information on the person’s condition — whether they have heart failure, cancer, chronic liver disease or severe COVID — that gives the person’s triage priority score.

While no one wants it, it’s a rational approach based on core principles and criteria, said Downar, one of the authors. “You apply the same rule to everybody.”

The group Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance has said the protocol is discriminatory, reduces life and death decisions “to a cold digitized computation” and, if consent legislation was changed, would allow doctors to “evict” someone from critical care.

Quebec hospitals haven’t yet been hit hard in the third wave, despite rising infections. However, Montreal ICUs are still dealing with people who survived COVID in the second wave, and need critical care for “respiratory compromise,” said Dr. Peter Goldberg, director of critical care at the McGill University Health Centre.

“About one-third of all our ICU beds are committed to either active or recovering COVID patients,” Goldberg said in an email.

“I can’t imagine that we’ll escape another ICU admission blip over the next couple of weeks,” he said. But he added, “thankfully,” there are no discussions about implementing Quebec’s triage protocol.



Source link

Disability Groups Present 6 Steps for the Ford Government to Repair Disability-Discriminatory Critical Care Triage Protocol – AODA Alliance


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance

ARCH Disability Law Centre

 

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Six Bio-Ethicists on Ontario Government’s “Bioethics Table” Confirm Ongoing Concerns Raised by Disability Organizations regarding the Discriminatory and Secret Plans for the Triaging of Critical Care

 

April 19, 2021 – Serious objections that have been raised by disability groups for over one year regarding Ontario’s plans for triaging life-saving critical care have been validated and echoed by a number of the very individuals that were advising the Ontario Government on it. In a revealing article by six bio-ethicists that advised the Government on what should be included in Ontario’s directions for rationing life-saving critical care, alarm bells continue to be rung with serious concerns that they raise including: the lack of transparency and public engagement in developing the Triage Protocol, the failure to consider social determinants of health, the prioritization of utilitarianism over human rights, and the reliance on problematic clinical tools that compound health inequities.

Last year, in April 2020, a Triage Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed by ARCH Disability Law Centre to come together in order to consult with and bring forward concerns of disability communities in Ontario flowing from the then newly leaked March 28, 2020 version of Ontario’s critical care Triage Protocol. The TAC is made up of representatives from various disability organizations and academics which includes the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) Alliance; ARCH Disability Law Centre; Canadian Down Syndrome Society; Centre for Independent Living in Toronto; Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario (CWDO); Community Living Ontario; Disability Law Intensive Program – Osgoode Hall Law School, York University; Lupus Canada; Muscular Dystrophy Canada; and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.

Over the last 12 months, and through ARCH and the AODA Alliance, TAC has tried to express its concerns repeatedly to the Bioethics Table, to the Ontario Government, and to the public. Despite this, the Ontario Government has failed to meet with us or to ensure that Ontario’s critical care triage protocol and plans are free of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Government’s continued assertion that it has not authorized any Triage Protocol is especially of concern when the latest version of the critical care Triage Protocol, dated January 13, 2021, has been sent to all Ontario hospitals and subsequent training has been offered to hospitals and doctors that urges doctors and hospitals to use it. This Triage Protocol includes several problematic clinical assessment tools that discriminate against persons with disabilities and risks physicians making guestimates on who should be refused life-saving critical care.

The Ontario Government has had 14 months to ensure that lawful and constitutional directions are in place to ensure that decisions on who is to be refused life-saving critical care are free of unlawful discrimination.

As the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to strain Ontario’s healthcare system in unprecedented ways, TAC urgently calls for the Ontario Government to:

  1. Now make public the current version of the critical care triage protocol, all reports and recommendations regarding critical care triage by its external Bioethics Table since September 11, 2020, the Government’s plan of action for rolling out critical care triage if needed, and the content and results of drills or simulations of critical care triage held at any Ontario hospitals.
  1. Remove unlawful discrimination, including disability discrimination, from the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, and substantially reduce the one year likely survival threshold for assessing who gets priority for receiving critical care during a period of critical care triage.
  1. Uphold the current law and ensure that doctors will not be permitted to remove or withdraw life-saving critical care from a patient already receiving it, without that patient’s consent.
  1. Not give a financial blank cheque to doctors and hospitals in advance (indemnification), nor should the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario give doctors a regulatory blank cheque, if they rely on disability-discriminatory directions.
  1. Immediately hold a public consultation on how critical care triage should be conducted.
  1. Ensure that Ontario’s critical care triage plan and protocol are properly prescribed by law, by introducing legislation on critical care triage for debate in the Legislature, rather than dealing with it by an internal memo to hospitals.

Contact:

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Robert Lattanzio, Executive Director

ARCH Disability Law Centre

Toll-free: 1-866-482-2724 extension 2233

Email: [email protected]

For more background on this issue, check out:

  1. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing its efforts regarding critical care triage and generally, its to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.
  2. The ARCH Disability Law Centre website’s COVID-19 page offers more about ARCH’s work on the clinical triage protocol, including a September 15, 2020 published article, visitation ban policies, access to technology and other issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.



Source link

Register for April 20, 2021 Virtual Public Forum on Disability Concerns with Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans – Plan to Tell The Virtual April 28, 2021 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee Meeting Not to Allow 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/

Register for April 20, 2021 Virtual Public Forum on Disability Concerns with Ontario’s Critical Care Triage Plans – Plan to Tell The Virtual April 28, 2021 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee Meeting Not to Allow Electric Scooters

April 16, 2021

            SUMMARY

Please save the date for these two important events that are fast approaching. For the first one, register now. For the second one, stay tuned for details on how to register to take part.

Please publicize both of these events widely on social media, and by carrier pigeon (but only if the birds are socially distancing).

            MORE DETAILS

1. Register to Attend the Online Public Forum on Tuesday, April 20, 2021, on the Danger Facing People with Disabilities if Ontario Must Ration or Triage Life-Saving Critical Care

The newest wave of COVID is overloading Ontario intensive care units, which is what triggered Ontario’s latest lockdown. As a result, life-saving critical care in Ontario hospitals could very soon be rationed or “triaged.” Serious concerns about the triage protocol have been raised by disability organizations such as ARCH Disability Law Centre and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance.

This is a time-sensitive issue. We encourage you to join us on Tuesday, April 20 at 7:30 p.m. for a virtual information session to learn more about Ontario’s triage protocol and why it matters.

LEARN MORE AND REGISTER NOW! (ASL and closed captioning will be available)

For background on the AODA Alliance’s efforts to battle the danger of disability discrimination in critical care triage, visit the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

2. Save the Date! On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, Tell the Online Meeting of Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee Not to Allow Electric Scooters in Toronto

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, the City of Toronto’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee will be discussing whether Toronto should lift the ban on riding electric scooters in public places. Members of the public will be able to register in advance to speak to that Committee at that meeting before it debates the issue. We urge as many people as possible to sign up to speak against allowing e-scooters. E-scooters endanger the safety of the public, including people with disabilities, and will create new barriers impeding people with disabilities.

We will let you know when you can sign up, and how to register to present. That opportunity to register may not open up until just a few days before the April 28, 2021 meeting.

Members of the public each get only 3 to 5 minutes to speak, so you don’t have to talk long. You can even speak for a shorter time and just tell the members of City Council not to allow e-scooters.

We know the e-scooter corporate lobbyists will be organizing to again pressure City Council. We want City Council to stand up for people with disabilities and to stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

Stay tuned for more information on this. You can learn all about our efforts to protect people with disabilities from e-scooters by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooter page.



Source link

As COVID-19 Infections Hit Record Highs and Hospital ICUs Reach the Brink, Six Bioethicists on The Ford Government’s Bioethics Table Release a Public Statement Revealing Major Concerns with Ontario’s Plans for Triage of Critical Care, that Echo Disability Community Objections


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

As COVID-19 Infections Hit Record Highs and Hospital ICUs Reach the Brink, Six Bioethicists on The Ford Government’s Bioethics Table Release a Public Statement Revealing Major Concerns with Ontario’s Plans for Triage of Critical Care, that Echo Disability Community Objections

April 15, 2021 Toronto: A body blow has just been delivered to the Ford Government’s controversial plans for deciding which patients would be refused life-saving critical care, if the crisis overload in Ontario hospital intensive care units requires that life-saving critical care must be rationed or “triaged”. Six members of the Ford Government’s own advisory “Bioethics Table” have today published an online statement, set out below, that strongly criticizes Ontario’s critical care triage plans. Their concerns reflect serious objections to Ontario’s triage plans from the disability community, including from the AODA Alliance.

The six bioethicists (who don’t claim to speak for the entire Bioethics Table) urge that the Government should now reveal its secret critical care triage plans to the public, should consult the public, and should hold and open discussion of how critical care should be triaged, if rationing becomes necessary, without treating this as a purely clinical issue or one for bioethicists to monopolize. (Key excerpts also set out below)

These six authors make it clear that Ontario needs a better approach to critical care triage. This is a direct blast at the Ford Government’s persistent secrecy on this issue and its refusal to speak directly to key stakeholders like those from the disability community. We offer the example that the Government has refused to even answer eight detailed letters from the AODA Alliance since last September which identify well-researched objections.

The six bioethicists explain that decisions over who should get life-saving critical care and who should be refused it during critical care triage is not simply a clinical question (i.e. one of medical science alone). Ontario’s secret critical care triage protocol treats this triage as purely a clinical question. The six authors humbly emphasize that bioethicists themselves have no monopoly on wisdom in the area of how critical care triage should be conducted.

These authors urge that it is important to respect the human rights of disadvantaged groups in society. We add that the AODA Alliance and others have been showing for months that Ontario’s plans are replete with disability discrimination, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

We expect that the Ford Government will answer that the Bioethics Table, of whom these six authors are a part, held consultations with a number of disability advocates, including the AODA Alliance. That would be no answer. Those discussions ended months ago. The external Bioethics Table only gives advice to The Government. The Bioethics Table makes no decisions on how critical care triage should be conducted, and rejected some of our major concerns without giving reasons for doing so. Those in the Government who do make the decisions have steadfastly refused to talk to us. The Government has hidden behind them for months, like human shields.

The secret January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol is not available on any Government website, but is available on the AODA Alliance website.

In light of this important statement by several of The Government’s own external advisors, the AODA Alliance calls on the Ford Government to take these four urgent steps:

  1. Now make public the current version of the critical care triage protocol, all reports and recommendations by its external Bioethics Table since September 11, 2021, The Government’s plan of action for rolling out critical care triage if needed, and the results of drills or simulations of critical care triage held at any Ontario hospitals.
  2. Remove disability discrimination from the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, and
  3. Immediately hold a public consultation on how critical care triage should be conducted.
  4. Introduce legislation on critical care triage for debate in the Legislature, rather than dealing with it by an internal memo to hospitals.

Key statements to this effect by the six bioethicists on the Ford Government’s external Bioethics Table in this article include:

“As bioethicists involved in developing an ethical framework for ICU triage at the Ontario COVID-19 Bioethics Table, we have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and public engagement around the constraints the Table works under.”

“We are beholden to the public as bioethicists helping to develop guidance for the ethical use of public resources – especially to the people most likely to be impacted by intensive care triage decisions – as well as to the physicians who will be forced to make these fraught decisions. This requires that the process be informed, transparent, inclusive, reasonable and subject to revision in light of new information or legitimate concerns or claims.

To date, these requirements have not been met in several provinces, including Ontario, and we entreat governments to make available their triage frameworks and protocols for public deliberation.”

“Science alone cannot tell us how to allocate ICU beds.”

“Whose lives we save is not just a matter of how we apply clinical criteria. It is a matter of redressing unfair inequalities in health and a matter of protecting fundamental human rights.

And while utility is one worthwhile objective of health policy, it must be balanced with due consideration of the human rights of people who might be disproportionately, unjustifiably or morally harmed by clinically based triage decisions. Relying on clinical criteria like judgments about mortality risk in the short or long term, functional status or clinical frailty scores compounds health inequities by failing to help distribute health benefits fairly across society through explicit consideration of social disadvantage.

Human rights advocates, disability rights advocates, Indigenous health partners and members of the Black community have voiced concerns about the potential for discrimination when triage does not take stock of societal factors and when they are not involved in the process of developing triage criteria. Meaningful inclusion of these communities and their perspectives is essential for the ethical legitimacy of ICU triage frameworks to balance utility with equity.

The public needs to join the conversation on an ethical approach to triage”

“Bioethicists are not moral authorities, and governments ought not decide on an approach to intensive care triage without engaging in broader moral deliberation with the public and with those who will be most affected.”

“It is a distinctly political obligation to ensure that the triage protocol is grounded in an ethical, democratic process and that it is based on values that have been justified through stated public reasons.

“We join the COVID-19 Bioethics Table, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and disability rights advocates in calling for transparency and public deliberation on the unfinished work of developing Ontario’s approach to critical care triage in a major surge during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“The protection of fundamental legal and human rights during an emergency is a litmus test for society, and we need to do everything in our power to avoid overriding rights unjustifiably. Without public discussion, the vulnerability of already marginalized groups is intensified and trust eroded.”

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

For More Background

  1. The AODA Alliance’s new February 25, 2021 independent report on Ontario’s plans for critical care triage if hospitals are overwhelmed by patients needing critical care.
  2. Ontario’s January 13, 2021 triage protocol.
  3. The eight unanswered letters from the AODA Alliance to the Ford Government on its critical care triage plan, 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, its January 18, 2021 letter and its February 25, 2021 letter to Health Minister Christine Elliott.
  4. The Government’s earlier external advisory Bioethics Table’s September 11, 2020 draft critical care triage protocol, finally revealed in December 2020.
  5. The AODA Alliance website’s health care page, detailing its efforts to tear down barriers in the health care system facing patients with disabilities, and our COVID-19 page, detailing our efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

Healthy Debate April 15, 2021

Originally posted at https://healthydebate.ca/opinions/icu-triage/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=we-need-to-talk-about-triaging-critical-care_12

Opinion

Public conversation on the ethics of intensive care triage during pandemic is overdue

by Alison Thompson, Paula Chidwick, Lisa Jennifer Schwartz, Stephanie Nixon, Lisa Forman, Robert Sibbald

COVID-19 has highlighted the ethical challenges in our health-care system, and nowhere is this more apparent than in an overcrowded intensive care unit. ICUs are where the sickest of the sick receive life-saving treatments and where their crashing bodily functions are taken over by high-tech machines.

Even when there isn’t a pandemic, not everyone can get access to intensive care, and not everyone will benefit from it. It is costly, invasive and requires a highly skilled workforce to make it run.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people around the world were shocked by the images of ICU doctors working around the clock in Wuhan, Turin and New York. Their faces were etched with bruises from their tight-fitting face masks. Their eyes were haunted by the sheer number of patients they were treating – and by the sheer number they couldn’t treat.

These early warnings from other countries signaled that Canadian provinces needed to avoid a major surge of patients that would strain intensive care resources. But, preparing for the worst, work on guidance for intensive care triage began very early on in the pandemic, with Saskatchewan and Quebec starting in late winter 2020 and Ontario in the spring of 2020 across several of its COVID-19 advisory tables.

As bioethicists involved in developing an ethical framework for ICU triage at the Ontario COVID-19 Bioethics Table, we have serious concerns about the lack of transparency and public engagement around the constraints the Table works under. To be clear, we do not speak on behalf of the COVID-19 Bioethics Table, but we do speak as scholars in clinical and public health ethics and in human rights law who are also members of that Table.

We are beholden to the public as bioethicists helping to develop guidance for the ethical use of public resources – especially to the people most likely to be impacted by intensive care triage decisions – as well as to the physicians who will be forced to make these fraught decisions. This requires that the process be informed, transparent, inclusive, reasonable and subject to revision in light of new information or legitimate concerns or claims.

To date, these requirements have not been met in several provinces, including Ontario, and we entreat governments to make available their triage frameworks and protocols for public deliberation.

Rationing intensive care beds is fundamentally an ethical endeavour

Science alone cannot tell us how to allocate ICU beds. Should they go to the sickest patients? Should they go to those who are most likely to benefit from treatment? Should we use a lottery system? Should we withdraw treatment from patients if they are not going to have a meaningful recovery to give the bed to someone who will? And what constitutes a meaningful recovery? These are ethical questions requiring value judgements.

Many pandemic response plans focus on maximizing the benefit of scarce resources to save the most lives. Allocating ICU beds to people who are unlikely to benefit from them is often considered unethical and inefficient. Clinicians who work in the ICU often talk about the moral difficulty of providing treatments that sometimes do more harm than good. The moral burden of care in these circumstances weighs heavily on ICU clinicians when left to make these decisions alone and without ethical guidance.

How should health equity be balanced with utility in intensive care triage?

Society’s failure to address upstream causes of ill health and inequities means that the futility or efficacy of ICU care is often determined well before people are brought to the doors of an ICU. To fail to attend to this in triage frameworks and clinical protocols undermines trust. Whose lives we save is not just a matter of how we apply clinical criteria. It is a matter of redressing unfair inequalities in health and a matter of protecting fundamental human rights.

And while utility is one worthwhile objective of health policy, it must be balanced with due consideration of the human rights of people who might be disproportionately, unjustifiably or morally harmed by clinically based triage decisions. Relying on clinical criteria like judgments about mortality risk in the short or long term, functional status or clinical frailty scores compounds health inequities by failing to help distribute health benefits fairly across society through explicit consideration of social disadvantage.

Human rights advocates, disability rights advocates, Indigenous health partners and members of the Black community have voiced concerns about the potential for discrimination when triage does not take stock of societal factors and when they are not involved in the process of developing triage criteria. Meaningful inclusion of these communities and their perspectives is essential for the ethical legitimacy of ICU triage frameworks to balance utility with equity.

The public needs to join the conversation on an ethical approach to triage

Consensus on a proposed ethical framework for pandemic triage, even just among bioethicists, is unrealistic. Nor is it necessarily desirable. In fact, the role of dissensus in bioethics is crucial to avoiding the narrowing of possible policy avenues and avoiding presumptive constructions of various stakeholders.

As bioethicists, our expertise is in sketching the moral landscape, providing options and framing ethical debate. Our job is to propose a possible approach to intensive care triage that the public and stakeholders can then weigh and deliberate. It is also to propose and promote accessible and ethically defensible processes for doing so.

Bioethicists are not moral authorities, and governments ought not decide on an approach to intensive care triage without engaging in broader moral deliberation with the public and with those who will be most affected.

To be sure, public deliberation will not make the decisions about how to prioritize patients for intensive care any easier, nor will it necessarily make it easier to live with the consequences. But it would ensure that all voices have been heard, innovative approaches have been considered, and that new ethical considerations can come to light. It is a distinctly political obligation to ensure that the triage protocol is grounded in an ethical, democratic process and that it is based on values that have been justified through stated public reasons.

We join the COVID-19 Bioethics Table, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and disability rights advocates in calling for transparency and public deliberation on the unfinished work of developing Ontario’s approach to critical care triage in a major surge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other provinces must also follow suit. Specific attention needs to be paid to partnering with people who have been marginalized by both the process and the products of ICU triage development.

The protection of fundamental legal and human rights during an emergency is a litmus test for society, and we need to do everything in our power to avoid overriding rights unjustifiably. Without public discussion, the vulnerability of already marginalized groups is intensified and trust eroded.

No province in Canada can claim to have a morally legitimate and human rights compliant approach to triage until an accessible and public discussion takes place about how to balance equity with the aim of saving lives in a pandemic.



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

One Year After the First Secret Ontario Critical Care Triage Protocol Was Sent to Ontario Hospitals, the Threat of Critical Care Discrimination Against Some Patients with Disabilities Remains A Live Worry


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/

One Year After the First Secret Ontario Critical Care Triage Protocol Was Sent to Ontario Hospitals, the Threat of Critical Care Discrimination Against Some Patients with Disabilities Remains A Live Worry

March 29, 2021

            SUMMARY

It was one year ago yesterday that the Ford Government secretly sent Ontario hospitals a deeply-flawed critical care triage protocol, directing how hospitals should decide who will be refused life-saving critical care if hospitals get overloaded by the COVID-19pandemic. It was one year ago next week that the disability community learned of this, and made public the fact that the Government’s critical care triage protocol discriminates against some patients with disabilities.

Where are we one year later? The COVID-19 pandemic is still upon us. Despite the good news of COVID-19 vaccines, waves of new infections continue to push Ontario’s hospitals to the limit. The risk of Ontario having to ration critical care remains a real one.

As well, one year later, the Ford Government wrongly continues to deal with this issue in secret, and without itself consulting the public or making public what it is doing. It continues to deny responsibility in this area, sloughing it off on the medical profession. It continues to sit back while an updated critical care triage protocol is in place, that would continue to discriminate against some patients with disabilities.

Oddly, the health care web page of the AODA Alliance website continues to be the best, if not the only place to go to find public copies of important documents in this area, such as Ontario’s January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, and the September 11, 2020 report of the Government’s Bioethics Table. News reporters continue to tell us that they cannot get straight answers, and at times, cannot get any answers at all, from the Ford Government on this critical care triage issue.

Even though too many news outlets have failed to give this issue the attention it deserves, there have been a few recent and important news reports. Below, we set out:

* The March 29, 29, 2021 Globe and Mail report on the critical care triage issue;

* The February 7, 2021 Globe and Mail report on the critical care triage issue; and

* The February 8, 2021 Lawyer’s Daily report on broader health care barriers facing people with disabilities during COVID-19, which situates the critical care triage discrimination against some patients with disabilities into that broader issue.

We offer four reflections on those reports:

  1. The cruel irony has not been lost on many people with disabilities that at the same time as people with disabilities must battle against the life-threatening dangers facing them if Ontario undertakes critical care triage, disability advocates have also been campaigning against Bill C-7, controversial new federal legislation that substantially liberalizes medical assistance in dying. There has been this increased governmental focus on ending the lives of people with disabilities, without comparable governmental efforts to improve the opportunities for living with a disability.
  1. As the Government itself hides, Dr. James Downar continues in effect to play the role of the Government’s chief defender on this critical care triage issue. He appears indistinguishable from a cabinet minister’s spokesperson. He has been credited with being an author, if not the key author, of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol which embodies seriously harmful disability discrimination. As a member of the Government’s advisory Bioethics Table, he was a key player during a series of virtual meetings last summer, where the AODA Alliance and certain other disability advocates and experts voiced concerns in this area.

Dr. Downar’s statements in the Government’s defence in the March 29, 2021 article below constitute a seriously erroneous rejection of key points of input we presented to him and his Bioethics Table colleagues on these disability issues. That article states:

“He said using a scoring system, such as the clinical frailty scale, to evaluate patients is meant to limit the scope of a doctor’s subjective judgements or bias, in order to try to ensure everyone is treated equally. The protocol, he said, is focused on a patient’s risk of mortality at 12 months, not whether they have a disability.”

Whether or not the critical care triage protocol was intended as he stated, we and other disability advocates have shown that the protocol has the clear effect of discriminating because of disability. It is the effect of the protocol and not its intent that determines whether it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and/or the Ontario Human Rights Code. Dr. Downar’s defence provides no defence.

  1. Both Globe and Mail articles report on advocacy by some doctors to be given the power to pull the plug on critical care patients over their objection, taking away critical care they are already receiving, and thereby endangering their life. No one has answered our objection that Ontario cannot authorize this without the doctor running up against Canada’s Criminal Code homicide provisions. This piles onto vulnerable people with disabilities yet another danger to their lives, during a pandemic where they have disproportionately been at risk of getting COVID-19and dying from it.
  1. The Globe and Mail’s February 7, 2021 article quotes a bioethicist in defence of the January 13, 2021 Critical Care Triage Protocol, who claims it is designed to protect human rights. The title “bioethicist” implies great expertise in this area. However, there is cause for concern.

There is no public regulation of who can call themselves a bioethicist. There appears to be no self-governing body for bioethicists, and no code of ethics for bioethicists. We have learned through the critical care triage issue that a person does not need to have any training in law or human rights, to call themselves a bioethicist. Indeed, some make statements on basic constitutional and human rights that reflect a demonstrable lack of knowledge in these important areas.

For more background in this area, check out the AODA Alliance’s health care web page. Also, check out the AODA Alliance’s February 25, 2021 report entitled: “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”.

            MORE DETAILS

Globe and Mail March 29, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-covid-19-surge-could-force-doctors-to-use-online-calculator-to/

Ontario’s COVID-19 triage plan includes online care calculator

By JEFF GRAY

Staff

If COVID-19’s surging third wave overwhelms Ontario’s hospitals, doctors could soon be forced to use an emergency triage protocol that includes an online calculator to help decide who gets lifesaving care and who does not.

The website, which prompts physicians to key in a critical patient’s diagnosis in order to estimate their chances of survival, is part of an emergency procedure drafted to help doctors make what would normally be unthinkable decisions. The protocol has been distributed to hospitals. But it has never officially been made public.

The province has loosened some pandemic restrictions in recent weeks, even as daily new infections still shoot upward, with more than 2,448 recorded on Sunday and 19 deaths. Ontario counted 390 COVID-19 patients in its intensive-care units, not far from the peak of 420 hit in the second wave of the virus in January.

While the provincial government says it has added hospital capacity, the Ontario Hospital Association warned last Friday that the province’s critical-care system was reaching its “saturation point” and that soon “hospitals will be under extraordinary pressure to try and ensure equitable access to lifesaving critical care.”

To deal with the onslaught, ICUs have been transferring critical patients from packed facilities to those elsewhere that still have space. Patients are being shipped via ambulance helicopter from Toronto to as far away as Kingston. Field hospitals have also sprung up around several health care facilities, including Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

But more than a year into a pandemic that put hospitals in New York and Italy over the brink, the Ontario government has kept almost all planning for such a worst-case scenario out of the public eye.

By contrast, Quebec held open consultations on its emergency triage protocol months ago.

Meanwhile, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and disability rights groups have raised objections for months, warning that leaked drafts of Ontario’s protocol discriminate unfairly against older and disabled people.

Both a January version of the protocol, developed by the group that co-ordinates critical care across the province, and the online calculation tool have only come to light after being obtained by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, a disability rights group.

The AODAA has also obtained a “framework document,” prepared by the government’s bioethics table, a committee of experts that has been wrestling with the triage issue for the past year.

The province’s Ministry of Health has said only that the triage protocol, known as an “emergency standard of care,” was drafted by the medical profession and not approved by the ministry.

The notion of an online triage aide may sound strange, but nothing about hospitals swamped by COVID-19 would be normal. The “short-term mortality risk” calculator would allow physicians to type data on the severity of a patient’s conditions – cancer, trauma, stroke and so on – to help come up with an estimated chance of survival after 12 months. Those with a higher chance of survival would be given priority for ICU spots. Decisions would be made by two doctors, not one alone.

David Lepofsky, a lawyer and chairman of the AODAA, said it’s the wrong approach.

“It creates the false impression that this can be an objective [task]. Just type in the data, press the button, the computer will tell you who lives and who dies,” Mr. Lepofsky said in an interview.

He takes issue with the protocol’s reliance on a metric for use on those over 65 known as the clinical frailty scale, which measures a patient’s ability to perform various everyday tasks.

That, he argues, devalues the lives of disabled people.

James Downar, a specialist in critical care at The Ottawa Hospital and a drafter of the triage plan who sits on the province’s bioethics table, said the online calculator is no different than the paper version that doctors can also use under the protocol.

He said using a scoring system, such as the clinical frailty scale, to evaluate patients is meant to limit the scope of a doctor’s subjective judgements or bias, in order to try to ensure everyone is treated equally. The protocol, he said, is focused on a patient’s risk of mortality at 12 months, not whether they have a disability.

“None of us want to be in a triage scenario,” Dr. Downar said.

“The purpose of a triage system is to reduce the number of preventable deaths and reduce the number of people who are denied critical care.”

Dr. Downar said he believed it would be best to make the triage plans public.

A spokeswoman for Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott referred questions about the protocol to Jennifer Gibson, the cochair of the government’s bioethics table and director of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics.

Dr. Gibson said the bioethics table has been in discussions with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on addressing its concerns with the triage protocol.

She also said the table has previously recommended an open public consultation on the triage issue – but that the government had so far not acted on this idea.

“We provide advice. And that advice may be taken or it may not be taken,” Dr. Gibson said.

Even with ICUs at a tipping point, Dr. Gibson said she didn’t think it was too late to start a more open discussion of the issues at stake, to build public trust.

Earlier this month, the chief commissioner of Ontario’s Human Rights Commission, Ena Chadha, wrote to Ms. Elliott to reiterate concerns about the protocol, the potential for discrimination against the disabled and a lack of consultation and transparency around it. Ms. Chadha and other groups have been at odds with the government over the issue since last March.

“We have to develop a framework that is equitable, with human-rights considerations being paramount. Which means it can’t be built on ageist or ableist notions, or assumptions about quality of life,” she said. “This is the problem.”

Michael Warner, the head of critical care at Michael Garron Hospital in Toronto’s east end, said ICU doctors have been familiarized with the emergency triage protocol – even though the government says it remains unapproved – and that committees at hospitals across the province to oversee it have been set up. He held up a paper triage form in a Twitter video on Friday, urging Premier Doug Ford to tighten public-health measures.

He also criticized the government for so far declining to say it would, if needed, issue an order to override Ontario’s health care legislation and allow for the withdrawal of lifesaving care from patients already in the ICU who are unlikely to survive. Under the plan as it stands now, only new patients would face ICU triage.

It’s unclear, Dr. Warner warned, how the plans would roll out in what would be an unprecedented crisis.

“This could be battlefield medicine,” he said. “We may end up having to improvise.”

 The Globe and Mail February 7, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontarios-life-and-death-emergency-triage-protocol-remains-a-work-in/

News

Ontario’s life-and-death triage protocol still in progress

By JEFF GRAY

Staff

If a third wave of COVID-19 overwhelms Ontario hospitals, and intensive care units run out of beds, the province’s doctors could be forced to make previously unthinkable decisions about who gets access to life-saving treatment. Precisely how they would do that remains largely under wraps even as concern mounts about the spread of more contagious new variants of the virus.

Ontario has cancelled procedures, added beds and helicoptered patients from hotspots to less-crowded hospitals to avoid the worst. But its contingency planning for how doctors would cope with an uncontainable COVID-19 surge has occurred largely behind closed doors. That has raised alarms with disability rights activists and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who warn hospital triage protocols must guard against discrimination.

Meanwhile, some doctors say a draft “emergency standard of care” distributed to hospitals last month – but not publicly released – does not go far enough.

They say it lacks a grim but necessary provision: The power to unplug patients who are unlikely to survive from life support without consent to make room for those with a better chance.

Not allowing this kind of triage, some doctors argue, could create a kind of first-come, firstserved system, in which patients who might have lived are denied access to scarce ICU beds because others who have little hope already occupy them. More people, they say, would end up dying.

The problem is a legal one. In Ontario, removing life support without the consent of the patient or their next of kin or designated decision maker has been barred since the Supreme Court of Canada decision ruled in 2013 that the province’s Health Care Consent Act applies to both providing and withdrawing care.

The decision did not affect other provinces.

Quebec’s triage protocol, which has been made public, would allow doctors to apply a set of criteria to remove patients from life support without consent if needed. Other jurisdictions, including New York, have had to invoke triage protocols, formal or informal, to deal with tidal waves of COVID-19 cases.

Ontario’s COVID-19 bioethics table, made up of critical-care doctors and academics, recommended in a September “framework” document that the government issue an emergency order “related to any aspect [of the triage plans] requiring a deviation from the Health Care Consent Act.” It also called for an order to provide liability protection for doctors. The document laid out the principles for triaging patients in a COVID-19 surge.

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.”

The draft emergency standard of care distributed to hospitals would classify new patients needing life support based on how likely they are to survive for 12 months. But those already inside the ICU, no matter how small their chance of recovery, would stay put.

Michael Warner, the head of critical care at Michael Garron Hospital in Toronto’s east end, said the government has to issue an emergency order to fix an unfair triage plan that would leave more people dead. But he said he realizes politicians would rather not confront the issue before it is necessary: “I understand that this is a nuclear football for any government.”

Last month, with more than 400 COVID-19 patients in ICUs across the province, hospitals raised frantic alarms. But with the recent slowdown in infections, numbers have declined.

On Friday, the province said it had 325 patients in its ICUs with the virus.

Critics say Ontario is wrong to keep the life-and-death deliberations quiet. Disability rights activists obtained leaked copies of the framework and the proposed standard of care and posted them online. Neither of the cochairs of the bioethics table responded to requests for comment for this article.

“That’s just the way Doug Ford likes to do things, behind closed doors, and in secret,” Opposition NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said. “But on something like this, literally life-and-death decisions … there’s just no excuse to not make these kinds of policy decisions the result of massive engagement with Ontarians.”

Disability rights activists say the current proposal would discriminate against the disabled.

Some hold that doctors should never remove a patient from life support without consent.

“That is a point that we shouldn’t have to get to,” said Mariam Shanouda, a lawyer with the ARCH Disability Law Centre, who argues the government must do more to ensure such drastic measures are never needed.

David Lepofsky, a lawyer and chairman of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, said the triage protocol lacks an arm’s-length process to appeal decisions, which doctors say is not compatible with acting quickly in a crisis. He also questions the government’s legal authority to issue an emergency order that would allow doctors to remove a patient from life support without consent.

“Any doctor that would consider doing this, I hope they’ve got a lawyer,” Mr. Lepofsky said.

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.

Dr. Frolic said the government needs to assure ICU doctors that the protocol and an emergency order are in place long before infections begin to spike again, so that doctors – and the public – are prepared: “That’s not necessarily something that can turn on overnight.”

The Lawyer’s Daily February 8, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/24331/research-project-seeks-to-understand-covid-19-justice-barriers-for-people-who-live-with-disabilities

Research project seeks to understand COVID-19 justice barriers for people who live with disabilities

Researchers at a western Canada university have embarked on studies into how measures to combat COVID-19 have impacted access to justice for Ontarians with disabilities living in care centres and people with mental disorders in British Columbia’s prisons and psychiatric facilities.

Thompson Rivers University (TRU) law professor Dr. Ruby Dhand is one of the researchers who in January launched the two projects. Each is being run in collaboration with various legal and advocacy groups. The goal, to use legal and scientific research to promote legislative change.

The Ontario project, Dhand told The Lawyer’s Daily, will also involve a TRU science professor and a law professor from the University of Windsor and will be run in collaboration with the Toronto-based ARCH Disability Law Centre (ARCH).

According to a description on a TRU webpage, the project will examine “COVID-19 barriers to justice for those who live with disabilities in these congregate care settings,” such as long-term care homes, group homes and assisted living facilities.

Dhand said restrictions put in place to combat the health crisis have resulted in a lack of care, community supports and “communication devices,” as well as fallout from visitor bans and reductions in standard services.

“We’ve recognized that people with disabilities, as this pandemic has evolved, who are living in congregate care settings … have really been disproportionately impacted,” said Dhand. “It’s become clear that over 80 per cent of these COVID-19 related deaths have occurred in these long-term care facilities. … They are experiencing complex forms of discrimination.

“[The] purpose of this research to highlight those voices, because this will be a quotative, multidisciplinary research project. … We recognize that, throughout this pandemic, the voices of people with disabilities have really be silenced, and it doesn’t seem like they’ve been prioritized.”

Dhand also talked about the controversial emergency “triage” protocol put together by the province, which would reportedly allow doctors in intensive care units to decide who gets a bed and who doesn’t in the event hospitals become overwhelmed by the health crisis.

“A clear access to justice issue has also been Ontario’s triage protocols,” Dhand said. “As a result of the triage protocols, a person with a disability will be deprioritized. The protocols state that they will be deprioritized for a ventilator [if their] future quality of life is determined to be poor because of their disability. So, disability advocates have raised concerns about the discriminatory impact of the triage protocols on people with disability in congregate care settings. … Access to health care is an access to justice issue.”

In January, ARCH issued a statement about possible temporary suspensions to Ontario health-care legislation that “would effectively permit doctors to withdraw treatment from a patient without the consent of the patient or family” if hospitals end up having “more patients than resources.” This would accompany the province’s triage protocol, ARCH goes on to state.

The Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act Alliance recently said that such a thing would be like “recklessly tap-dancing in a constitutional minefield.”

Dhand hopes the research she and the others conduct will help prompt legislative change.

“This proposed partnership comes at a critical moment in ARCH’s advocacy efforts, and we want to be able to help; we want to be able to have this research create disability-informed responses to the pandemic and post-pandemic planning.”

Turning to the second research project, Dhand says this B.C.-based initiative is examining COVID-19 transmission risks and barriers to justice for those being detained in the province’s mental health facilities, prisons and detention centres.

It is in collaboration with a number of community organizations, including the West Coast Justice Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society.

“People with mental health and substance use issues who are in mental health facilities and prisons and detention centres have an increased potential of death,” said Dhand. “They experience much higher likelihood of getting COVID-19 because these are congregate care facilities, where people live in crowded and confined spaces with high transmission risk. And there is also a lack of resources [and] a lack of [personal protective equipment]. And people with mental health and substance use issues have already pre-existing health issues and vulnerabilities.”

Dhand said they can also “experience consent and capacity issues” and, in some cases, “may not even understand what the public health measures mean.”

She also cites “a lack of community-based care and diversion options” and an increase in the use of solitary confinement and lockdowns since the start of the pandemic.

Both projects will run for up to two years, Dhand said.



Source link