Peterborough Mayor Jeff Leal’s exercising of his provincially legislated strong mayor powers earlier this year is facing a legal challenge from a Peterborough residents’ group.
Northcrest Neighbours for Fair Process (NNFP) is going to court to challenge Mayor Leal’s use of “these extraordinary powers” to expedite Brock Mission’s planned six-storey 52-unit transitional housing complex at 738 Chemong Road adjacent to Cameron House, a women’s shelter also operated by Brock Mission.
In a letter to city employees dated Tuesday (April 1) and posted on the City of Peterborough’s website, Mayor Leal states that a law firm advised the city’s legal services division on March 28 that it had been retained to begin an application in the Superior Court of Justice, with the intention of challenging the validity of the by-laws that were approved using strong mayor powers to expedite the project. In his letter, the mayor authorizes the city’s lawyers to take action to oppose the challenge.
In a statement provided to kawarthaNOW, NNFP argues the proposed project is being “rushed through without proper oversight, transparency, or consultation.” As such, the group has retained legal representation in advance of the court challenge.
Back on February 3, Mayor Leal issued a statement that he would, in deference to a request from Brock Mission, be using his strong mayor powers to expedite the project by amending the city’s zoning by-law and exempting the project from existing site plan requirements.
In his February 3rd statement, Mayor Leal noted Peterborough’s “critical need for housing,” adding he will do “whatever is within my authority as mayor to support those (housing) projects moving forward for the benefit of our community.”
Fast forward to the February 24th meeting of city council where Mayor Leal made good on his vow. While seven of the 11 members of council voted against Mayor Leal’s motion, three councillors — Gary Baldwin, Kevin Duguay and Lesley Parnell — joined the mayor in supporting it. For a strong mayor powers motion to pass, only one third of a council (which can include the head of council) must support it.
NNFP counters that Brock Mission’s proposed transitional housing build doesn’t qualify as “housing” within the definition of the provincial rules governing the use of strong mayor powers. The group further argues that the building “more closely resembles an institutional facility (in terms of its planned use), therefore falling beyond the scope of strong mayor powers conferred by the Municipal Act.”
Group spokesperson Sarah McNeilly, who lives near the development site and spoke at the February 24th council meeting, emphasizes NNFP’s beef isn’t with Brock Mission or the pressing need for transitional housing.
Rather, she says, it’s with strong mayor powers that she maintains allow decisions to be made with support of just one third of council votes — an allowance that she argues “undermines basic democratic principles.”
She tells kawarthaNOW that the February 24th council meeting “was a real catalyst for us (NNFP) to organize,” terming that meeting as “kind of like watching a movie.”
“It was surreal to see democracy slipping through our fingers in real time. It was quite horrific — the lack of meaningful consultation, the lack of due process, the lack of transparency of procedure, and the lack of any consultation with the vulnerable women sheltering at Cameron House.”
“This project was forced through with minimal support and with minimal oversight, and that undermines our local democracy. This is the first time Mayor Leal has used strong mayor powers. Yes, they’re legislated and yes, he’s allowed to do so technically, but decisions that impact neighbourhoods should never bypass transparent process and majority rule.”
That said, McNeilly believes “the mayor was trying to do right by the vulnerable people in our city” when he agreed to Brock Mission’s request to exercise his strong mayor powers to fast-track the project.
“I think he had really good intentions,” she says. “Unfortunately, I think he perhaps didn’t have all of the information he needed to make a decision like that; that maybe some of things he put in his (February 3) statement have turned out to be false.”
The bottom line, argues McNeilly and the some 80 members of NNFP, is “Strong mayor powers do not serve community interests.”
“Allowing major decisions (to be made) with minority council support sets a concerning precedent for governance by exception rather than democratic consensus.”
“It doesn’t matter what it is. This could be a casino. It could be an arena. It could be anything, and I would be against it because of the way it’s being pushed through. We can’t give up the bedrocks of democracy: due process, public consultation, majority rule. We can’t just freely hand them over because we think there’s an emergency that justifies it.”
“When we hand those things over, we don’t get them back. We have seen that time and time again. We have seen crises and emergencies being used (as an excuse) to strip away democratic freedoms.”
In its statement, NNFP maintains “the erosion of democratic norms” isn’t “just a local issue. It’s an Ontario issue. It’s a Canadian issue.”
As such, it’s not lost on the group that its legal challenge is being watched closely beyond Peterborough’s borders.
“This affects every one of the (45) upper-tier municipalities that were also given this power,” notes McNeilly. “It’s the first test of how far strong mayor powers can be stretched. Clear limits must be established to prevent these powers from being broadly applied without proper democratic safeguards.”
“Right now the legislation, as laws often are, is very very intentionally vague. It gives 100 per cent discretion to these mayors, which is really a way of the province saying ‘Not our problem.’ This decision is so important because it’s novel, it’s a precedent, and this type of power cannot go unchecked.”
“In the hands of someone else who maybe isn’t as principled as Mayor Leal, all you have to do is attach one housing unit to any build and, technically, there you go — strong mayor powers. No public consultation. You can just pass anything.”
With legal representation secured, NNFP is calling for public support of its argument. Besides asking that residents express their concerns to their local representatives at all levels of government, the group is accepting donations in support of legal fees and public outreach efforts. Donations can be made via e-transfer to northcrestnfp@gmail.com.
By challenging the use of strong mayor powers, McNeilly says the group is not asking that the Brock Mission development be stopped in its tracks.
“Go through the proper channels and do it right. That’s how democracy works. Maybe folks (still) won’t be happy about it, but it was done right.”
While McNeilly would prefer that Mayor Leal bring the matter back to council, and that established procedures be followed in accordance with existing by-laws governing development approval, she isn’t holding her breath.
Still, she’s buoyed by NNFP members’ determination to see this through.
“Navigating global anxieties while feeling our own voices and the voices of our elected representatives are being dismissed, has been especially disheartening,” says McNeilly. “To be clear, we support responsible, transparent community planning. What we oppose is governance by minority rule, and decisions made without proper oversight or meaningful dialogue.”
She refutes any argument that NNFP is against housing for people experiencing homelessness because it is objecting to the way the Brock Mission project has been approved.
“There’s a false dilemma being pushed here. That is, if you oppose anything about this project — for example, the procedure by which it has been pushed through, the inappropriate location, the lack of feasibility or sustainability — somehow that equates that you hate unhoused people.”
As for those who would push back that NNFP’s legal challenge against the use of strong mayor powers is simply a smokescreen for their opposition to the project, McNeilly has a ready reply.
“I think it’s good I’m the unofficial face of this movement. I have a reputation for being very progressive — in fact, too left-leaning for most people’s tastes. If this becomes a smear campaign against my character, my track record speaks for itself.”
