There’s power when the community comes together in support of vulnerable people, and that power will be on display when individuals, businesses, and organizations “Walk a Mile in Their Shoes” with YWCA Peterborough Haliburton on Friday, May 22.

Beginning at noon at Confederation Square across from Peterborough City Hall, the annual event will raise awareness about the epidemic of domestic violence in the community while raising funds for YWCA Peterborough Haliburton’s life-changing programming.

Registration is now open at www.walkamilepeterborough.com and priced at $50 or $25 for students.

Originally called Walk A Mile in Her Shoes before adopting a more inclusive name in 2024, the event has been held in Peterborough since 2009, taking inspiration from events held around the world since 2001.

Riffing off the idea of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, the event originally challenged men to walk a mile while sporting red high heels to represent the societal expectations and the challenges faced by women.

“It was important because the reality of wearing high heels — which are uncomfortable, throw off women’s posture, and cause pain in the feet, the back, and the knees — also means that women can’t run away if they need to,” says YWCA Peterborough Haliburton executive director Kim Dolan.

“For men to experience that discomfort also really challenged some societal norms that women were supposed to still try to adhere to.”

While some men still choose to slip on red high heels, the event has evolved over the years and now sees more than 100 individuals coming out on their own or in teams to support women, children, and gender-diverse people recovering from violence.

The route is also accessible to accommodate those walking with mobility challenges as well as walkers and strollers. Friendly on-leash dogs are also welcome to join the walk..

Those wanting to take part can sign up as a solo walker or they can partner with friends, family members, or colleagues to raise money through sponsorships. Many local businesses use the event as a team-bonding exercise and to demonstrate their mission and values to the community.

However they choose to show up, those walking the mile are sending a message to survivors and those currently facing domestic violence: we are on your side.

“So many women are cut off from friends and family,” Dolan says of those experiencing domestic abuse. “Women who experience violence in those intimate spaces are also testing how other people respond to this person who abuses them, and asking themselves ‘Can I talk with anyone about that? Are they going to blame me because he blames me?'”

“Seeing strangers in a situation of support and empathy without a personal attachment gives women a bit of distance to process that support differently.”

Dolan adds that women coming together shares an important message that standing up against violence is important to them. They may have had their own experiences with domestic abuse as well.

“I think lots of us have our stories,” she says. “We also need to be challenging the imagined profile of a woman who experiences violence.”

Since relaunching the event in 2024 after a hiatus during the pandemic, Walk A Mile In Their Shoes has raised $32,281.36. This year’s goal is to raise $25,000.

The funds will go towards YWCA Peterborough Haliburton’s Journey of Care, described as a wrap-around support model that encompasses each of the signature programs and services.

The model ensures the women, children, and gender-diverse people they serve have not only a safe space to recover, but the additional support to stand on their own and walk a path free from fear and violence.

“When women are looking at making a change in their lives to move to living with autonomy, living with peace, and living with respect, there are so many things to take into consideration because it’s a huge change,” Dolan says.

“We know that change takes planning,” she adds, noting that Journey of Care captures the “practical to the emotional to the sustained support.”

“She’s getting support no matter where she is, so that she can stay the course that she’s set for herself with information, with access to resources, and with our really incredible, experienced staff.”

Dolan says the community’s support for Journey of Care is urgent given the number of women seeking the programming continues to rise.

“There’s been more public discourse about violence against women, how women are silenced, and how men who want to cover up the violence characterize feminism as being anti-male, which is not true,” Dolan explains.

“There’s a new tone and new messaging happening ib social media. Women are speaking out about the importance of supporting one another. Men are speaking out about the importance of listening to women, believing them, and speaking out when their male friends diminish or denigrate women. That shift in public discourse, in person and on social channels, has been profound.”

For Dolan, this shift is both “exciting” and feels like it’s at a “tipping point.”

“Hopefully this kind of event helps to add to those new conversations in a way that challenges the assumption that being a feminist means you don’t like men,” she says. “We all have brothers and sons and uncles and dads and husbands and partners — it’s not about that. It’s about behaviours that are rooted in misogyny and patriarchy and colonization. Let’s unpack that and start to make some changes.”

To register as a participant and create your personal funding page, or to sponsor someone with a donation, visit www.walkamilepeterborough.com.

kawarthaNOW is proud to be a media sponsor of Walk A Mile In Their Shoes.

If Canada’s Minister of Transport wasn’t already aware of the level of opposition against the planned Alto high-speed rail project in the Peterborough area, he is now.

A large and quite vocal crowd of protesters greeted Steven MacKinnon when he arrived late Friday morning (May 8) to speak at an event hosted by the Peterborough and Kawarthas Chamber of Commerce in their office at the former CPR station building on George Street in downtown Peterborough.

To his credit, on his arrival, Minister MacKinnon stopped to chat at length with Alto plan detractors, hearing out their concerns, answering their questions, and providing his take on some aspects of the project.

Transport Minister: Alto will try to minimize impact on agricultural land

“One of the reasons I’m in Peterborough today is to understand the full measure of folks’ views on this project — people from the urban area and outside,” MacKinnon said later.

“Anyone who shows up to meet a federal minister should be able to express themselves directly. You want to be open to hearing their arguments. You want to address the fears that they may have, and take those into account as decisions get made.”

Inside, where he was joined by Peterborough MP Emma Harrison, MacKinnon provided an update on the planned 1,000-kilometre high-speed rail line that, when completed, will connect Toronto and Quebec City with a station stop in or near Peterborough.

Referencing “an overarching obligation to keep the country united,” MacKinnon said the high-speed rail line will not only connect two distinct Canadian regions, but will stimulate economic development along its corridor, create thousands of jobs via its construction and, in the case of Peterborough, allow young people to live here while working or going to school elsewhere.

Acknowledging the concerns of farmers and rural communities objecting to the project, he said the rail line “will cut through some agricultural land.”

“We’re going to try and minimize that, and when it does cut through agricultural land, we’re going to try and make it so it’s at end of the field, not in the middle of the field. There will be places where we run into some difficulty (traversing agricultural land). That’s inevitable, but we want to do this respectfully. We want to do (the rail line alignment) by listening.”

More public consultation will follow fall decision to narrow 10-kilometre corridor to 60-metre route

MacKinnon said, come this fall, the proposed final alignment will be subject to further public consultations.

“We are, in some ways, into the hardest part of the project because all we have is a conception,” he said. “We have a very wide corridor and, in the case of Peterborough, we actually have a choice of two corridors. We have to make a decision on that and then, within that decision, make a decision on the specific alignment.”

During the public consultation process that took place from January to April, Alto presented a potential 10-kilometre-wide corridor where the 60-metre-wide route for train would be located, with both a northern and southern option for the corridor.

MacKinnon said the consultation process, both past and future, “can raise as many questions as it answers.”

“This is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever contemplated in our country,” he said.

“We want to hear from the local landowner where there might be a rural road that is an ambulance route or an access issue or a wildlife corridor — local knowledge that will help inform the final (alignment) decision.”

“As Minister of Transport, I very much want Alto to do its work and do it professionally and as comprehensively as possible. I, meanwhile, am meeting with as many folks along the (proposed) route as I can. Today is part of that.”

Beyond a new round of public consultation events once the proposed final alignment is determined, MacKinnon said the environmental assessment process will provide yet more opportunity for public scrutiny and input.

‘Have patience with us as we go through this painful planning stage’

Responding to an audience question, MacKinnon confirmed the route will be 60 metres wide, admitting an earlier published map showing the 10-kilometre-wide corridor that would contain the route has been “a source of concern because you’re catching a lot of property.”

“The corridor is the limits within which the alignment would be placed,” he said, adding “The choice of alignment — the route, if you will — will happen this fall and be a maximum 60-metres-wide (route), other than the stations of course.”

In response to another question, MacKinnon addressed specifically the measures that will be taken to mitigate the impact on a property should the train route traverse it. For example, the route would be located at the outer limit of the property while ensuring access to bordering roads and ensuring accommodation for any wildlife in the area.

Another audience member asked why the high-speed rail project isn’t subject to a referendum to “put (it) to the people.” To that, MacKinnon said “Direct democracy on projects is a pretty tough thing to do.”

“Let me submit to you that this is a vastly popular project numerically,” he added. “What we’re up to now is more democratic: to try and do it the right way, to try and do it by listening to folks like you and the knowledge you bring, and make the accommodations necessary.”

“I understand that it will be a disruption but one that is, quite literally, for the greater good. There will be a greater good. Is it expensive? Yes, but you said the word legacy. It is a legacy; it’s a legacy we can pass on to our kids and our grandkids.”

MacKinnon added the high-speed rail line “arguably should have been done when the Japanese did it in the 1970s, when this technology was first perfected. We’d all be happy and on it now.”

He noted some of the benefits of high-speed rail for both mobility and tourism.

“Your kids will want to use this train. They will want to go to a Blue Jays game. They will want to come to Ottawa and visit a museum. They will want to go to Montreal. They’ll want to have that mobility while living in an incredible community like this one.”

MacKinnon asked that people “judge us on the project as it is.”

“Have patience with us as we go through this painful planning stage. We’ll deal with the concerns as they come. I think we’ll be really proud when this project is built, and that we were able to build it together.”

Transport Minister fails to assuage protester concerns

However well intended, MacKinnon’s assurances did little to soothe the angst of those protesting close by — a large group that was still on hand when the minister departed,
Maria Thorburn among them.

“This should be planned far better,” she told kawarthaNOW. “They’ve had quite a bit of time. (Former Peterborough MP) Dean Del Mastro first suggested this a long time ago. Now the Liberals have adopted it.”

“There are nine professors from Carleton University (in Ottawa) who have opposed this, saying this could cause an ecological disaster when this is purportedly to combat CO2 emissions. To replace one environmental problem with another doesn’t make any sense.”

Another bone of contention, said Thorburn, is “terrible” communication.

“They have hired 36 communications directors and two scientists,” she claims, adding “That shows you their priorities.”

Among those in the minister’s audience was Peterborough mayor Jeff Leal, city councillor Kevin Duguay, City of Peterborough economic development director Daryl Julott, and Rebecca Schillemat, one of five declared candidates to date for Peterborough mayor in this coming fall’s municipal election.

Also on hand was Peterborough MP Emma Harrison, who helped field audience questions. Afterwards, she acknowledged there are presently more questions than answers about the project and that has added to some people’s frustration.

“I completely understand people’s fears and concerns, especially from the agricultural side of things,” she said.

“People are being incredibly patient with waiting for answers. There was, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation spread initially. Our job now, and Alto’s job, is to combat that and make sure people feel their voices are being heard — that they’re being consulted.”

“The people who will by the most impacted will have a one-on-one approach from Alto,” Harrison added.

This story has been updated with a correction: the former rail station in Peterborough was operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and not the Canadian National Railway Company (CN).

A real estate management company’s appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) of Peterborough city council’s decision denying its application to convert rental units into condominiums has moved forward a step, but a hearing date has not yet been set as the two parties haven’t agreed on the key issues of the case.

Lawyers for Burlington-based Simple Investor Real Estate Group (SIREG) and the City of Peterborough attended an OLT case management conference, held virtually, on Thursday (May 7).

Led by OLT vice-chair Shannon Braun, the conference included city solicitor Scott Seabrooke, the city’s director of planning, development and urban design Brad Appleby, city planner Ian Walker, and city councillor Matt Crowley, in whose ward the townhouse complex is located, as well as lawyer Matthew A. Di Vona representing SIREG. Only Braun, Seabrooke, and Di Vona spoke during the conference.

City cited rental stock and affordable housing concerns in denying application

In June 2025, SIREG submitted a completed draft plan of condominium to the city to convert rental units at 700 Parkhill Road West into condominiums. Four years ago, the company purchased the property known as Parkhill Place, which consists of 10 two-storey residential townhomes comprising 128 three-bedroom units.

In its application to the city, SIREG noted it would continue to maintain the property but sell the three-bedroom units to private investors, with existing tenants continuing to rent the units from the new owners.

On December 1, city council meeting as general committee held a public meeting under the Planning Act where they considered a staff report that recommended council reject SIREG’s application.

City planner Ian Walker advised council that approving the conversion would result in the potential long-term loss of 17 per cent of the city’s stock of three-bedroom rental units and doesn’t guarantee continued affordable rent rates or affordable purchase prices for the units.

At that meeting, council voted to support the staff recommendation, subsequently ratifying that decision at a city council meeting on December 8. Both votes carried by a unanimous vote of 11-0. SIREG lawyer Jasdeep Dhillon spoke to council at the December 8 meeting and said there was “a good possibility” SIREG would appeal to OLT if council ratified its earlier decision.

SIREG filed its appeal the following month.

Purpose of case management conference is to address procedural issues

On Thursday, Braun explained that the purpose of a case management conference “is simply to address procedural issues and organize for a hearing on the merits that will come later.”

Procedural issues include the possibility of settlement and mediation discussions, identification of issues, a draft procedural order, the possible start date and duration of the hearing, and directions for filing of witness lists, expert witness statements, and written evidence ahead of a hearing.

“We are not here today to debate the merits of the application, but to accomplish goals such as determining the length of any hearing that might be required or subsequent hearing events, agreeing on issues for a future hearing on the merits, and dealing with status requests,” Braun said.

She noted that OLT had received a participant request from Jen Lacey, a tenant at 700 Parkhill who is opposed to SIREG’s application.

She described some of Lacey’s concerns with the application, including that existing tenants will not be able to stay in their units, that 40 per cent of the units are deemed affordable housing, that any new tenants following conversion would not have protection from eviction, that the application is not providing any new housing in the city, and that the 128 units proposed to be converted represent 17 per cent of three-bedroom units in the city and, if converted, would have a negative impact on the rental housing market.

Confirming with Di Vona and Seabrooke they had no objection to Lacey’s request, Braun granted her participant status, “as the tribunal is satisfied that she has a genuine interest in the proceedings and that her statement can help the tribunal to adjudicate on the issues for a future merit hearing.”

Braun asked if the two parties had discussed either settling some of the issues in dispute or scoping them out, and if they were aware of the opportunity for tribunal-led mediation.

After Di Vona and Seabrooke advised they had had meetings but had not reached a settlement and did not require mediation, Braun moved on to whether the parties had agreed upon the identification of issues, which she called the “issues list.”

Disagreements over issues list and hearing transcript stall hearing date

Di Vona told Braun that the two parties had not reached consensus on the issues list, noting the city’s list broadly identified that SIREG’s condo conversion application did not conform with the city’s official plan, but did not provide details as to why.

While acknowledging she hadn’t seen the most recent version of the issues list from Seabrooke, Braun said she preferred the list from Di Vona because it was more specific and encouraged the two parties to continue to work together to come to agreement on the issues list, which has to be approved by the tribunal.

She said it is insufficient for the city to claim SIREG’s application doesn’t conform with the city’s official plan without providing specifics.

“To say ‘Does this conform with the official plan?’ … doesn’t help the tribunal in terms of understanding what it’s going to hear and who it’s going to hear from,” said Braun, with the latter referring to expert witneesses on specific issues.

After Di Vona asked if a hearing date could be scheduled, Braun said she was “not inclined to set a hearing date” until there was consent between both parties on the issues list.

Di Vona asked that it be “put on the record” that the delay in setting a hearing date was “caused by the city’s inadequate issues list,” noting that his client had held several meetings with city staff as well as with experts to develop its list.

Seabrooke said he took “umbrage” with Di Vona’s comment, noting that Di Vona only provided his client’s issues list a week or two before the case management conference,

Braun said it was not unusual at this stage of the appeal process for parties to be in disagreement over an issues list and they should allow some time to reach consensus. She added that a second case management conference could be avoided and a hearing date could be set if the parties can reach conensus.

“I’m not opposed to having both counsel provide your availability for a hearing should you be able to arrive at an issues list and submit on consent,” she said.

Seabrooke asked how many days of availability would be required for a hearing, with Braun responding that determing that without having a confirmed issues list was like “trying to shoot in the dark.”

“When I look at the draft procedural order that I have in front of me, I’ve got an estimate of 20 days. Had I had an issues list on consent here today, I would have been asking some questions about those 20 days, the number of witnesses to be called, and the disciplines of those witnesses. We’re flying blind.”

Seabrooke raised another point of contention between the parties in the draft procedural order, which is the city’s intention to hire a court reporter at its own expense to transcribe the hearing verbatim.

Braun noted that the OLT usually does not allow recording of hearings, and that the city would need to make a request to the tribunal to do so. She asked if SIREG was agreeable to the request.

Di Von said he would consent to the recording of the hearing proceedings only if the city agreed to provide a copy of the transcript. Seabrooke objected to that condition, saying the city would not necessarily be ordering a copy of the transcript from the recording.

Second case management conference set for June if parties don’t reach an agreement

As the conference wrapped up, Braun summarized that there was no agreement between the two parties on either the issues list or a transcript of the hearing and encouraged them to continue to work through the disagreements, noting that both parties could consult via email with the tribunal for guidance.

Braun asked the two parties to provide their availability for a date for a second case management conference should it be necessary, with Thursday, June 11 set as that date.

She also asked the parties whether they could provide an issues list on consent by May 19, which they agreed to attempt to do. She said the June 11 case management conference would likely proceed if the issues list was not provided by May 19, although she noted it was not a hard deadline and the parties could continue to work to reach consensus after that date.

Braun said that if the parties can reach consensus before the June 11 case management conference, it will not be required and they can ask for hearing dates to be set. She noted that the parties should request hearing dates “well enough into the future” to accommodate potential motions before the hearing, so that any motions do not consume time at the hearing.