When Desmond and Maria Vandenberg bought their East City century home in 2020, the Mark Street property checked a lot of boxes for the couple.

Not only was “the home we’re going to retire to” within “walking distance of every kind of shop we’d want to go to,” but unimpeded backyard garden sunshine was abundant. As a bonus, beyond their rear property line, an urban rarity in the form of greenspace offered a pretty backdrop.

So it was when the couple got wind of a 10-storey residential-commercial development proposed for 90 Hunter Street East, a site adjacent to the nearby Mark Street United Church, they attended a June 2024 information session hosted by the developer, Toronto-based TVM Group, to learn more and gauge the impacts, if any, the development would have on their property.

“We went with open minds,” recalls Desmond, admitting to being “surprised” when he saw the development plans and renderings.

Asked at that time for comment by kawarthaNOW, Desmond held back, now recalling “We wanted to stop, reflect, and make sure that we were being reasonable in any sort of response we had to it.”

Close to a year later, with the 10-storey 156-unit building now proposed as a 17-storey 205-unit one, he has plenty to say — and is saying it to anyone that will listen.

He’s not alone. A growing number of residents, most of them living in East City, are crying foul and making their voices heard on social media.

A website at 90hunter.com, co-created and maintained by East City resident Courtney Claessens, provides a comprehensive overview of the new proposal while an online petition, signed at last count by close to 250 people, is demanding the following of Peterborough planning staff and, by extension, city councillors.

• Rejection of the 17-storey proposal as incongruous with Peterborough’s Official Plan and Urban Design Guidelines.
• Reduction of the overall height to a maximum of 10 storeys, or include community benefits such as affordable housing units and public green space for any height granted over 10 storeys.
• A return to the original 45-degree angular plane recommendation from adjacent residential properties, or include adequate setbacks, landscape buffering and transitions to neighbouring properties.
• Provision of an updated comprehensive traffic study now that Armour Road is no longer under construction.
• Holding of a transparent public consultation before approval of any revised proposal.

“We’re not against development,” stresses Desmond, speaking for himself and his wife. “East City should be available to other people as well, and high density is probably the way to go for Peterborough to meet its housing goals.”

“However, we maintain there’s an appropriate level of height. The tallest building in East City is about six stories, so a six-storey building fronting Hunter Street would be among the highest buildings. I think I could support that, where it tiers down (in storeys) as it goes into residential areas.”

As proposed now, the TVM development would be the tallest building in Peterborough, its 57-metre (187-foot) height eclipsing Charlotte Towers on the southwest corner of Charlotte and Aylmer streets in downtown Peterborough which, at 14 storeys, has long held that distinction.

There is, however, an application still before the city for a 30-storey apartment building, proposed by Clear Global Capital Limited in 2022, for a site behind the county courthouse.

While Desmond has concerns over the height of the proposed TVM building, as well as with related issues such as blocked sunlight and increased side street traffic, his main bone of contention is the development’s four-storey parking garage planned for the greenspace behind his property and just two metres from his property line.

“We would be surrounded on two sides by a four-storey parking wall; a concrete wall that is only feet from our property line, and actually less than a metre from one of our neighbour’s property line. That doesn’t leave any space to plant trees to kind of mitigate that look of concrete.”

After speaking with kawarthaNOW on Wednesday (May 28), Desmond met with TVM CEO Amit Sofer the following day to discuss the development. According to Desmond, Sofer provided some updates on revisions to the plan that have not yet been made public, including that the parking garage is now five metres, instead of two, from his property line.

“I appreciate that Amit took the time to meet with some of the residents bordering the development and the concessions being made,” Desmond says. “That said, as I communicated to Amit, I am still not comfortable with the overall scale of the building at 17 stories.”

For his part, Sofer says all residents’ concerns, whether expressed now or at last year’s open house for the 10-storey proposal, are “legitimate.”

“One of things being overlooked is the tower component of the building replaces a significant reduction in the podium component,” he says.

“The tower is more slender. It’s taller, yes, but there is a smaller shadow. I don’t know if the shadowing is really that much of an issue. I appreciate that people don’t want to see a change in East City, but I am in the business of apartments. We’re well aware of the desperate need for apartments throughout the city.”

“We built a beautiful condominium building (East City Condos at Armour Road and Hunter Street East). A number of units in that building have been rented, and rented fairly quickly, including four we intend to transfer (to Mark Street United Church as part of the agreement for the property acquired for the new development). The demand for rental accommodation is insatiable right now. We’re simply trying to follow the guidance, direction and comments put forward by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Our proposal is in keeping with all of those.”

Asked what the rental cost of the units will be, Sofer cites a range of $1,650 to $2,700 monthly.

Sofer adds he’s well aware of the concerns being expressed. To his credit, he has made himself accessible to answer questions, including visiting the Vandenbergs at their home to hear them out and obtain a firsthand look at their concerns. The couple has earlier hosted visits by a number of city councillors.

“Everybody wants it (housing), but no one wants it near,” says Sofer, noting “That’s the paradox of my job.”

“Anytime we’ve done a rezoning application, we get that pushback. No one likes any change. We had a load of resistance when we rezoned a school (property) on Reid Street into 48 fully accessible affordable apartments. It’s a resounding success. There are beautiful stories that have come out of that building. None of the concerns (expressed) have been realized.”

“When we re-did the hospital (formerly St. Joseph’s), there was immense pushback against putting residential in that area. It has contributed greatly to East City. I believe this building will also contribute in a very significant way. It will be the nicest building in the City of Peterborough.”

Sofer’s assurance, however, promises to do little to win over detractors.

East City resident Susan Dunkley, in a letter sent to the media, has as much of a problem with the process as she does with its footprint.

“Last year’s town hall felt like a check-boxing exercise,” she writes.

“Residents showed up in good faith with serious, well-reasoned concerns — about traffic, school overcrowding, infrastructure strain, and the real risk of losing the character of our tight-knit neighbourhood. Yet none of those concerns have been meaningfully addressed. No follow-up. No solutions. Just a new, even taller tower. It’s hard not to feel like our voices don’t matter.”

Noting East City “has already taken on its fair share of growth” resulting in, among other things, “streets already congested,” she adds, “We all understand the need for housing. But it has to be done right — with intention, with respect for the existing community, and in places that can actually support it. This proposal fails on every front.”

As for Courtney Claessens, whose Cricket Place property will also face the development’s rear four-storey parking garage to the east, she echoes those concerns.

She says while she was aware of the original 10-story building proposal before buying her home last November, the desire to live in a “walkable neighbourhood” overrode any heightened concerns with that proposal.

That said, the revised 17-storey building plan now has her paying very close attention.

She too has concerns over the lack of community consultation on the new plan, local traffic impacts, and higher carbon emissions resulting from a taller building, adding “the 17-storey proposal is dominating, not enhancing.”

However, there’s also her opinion — shared by others — that TVM is rushing to gain city approval for its revised project before planned new guidelines around developers’ provision of services and amenities are adopted, potentially as early as spring 2026.

“If the community permit planning by-law is adopted, council can request the provision of services — stuff like affordable units, greenspace, daycare — for any building over 10 storeys,” she says.

“This is one of the largest developments being proposed right now in Peterborough, so it’s kind of precedent-setting. It’s a good thing to pay attention to how new developments are respecting policies in the official plan, and the urban design guidelines … really wanting to grow Peterborough in a way that serves its current and future residents.”

Sofer, however, wholly refutes the rush-to-approval accusation to avoid any possible new rules around what’s required of developers. He says that supposition is one example of many false assumptions being aired via social media.

“Anything we say, we get a comment back on,” he says, adding “We’ll never make certain individuals happy — we will never made everyone happy. I know and regret that, but it’s the reality of life. It happens at my dinner table too.”

“We’ve been in Peterborough for 25 years. We’re not a merchant builder. We don’t build and sell. We build and own. Other than our condominiums, we own everything we’ve built.”

“I’m very confident that we’ve put together a proposal that meets the needs of the community at large, not five or 10 people. I believe we have something that’s going to benefit the city as a whole immensely.”

Noting that the City of Peterborough is putting great effort into having more housing built, from that of the affordable variety through to single families, Sofer says TVM is responding to an expressed need.

As an example of that direction, he points to the city’s recent removal of exclusionary zoning. Now, he says, any R1-zoned property is entitled to have four residential units.

With the change, Sofer says TVM will be bringing the first four-unit application for the redevelopment of a single-family home, which has been taken down. The plan, he says, is to build four modular homes

“There’s an effort everywhere to intensify, and it’s not just in East City,” he says. “To the west (of TVM’s proposed Hunter Street East building), there’s even larger (development) proposals coming. Intensification has been directed by the city, and we’re simply responding to that.”

The city is currently reviewing the application from TVM Mark Street Inc. for a zoning by-law amendment for the proposed 17-storey building development.

A public meeting under the Planning Act on the proposed zoning by-law amendment will be held at an upcoming meeting of city council’s general committee, when members of the public will be able to make delegations.

Watch kawarthaNOW for more details of that meeting as they become known.

Peterborough Mayor Jeff Leal has contravened city council’s code of conduct by intimidating one city councillor and bullying another with respect to the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, but did not contravene the code of conduct by influencing general committee’s decision on the redevelopment for private advantage.

Those are the findings in a 55-page inquiry report from the City of Peterborough’s integrity commissioner Guy Giorno. The report, dated May 26, will be considered by city council at its general committee meeting on Monday (June 2).

Giorno, who is one of the city’s two integrity commissioners and is responsible for investigating complaints, concluded that Mayor Jeff Leal contravened council’s code of conduct in his interactions with councillors Alex Bierk and Joy Lachica in connection to the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, but that the mayor’s decision-making on the development did not involve a “private advantage” for him or for his wife.

Giorno completed a joint inquiry in response to complaints received under section 31 of council’s code of conduct by-law 19-028, which states “A person who believes that a Member has contravened any provision of this Code of Conduct may give to the Integrity Commissioner the person’s complaint which must be in writing and must set out the particulars of the alleged contravention.”

According to Giorno’s report, 13 Peterborough residents filed separate but related complaints about Mayor Leal for making a threat against councillor Alex Bierk during council’s general committee meeting on April 2, 2024 on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, and/or by participating in decision-making on the Bonnerworth Park Redevelopment when he was not impartial.

The collective complaints were filed by Diane Therrien-Hale, Zachary Hatton, Laurie Breese, Jill Staveley, Sarah Byer, Martha Jansenberger, James Anderson, Allison Potts, Ryan Perks, Rob Hailman, Courtney Seddon, John Gerelus, and Robert Gibson.

Some of the complaints involved comments directed to councillor Bierk by Mayor Leal during council’s general committee meeting on April 2, 2024 on the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment, when the mayor was reported to have said “You’re going to regret you ever said that” and “I’ll carve you like a Thanksgiving turkey” after Bierk mentioned the mayor’s wife by name during the meeting.

Eight of the 13 complaints were filed in the days following the April 2 meeting, and another five complaints were filed after the mayor made a public apology for the comments at the city council meeting on April 8.

In addition to those complaints, Giorno investigated a separate complaint filed by councillor Joy Lachica, who alleged Mayor Leal bullied and intimidated her out of the public’s view following the April 2 general committee meeting.

While Giorno separately processed and investigated both the collective complaints and Lachica’s complaint, he submitted a joint report to council as the complaints share common background.

In his report, Giorno concludes that Mayor Leal did not contravene section 29 of the council code of conduct, which states that no member of council may “use her or his office or position to influence or attempt to influence the decision of any other person, for the Member’s private advantage or that of the Member’s parent, child, spouse, staff member, friend or associate, business or otherwise.”

“Even under a broad interpretation of private advantage, one not limited to pecuniary matters, I find that the Mayor was not acting for the private advantage of himself or his wife,” Giorno states in the report.

“The Mayor’s occasional volunteer service to the PPA (Peterborough Pickleball Association) did not give rise to a financial or non-financial interest in the PPA or a financial or a non-financial benefit from the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment. Simply put, decision making on Bonnerworth did not involve his private advantage.”

“Decision making on Bonnerworth also did not involve a private advantage (for) the Mayor’s wife. She would be affected no differently than any other resident, and the PPA would be affected no differently than any other community group. The new pickleball courts would be accessible to the entire community, regardless of membership or lack of membership in the PPA. If the PPA ever booked exclusive use of a particular court, then it would do so on the same basis as anyone else, and it would pay.”

Giorno adds that the argument that the mayor should not have participated in a decision about the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment because he or his wife plays pickleball “is as flawed as an argument that swimmers cannot participate in decisions on pools and hockey players cannot vote on ice pads.”

However, Giorno concludes that Mayor Leal’s threats against councillor Bierk were intimidation and contravene section 10 of the council code of conduct, which states that each member of council has “the duty and responsibility to treat members of the public, each other Member and staff appropriately and without abuse, bullying or intimidation.”

As the code of conduct doesn’t define intimidation, Giorno used the dictionary definition to make his ruling. While acknowledging that the mayor’s “carve you up like a turkey” comment was “a figurative expression that was not meant or reasonably interpreted as a threat of violence or physical harm,” he added that “intimidation is not confined to physical threats.”

“The ‘regret’ and ‘turkey’ comments, taken together, were reasonably understood to threaten consequences for having angered the Mayor by mentioning the Mayor’s wife,” Giorno writes. “Certainly, Councillor Bierk took the comments that way, and he was intimidated.”

According to Giorno, in Mayor Leal’s response to Giorno’s draft report, the mayor stated his belief that councillor Bierk was not intimidated by the comments.

“In a physical sense, that observation is correct, but intimidation is not necessarily physical,” Giorno writes. “I appreciate that the Mayor did not then, and does not now, feel that his conduct was intimidating, but the evidence indicates that it was.”

Giorno acknowledges the Mayor Leal “felt great stress” during the meeting that contributed to his “overreaction” to councillor Bierk’s comments, “but (Bierk) did not invite, nor was he deserving of, being (intimidated) and threatened,” noting that Bierk had already been called to order during the meeting by chair Andrew Beamer for mentioning the mayor’s wife by name as being against protocol.

“I note that the first threat was made after Councillor Bierk had already apologized three times,” Giorno adds, with reference to Bierk’s reaction after being called to order by the chair.

As for councillor Lachica’s allegation, Giorno concludes she was bullied by Mayor Leal.

Although the code of conduct also does not provide a definition of either intimidation or bullying, Giorno states “In my view, bullying better describes what occurred,” referring to a definition approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 that has been used in subsequent court cases and refers to “behaviour that is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear,
intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person’s body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property.”

Following the April 2 general committee meeting — when Lachica had put forth a motion to defer the Bonnerworth Park redevelopment plan for discussion of alternative solutions for pickleball courts — Mayor Leal “exchanged words” with Lachica in an internal corridor leading to the parking lot, with the incident observed by witnesses including city CAO Jasbir Raina and councillors Bierk and Gary Baldwin.

According to the report, the mayor believed Lachica was responsible for the presence of people in the gallery during the general committee meeting, including a person who disrupted the meeting.

“Mayor Leal began yelling at her about the individual who had earlier been removed from the meeting, claiming that Councillor Lachica should have stopped the individual and that she was responsible because the person was a Town Ward constituent,” Giorno writes. “Councillor Lachica says the Mayor kept yelling at her, even after she explained that maintaining decorum was the responsibility of the Chair.”

“Councillor Lachica says that Mayor’s conduct continued during a closed session on April 8. She told Councillors what had occurred in the corridor on April 2, that she had had ‘enough’ of the Mayor’s condescension and shouting, and that she should not have been directed to take responsibility for decorum in the gallery.”

“I find that Mayor Leal’s angry, raised-voice confrontation with Councillor Lachica following the General Committee (meeting) constituted bullying according to this definition. What happened should have been known to cause fear, humiliation and distress to Councillor Lachica. The confrontation should have been expected to leave the Councillor shaken and upset. In fact, the Mayor’s confrontation had these effects.”

“The incident in the corridor occurred in the context of a power imbalance that is a hallmark of bullying. The Mayor is more powerful than a Councillor. In a strictly legal sense, this has been the case since October 31, 2023, when Ontario Regulation 331/23 added Peterborough to the list of municipalities subject to ‘strong mayor powers.’ The Mayor’s powers include the direct appointment of the chairs and vice-chairs of committees.”

“Compounding the corridor incident was the Mayor’s upholding of the same position six days later. If the Mayor was unaware of the impact of the April 2 incident on Councillor Lachica, then she made him aware on April 8. By doubling down on his earlier comments, he reinforced the bullying.”

According to the report, Lachica waited 25 days before filing a complaint “because she feared reprisal,” and that she has told the commissioner “the anger and bullying continue.”

“She cites recent examples that she says constitute disrespect, sidelining, and withholding information necessary to her job,” Giorno notes.

kawarthaNOW reached out to councillor Lachica for comment on the integrity commissioner’s report, and she provided a brief email statement.

“There was not a satisfactory resolve to complaint 24-02-CC, this it has come forward,” she writes. “I am appreciative of IC Gioro’s Joint Report. The content and outcome speaks for itself.”

PDF: Joint Inquiry Report – May 26, 2025
Joint Inquiry Report - May 26, 2025

As for recommendations to city council in response to his report, the integrity commission notes it is the role of council to determine a penalty, if any, for a member of council who contravenes the code of conduct.

“In the event of a contravention, the Council may choose to do nothing, or it may impose one of two penalties (but not both): reprimand, or pay suspension (up to 90 days),” Giorno writes. “In addition to imposing a penalty, the Council may also adopt one or more remedial measures.”

Non-punitive and remedial action can include requesting an apology.

Giorno suggests one remedial measure might be to ask John Ewart, his fellow integrity commission assigned to advice-giving and educational functions, “to provide focused training related to harassment, abuse, bullying and intimidation and other issues arising from this report.”

He also suggests that council could consider amending the code of conduct to add a definition of bullying and to reconcile the code of conduct with the procedure by-law “by formally distinguishing what meeting conduct is the responsibility of a Chair and what meeting conduct is the responsibility of the Integrity Commissioner.”

Giorno notes that the code of conduct uses at least seven different terms related to conflict of interest, including “private advantage,” “private interest,” “private gain or benefit,” “future advantage,” “personal benefit,” “personal or private gain or benefit,” and “personal financial gain.”

“The adjectives private and personal appear to be used sometimes interchangeably and sometimes to mean different concepts. Inconsistent use of different terms with similar meanings can result in ambiguity and potential gaps. I suggest that the Code use fewer terms consistently and more precisely.”

After the integrity commissioner’s report was released to the public on Thursday (May 29), Mayor Leal issued a public statement.

“I acknowledge that the Integrity Commissioner has completed his report, and I will accept Council’s decision on this matter,” the mayor said. “I appreciate that his report fully exonerates me of the most egregious and false conflict-of-interest allegations that my family and I have been subjected to over the last year.”

“I acknowledge his findings related to my interactions with Councillors Bierk and Lachica on the nights of April 2 and April 8, 2024. My comments were made in the heat of the moment, during the most hostile meeting environments I have experienced in all my years of public service. I regret my comments, and I apologized to both Councillors last year.”

Mayor Leal added that he will recuse himself during the general committee meeting when councillors discuss the integrity commissioner’s report, “and will accept their recommendations.”

“I have been working in partnership with all members of Peterborough City Council, and will continue to do so for the benefit of our community.”

This story has been updated with a statement from Mayor Jeff Leal in response to the release of the integrity commissioner’s report, along with revised comment from councillor Joy Lachica.

Three local parents have launched Our Future Peterborough, a grassroots advocacy group to “protect the public services and community infrastructure of Peterborough.”

“We’re seeing a climate where things, particularly things around kids and families, are getting underfunded and cut,” says co-founder Laurel Harris. “We realized that as we build up this infrastructure, we build up these connections, and we bring it all together, this could be a really useful response to not only one issue, but any future threats to public service and to resources for family and kids that we might see happening in our community.”

Harris, along with Hilary Evans and Sheetal Rawal, formed Our Future Peterborough after learning about the staffing reorganization at the Peterborough Public Library that was approved by Peterborough city council as part of the city’s 2025 budget.

During budget deliberations, councillors approved the elimination of two positions at the library and the reclassification of some positions to lower-rated positions, saving the city $120,000.

Library management subsequently determined it would lay off three of the library’s four full-time unionized librarians, including the children’s librarian. Two new positions (an outreach coordinator and a programming assistant position) would be created, resulting in a net reduction of one position.

Harris explains that while the parents have been “paying attention” to various concerns and threats to public service, the restructuring of the library — and in particular, the elimination of the children’s librarian — was the “spark” that led to the founding of Our Future Peterborough.

“Of course they’re going to have reduced programming,” Harris says. “You can’t expect to cut the number of people who are offering and designing these programs, particularly with these levels of expertise, without that.”

For Harris, the potential cuts to the programs are personal as that’s where she and her home-schooled six-year-old son connect with other families. The Homeschool Hangout monthly program connects children through games, arts and crafts, activities, and special guest speakers, and, according to Harris, the last one she attended had about 35 participants.

“It’s such a vital social space — it’s a space where we’ve been able to connect with other kids, and with other families,” she says. “I certainly have so many deeply valued memories of being in the library as a kid and being in this magical creative space where I discovered all these new ideas and these new things in my mind felt expanded. The idea of closing in on that or taking that away from kids feels outrageous. It feels too far.”

Before officially establishing Our Future Peterborough, the founders launched an online petition calling to stop the cuts, which, at the time of this writing, has just over 2,200 signatures.

Launched on April 16, the petition demands “that City Council, the Peterborough Public Library CEO, and the Peterborough Public Library Board reverse the planned layoffs and stop the elimination of the Children’s Librarian role.”

“We really strongly believe that a city that is invested in and cares about its future and thinks about its future is one that is going to be cognizant of investing in and prioritizing programs for children,” says Harris.

“More and more, we just see that’s not happening and that these things are getting cut — and they’re getting cut quietly and without public consultation, which is certainly the case here. We also see that in the context of a broader political moment where we have to ask, especially as parents, how collectively do we care about our future?”

Expanding on the “broader political moment,” Harris points south of the border where the Trump administration is cutting funding to libraries and museums, which she says symbolizes the “intentional dumbing down of the public.”

“Putting books into the hands of kids is such an important thing, especially in this moment where the digital stuff takes over so much,” she says. “Not that that’s a bad thing, but we need to have it balanced with books where they can see their identity reflected back at them, where they can have access to these stories, or they can learn things like critical thinking.”

“It sounds maybe a bit overstated, but it feels like a revolutionary act sometimes to put books in the hand of kids. It feels like pushing back. It feels like we’re resisting.”

Our Future Peterborough was at the May 15 rally outside of the library and, Harris says, will support more protests and events with rally organizer Marjorie McDonald and with CUPE 1833, which represents the librarians.

Harris says the aim is to collect a group of children’s authors and people who support open libraries to “see if that can put a little extra pressure on council.”

“There’s such a real, immediate effect, and this is not a nebulous political issue,” she says. “This is going to affect so many people day-to-day in a very real way. I get the sense sometimes that people who don’t really access the library or use these programs don’t understand how important they are to a lot of people, and so we’re sending that message home — particularly to the decision makers.”

During the city’s draft 2025 budget process, all city departments were asked to provide options to reduce operating expenses to lower a potential property tax increase. Management at the Peterborough Public Library provided the options of reducing operating hours by four hours per week for $70,000 in savings (noting that this option would likely result in layoffs of unionized staff and fewer shifts for part-time staff) or eliminating two positions for $120,000 in savings.

Though council’s public deliberations on reducing library staffing were made from November to February, when council approved the 2025 budget, other proposed reductions — including a proposed 25 per cent cut to all city-funded arts and community organizations — received all the attention.

Harris notes there was no public outreach or consultation about the proposed cuts to the library and their impact before city council made its decision.

“The public are stakeholders in this,” she says. “We’re the ones going to feel the effects of it, so that’s really what we’re demanding now: a formal public consultation on this, some kind of public meeting so the public’s stake in this can be expressed and heard by council.”

While fighting the library staff restructuring is the first battle, Harris says this is only the beginning of Our Future Peterborough, as the organization will be working towards the betterment of the future for families and children in other areas like childcare.

“We also just want to have this infrastructure ready and available to just launch,” she says. “As part of our mandate, families and children are our main focus and families and children rely on lots of different public services in our city.”

For more information about Our Future Peterborough, visit ourfutureptbo.org.

“It’s incredible to feel the passion of everyone. You are an amazing organization.”

On its own, this remark is very flattering for Five Counties Children’s Centre. But coming as it did from one of the surveyors on the closing day of our accreditation process last November, it’s extra meaningful.

That’s because the accreditation review of Five Counties being done by three accreditors with the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) was done entirely virtually over two days last fall. The accreditor who made the comment about the passion at Five Counties picked up on this, even though she was sitting at her home in Maine during the review process!

It appears the positive vibes that flow from our Centre are evident even half a continent away.

Earlier this year, Five Counties learned that it had successfully earned another three-year accreditation through CARF. Accreditation — a sort of “seal of approval” for our families — is not given lightly and follows a rigorous review process.

CARF’s mission is to promote the quality, value and optimal outcomes of services at the organizations it accredits.

An independent, non-profit accreditor of health and human resources founded in 1966, CARF does this through a consultative review process and continuous improvement approach, ensuring an organization being reviewed is laser focused on enhancing the lives of the people it serves.

As part of its accreditation process with Five Counties, CARF accreditors reviewed the centre’s policies and procedures, interviewed staff and volunteers, spoke to clients and parents, conversed with our community partners, and posed questions for our board of directors.

Along with that, CARF also has approximately 2,150 standards upon which it rates an organization going through accreditation.

Five Counties began preparing for the CARF accreditation months before. And while it’s lots of work, accreditation is valuable in seeing how Five Counties measures up. In this case, we scored a resounding 99.3 per cent compliance rate with CARF’s standards, only being cited to improve upon in about a dozen or so minor areas.

We’re not perfect. We can always improve. And that’s why Five Counties chooses to go through the intensive accreditation process with an independent third party every three years.

Accreditation is not required, but it does show that Five Counties is committed to continually improve what we do and how we serve families. In fact, Five Counties was the very first children’s treatment centre in Ontario to be accredited! That was back in 1985, and we’ve maintained accreditation ever since.

CARF accreditation recognizes Five Counties for excellence in service delivery, client satisfaction, innovative programs, and community involvement. While the CARF accreditation plaque hanging on the wall in our centre site may not look like much, there is a lot behind it.

Accreditation is an endorsement that what Five Counties does to serve and support families continues to meet high standards. Our kids and families deserve no less!