Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 16 June 2025

Over the years I have written extensively about the tax certificate given by the Town of Newmarket in December 2021 to the developer Marianneville in exchange for 16 acres of gifted land at Glenway West. 

To me, the whole thing from start to finish was a three-card trick allowing the developer to offset millions of dollars in tax owing to the Canada Revenue Agency for land which, in my view, was largely undevelopable.

Question: When do developers give land away?

Answer: When they can't make a profit from developing it.

I’ve probably squeezed the orange dry on Glenway West so let this be my parting shot.

Rules not followed

I wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency three years ago with my detailed concerns but got no response other than an acknowledgement. My letter sits in the back of some filing cabinet in Ottawa, unlikely ever to see the light of day again. The CRA rules on charitable donations of land were not followed in every respect.

As soon as I got hold of the valuation report itself, I knew the valuation of the Glenway West land by Bottero & Associates was completely bogus. 

Extraordinary Assumptions

Bottero relied on a raft of “extraordinary assumptions” to conclude that two thirds of the 16 acres of land was developable and worth over $14M. To anyone reading the valuation report (and who is not a valuer), this requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Why didn’t the valuer formally consult the Town’s Director of Planning and Director of Engineering before making his “extraordinary assumptions”?

Why don’t valuation protocols from the Appraisal Institute of Canada specifically mandate this? 

Potentially supportable

The Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Ian McDougall, told me last month that if Bottero had consulted the Town’s Director of Planning he would have been told that 

“development of some of these lands could potentially be supportable subject to the necessary justification studies and technical reports”. 

The valuer posited that if the Town did not require the land to be used for park purposes at some indeterminate point in the future (itself a bizarre proposition) it could be used for a Town house development just like the one about to be built at Bathurst and Sykes. (See graphic right)

Medium Density 

I scoffed at the valuer’s view that a medium density Town House development could be seamlessly inserted into a rectangular piece of land which is (a) currently home to two storm water ponds and is (b) surrounded on three sides by an established neighbourhood of single dwelling houses. Could such a townhouse development sit easily alongside single family homes? (Graphic below right: Glenway Block 13. The Town house development)

On 21 December 2023, a submission to the Town by planners Zelinka Priamo Ltd on behalf of Marianneville, set out principles to be applied when considering the treatment of infill development in established neighbourhoods. These principles called for 

• Separation appropriate to the building type, mass, and height.
• Plan “like-to-like” housing forms where adjacent to existing single detached dwellings, or use intervening parkland where a more intensive housing form isintroduced.
• Use of special zoning provisions, where necessary, to address special conditions.
• Recognition of grading conditions in creating and mitigating potential issues of compatibility.
• Selection of fencing and landscaping options to minimize disruption of existing landscaping, and to provide appropriate privacy and enjoyment of private amenity areas.

Compatibility: now more nuanced concept

The helpful Mr McDougall tells me “compatibility” is now a more nuanced concept and no longer requires like-to-like housing forms.

“On the matter of compatibility, you are correct there were Official Plan policies focused on residential uses as being of the same built form, however, coming out of the Established Neighbourhood Study in 2020, that specific policy was removed. This change was made before the appraisal report dated April 14, 2021.   The current Official Plan policies require a compatibility study to be submitted and accepted to obtain permission for townhouses in the Residential designation.  It is now common accepted planning practice that the built form of residential uses does not necessarily dictate compatibility.  Compatibility is evaluated as a much more nuanced concept that considers buffers, setbacks, shadow impacts, and streetscape, among other matters.” 

Underground Tanks 

I am also told the Town’s Director of Engineering says the existing stormwater ponds should not, necessarily, be an impediment to development. We are told the two Storm Water ponds could be replaced:

 “with underground tanks or a combination of underground tanks and Low Impact Development features”. 

What developer would want the burden of maintaining and servicing these structures indefinitely? At the moment, developers bust a gut to transfer stormwater ponds to the Town just as soon as they can. The last thing they want is the responsibility of maintaining these ponds in perpetuity. All over the country, developers are offloading stormwater ponds into the arms of municipalities where they stay forever.

Stonehaven

In coming to his valuation of $14.2M for the 15.92 acres at Glenway West the valuer looked at four other comparable properties. One of these, the 43.27 acre site at 600 Stonehaven, was bought by Marianneville on 21 March 2019 for $30M cash. In this case the purchase price would have taken into account the valuer’s assessment that only 17.28 acres were deemed to be developable.

In the meantime, the Town continues its work to transform the 16 acres at Glenway West into a place for the rest and recreation of local people.

Once barrow loads of public money have been spent to transform this little enclave into an enchanting haven, we will be reminded of the generosity of the developer, Marianneville, who, we must acknowledge, made it all possible.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Click "read more" below for the exchange of emails.

Read more: Postscript: "Extraordinary assumptions" and the valuation of land at Glenway West

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 14 June 2025

I have spent quite a lot of time over the years – on and off - trying to uncover what really happened on 1 November 2022 when the developer Michael Rice offered land in the protected Greenbelt at Bathurst to Southlake for the site of a new acute hospital. I was repeatedly told there were no records of that consequential meeting at King's Municipal HQ. 

At every turn, I hit a road-block. For key meetings - which one would ordinarily expect to be documented - no records existed, even though hospitals (and municipalities) are legally obliged to keep records.

Meticulously tracked

When patients go through the doors at Southlake their progress is meticulously tracked. But when Southlake’s hospital administrators were offered free land for a new hospital, worth many millions of dollars, everything was committed to memory and nothing was jotted down by the then Chief Executive, Arden Krystal.

John Marshman, Southlake's Vice President of Capital and Facilities, who was also present on 1 November 2022, chaired the first meeting of Southlake’s Land Acquisition Sub Committee one month later, on 5 December 2022. Like Krystal, Marshman insists he remembered everything that was said on 1 November 2022. No notes were taken.

No record of Dunlap offer

For other key meetings there were no agendas, no minutes, no notes. We have no idea what happened to the long term care facility that was proposed to be incorporated within the new hospital complex. Southlake says it has no record of the former Southlake Board member, John Dunlap, offering his own land at Bathurst as the site of the proposed hospital. Yet we have documentary evidence that on more than one occasion Dunlap told King Mayor, Steve Pellegrini, he was minded to gift land. And so it goes on. Yawning gaps in the record.

Broke obligations

A year ago the Information and Privacy Comnmissioner said she planned to issue a special report on "access to information and record keeping issues relating to changes in the Greenbelt".

We now have her conclusions in the IPC's latest Annual Report which found:

“officials broke legal record keeping obligations in planning Greenbelt Removals”.

Accountability

She makes a series of recommendations for strengthening transparency and public trust. And although she takes aim at the Premier's Office her recommendations hold good for other institutions such as Southlake and the Municipality of King. She says:

"The absence of records raises serious accountability concerns and undermines public trust. Whether digital, handwritten, or verbal, decisions of public importance must be documented. Without a full and accurate record of decision-making, when, by whom and on what basis, the public is left in the dark about government actions that affect their communities and the environment. When records are lost, destroyed, obfuscated, or never created in the first place, it raises more questions than answers."  

The absence or destruction of records may be one reason why the RCMP investigation into the Greenbelt scandal is taking forever. I don't know. Even without records, people do have recollections but these, inevitably, fade over time. That's another reason why this long drawn out police investigation cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 08 June 2025

Newmarket-Aurora's newly re-elected Progressive Conservative MPP, Dawn Gallagher Murphy, spent $454,784 on Office and Support Staff expenses in 2024-25 – just shy of the $460,050 “global budget” she had been allocated by the Legislative Assembly.

In her first year as MPP in 2022-23, Gallagher Murphy was 32^nd out of 124 MPPs in spending on “office operations”. (Definitions see below).

The BBQs

In that year she spent almost a quarter of her office operations budget hosting her first “free” taxpayer funded BBQ. By contrast, she spent 8.3% of her Office Operations Budget on her 2024 BBQ.

In total, in her first term she spent $26,995 of taxpayers’ money on her free BBQs. 

In 2023-24, Gallagher Murphy moved up to 14^th out of 124 for spending on office operations before dropping back down to 36^th in 2024-25. 

Bread and circuses

MPPs need taxpayers’ money to do the job and I have no quarrel with members who staff their office at a level which ensures constituents can get a half decent service and don’t have to wait months for an appointment. Personally, I think it is a scandalous misuse of public money to spend precious tax dollars on “free” BBQs. But I am in the minority in holding this view. Bread and circuses have a long history in politics.

FordNation 

Since June 2022 Gallagher Murphy has become a well-known face about town as she relentlessly promotes herself and her FordNation persona. At Queen’s Park she is one of the highest spenders on “communications’.

Gallagher Murphy spent $41,476 on communications in 2024-25 (25^th out of 124 MPPs); $52,395 in 2023-24 (9^th) and $42,115 in 2022-23 (11^th)

Big hike in staff spending

Throughout her first term in office Gallagher Murphy had many problems with her staff, many of whom accused her of being an office tyrant. Just before the last Provincial election she settled a dispute with her former Office Manager, Teena Bogner, using a Non-Disclosure Agreement which effectively silenced Bogner.

In 2024-25 Gallagher Murphy's spending on support staff increased by almost one third over 2023-24.

Bogner had accused the erratic Gallagher Murphy of presiding over a toxic workplace.

Professional Decorum

In her statement of facts to the Ontario Labour Relations Board Bogner said she started work for the MPP on 9 April 2024:

"I promptly addressed administrative tasks that had been neglected for several months, mentored staff and worked to improve professional decorum and morale within the office which has experienced significant staffing changes."

Over the next four years, we shall see if the tempestuous Gallagher Murphy can learn how to run a happy ship.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Note 1: (Definitions from the Speaker’s Report on Members’ Expenditures June 2023)

1. Support Staff: Sums include salaries paid to Queen’s Park and Constituency Office staff, includes funding for Members’ staff who were away on extended sick leaves.
2. Constituency Office Rent: includes expenses such as rent, utilities and janitorial services.
3. Office Operations: includes expenditures for urban travel, office supplies, advertising, staff travel, professional services etc
4. Communications: includes postage, mail preparation and distribution, printing, typesetting, artwork and photography for newsletters, flyers and target mailings

Note 2: The Provincial election was on 2 June 2022. Figures for newly elected MPPs such as Gallagher Murphy cover a ten-month period rather than the standard 12 months. The allocated Global Budget reflects this.

Note 3: The Toronto Accommodation Overage Allowance includes the "Toronto accommodation budget overages up to 5% of the base global budget". Whatever that means.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 18 May 2025

Just thinking

Newmarket has been thinking about licensing Boarding or Lodging Houses for years but has never quite got round to doing anything about it. (Graphic right: Minutes of Committee of the Whole meeting on 3 May 2011). 

Many of our near neighbours such as Barrie have been licensing boarding houses for ages. 

Barrie licences Boarding, Lodging and Rooming Houses (BLR) to make sure they are safe:

“Building Code requirements respecting fire and life safety for BLR houses are much more stringent than the requirements for single detached dwellings. Upgrading a single detached dwelling to a BLR house requires significant construction and has significant costs associated with that construction.” 

Statistics Canada defines lodging and rooming houses this way:

“This category includes commercial establishments (which may originally have been a private dwelling) that have furnished rooms for rent. Residents receive no type of care. They generally have access to common facilities such as the kitchen and/or bathroom. Generally, the clientele are transitioning between housing tenures or locations, and have no other place of residence.”

I have no idea how many boarding houses there are in Newmarket but the 2021 census tells us 2,470 people in Newmarket were living only with non-relatives – which excludes Common Law relationships. So maybe that gives us a clue. I don't know.

In any event, it is as plain as a pikestaff there are boarding houses out there, totally unregulated by the municipality. 

Zoning for People 

Newmarket’s Mayor, John Taylor, says the municipality doesn’t zone for people – they zone for uses. Quite right too.

That said, a boarding house is a use classification in its own right which should be licensed and regulated. 

Paradoxically, the Town does license “Additional Residential Units” using the same health and safety arguments that come into play with boarding houses. These ARU's are often converted basements with kitchen, living space and bathroom and, crucially, a separate entrance.

“But if you rent a room in a house or a flat with a shared entrance, kitchen and/ or bathroom facilities, the ARU By-law does not apply to you.”

So it is quite possible for five, six, seven or more unrelated people to live in a boarding house using a shared front door and other facilities and stay under the radar, invisible to the municipality.

Regulated boarding houses – almost by definition – don’t cause problems. But the unregulated ones can cause major headaches in neighbourhoods. Garbage is just one but there are loads of others. I could write a book about it.

The Town also regulates short-term rentals but only if the owner doesn't live on the premises.

If the owner has more than one property the Town must determine which is his or her "primary residence".

Rents going through the roof

Later this year the Town will be completing its Official Plan Review and I cannot believe it will say nothing about Boarding Houses. 

As everyone knows, rental housing in Newmarket is scarce and expensive with people taking what's on offer at a rent they can afford. Rents are way out of reach for increasing numbers of people.

The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board tells us that in Newmarket in the fourth quarter of 2024 there were, in total, three 1 bedroom apartments rented out at an average rent of $2,267 and three 2 bedroom apartments at an average rent of $2,733. In addition, 29 townhouses were rented out at an average rent of $2,217 (1 bed); $2,655 (2 beds) and $3,045 (3 beds). These are eye-watering sums of money for many Newmarket people.

Out of sight. Out of mind

For its part, York Region has a boarding house by-law but, astonishingly, does not license boarding or lodging houses other than those it helps finance.

The Town's Mayor, John Taylor, who has been living and breathing housing policy for decades, knows the extent of the problem. In fact, he has just been elected to Chair York Region's Housing and Homelessness Committee.

So maybe he can tell us why boarding houses here in Town are not licensed.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Clip from a discussion on housing matters as part of the Official Plan Review on 18 September 2023. Boarding houses are fleetingly mentioned.

Update on 20 May 2025: I use "boarding houses" here as a catch-all term. Definitions vary. Boarding houses may offer meals. Lodging houses don't.