CANDIDATE · WARD 14
● Response received October 8, 2026 · Go deeper 20 of 20
As stated by the campaign, in its own order.
Source: campaign website, as of October 7, 2026.
20 quick questions, plus 20 optional deeper ones, identical for every candidate. Candidates answer as many as they choose; unanswered ones are marked. Published as written, unedited. Blank optional fields are not shown.
QUICK ROUND · One line each
Not answered yet.
GO DEEPER · POLICY & PRIORITIES · What will you do?
P01 · Housing & affordability · all candidates ↗
I would push for one coordinated application process, a clear fee schedule, published approval timelines and a single City contact responsible for moving each housing application through departments. Straightforward projects that meet the rules should receive straightforward approvals. Applicants should not have to become experts in navigating City Hall. I would also take on Urban Forestry’s role in housing approvals. Protecting our tree canopy matters, but requirements must be consistent, proportionate and explained early. I would seek coordinated reviews, clear tree protection standards and a timely escalation process when departments disagree. My own laneway housing experience showed me how fragmented approvals add substantial costs. For lasting affordability, I would retain City land for co-op and non-profit housing through long-term leases, support acquisition of existing affordable rentals and protect tenants from displacement. I would also defend employment lands. A growing ward needs places to work, childcare, parks and reliable transit, as well as places to live.
Fund affordable housing through municipal land contributions, existing housing programs, and provincial and federal partnerships. Long-term ground leases would preserve public ownership while reducing upfront land costs for co-ops and non-profits. Support financing partnerships that secure lasting affordability, with transparent agreements and measurable results. For smaller projects, review application fees, remove duplicated reviews and pursue targeted fee relief for secondary suites. Developers should contribute to the infrastructure their projects require, within municipal authority, but we also have to include renewal costs in fee structures, not just immediate build. Proposals should identify its capital costs, ongoing operating costs and funding sources.
Renters risk displacement when redevelopment removes cheaper homes. Homeowners face construction disruption, changing streetscapes and infrastructure pressures, while younger residents, families and newcomers need more housing choices. Seniors and people with disabilities need accessible homes near services. Small builders benefit from simpler approvals, fee relief reduces City revenue. Faster construction must be balanced with stormwater capacity and neighbourhood amenities. Using public land for affordable housing means foregoing sale revenue and competing uses such as parks. Converting employment lands adds homes, while displacing businesses and local jobs. These decisions require tenant protections, infrastructure funding and public accountability for economic development.
Council can change zoning, application fees and approval processes within provincial law, lease Toronto owned land and fund affordable housing initiatives, although I disagree with the municipality acting as developer. As councillor, I would bring motions, build support and work with community groups to implement changes. Coordinated reviews, clear timelines and proportionate fees are practical reforms, but require staffing and budget decisions. Affordable housing on public land takes longer, requiring suitable sites, servicing, financing and housing partners. Provincial rules, construction costs and funding availability limit what Council can deliver.
I would bring a motion requesting a review of housing application fees, duplicated approval steps and delays. Within the first year, I would seek Council approval for proportionate fees, coordinated reviews and published service standards.
I would explore modular construction on suitable public sites to deliver housing faster. Vancouver offers useful precedents. Mukhtar Latif helped advance its modular housing initiative, and the City’s first project at 220 Terminal Avenue delivered 40 affordable homes on public land. Later supportive housing projects, including Larwill Place, combined modular homes with funded healthcare and round-the-clock support. The lesson for Toronto is to plan housing and care together. Public land and faster construction can help, but residents also need secure tenancy, sustainable operating funding and access to primary care, mental-health services and other supports appropriate to their needs. https://council.vancouver.ca/20160517/documents/rr2presentation.pdf
P02 · TTC & transit · all candidates ↗
I grew up in this ward and have used transit throughout my life. My priorities are simple: service you can depend on, journeys that feel safe and access for everyone. First, I would tackle long waits, bunching and overcrowding on our buses and streetcars, including Queen, Dundas and Gerrard and connections to the Danforth subway. I would ask the TTC to review where service breaks down, improve dispatching and schedules, and add service where needed. Better signal timing and construction coordination can help keep vehicles moving. I would push for cleaner vehicles and stations, visible staff and a consistent response to threats, harassment and discarded needles. People should feel safe getting home. Transit workers deserve that same protection. We need enforcement when necessary, alongside health and crisis teams who can help people in distress. I would focus on the whole accessible journey, from a cleared sidewalk and safe crossing to a usable stop, working elevator and dependable Wheel-Trans. Ontario Line construction must include accessible detours and replacement service. I would bring costed proposals through the TTC and City budget, pursue government funding partnerships and publish results. Residents deserve to know what we are paying for and whether it works.
More frequent service, cleaning and safety staff need dependable annual funding. I would pursue these investments through the TTC and City budget and press Ontario for ongoing operating support. Better scheduling can help, but reliable service still requires enough operators and vehicles. Stop upgrades, traffic signals and accessibility improvements require capital funding, including provincial and federal contributions where available. For Ontario Line construction, seek agreements with Metrolinx to fund replacement service, accessible temporary stops and safe detours. Each proposal would identify upfront costs, annual expenses and funding sources. Administrative savings alone will not pay for better transit service.
Transit improvements benefit riders, especially workers, students, seniors, people with disabilities and households without cars. Operators and other staff need safe workplaces and realistic schedules. More frequent service costs money, affecting taxpayers and competing with other City priorities. Signal priority or street changes can affect drivers, deliveries, parking and nearby businesses. Designs must preserve accessible loading and safe crossings. Construction detours can disproportionately burden people with limited mobility. Safety measures must protect riders without treating poverty or disability as misconduct. I would involve affected groups early and assess travel times, access and safety before expanding pilots or making changes permanent.
I have chaired a municipal transit committee, so I understand that improving service takes budgets, staff and cooperation. Council approves the City budget and appoints the TTC Board. The Board sets service and fare levels; staff run daily operations. I would bring motions, pursue funding and build support. Reliability pilots and stop improvements are practical, but additional service needs operators, vehicles and ongoing funding. Street changes require Transportation Services involvement, and Ontario Line construction requires cooperation with Metrolinx. I would pursue achievable improvements, identify who is responsible for delivery and explain what requires support to constituents, colleagues and partners.
I would request a Ward 14 transit review covering service gaps, bunching, safety concerns, accessibility barriers and construction impacts. I would seek a public baseline so residents can track results. With current construction, gaps with Metrolinx and transit rerouting may be difficult to assess. Pursue a funded reliability pilot on priority routes, fast bus, an accessibility improvement list and coordinated safety measures with clear responsibilities. Seek successful pilots becoming ongoing service improvements and deliver funded stop and street upgrades. Progress reports should measure waiting times, service gaps, completed accessibility work and safety responses, explaining delays and outstanding funding needs.
TTC 2024–2028 Service and Customer Experience Action Plan, reviewed for service reliability, route planning and improvements to the rider experience. TTC Service Standards, reviewed for evaluating demand, crowding and service changes. TTC Community Safety, Security and Well-Being Plan, reviewed for staff presence, coordinated responses and support for people in crisis. TTC 2024–2028 Accessibility Plan and 2026 Status Report, reviewed for accessible journeys and Wheel-Trans. TTC 2026 Operating Budget and Capital Plan, reviewed for service funding, staffing and infrastructure investment. Toronto RapidTO priority solutions, reviewed for signal priority and measures to reduce delays. City TTC governance framework, reviewed for decision-making responsibilities.
P03 · Ontario Line / Metrolinx · all candidates ↗
I support the Ontario Line, and I expect communities living through construction to be treated properly. Residents need sleep, businesses need customers and everyone needs safe access to their street. Demand advance notice of disruptive work, justified overnight schedules, effective noise controls and accessible walking routes maintained through winter. Businesses need visible signage, delivery access and someone accountable for resolving problems. I would pursue financial support for documented construction losses. These protections should be addressed before Council approves road closures or access to City property, and incorporated into applicable permits and agreements wherever legally available. I would work with staff to establish conditions for hauling, pedestrian access, business access and restoration, with monitoring and consequences for breaches. I would seek published noise and vibration results, a public complaints record and regular meetings where residents can influence construction arrangements. If Metrolinx refuses, I would bring specific conditions and remedies to Council, seek legal advice on enforcing existing obligations, and organize neighbouring councillors, BIAs and residents around documented demands. Provincial powers limit some municipal controls, but that does not excuse passive oversight. My job would be to use every available approval, agreement and enforcement tool to protect residents across Ward 14.
Noise controls, safe access, clear signs and construction communication should be budgeted as project costs by Metrolinx and its contractors. I would seek provincial funding for documented business losses and replacement transit caused by construction. City coordination would initially use existing transit expansion, transportation and economic development resources. Any additional staff or local assistance would need a costed budget proposal. I would distinguish costs the City must carry from those it should seek to recover through agreements. Residents should not be promised compensation without an approved program, eligibility rules and a funding source. I would publish any remaining funding gaps.
Residents lose sleep and access, businesses lose visibility and customers, and construction workers need safe conditions. People with disabilities, children and seniors face particular risks when familiar routes change. Tenants may have less control over noise protection than property owners. Restricting construction hours can lengthen disruption or raise project costs. Maintaining deliveries can compete with sidewalk space. Compensation requires fair rules that include small operators. I would prioritize safety and basic access, then negotiate the least disruptive workable schedule. Residents should understand the trade-offs, and project convenience should not automatically outweigh the community's ability to function.
Metrolinx is a provincial agency. Council can make requests, negotiate agreements and direct City staff within municipal responsibilities, but provincial legislation can limit municipal control. I would seek legal advice before claiming the City could stop work or withhold approvals. Changes to signs, access routes, communication and work sequencing can often be negotiated without redesigning the project. Business compensation and major noise measures require provincial agreement and funding. I would use construction liaison meetings, Council motions and coordinated escalation to secure commitments. If a request is rejected, residents would see why, who made the decision and what options remain available.
I would meet affected residents, BIAs, City staff and Metrolinx to establish the most urgent access, noise and business problems. I would publish our requests and seek named contacts with response deadlines. Within the first year, I would pursue agreed access standards, public reporting on complaints and noise, and a funded business support proposal. Through the term, I would monitor unresolved problems and escalate repeated failures through Council and provincial representatives. Success would mean completed fixes, shorter complaint resolution times and fewer preventable access failures. Meetings would not count as delivery for residents
Metrolinx Noise and Vibration Management guidance, on monitoring and reducing construction impacts. Metrolinx Community Benefits and Supports framework, on community and business impacts. City of Toronto Ontario Line construction reports, including 2023 TM2.1 and 2026 TE28.27, on municipal requests and escalation. Metrolinx Preparing for Major Construction guidance, on advance information and engagement.
P04 · Traffic, cycling & pedestrians · all candidates ↗
Start with safety and access, then look at how the street actually works throughout the day. A person walking with a mobility aid, a tradesperson unloading tools and someone catching a streetcar all need a workable route. Street design should account for those needs together. My concrete example is the Danforth. I support improving its bike lane design while keeping a connected, protected route. I would ask Transportation Services to review locations where deliveries, accessible passenger pickup and turning movements conflict with walking and biking. I would seek better loading bays, timed deliveries and safer crossings on the Danforth. On Queen and Gerrard, reliable streetcar movement also matters. Signal timing and preventing blocked tracks may help more than a sweeping redesign. Changes should be tested against safety, travel times and access, including effects on nearby residential streets. I would meet businesses and residents on the street, include people with disabilities and work from observed conditions. Some parking or turning convenience may need to change. I would explain why and show the alternatives. I want streets where people can reach shops, make deliveries and travel safely, with decisions based on results rather than arguments between modes.
Begin with a costed review of problem locations rather than propose rebuilding every street. Signs, pavement markings and loading changes can be included in transportation operating work; signals, accessible curbs and substantial street changes require capital funding. Where possible, I would coordinate improvements with scheduled road or utility work to avoid rebuilding twice. BIA contributions could support agreed streetscape enhancements, but basic safety remains a public responsibility. I would seek eligible funding from other governments and publish project costs. Losing parking revenue or adding maintenance affects the budget and must be included when evaluating options and their benefits.
A safer Danforth must work for people walking, riding bikes, taking transit, driving and running businesses. Protected bike lanes reduce injury risks, but shops still need deliveries, tradespeople need somewhere to unload and people with disabilities need accessible pickup spaces. The trade-off is space. Adding a loading zone may mean removing parking. Giving buses priority may mean drivers wait longer. Giving pedestrians more time to cross may increase traffic delays. I would prioritize safety and accessibility, preserve practical business access and check whether changes push traffic onto residential streets.
The municipality manages most local streets, with Transportation Services developing designs and Council approving policies and budgets. TTC involvement is needed where changes affect buses or streetcars. Provincial requirements can constrain some changes, so staff should identify those limits early. A councillor can request reviews, secure funding and build support, but cannot personally redesign a road. Targeted changes to loading, crossings and signals are more achievable than promising a complete reconstruction within months. I would seek options with costs, accessibility assessments and implementation schedules, then pursue approvals. Trial measures should be evaluated before becoming permanent, with results available to residents.
Within six months, I would identify priority conflict locations on the Danforth with businesses, residents and accessibility advocates, then request a Transportation Services assessment. The assessment should distinguish quick adjustments from work requiring capital funding. Within two years, I would seek delivery of approved loading, crossing or signal improvements at priority locations, subject to budget and legal requirements. I would publish the original problem, the change and before-and-after observations. Measures would include blocked access, transit delays, delivery conflicts and safety concerns.
Danforth Avenue Complete Street and Planning Study, City of Toronto, on street design and curbside uses. Danforth Complete Streets Study Summary Report, 2022, on loading, accessibility and evaluation. Toronto RapidTO Example Priority Solutions, on signal priority and transit movement. TTC service standards and transit planning framework, on service evaluation.
P05 · Small business & main streets · all candidates ↗
I have run businesses and built space for local entrepreneurs. I know that rent, staffing and a stalled permit become urgent long before a City report reaches committee. During my first two years, I would make City Hall easier for small businesses to navigate. Pursue simpler patio, renovation and signage applications, coordinated departmental reviews and one accountable contact for stalled permits. Regular meetings with BIAs and independent operators, including businesses outside BIA boundaries, would help identify problems. I would also seek legally defensible zoning changes requiring Council review for defined categories of large chain development, such as major fast-food outlets. That review should consider neighbourhood needs, commercial diversity, street access and local economic impacts. My community economic development background would guide this work. I would defend employment lands for trades, manufacturing, studios and production, and seek viable commercial space in redevelopment, including opportunities for displaced businesses to return. Businesses need customers who can reach them. I would prioritize reliable transit, accessible loading, safe sidewalks, waste collection and public washrooms. During construction, I would press for maintained business access and support for documented losses. I would help operators access improvement funding and examine whether commercial tax relief actually reaches tenants.
I would start with existing economic development, BIA and permit resources, then cost any additional coordination staff. Cleaner streets, washrooms and transportation improvements would be funded through the operating and capital budgets, with BIA partnerships for agreed enhancements. Existing grant programs should be used where businesses qualify. Construction compensation requires provincial funding and agreement. Any new commercial space program would need a business case and funding source. I would support targeted small business relief rather than broad subsidies to large corporations. I cannot give an honest total before staff cost the scope, but I would publish estimates before seeking approval.
Independent retailers, restaurants, service businesses, artists and trades benefit from simpler processes and reliable street access. Their workers and customers benefit too. Commercial tenants may receive little benefit from property tax reductions unless lease terms pass savings through. Fee relief reduces City revenue; grants require eligibility rules and can favour owners able to provide matching funds. Patios, deliveries and accessible sidewalks compete for space. Redevelopment can create housing while displacing shops and affordable workspaces. I would assess these effects openly, include businesses outside established associations and avoid designing support that mainly reaches the best connected or financially strongest applicants.
Council can change municipal fees, fund economic development programs, improve public streets and use planning tools within provincial law. It can maintain small business property tax measures, but cannot rewrite private commercial leases or prohibit every chain store. Coordinated permit reviews and business outreach are early steps. New grants, supported commercial space and major streetscape changes need budgets and, sometimes, partners. I would work with Economic Development, Transportation Services, planning staff and BIAs to identify the responsible decision-maker for each problem. Where provincial rules or landlords control the outcome, I would say so and pursue cooperation rather than promise powers.
During the first six months, I would establish a business contact network across Ward 14 and collect recurring permit, access and service problems. I would include small operators who lack time to attend formal meetings. By the end of year one, I would seek a coordinated response to priority permit problems and publish a guide to business support. In year two, I would pursue approved process changes and funded access improvements, while pressing for construction assistance. Progress measures would include response times, resolved cases and completed improvements. I would report outstanding problems and distinguish City action from decisions controlled elsewhere.
City of Toronto Commercial Space Renovation Grant Program, on assistance for vacant storefront improvements. Small Business Property Tax Subclass guidance and 2026 budget decisions, on existing targeted tax relief. Danforth Avenue Complete Street and Planning Study, on loading and street access. Metrolinx Community Benefits and Supports framework and Toronto Ontario Line construction recommendations, on business disruption.
P06 · City finances & taxes · all candidates ↗
I would spend more on reliable transit, preventive infrastructure maintenance and housing linked to health and support services. Residents should see functioning washrooms, cleared sidewalks and maintained parks. Delaying maintenance can turn manageable work into expensive failures, and leaving people in crisis creates costs across emergency services. I would seek reductions in duplicated administration, repeated consultant work where staff capacity would be better value, and discretionary corporate incentives that cannot demonstrate public benefit. Procurement and project management should be reviewed for avoidable overruns. I support proportionate housing application fees. One laneway home should not face the same charges as a sixplex. I would maintain targeted small business relief, examine who receives it and avoid shifting unreasonable costs onto residents through user fees for essential services. I would not promise a tax freeze regardless of service needs. Any proposed property tax change should explain the services it funds, the effect on households and available relief for people struggling to pay. Developers should contribute to growth infrastructure within the law, and other governments must help fund responsibilities that exceed the property tax base. Every major decision needs both an upfront price and its ongoing cost.
I would separate recurring service costs from capital projects. Permanent staffing needs stable revenue; grants and borrowing cannot simply substitute for operating funding. Capital proposals should include maintenance, replacement and debt costs. I would request quantified savings before allocating money and protect frontline service during reviews. Funding would combine municipal revenue, legally available developer contributions and provincial and federal partnerships. Proportionate fees could reduce some revenue, so their effect must be assessed alongside administrative costs. I would consider necessary property tax changes through the budget process, with clear service commitments and protections for eligible residents facing hardship or financial strain.
Higher service spending benefits residents who depend on transit, housing support and public amenities, but taxes affect household budgets and business costs. Renters can face indirect cost increases. Seniors on fixed incomes and low-income households need consideration. Cutting administration can reduce duplication, but indiscriminate cuts can slow permits, inspections and service delivery. Lower fees help applicants while shifting costs elsewhere. Deferring capital work frees money today but can increase future repair costs and risks. I would assess distributional impacts and service consequences before voting. A balanced budget matters, but so does whether the choices leave residents facing larger costs later.
Council approves budgets and many municipal taxes and fees within provincial law. A councillor can propose changes, request evidence and build support, but cannot independently set the budget or guarantee transfers from other governments. Reviewing fees, procurement and service costs is feasible. Large savings require credible analysis and may take time to realize. Infrastructure investment is constrained by staffing, construction capacity and approved financing. I would use the budget process to compare options, challenge weak business cases and identify obligations. Where a service depends on provincial funding, I would pursue agreements while explaining what the City can sustain without them.
Toronto Long-Term Financial Plan, updated 2023, on sustainable revenue and multi-year decisions. City of Toronto 2026 Budget Summary, on operating and capital allocations. TTC operating and capital budget materials, on recurring service costs and infrastructure needs. Toronto Small Business Property Tax Subclass guidance, on targeted relief. Strong Towns infrastructure costing framework, on future maintenance and replacement obligations.
P07 · Community safety, homelessness & mental health · all candidates ↗
My healthcare work has taught me that housing, pain, mental health and safety cannot be dealt with in separate boxes. Someone living outside needs a suitable place to live and access to care. A family frightened to walk to school needs a response today. I would support shelter and respite capacity while pursuing permanent supportive housing, including appropriate public-land and modular projects. Housing providers need funded connections to primary care, mental-health services, addiction treatment and culturally appropriate support. The Province must participate in healthcare delivery and funding. I support harm reduction connected to treatment, outreach and a practical disposal strategy. Programs should be judged by health outcomes and conditions around them. I would seek coordinated neighbourhood plans addressing discarded equipment, dealing, violence and access to businesses and public spaces, with clear responsibilities for service providers and City departments. Community crisis teams should respond when their skills fit the situation. Police are needed for violence, credible threats and criminal activity, with emergency health services involved when appropriate. Poverty or illness alone should not be treated as misconduct. Encampment responses should prioritize suitable indoor options, outreach and safety. Moving people from one sidewalk to another does not resolve homelessness.
Pursue provincial healthcare and addiction funding, federal housing partnerships and municipal housing and shelter resources. Public land can reduce land costs, but does not pay for services. Modular projects across Canada reduce building times, and costs that can be utilized on public land. Support costed investment in crisis response, outreach and waste removal, with clear coordination to avoid duplicated work. Emergency shelters remain necessary while housing is delivered. Don't assume immediate savings from reducing police or hospital use. Those benefits need evidence over time. Funding agreements should identify who pays for operations before a new facility opens to residents.
People experiencing homelessness, addiction or mental illness need safety, autonomy and appropriate care. Nearby families, workers, businesses and transit riders need protection from threats, violence and hazardous waste. Indigenous residents and other underserved groups may need culturally specific services. Supportive housing requires ongoing funding and can raise neighbourhood concerns that deserve answers. Enforcement without alternatives can displace vulnerable people and damage trust; failing to address dangerous conduct also harms residents. Treatment capacity and housing supply limit available choices. I would assess both health outcomes and neighbourhood conditions, involve people with lived experience and distinguish discomfort from actual risk or harm.
Council can fund shelter, housing, public health and community crisis services, and improve coordination among municipal departments. Provincial partners control major healthcare and treatment resources. Councillors cannot direct individual police operations or clinical decisions. Better outreach coordination, clear disposal responsibilities and site safety plans are early actions. New supportive homes and treatment access require providers, property, approvals and funding agreements. I would work through the relevant boards and agencies, request measurable service standards and pursue provincial partnerships. I cannot promise to eliminate homelessness in one term, but can pursue housing and service improvements and make failures visible to the public.
Within six months, I would convene local housing, health, outreach and safety partners to identify service gaps and repeated public safety problems. I would seek a neighbourhood response plan with named responsibilities and accessible reporting routes. Within two years, I would pursue funded improvements in crisis response, waste removal and housing access, while advancing suitable supportive housing partnerships. Public updates should track housing placements and retention where data permit, service response times, hazardous waste concerns and unresolved safety issues. I would protect personal information and avoid using arrests or encampment removals as evidence of success. Outcomes must reflect sustained improvement.
Toronto Community Crisis Service 2026 growth report and public dashboard, on crisis response and referral pathways. Toronto SafeTO plan, on coordinated community safety. Streets to Homes program and Encampment Outreach and Response guidance, on housing-focused outreach. BC Housing's Larwill Place and The Beach project report, on modular supportive housing and healthcare partnerships. Toronto Community Crisis Service evaluation, on outcomes and service limitations.
P08 · Development & neighbourhood character · all candidates ↗
Ward 14 should welcome more homes, but growth should build a community people can live in comfortably. I support multiplexes, secondary suites and laneway homes in neighbourhoods, mid-rise development on Danforth, Queen and Gerrard, and greater density near subway and GO stations. I would not invent a ward-wide unit target without examining approved projects, infrastructure capacity and housing need. I would ask staff to show what is already planned, what services it requires and where additional housing can be accommodated. That assessment should include accessible homes and family-sized units, not simply count front doors. I would protect existing affordable rentals, meaningful heritage buildings and the usable public spaces that make daily life possible. Heritage conservation should preserve what is significant while allowing thoughtful adaptation and additional homes where appropriate. I would also defend employment and production lands. Replacing jobs with housing everywhere leaves residents with longer commutes and fewer local opportunities. Main street redevelopment should maintain workable commercial space and access. I am unwilling to accept displacement without adequate protections, unsafe servicing or housing approvals that ignore the cost of infrastructure. Density belongs alongside transit, parks, childcare and healthcare access, with clear responsibilities for funding and delivery.
Growth requires water, sewer, transit and community infrastructure. I would seek upfront servicing assessments and costed delivery plans, using legally available development contributions alongside municipal capital funding and provincial and federal support. Affordable housing on public land requires financing and long-term agreements with co-op or non-profit providers. Protecting rentals may involve acquisition funding and housing partnerships. Heritage adaptation costs should be assessed project by project. I would simplify proportionate approvals for smaller projects while identifying any revenue effect. More homes can expand the tax base, but infrastructure and service costs must be included before claiming growth pays for itself automatically.
More housing benefits people priced out of the ward, growing families and residents seeking smaller or accessible homes. Neighbours experience construction and changing streetscapes. Tenants risk displacement, while businesses may lose affordable space during redevelopment. Higher density can support transit and local shops, but increases demand for parks, schools and utilities. Heritage conservation can add complexity, while demolition can erase valued buildings and embodied materials. Employment conversion may produce homes at the expense of jobs. I would weigh these effects openly, protect vulnerable tenants and require infrastructure planning. Established residents and future residents both deserve consideration when decisions are made.
Council can change zoning and planning policies, apply available heritage and rental protection tools, and fund infrastructure within provincial law. Provincial decisions and appeal processes can constrain local outcomes. School capacity requires coordination with school boards. Planning permissions support small housing additions, including six-unit multiplex permissions in Toronto and East York. My focus would include making compliant applications workable. Larger development needs servicing, transit and public realm planning. I would seek staff evidence on capacity, negotiate lawful protections and explain where Council has limited control, rather than promise a veto over every unwanted project.
I would pursue coordinated servicing plans for priority growth areas and approval reforms for smaller housing projects. I would seek stronger delivery schedules for identified public-land affordable housing opportunities. Reporting would distinguish approved units, construction starts and occupied homes. Success would include protections and funded services, not simply more permissions on paper. Delays and provincial constraints would be explained publicly.
Toronto Multiplex Housing guidance and 2025 zoning amendments, on neighbourhood housing permissions. Danforth Avenue Complete Street and Planning Study, on corridor growth and public realm planning. CreateTO Danforth Garage project description, on housing, employment and community uses. Toronto housing action plan and rental replacement processes, on affordability and tenant protection. Port Lands implementation reporting, on infrastructure and future housing decisions.
P09 · Climate, parks & waterfront · all candidates ↗
I would prioritize flood resilience. For a resident cleaning sewage out of a basement or a business losing equipment, climate policy is already an everyday infrastructure issue. We need to reduce the damage from heavy rain while continuing the work of cutting emissions. I would work with Toronto Water and Transportation Services to identify Ward 14 locations with repeated flooding or drainage problems and connect that information to planned road and sewer work. Where technically suitable, I would seek rain gardens, permeable surfaces and other measures that hold or absorb water before it overwhelms drains. Larger sewer problems still require engineered infrastructure; a rain garden cannot solve every flood. I would help eligible owners access flood protection subsidies. Renters and basement tenants need to be included in safety planning even when they cannot authorize property upgrades. My commitment would be to advance funded improvements at identified locations and publish their design, maintenance requirements and delivery schedule. I would assess cost over the life of the project and coordinate construction to avoid digging up the same street repeatedly. This is a practical municipal contribution to climate adaptation, with results people can see and evaluate in their neighbourhood.
Drainage and sewer improvements would be pursued through Toronto Water and street capital budgets. Adding green stormwater measures during scheduled reconstruction can avoid some separate construction costs, but still requires design and maintenance funding. I would seek available provincial and federal infrastructure support, and help eligible property owners access flood protection subsidies. Private upgrades may still require owner contributions. Staff should compare options by expected risk reduction, lifecycle cost and maintenance capacity. I would not promise a project budget before engineering review. Funded work should identify who maintains it, because poorly maintained drainage can leave residents exposed despite initial investment.
Homeowners, basement tenants and businesses benefit from reduced flood risk. Renters may have little power to approve protective work, and low-income owners may struggle with upfront costs. Construction can disrupt access and trade. Stormwater measures can compete with parking, utilities and other uses of limited street space. Maintenance needs must be funded, and smaller surface improvements cannot replace necessary sewer upgrades. Prioritizing one location can delay another, so selection should reflect risk and vulnerability. I would publish the criteria and include affected residents. No councillor can guarantee that a street will never flood during extreme weather, after improvements are completed.
The City controls local water, drainage and street responsibilities, making this an area where Council can fund concrete work. Toronto Water and Transportation Services must determine technical feasibility and scheduling. Conservation and other regulatory requirements may apply. A councillor can identify recurring problems, request assessments and pursue budget priority, but cannot substitute for engineering. Coordinating smaller measures with scheduled work is achievable where site conditions permit. Major sewer projects can extend beyond one term. I would focus on assessed locations with deliverable improvements, while reporting longer-term needs honestly. Subsidy programs provide another route to reducing risk on eligible private properties.
During the term, I would pursue at least one funded, technically suitable stormwater improvement linked to scheduled infrastructure work. Delivery would depend on engineering, approvals and Council funding. I would report those milestones separately. Success would include completed construction, a maintenance plan and documented design performance. Rainfall varies, so fewer complaints would not prove the project worked. Residents should see both progress and limitations.
Toronto Green Streets Technical Guidelines, on selecting, designing and maintaining stormwater measures. Toronto Water Stormwater Management Programs and Projects, on drainage and sewer responsibilities. Basement Flooding Protection Subsidy Program guidance, on eligible private property protection. Council item 2025 IE20.7, on green stormwater infrastructure and basement flooding program delivery. Strong Towns infrastructure costing framework, on maintenance and replacement obligations.
P10 · Competence & accountability · all candidates ↗
I would commit to publishing eight quarterly Ward 14 accountability reports, beginning in my first three months. Each would show the commitments I made, action taken, the responsible department or agency, available funding and what remains unresolved. Residents should be able to follow a project without needing a seance to find its budget. The reports would cover my motions and important votes, alongside practical work on transit, housing approvals, local businesses and infrastructure. A motion passed would be recorded as a motion passed, not a completed project. Where another government controls delivery, I would show the request, response and next step. This commitment is within my office's control. It gives residents a way to judge whether I am doing the work, while larger service improvements still depend on staff, budgets and Council support. Reports would be available online and in print. If I missed a report, I would acknowledge it, explain the reason and publish a recovery date. If a project stalled, I would explain the obstacle and change the approach where needed. Accountability means residents can see what happened and challenge my decisions, rather than wait four years for another campaign.
Accessible formats and distribution have costs, which would be recorded with office expenses. If demand requires resources beyond the approved budget, I would explain the options before committing spending. Departmental project information should come from existing reporting where possible, reducing duplicated work. The report would disclose funding needs for projects, but publishing it would not itself create money or authority to deliver every service improvement residents expect.
Residents gain a regular way to judge progress, including people who cannot attend Council meetings. Print access helps those who are offline. Staff time spent reporting is time unavailable for other office work, so the format must remain useful and manageable. Case reporting must protect personal information. Some project updates may be limited by procurement, legal or confidential matters. I would explain those limits without using them as a excuse for silence. Success measures must distinguish work my office controls from agency decisions. Residents should see unresolved problems, not a collection of favourable examples selected to make performance look better.
I would control my office's public reporting, subject to approved resources, privacy requirements and Council rules. This does not require another councillor to vote for the idea. That makes eight quarterly reports an achievable commitment. Information about City projects still depends on departments and agencies. I would use public reports, written requests and staff updates, identifying missing information. The reports would not publish confidential case details or claim authority over another government's work. Larger commitments would show dependencies and deadlines. Residents could assess my effort, decisions and follow-through while recognizing that an individual councillor cannot guarantee every external outcome alone.
Toronto Council meeting records and recorded votes, for checking motions and decisions. City operating and capital budget documents, for checking approved funding. Toronto Open Data and public service reporting, for available performance information. Councillor expense reporting, for office spending. IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation, on informing participants and explaining how input affects decisions.
GO DEEPER · LEADERSHIP & EXECUTION · How will you get it done?
L01 · Collaboration · all candidates ↗
One accomplishment I am proud of was helping pass Healthy Communities in Squamish, linking municipal land-use planning with the healthcare authority during our Official Community Plan review. It brought health into decisions about how our community would grow. Council, planners and healthcare partners approached the work from different perspectives. My role was to help connect those priorities: housing, transportation and access to services are planning decisions, but they also affect people’s health and independence. Rather than expect everyone to approach the issue as I did, I focused on where our responsibilities overlapped. We could make better land-use decisions by bringing healthcare knowledge into the planning process early. That gave people with different priorities a practical reason to support the work. Passing Healthy Communities was a shared accomplishment. It depended on staff, healthcare partners and Council colleagues working together, and it strengthened the connection between municipal planning and community well-being. I would bring that approach to Ward 14. I would ask what colleagues need to support a proposal, address their concerns and change the design when their objections reveal a weakness. Building agreement means finding a shared purpose and turning it into a decision people are prepared to support and implement.
During Squamish’s Official Community Plan review, I helped advance and pass Healthy Communities, connecting municipal land-use planning with the healthcare authority. This brought health considerations into discussions about housing, transportation and access to services. Planners, healthcare partners and councillors had different responsibilities, but a shared interest in a community that worked better for residents. I helped connect those interests so health could inform planning decisions rather than be considered separately. The concrete accomplishment was securing Council support for that connection. It showed how collaboration across institutions can change the way a municipality plans for growth and supports its residents’ well-being.
District of Squamish, “Squamish Learning Lab – OCP Health Lens Project Update & Draft Collaboration Protocol with Vancouver Coastal Health,” October 2014. Documents the work linking the OCP review with health priorities and a proposed collaboration agreement. Vancouver Coastal Health, “Collaboration and partnership at the heart of a healthy community,” 2015. Confirms the endorsed agreement and access to health data, expertise and resources for municipal planning. Vancouver Coastal Health Squamish2040 Official Community Plan, 2018. Documents collaboration with Vancouver Coastal Health and BC Healthy Communities to incorporate health into the plan’s development.
L02 · Changing your mind · all candidates ↗
Chuck Marohn and Strong Towns changed how I think about the cost of growth. Through courses and urban planning discussions, I came to look beyond whether a project could be built and ask what the municipality would be responsible for maintaining and replacing decades later. The important correction was understanding that new development and a larger tax base do not automatically make a community financially stronger. Roads, pipes and other infrastructure create lasting obligations. A project can look attractive at approval while leaving future residents with costs that were never properly assessed. What persuaded me was the costing. Strong Towns asks communities to compare the value a project creates with the public infrastructure liabilities it adds. That is a concrete test, and it changed the questions I bring to development decisions. I still support more housing and economic growth. I now place greater weight on using existing infrastructure well, allowing incremental housing and understanding operating and replacement costs before making commitments. For Ward 14, that means asking what services a development needs, who pays for them and whether funding continues after construction. My job is to improve the decision, even when that requires changing the assumptions I brought to it.
When considering a housing project, I would now ask for its water, sewer, transportation and community service requirements alongside the number of homes. I would ask what the City must maintain and eventually replace. That approach supports smaller housing additions where existing services can accommodate them, while requiring larger projects to account for greater infrastructure needs. It also explains my concern about approving housing without a realistic servicing plan. Strong Towns changed my understanding of municipal costs over time. A development's immediate appeal should not substitute for an assessment of the obligations residents inherit after the builder has moved on.
Strong Towns, Should We Do This Project A Strong Towns Answer, 2021, on comparing community wealth with long-term infrastructure obligations. Toronto Long-Term Financial Plan, updated 2023, on sustainable financial decisions. Toronto operating and capital budget documents, on service costs and asset investment. My account of taking Strong Towns courses, meeting Chuck Marohn through planning discussions and participating in the academy.
L03 · Coalition building · all candidates ↗
I have served two terms on Council, so I know that a good idea still needs people willing to vote for it. I would begin the work before the motion reaches the floor. I would meet colleagues individually, explain the problem and ask what they need to understand before supporting a solution. A Ward 14 issue often has relevance elsewhere: delayed housing applications, unreliable surface transit and inaccessible stops affect many wards. I would show that wider benefit without pretending every neighbourhood has identical needs. The proposal would include evidence, costs, the responsible department and a realistic implementation plan. Colleagues should not have to guess whether a motion is deliverable or discover its price after voting for it. I would accept amendments that improve the result and share credit. Sometimes a pilot or phased approach can address legitimate concerns while getting the work started. I would not trade away tenant protections, safety or public accountability simply to secure a vote. Support must be built through a convincing case and reliable relationships. I would follow through on commitments, understand other councillors' priorities and make it easy for them to see why this proposal deserves approval.
For proportionate housing application fees, I would show colleagues how a single laneway home differs from a sixplex in scale and review demands. I would request staff analysis of costs, fee revenue and duplicated steps, then invite councillors with similar constituent concerns to develop the motion together. If colleagues worried about lost revenue, I would propose a costed pilot or staged implementation with public evaluation. That gives Council a way to assess the change before expanding it. The result would address a Ward 14 problem while offering a improvement for homeowners and small builders elsewhere in the City as well.
Toronto Council meeting procedures and public committee records, on how motions and recommendations reach decisions. City budget documents, on costing and approval of spending. Toronto Multiplex Housing guidance, on different housing forms and permissions. IAP2 public participation principles, on incorporating affected interests. My two terms on Squamish Council inform my approach to coalition building.
L04 · Working with opponents · all candidates ↗
I would work with them on the responsibility we share to residents. Ward 14 still needs transit, housing and reliable services when elected representatives disagree about politics. Refusing to speak to someone would not make those needs disappear. I would establish the specific result we are trying to achieve, identify each government's responsibility and put the evidence and costs on the table. I would be clear about where I disagree, while looking for areas where cooperation can produce a useful outcome. A provincial government and I might approach housing differently but still agree that residents need a functioning sewer system or safe access during construction. I would challenge decisions that harm the ward, explain my reasons publicly and pursue changes through the appropriate channels. I would keep criticism focused on the decision and its consequences rather than personal attacks. My background includes municipal government, healthcare and business. Those settings require working with people whose priorities and perspectives differ. Residents should judge whether I secured progress and protected their interests. They should also be able to see when cooperation required a compromise, what that compromise was and why I accepted it.
During my second term on Squamish Council, I worked with a different mayor. Our support for each other’s positions varied depending on the issue, but we worked from common values and a shared responsibility to serve our community. I could support the mayor on one decision and disagree on the next without allowing that disagreement to damage our working relationship. I focused on the proposal, explained my concerns and looked for areas where we could move forward together. That experience taught me that productive relationships depend on respect, clear communication and shared purpose, rather than agreement on every political issue.
L05 · Advocacy · all candidates ↗
When someone says no, I want to understand why. Is it money, timing, a legal restriction or simply that Ward 14’s needs have not been taken seriously? The answer determines what I do next. I served two terms on Council. I know you can disagree strongly with someone and still work together the following week. I would be direct about what residents need, what has been refused and who has the authority to change it. I would bring residents and businesses into the conversation, build support with other councillors and use Council motions, public meetings and the media when necessary. The strongest pressure comes from people explaining what a decision means in their daily lives: a shop losing customers, a caregiver unable to reach a bus stop or a family kept awake by construction. My job is to connect those experiences to a specific, workable demand. I would challenge a decision without making the dispute personal. I would keep speaking with the people who can resolve it, even while publicly pressing them to act. If they offer a useful improvement, I would take it and keep working on what remains. Residents deserve progress, and they deserve honesty about the obstacles.
L06 · Communication · all candidates ↗
See answers above.
L07 · Decision-making · all candidates ↗
I would listen carefully, check the evidence and make the decision I can justify in the public interest. Volume is not a measure of how many people are affected or how serious the consequences are. Residents often identify problems that a report misses. I would ask what they are experiencing, examine the assumptions and seek input from people who have not been heard. My research background makes me attentive to the quality of the information, not simply whether a document contains numbers. If the evidence remained convincing, I would explain it in plain language, including its limitations and the trade-offs. I would look for adjustments that address legitimate concerns without undermining the purpose of the decision. A trial with clear measures may help where uncertainty can be tested safely. Nor would I dismiss people as uninformed because they disagree with me. After deciding, I would publish my reasoning and the conditions under which I would reconsider. Listening does not require promising everyone their preferred outcome. It requires taking their concerns seriously and being accountable for the choice I make.
The LNG project in Squamish taught me that lesson. Provincial, federal and First Nations authorities approved the project, while some of the loudest residents opposed it. Council did not have authority to stop it. In my assessment, failing to work from that reality weakened our negotiating position and cost us opportunities for housing, revitalization and tax revenue. Residents’ concerns deserved scrutiny, but we also needed to understand the evidence and our actual powers. I would focus on securing enforceable benefits and protections, and explain that decision openly, even when the most vocal residents wanted a different approach.
L08 · Handling mistakes · all candidates ↗
A significant mistake was accepting developers' arguments too readily when considering variances and land-use changes on Squamish's oceanfront. In hindsight, I believe some variances were unnecessary. I also question decisions that allowed employment land to become housing and land intended for seniors to become market housing. It was giving too much weight to what an applicant said was needed without sufficiently testing the alternatives or the long-term public cost. Once land changes use, the community may find it very difficult to recover the opportunity it gave up. That experience informs the questions I ask now. What exactly prevents the project from proceeding under existing rules? What evidence supports the requested change? What public purpose would be lost, and what enforceable benefit replaces it? A general promise of investment is not an adequate answer. I cannot honestly claim that every past decision was reversed. I can acknowledge my part and apply the lesson to future decisions. In Ward 14, that means scrutinizing employment land conversions and commitments around affordable and seniors' housing. I would insist that the public understand the trade-off before Council votes, and that any promised benefit be secured through tools the City can actually enforce.
One decision I regret was supporting a deal for seniors’ housing in Squamish. We traded away half of our future housing opportunity for seniors to get a smaller project off the ground. I wanted to see homes built, but I gave too much weight to the immediate benefit and too little to what the community was surrendering. It was a bad deal. That experience changed how I assess development proposals. I ask what we gain today, what we lose permanently and whether the concessions are necessary. Public land and future housing capacity deserve scrutiny, especially when intended for seniors.
L09 · Managing competing interests · all candidates ↗
I would decide according to the public interest, legal obligations and the consequences for people affected. No group receives an automatic veto because it is organized, influential or able to hire a consultant. I would begin by identifying the decision we actually have to make and the interests behind each position. A business may need delivery access, a resident may fear displacement, staff may be concerned about servicing and a developer may need a viable project. I would assess safety, affordability, accessibility, environmental effects and the costs residents will carry over time. The effects on people with the least ability to absorb harm deserve particular attention. Staff advice matters, but I would ask questions about assumptions and alternatives rather than treat a recommendation as beyond scrutiny. I would disclose the trade-offs and explain what can be negotiated. Some constraints are legal or technical; others are choices Council must defend. My decision would not be based on who praised me, threatened political consequences or arrived with the loudest campaign. Residents should see the evidence, the reasoning and any conditions attached to approval, then be able to hold me accountable.
L10 · Leadership temperament · all candidates ↗
I would leave or pause a discussion involving credible threats, harassment, discriminatory abuse or pressure to conceal wrongdoing. I would not negotiate away someone's safety or accept a condition that requires breaking the law. Where necessary, I would document the incident and use the appropriate reporting process. A meeting may need a different setting, another representative or clearer ground rules. Residents still deserve a way to have legitimate concerns addressed, even when one conversation becomes unacceptable. Strong disagreement, criticism of my decisions and understandable frustration would not make me walk away. People can be angry about a permit, unsafe street or years of poor service. I would try to understand the concern and return the discussion to what can be resolved. I do not need someone to like me or share my politics to work with them. I would distinguish difficult behaviour from an actual threat. I would also be alert to communication differences and avoid treating directness or distress as deliberate hostility. My standard is respectful, lawful negotiation focused on the issue. I would explain boundaries clearly, give people an opportunity to continue constructively when safe and remain accountable for my own conduct.
If a resident angrily criticized a street redesign, I would hear the concern and ask which part affects their access or safety. Disagreement and sharp criticism would not end the conversation. If the person threatened staff or used discriminatory abuse, I would pause the meeting, state the boundary and follow the safety process. Where safe, I would offer a written response or a future discussion with agreed ground rules. The underlying service request would still be assessed on its merits. Staff and residents deserve protection, and an angry interaction should not determine whether a legitimate problem receives attention and action.
Toronto Integrity Commissioner guidance and current councillor conduct resources, on ethical public office and appropriate conduct. IAP2 Code of Ethics, on integrity, trust and respectful public participation. City public meeting and workplace safety procedures, the applicable framework for responding to unsafe conduct.