It was an action-packed week at council, but it was also one of the most contentious weeks seen in the chambers in the last few months. The friction was all about exploring online voting methods for the 2026 municipal election, and whether or not council would proceed with the option reached at Committee of the Whole. Also, there was another question about whether or not too much was collected in development charges.
Regular Meeting of Council – May 28
Other than that one topic, there wasn’t much to talk about on this council agenda. Out of the closed session, two new people were named to Heritage Guelph, two new people were named to the Waste Resource Innovation Centre Liaison Committee, and council approved spending $150,000 from the Tax Rate Contingency Reserve to fund the centralization of back office support functions as part of the Service Rationalization Review. Councillor Carly Klassen was also appointed to succeed her ward mate, Rodrigo Goller, as a council rep on the Downtown Guelph Business Association Board.
That just left 2026 Municipal Election Alternative Voting Methods and Accessible Voting Service Enhancements, but really what this meeting was about was online voting. There were around 20 delegates with various points of view, lived experience and expertise, and it did, at times, get spicy. Council would end up being forced to make a tough decision, choosing between the advancement of equity or limiting the cyber security risks to the City and the electorate.
Without getting into a complete blow-by-blow about what all 21 people said, we will break this down into some of the general groups that emerged.
First, there were the technical experts, people who outlined the technological and human components that make online voting uniquely vulnerable to manipulation. They left the door open for internet voting in the future, but cited a lack of unified standards, encryption issues, and a lack of verification and physical back-ups as reasons not to proceed with this method of voting at this moment.
There were concerned community members, some with disabilities themselves or have family members with disabilities, who sided with the experts and wanted council to take away an online option and follow strictly staff’s recommendation that the 2026 elections be administered with in-person voting plus mail-in and vote from home options. One group of delegates in this category even hired a lawyer, who also delegated.
And then there were the people who wanted to keep the online voting option, members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee and others with lived experience who talked about the barriers they and others have encountered while trying to cast their votes in person, and why the other options do not give them the personal security and independence that they’re asking for. AAC Chair Lorelei Root got understandably emotional when talking about the long, hard road of fighting systemic barriers and having to have repeated conversations about her rights and dignity for disabled people.
After almost three hours of delegations, council took a 15-minute break and came back putting the four recommendations on the table. The first two motions, one about free transit and free parking at Market Parkade on election day, and one about the use of vote tabulators, was approved unanimously. The fourth recommendation, which was the one approving the exploration of an online option, was moved to the third position, as many on council assumed that that affirming an online voting method might mean that the City wouldn’t pursue other alternatives.
Council probed City Clerk Stephen O’Brien about security concerns and processes, as well as their intention when looking for a vendor that can provide internet voting services to the staff’s exacting standards. O’Brien says that they will continue to engage the marketplace, but there’s a chance that they won’t be able to find a vendor to meeting their needs, but he did add that they will have to “walk down that road” before they know for sure.
Ultimately, a solid nine vote majority approved an internet voting option while Councillors Phil Allt, Linda Busuttil, Dominique O’Rourke and Michele Richardson dissented believing that the security risk was too high.
That left one more motion, to approve the use of Vote by Mail and Vote from Home as the other alternative voting methods for the 2026 elections. There was some suggestion that the online voting option made this moot, but O’Brien urged council to keep them as a fail safe if no reasonable internet voting vendor can be found. He also added that the clerks’ office will be looking for a budget bump in order to keep all these plates spinning as they prepare for the next election.
Ultimately, council saw the logic of this, as well as the argument that they should have an alternative voting method for people of limited technological means too. The fourth recommendation was approved.
Click here to see the complete recap of the meeting.
Regular Meeting of Council – May 29
Somewhat more low key on Wednesday was a meeting of council where they were sitting as a tribunal under the Development Charges Act. In this case, the developers of a townhouse project at 300 Water Street believe that they’re entitled to a 25 per cent discount in DCs since they’re building a purpose-built rental, but the City’s lawyers said that there’s no set definition for the term, and that the manner in which these units were developed falls outside certain protections.
Justin Black, a lawyer for Robson Carpenter LLP representing the developer, said that the focus of this townhouse project is to add to Guelph’s rental stock, and that this is the overall goal for the Spruce Living group of companies right now. Black argued that the development checked all the boxes for the discount as outlined in provincial legislation, and that they’ve gotten assistance to fund the project from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which signals their seal of approval on 300 Water as a purpose-built rental.
Black also said that his client is prepared to sign an agreement with the City guaranteeing that, which is something they don’t have to do, but they’re interested in offering city hall some piece of mind. He also said that he’s pretty sure that if this is appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal then they will likely see it the developer’s way without having to bother with any personal assurances between Spruce Living and the City.
Allison Thornton, associate solicitor representing the City of Guelph, disagreed. She started with the fact that the developer went through the Committee of Adjustment process to separate 300 Water into six separate properties, each hooked up to their own utilities independently. She said that although the developer has said it’s their intention to rent the properties, if they choose to sell than then the City would have no recourse because this development is not covered by the condo control provisions of the Official Plan.
She was worried that allowing the discounts for this development, which she also added were incorrectly calculated because they included the education DCs, would set a bad precedent because it would mean opening the door to discounts for every multi-residential development in the city. She also said that she was ready to defend this decision at the OLT.
Council as tribunal spent the better part of an hour in-camera to reach a decision, which was reserved. That means that they made a decision, but we won’t find out till they notified the parties separately.
Click here to see the complete recap of the meeting.
Guelph Politico 