RECAP Council Meeting June 24, 2025 Part 1 Sign By-law Delegates and Discussion

Posted on by

Objectionable. Mayor Prue’s offensive terminology, a good indicator that council needs more intensive accessibility training, Deputy Mayor Gibb’s ridiculous rant about human rights complaint and speaking as a business owner, the usual kudos to staff, maybe a bit more than usual, typical confusion about motions, unnecessary clarifications sought, time wasting passing the gavel, and five passionate delegates pleading to keep signs to offset lost revenue.

Delegate 1: Paul Peltier, representing the K of C hall, mentioned having a sign there for at least 30 years with no complaints and no problems; it doesn’t interfere with any pedestrian traffic, and are at least a meter and a half away from the parking blocks. Peltier noted how important the sign is to advertise bingo, fish fries and making donations to community groups of over $40,000. annually, and donating almost half a million dollars since the beginning. He said it really hurt to have somebody come in and say, you got to move it. 

Questions to Peltier:

Councillor Pouget thanked Peltier, acknowledged the hard work of the K of C and for confirmation that the sign has been there for 30 years, and is not on the sidewalk. Councillor Courtney asked him what he didn’t agree with regarding the proposed sign by-law. Councillor Allaire asked if he was okay with a fee if he had to pay a fee for it, like an annual fee of $150. Prue reminded Allaire that fee was for A frames and this is not an A frame. Allaire wanted to ask Bill Tetler a question and Prue said ok but then he said questions were to be directed to the deputants. Peltier focused on how they say it has to be so far from the lot line and then it says you can only do it for a certain period of time and then you can’t leave the sign there, and it’s got to go back in; he was ok with a fee.

Questions to Staff

Pouget asked Tetler why his sign had to be removed when it does not; before she finished her sentence, Bill Tetler explained that the sign is, under the sign by-law definition, a mobile sign, that requires a permit under the current sign by-law; it required a permit under the previous sign by-law as well.

Pouget said they never had a permit for all these years and Tetler said he was not aware of them ever having a permit for a mobile sign. Allaire asked which type of sign he would consider the Knights of Columbus’ sign to be under the sign by-law; permanent or mobile. (Tetler just told Pouget that it’s a mobile sign under the sign by-law).

Allaire then asked about the cost to keep it there permanently and Tetler said they weren’t allowed under the current by-law; it could be there for 200 days, for $1 per day, and the business can choose the duration at any given time. He explained the maximum is 60 days at a time, there has to be a 14 day break in between the maximum days of permits. But someone could apply for a 15 day permit and then a 23 day permit, like they can utilize their 200 days to the best to their business. Tetler said they could contact the building department and work with them about erecting a permanent sign on that property, potentially with a manual change in letters, rather than having a mobile sign. Tetler continued, a mobile sign is not a permanent sign; it cannot be used as a permanent sign but by definition, if a mobile sign is never leaving the location, it could be looked at as a permanent sign.

Prue passed the gavel just to ask, if they move it somewhere else on the lot will they be in any violation at all? Tetler said they could apply for a mobile sign permit and have it located elsewhere on the property

Delegate 2: Lynn Durfy, owner of Lynn’s Variety for the last 31 years expressed concerns about the current by-law that prohibits sandwich signs and A frame signs on the boulevard where she’s had her sign for the last 24 years. Durfy said her sign has never caused a problem, no one ever complained until the by-law officer stood in front of her threatening a fine if it wasn’t moved in 24 hours. She said she moved the sign into her parking lot three metres as she was told she needed to be from the sidewalk and then she got a phone call saying that she still was going to be fined because it needed to be three metres from the lot line, which is technically the front of her building, so the sign then needs to be right up against the side of my building to meet the by-law. 

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Courtney spoke at length and mentioned AODA compliance and limiting the number of signs, the size of the sign and how secure it is and said he had a general question. Prue asked him to ask a question specifically about Lynn’s Variety like, why is that sign not appropriate? Why is it illegal? Prue then asked why it was illegal. Tetler said the setback requirement of the sign by-law is two meters; any business owner that has enough property to have the sign on their property is allowed to have it. He suggested that most businesses will be allowed to have the sign, just maybe not in the current location.

Delegate 3: Peter Leardi, business owner for 40 years now, 21 years at their current location. He’s had a portable sign in front of my current location for 21 years for multiple reasons:

  • To announce new seasonal arrivals. 
  • To advertise promotional items, advertise end of season sales. 
  • The ability to advertise and take advantage of all the traffic on Sandwich Street was one of the reasons he moved his business and spent $600,000. 21 years ago. That portable sign would help draw traffic into his store and hopefully keep business here in our community. 
  • The sign was four feet wide and five feet tall; it sat three feet on his property and one foot on town property. There existed 12 feet of remaining sidewalk from the edge of his sign to the road curb. In absolutely no way was his sign an impediment to pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, and it was also AODA compliant. 
  • In the 21 years that that sign sat out in front of his store, the only complaint that he ever received was from the town of Amherstburg. On April 25 of this year, he received an order to comply that said he didn’t have a permit and it was too close to the lot line. 

Leardi wanted to address some conditions of the new by-law and his order to comply:

  1. The order to comply stated he didn’t have a permit. However, he wanted everyone to know that he has always paid his permit fee through his sign supplier.  
  2. The order to comply states that his sign is too close to the lot line. That is absolutely true. It sits on 12 inches of town property, but there’s 12 feet of sidewalk to the road, curbside on the other side of that sign, it was bothering no one, by the way, for the last 21 years, that 12 feet of sidewalk and patio on the other side of that sign; he’s swept it, cleaned it, shoveled the snow off of it, salted it, and never once sent the town a bill for that. 
  3. The new by-law puts a limit of 200 days on the use of a portable sign. It goes on to say that this time allowance is generous compared to other municipalities in Essex County; who says the other municipalities are correct? Why limit the use of signs? And can someone please tell him which 200 days of the year are the best years to advertise? There should be no limits on the usage of a sign. If you’ve paid for the permit for the year, let the individual or business use it for the year. He doesn’t understand why the town of Amherstburg would do anything to impede the success of any small business in its community, unless the business was doing something illegal or posing a harm to its citizens, he was doing neither. Just in the month of May this year, and in June, my prom and grad suit sales were down 54% and 45% respectively. He had to take his sign down on May 2. Aside from affecting his business, his two tailors here in town had less work. He shared a supportive email from a parent that was grateful to be able to shop locally, while other parents were unaware of a sale because the sign was not out. He said he’d lost enough revenue the last seven weeks to pay for a sign permit for the next 75 years. 

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Pouget asked Tetler why they would make Mr. Leardi remove his sign if it was less than a foot away from town property and wondered if they couldn’t have worked with him to make sure that he was able to advertise until this report came back to council. CAO Critchley answered that she didn’t believe that council suspended the operation of the by-law so they did not have the authority to do that; that’s up to council to make that motion to suspend that.

Delegate 4: Sarah Brush, proud owner/operator of Speck’s Restaurant in Amherstburg for nearly 55 years, more than half a century. Speck’s isn’t just a restaurant, it’s a gathering place, a part of the fabric of this town, people come for the food, but they return for the connection. For decades, they’ve supported this community, quietly, consistently through local causes, kindness and hard work, but she will always stand up for what’s right, to protect what they’ve built, and to ensure that small businesses like hers are treated with fairness and respect. She said she’s appeared before council more than once, and while it takes time and energy, she will not back down. When she is suddenly told she can’t display a simple open flag she’s had for 55 years, she has no choice but to speak up. That flag never blocked a sidewalk, and it is on her own property; it’s never posed a safety hazard, and it complies fully with AODA standards. She mentioned that customers are confused, foot traffic is down, and their business has suffered because of a by-law that was drafted without real consultation with the people it affects most. 

She said she has never paid a cent to the town to display this flag, and she doesn’t intend to now, this kind of nickel and diming of small businesses isn’t just unnecessary, it’s damaging. It sends the wrong message about who we are as a town. Brush wanted to make it clear that this just isn’t about Speck’s, it’s about every small business in Amherstburg. Small businesses are the heart and soul of this community; they create jobs, attract visitors, and bring life into our streets. When their visibility is restricted, so is their ability to survive. These signs and yes, even flags aren’t clutter. These signs are our connection. They’re how they let people know they’re here and they’re open. When they’re signs come down, so does the energy and life of this town. We want a council that understands us, respects us, and lets us run our businesses the way we always have, with pride, honesty and care.

Brush continued: frankly, this by-law doesn’t make sense. We’re being told to take our signs down, but then told it’s fine if we pay $150 a year. What kind of business logic is that if a sign is truly unsafe or inappropriate, charging a fee doesn’t make it any less so, and if it’s safe and has never been a problem, then why are we being punished for something that has worked for decades? Get rid of this ridiculous by-law. It’s hurting the very people who helped build this town. I still believe in Amherstburg. I believe in working together, and I hope that moving forward, we can have more conversation and not more enforcement, so that Amherstburg stays a place where small businesses feel valued and not punished. Let’s keep this town open, thriving and welcoming, just like it always has been. 

Questions to Brush:

Pouget wanted to clarify that her sign was AODA compatible, not in the way and on her property. Brush said it’s in her garden and 2.5 meters away from the sidewalk.

Questions to Staff

Allaire asked how her sign was illegal if it’s 2.5 meters from the sidewalk. Following some confusion about which sign was being referred to, Tetler said the flag signs referred to in the by-law are prohibited in the HCD, the heritage conservation district, which is why the sign was asked to be removed.

McArthur asked for clarity because they haven’t passed the heritage conservation district. Tetler explained that the by-law states that that type of sign is not allowed in that area. Therefore, they did that enforcement, but A frame signs are allowed to be at the property line in that area. The explanation was that although the district hasn’t been adopted, the area was identified in the sign by-law. 

Pouget agreed with Brush’s question – how is it okay for businesses to put up signs if they pay, but it isn’t if they don’t pay? Pouget asked, aren’t we more worried about keeping our residents safe and to follow the rules of AODA? If we’re making them move their signs because we’re saying they’re not in the correct area, then why would it be okay for them to put their signs there if they pay?

Critchley said if there’s a sign in the HCD, HCD overlay area, that wouldn’t be allowed at all so there would be no payment for sign. She thought that council had to make decisions on whether to allow a mobile sign in the HCD, because the by-law says no to that; A frame signs are permitted if there is enough width on the sidewalk. The fee is because it’s in the public right of way and is an encroachment on town property; and council had to decide whether to keep the 180 day time frame limit for mobile signs.

Pouget noted how they waived fees for residents on George Street, whose homes were on town property and asked if they could do the same thing tonight. Critchley said council can decide whatever council deems is appropriate in circumstances. 

More discussion about what would and would not be allowed in heritage districts. A frame signs would still be allowed in the HCD, mobile signs would not be. McArthur sought clarity again because the report says that mobile signs are not permitted within a heritage conservation district and wondered if that was a provincial rule, or should this read they’re not allowed in ours because it says it’s not allowed in any Heritage Conservation District. 

Delegate 5: Jen DeLuca, from Waterfront Ice Cream, understood that a complaint was made about A frame signs blocking the sidewalk and not being AODA complaint. What she didn’t understand is why an entire by-law had to be rewritten to address this. There was no consultation with the businesses, no meetings, no open houses, just a sign blitz. So they sent emails; they then tried to speak at a previous meeting but were denied the opportunity. They have no recourse to share their concerns when this happens, and here they are, two months later speaking at a meeting. Why is there no other more productive and more expedient way to work with the businesses? The businesses there have had signs out for 50 years, 46 years, 25 years and more, all of which are AODA compliant; they were greeted with citations and pending fines during business hours for not removing their signs. In this two month period, the absence of signs caused a drastic decrease in customers and sales for many, and here they are with a report only to tell them that after having to remove our signs and incur loss of business, they now get to continue to have this prior privilege reinstated, but for a yearly application and fee. This is clearly not about AODA compliance, since their our signs actually meet this criteria. (I strongly agree). It is about greed and taking more money from small businesses. DeLuca mentioned local businesses that would endure burdens: Armando Pizza, Wigle Meats, 67 Richmond Street, noting ‘some of you’ show your public support for Freed’s, Gumballs and Overalls, Ure’s Country Kitchen; their signs impede no one and they are essential to the success of their small businesses. DeLuca said they adopt bylaws that you do not fully read or understand, and there’s no communication with the actual people they affect. (Again, I strongly agree).Then they get five minutes to state their plea publicly. As business owners, they must leave their businesses to do this every time and she pleaded with all of them to do better. She thanked Councillor Pouget because she’s the only one who continues to ask questions for them, and she advocates for them, especially when she admits that her decision was bad for businesses. Asking them to wait for a report and sit tight while losing customers is not an appropriate answer; please erase the fine print in this by-law and don’t charge the business community to advertise for their businesses and livelihood. DeLuca asked, when did we stop taking care of each other? She mentioned how her husband, like Mr. Leardi, maintains the town property beyond their property line. For 46 years, Waterfront has been doing that and now she has to pay to put her sign there. It just doesn’t make sense. If there are other businesses who don’t have that AODA compliance, deal with that in a different light, but to rewrite a whole new by-law and pop in people’s businesses during business hours with a citation and a threat to be fined just doesn’t seem right. It’s not.

There were no questions of the delegate.

Questions to Staff

Pouget said she had no questions, but I do have a motion when it’s time.

Prue said he would allow the motion later since they were discussing general questions, not individual properties, but just about a by-law that is an old, old, old by-law, not new; this is going back 25 years, it just wasn’t enforced. (Didn’t we pay for by-laws to be enforced?)

Pouget asked Critchley if they enact this by-law, would it mean extra work for administration to go out and collect fees. Critchley said if you enacted the amendment to the by-law that the report suggests i.e. allowing A frame signs, if they’re permitted, people would have to make their application, so yes, it is additional work to have the A frame signs on public property. Critchley said they put the fee in there because they were following Council, what they thought was Council’s direction in terms of usage of public property. With the temporary patios it was certainly made clear that people should have to pay to use town property so they wanted to make sure that they were collecting back the money that would be used in staff time to take permits and do inspections. Critchley said the fee that’s being charged is not cost recovery. 

McArthur asked if Mr. Leardi would be allowed to have a mobile sign and if Speck’s restaurant would be allowed to have the flag if they were within the HCD. Tetler said neither would be allowed.

Prue passed the gavel to ask a couple of questions; he mentioned a sign by-law that comes up every four years during elections and how some members had signs removed because they were on town property. He said he doesn’t mind the signs, provided they are AOD compliant. Prue said, “I will never, never support a sign that is blocking someone who is blind, in a wheelchair, a mother in a carriage, with a carriage. I will never, ever support that sign on the street, because those people have rights, same as all of us. They’re not different. They have rights, and their rights, I think, supersede the rights to be safe, supersede the rights to make money.” 

Pure said what he wants to see is a sign by-law which is permissive, which will allow businesses to flourish, but will also be safe, and if they have to charge a few dollars, Ms. Brush says she’s not going to pay, well, he guessed what happens with all by-laws when people don’t pay, you end up in court. Not that that’s a threat, but that’s what happens. That’s what happens with every by-law that’s broken. Prue said Mr. Leardi made a very strong point; he said he would gladly pay because he lost more money. He lost 75 years’ worth of payments for the lack of that sign. I’m sure he would gladly pay for it and Lynn’s Variety, she said she just wanted some kind of compromise and I think that makes perfect sense. The K of C wants to compromise, and one is available to them so as a town they have to try to do something to compromise. He said he was waiting for the motions, but please, whatever they are, make them AOD compliant. Make them enforceable without being onerous. And let’s, as some of the delegates said, bring people back together. He thought it could be done; it’s up to council. He took the gavel back to hear motions. 

Courtney said the gist of what he gathered was AODA compliance and there should be a one sign limit.

Pouget moved a motion to direct administration to allow businesses to advertise with sandwich boards, flags and mobile signs that fall within the guidelines of the AODA and do not obstruct mobility devices without payment to the town of Amherstburg in order to allow these businesses to thrive and to promote economic development. Further to that, this section of bylaw 2025-001 be removed.

Prue made a point of telling people in the audience that just because Councillor Allaire seconded it doesn’t mean she’s necessarily going to support it but she wants to hear it. Allaire asked which section would be removed since she didn’t have the by-law in front of her.

Critchley’s interpretation was that mobile signs and A frame signs would be allowed anywhere in the town if it was AODA compliant. 

Allaire said she had it written a little bit differently, and she would love it if Pouget would just take on her amendments. Allaire was okay with not having mobile signs in our historic district, she didn’t think it would flow nicely with what they’re trying to create in our sweet town. She was okay with the overlay in the historic district, okay with this entire sign by-law to begin with and she was listening and understanding. She had written down that all signs must be compliant with accessibility for Ontario’s with Disability Act, (the proper title is Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act), signs must be placed entirely on the property of the individual for entirety displaying of the sign, so it must be on their property. In cases where the signs are not placed on the owner’s property, a fee shall be charged to offset the cost of the application processing, inspections and potential enforcement actions, that is just to cover the cost the by-law has to come out to make sure that it is safe to be on our property. It is only for signs that are not on entirety of their property and remove the time restriction so signs could be on display year round.

Prue said Pouget’s motion had to be dealt with first. (He should’ve said that as soon as he heard Allaire speak about the motion she had written differently).

Gibb’s speech:  They never tell you when you run for council that you’re going to have to sit and look at your friends out there and disappoint some and make other ones happy. So that’s always the hardest part. The other thing is, I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Councilor Allaire; we’re not doing this to be mean, we’re not doing this to make people’s lives difficult, but this town is also a business, and if we don’t follow the law, especially with accessibility, we’re going to be fined. We’re going to be brought in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. It’s going to happen so we have to act. There’s going to be a cost to review these signs that are going to be on town property, there’s going to be a cost because we’re going to have to document it. We’re going to have to make sure we can defend ourselves when the inevitable human rights complaint or lawsuit comes, and I can’t ask the taxpayers to pay that cost. I have to put that like Councillor Allaire said, that has to be paid by the business owner. I’m sorry. It’s just not something that I can put on the taxpayers. We’ve charged other businesses to use town property. I don’t see what the difference is here. You know, the heritage district, as far as mobile signs and flags, I again, I agree with Councillor Allaire. That’s just not what we’re trying to do. I get it. I’m sorry that I’m going to disappoint some of you, but I agree with her that if we’re going to have a heritage district, it has to stay heritage. If your A frame sign is entirely on your property, that’s great that you’ve got the room to do it. If you have to be on town easement, then there’s going to have to be some kind of fee to cover the cost of ensuring it’s there properly. In the sake of what does the mayor always say working together? I was going to say that I’m not entirely happy about having no limit on temporary signs. But again, in the sake of working together, I would support council. I think we have to balance protecting the municipality. We have to balance the fact that we have to document these signs that are on town property, and there’s going to be a cost to it. And if the sign is that important, I know myself as a business owner, I would pay that cost. So if Councillor Allaire has a chance to make that motion, I will second it.

Prue reminded everyone that they were only dealing with Councillor Pouget’s motion and to limit speaking to whether it would be supported or not. Prue recognized Crain and then McArthur to speak.

Pouget said excuse me, I thought I could speak on my motion first in and then Councillor Allaire interrupted and gave her motion; I’m supposed to be able to speak to it. (Pouget is correct. After Allaire read what she wanted her motion to state, Prue said Pouget’s motion had to be dealt with first. And, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, the mover does speak first).

Prue said he didn’t see her hand; he said he would recognize Crain and then he would come back to her and then McArthur.

Crain said he wouldn’t support Pouget’s motion. He believed it would be difficult if there is no cost or reporting to the municipality to confirm if signs are AODA compliant. He said he believes if it’s on town property they have to pay for staff time to conduct inspections.

Pouget said council has repeatedly heard how difficult it is for small businesses to be profitable and viable and how they pay for overhead, insurance, licenses, inspections, compete with online shopping and many more businesses locating in the town of Amherstburg. She referenced Sarah Brush’s statement that these businesses are the heart and soul of our community and have been for many years. They are not here for handouts; they are only asking for respect and a chance to operate their businesses as they have done by advertising with sandwich signs and mobile signs, flags, whatever, to keep their businesses viable in these hard economic times. 

McArthur noted a lot of clarity was needed and asked that a friendly amendment be made to Pouget’s motion to allow for the duration of 365 days. McArthur asked for another clarification: would Speck’s be allowed her flag and Mr. Leardi his mobile sign? (Tetler already answered his same question earlier; he said neither would be allowed in the HCD).

Courtney repeated his thoughts about limiting the number of signs per business and the size. More confusion about whether those stipulations were amendments or were already in the by-law. Prue called the vote, which tied, which he broke in opposition because he liked Allaire’s motion ‘a lot better.’ 

Allaire then read her motion that Prue should’ve stopped her from stating previously. She moved that the sign by-law be amended to include the following provisions. All signs must be compliant with the Accessibility for Ontario’s and Disability Act. (The correct title is the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act). Signs must be placed entirely on the property of the individual or entity of displaying the sign. In cases where the signs are not placed on the owner’s property, a fee shall be charged to offset the cost application processing, inspection and potential enforcement actions. The current restrictions on the duration of the time a sign may be displayed shall be removed.

McArthur asked yet another clarifying question: if everything else in the by-law stands. Critchley advised it should come back in August.

McArthur then said he liked Pouget’s motion, which is not always the case. (That’s an understatement, given the number of times he’s chastised her). He would oppose Allaire’s motion because it didn’t address the inequity of prohibiting signs in the HCD.

Gibb said he might as well get in there and share how he generally agrees with McArthur. (again, the number of times they echo each other’s views is obvious). In this situation, he disagreed and, as in prior discussions, it’s about equity – one rule for all.

Another tie vote for Prue to break and he said he thought this motion was better, so it carried.

Amherstburg Library Relocation: Community Concerns Unveiled

Posted on by

Re RTT article, Amherstburg library in early stages of possible relocation, nothing imminent. 

Deputy Mayor Gibb’s statement that “people are assuming something is imminent” is concerning since he advised the library board in March that the town “is expected to begin searching for a new location for the Amherstburg branch in April.”

Gibb claimed his March 26 library board meeting comments stemmed from a March 25 council notice of motion, although council had not debated the notice of motion until April. Council’s subsequent motion was to obtain an administration report on future opportunities to relocate the branch. It might have been more helpful if the library had been included in the town’s space needs study last year.

Three council members’ allegations regarding library deficienciesu are disconcerting, especially because they have not answered questions about the reasons for their statements. 

While Gibb mentioned it certainly has challenges with the tall shelves, which most libraries have, Councillor McArthur stated it’s not as accessible as it otherwise might be ideal. Councillor Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ 

The focus of the library board’s facilities space review was space preference which should not be construed as inaccessibility. 

In April, I asked the library board to provide me with any documentation indicating there are accessibility issues at the Amherstburg library; this month, I submitted a Freedom of Information request.

For decades I have repeatedly requested a stronger commitment to accessibility, while Mayor Prue referenced the AODA and declared that they have not brought it into force and this town has not been compliant. 

Council needs to prioritize accessibility and respond to community requests for washrooms in parks, shade structures, inclusive playgrounds, sidewalk repairs or replacements, rest areas, an accessible town hall, accessible voting, accessible signage, accessible parking and paved parking lots, for example. 

Council also needs to justify that its decision on whether to relocate the library is based on facts and not conjecture.

Linda Saxon

Inconsistencies: Councillor Allaire – Transparency

Posted on by

Elected officials should be held accountable for statements, actions, and decisions made on behalf of the community. Amherstburg’s Code of Conduct Definitions include: Transparency in government implies openness, accountability and honesty.

During the April 14 council meeting, Councillor Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ 

Unanswered questions: Would you please explain how this library is not accessible? Is this just your opinion? Or did you obtain an expert opinion? Can you cite an authority for your statement or a basis? And who is we? Are you referring to any standard regarding what you want it to be? Emailed April 15, followed up April 18 and 21.

During the April 29 council meeting, Allaire asked for a bit more transparency; she also mentioned more transparency, “which is what I would love,” at the May 12 meeting.

On June 14, I emailed Allaire that I believed she was not being transparent about her library accessibility issue statements. I reminded her that I emailed a couple of times but that she ignored my questions. I also quoted some of her statements about transparency at meetings: “I’m genuinely asking for a bit more transparency in adding it to our social media” and “I feel that the transparency was limited recently, and I think that that’s what the public really wants” and “I actually appreciate the fact that it keeps some sort of transparency.”

Still Silence From Council Members Allaire, McArthur and Gibb

Posted on by

Council members Allaire, McArthur and Gibb alleged there were deficiencies at the Amherstburg Library during council meetings but none have answered my questions about their statements.

Following the February 14, 2025 presentation to Amherstburg town council by Essex County Library Board Mr. Joe Bachetti, Councillor Donald McArthur said, ‘in terms of the one thing there the redesign of physical spaces to promote flexible, welcoming branches that are accessible and modern, I think there must be some challenges in Amherstburg. We have a beautiful building, but it’s not as modern as accessible I don’t think as it as otherwise might be ideal. 

During the April 14 council meeting, Councillor Molly Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ 

During the April 14 council meeting discussion, Gibb said, ‘it’s certainly not, well, I’m not gonna say it’s not accessible; it certainly has challenges with the tall shelves. It’s better if you can spread them out and have shorter shelves.’ 

EMAILS TO COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Allaire: During last night‘s council meeting, you said you would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be.’ Would you please explain how this library is not accessible? Is this just your opinion? Or did you obtain an expert opinion? Can you cite an authority for your statement or a basis? And who is we? Are you referring to any standard regarding what you want it to be? Emailed April 15, followed up April 18 and 21.

McArthur: During a council meeting earlier this year you referenced an accessible library. Do you consider the current library inaccessible? If so, in what way? Is this your personal opinion? Or did you obtain an expert opinion? Emailed April 16, followed up April 19 and emailed Following up. Since you spoke about accessibility of the Jack Purdie Park trail at the April 14 meeting, I thought you would’ve welcomed an opportunity to comment on accessibility at the library. If not, people might assume you promote accessibility when it suits April 23.

Gibb: During an Amherstburg Residents’ Forum meeting that you attended, I asked you if the library board noted any deficiencies and you answered, ‘none whatsoever.’ During the April 14 council meeting, you said, ‘it’s certainly not, well, I’m not gonna say it’s not accessible; it certainly has challenges with the tall shelves. It’s better if you can spread them out and have shorter shelves.’ So you do think it’s accessible? Don’t all libraries have ‘tall shelves?’ Have you heard of reachers? Will all the library branches be altered so they have ‘shorter shelves?’ Is this just your opinion or an expert’s opinion? Emailed April 23, followed up May 14.

I’ve also reached out to the library board and submitted an FOI request for documentation from same.

20 Year AODA Anniversary – Barriers In The Burg

Posted on by

Then-MPP Michael Prue stood in the Ontario Legislature twenty years ago today, on May 10, 2005, where the historic Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) unanimously passed. Watch the moment at about 4:26 into the video.

As Mayor, during a May 23, 2023 Amherstburg Council Meeting, Prue declared we have not brought it into force. Listen to the audio.

Unofficial transcript: 2025 we’re going to have to make everything accessible in this town, that’s the law. I was in the legislature 20 something years ago, and I spoke to this issue when the bill was presented in the legislature, and I scoffed at them. I scoffed at the liberals who were standing up waving this piece of paper around, saying we’re going to be accessible, because it could take 25 years to bring it into force. Well, in this town, we have not brought it into force. 

When the first dog park opened in Amherstburg, Prue was quoted as saying, it ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’

During a January 27, 2025 council meeting, Prue referenced the AODA and said, ‘this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for, hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.’

For as long as barriers exist, and they do, no one should claim we are an inclusive community. It takes strong leadership and a strong commitment to remove the barriers and keep promises.

Another ‘Want’ With An Over-expenditure Approved – Jack Purdie Park Trail

Posted on by

To ensure that anyone interested would like to read an accurate blog post about my April 14 delegation to Amherstburg council I’m sharing this document, which is what I actually stated. I reminded council that consultation with persons with disabilities was mandatory and I requested council to create a process to ensure compliance with the AODA Regulation, embrace the spirit of the AODA and to create an engagement policy, a topic that wasn’t discussed much and one which was not granted.

Jack Purdie Park Trail

In response to Councillor Pouget’s questions, the clerk outlined a four step consultation process that included consulting the accessibility committee and the public, which is what I pointed out. The AODA Regulation clearly states that, aside from the public and accessibility committee, it is mandatory to consult people with disabilities. Council’s lengthy discussion about the Jack Purdie Park trail then focused on the approximate $100,000. over-expenditure and procurement processes.

McArthur spoke about the condition of the trail and said they need to fix the trails in that park. It’ll benefit the people in the monopoly subdivision, will benefit the entire community, it will benefit the 6300 people with accessibility issues in town (people don’t have accessibility issues, they have disabilities and I bet he didn’t know about the 6300 people until I mentioned it that night) because it is going to make a wider path from a narrow one. It’s going to fix a patchwork of alligator cracks, and it’s going to be AODA compliant. (He actually mentioned AODA complaint).

Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb thought it was time to deliver for the people who live in that area. He believed it was the parks master plan, one of the top amenities that people wanted were walking trails so it checks that box for him. It’s unfortunate that it’s over budget, but costs are rising faster than anybody can account for them, which is certainly no fun. But we got to do what we got to do. I like the idea of having this in the park so that kids learning to ride bikes or roller blade or whatever can do it in the park rather than on the streets or on the sidewalks.

Councillor Crain parroted the master plan and he likes how they’re incorporating a number of trees and they’re now going to be making this pathway accessible; it went to the accessibility committee as well. (I don’t think he watched the accessibility committee meeting because the committee just sat there without any comments or questions, other than one member who asked how much over budget they were, $100,000. and the clerk interjected to say financials really are not in the realm of the advisory committees). About the high cost, well it’s very difficult for staff to catch up to that point when it is put out to tender.

Councillor Pouget said she would be voting against this; she cannot in good conscience vote for this. In a perfect world, maybe back in 2022 things were so different. Now in 2025 our residents fear for their livelihood. They’ve heard over and over again the food bank cannot keep up; they have over 27% increase with the needs of our municipality, and the mission is the same way. People are fearing for their jobs and their livelihood; they don’t know how they’re going to put food on the table and provide the necessities of life for their family. She believed it was unreasonable and unfair to approve a large, $100,000 over-expenditure for an eighth trail and the third large sliding hill in these tough economic times. This council cannot justify spending this large amount of money on a want instead of a need when Council must approve $191,303 for a boiler replacement tonight, and take $91,000 from reserves at the Libro, pay $3 million for a fire truck and another $91,000 taken from reserves. These are necessary needs. The track and hill are not a need; they are a want. This money for this expenditure, for this already beautiful park, would be better used to pay for the unforeseen costs of the expansion of our water treatment plant, the new policing replacement and contract, the town hall, the former Duffy’s property, and the upgrades and necessary repairs to all municipal buildings, crumbling infrastructure and replacement of dwindling reserves. It’s unfair to pour additional money to one park while other parks have been neglected, and it’s unreasonable to approve this over expenditure on a $30,000 grant from Enbridge that is currently unknown. It is ridiculous to approve this expenditure on these wants instead of these needs, when washrooms and shade cover are more important for this park. Just this past week, we were told that they couldn’t afford to repair the window sills at the library unless it went to the heritage committee and to the 2026 budget. Today, they were told they can’t fix six concession north, even though it’s in deplorable condition to the 2031 budget. For these reasons, I think that what we should be doing is taking a pause on this park and until our economy improves. 

Mayor Prue passed the gavel to reminisce and praise Councillor Allaire. Prue mentioned sitting there in 2021 and talking about this park and an administration motion to sell a portion of the park off in order to get enough money to build what we’re building today. Well, ‘God bless Councillor Allaire, because she wasn’t a councillor then, but she went around that whole area putting up signs and organized the community. The community wanted no part of that park being sold off.’ (Generalized statements about survey results are often made, including claims that everyone wants it. As someone in the Jack Purdie Park survey commented, “Only approx. 369 people out of a town of 22,000 completed the survey. Why was some affordable housing options dismissed completely based on a survey completed by 369 persons out of 22,000 persons population?? A lot of power given to 369 opinions.”

Prue continued with his speech. What they wanted, and what they’re getting, is that park to be developed and we have fought for this for the last four and a half years for this to be a jewel, and I’m disappointed that it cost me more money than we thought it was going to cost but I will tell you that the council has to think long term. We have to listen to the residents. The community organized itself and said exactly what they wanted in this park. They’ve gone to all the meetings. They’ve told the staff what they want. They’ve gone to the meetings with the Parks and Recreation Committee. They’ve gone to the meetings with the accessibility committee. They’ve gone and explained every single aspect that’s necessary. I wish it was less money. Yes, I do. But remember, there are 12 people, 12 separate companies bid on this, 12 of them, and this was the lowest. So I don’t think we’re getting bamboozled here. I think that’s just the cost. So you either believe in those things that we said four and a half years ago or five years ago, and you believe in what the community wants and it’s the right thing to do, or you don’t, yes, can we save the money? Yes. Can we do something else? Yes, but I will tell you, there will be a lot of disappointed people in the monopoly area, all those kids (there’s about 2600 children ages 0-14 in town), all those parents, all those people have spent four and a half years fighting for this to see it go down the tubes. And I won’t let that happen.

In the end, the project was approved with only Councillor Pouget opposing the project.

Municipal Campaign 2022 Platforms Revisited

Posted on by

Council enacted a more restrictive procedure by-law that limits delegates to speak only when an item is on the agenda AND it is accompanied by an admin report or a by-law. More recently, council failed to enact a civic engagement policy.

With just over eighteen months until the next municipal election, I wanted to review what the then-candidates campaigned for in terms of democracy and civic engagement.

FROM THE BURG WATCH QUESTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES:

Q. What civic engagement methods should the town implement? 

Allaire: Group meetings in an approachable setting. Town Council meetings are long and boring for most when they only want to talk about one topic of many. Utilize places such as our ACS building to gain the feedback of residents. Go to schools. We say that the children are our future let’s start utilizing them! 

Pouget: Meetings should be held before budget deliberations and any changes that could affect the operation of the Town.

Crain, Gibb, McArthur, Prue: no answer.

Q. What three things would you do to prove the town is committed to Open Government?  

Allaire: Transparency – I pride myself in being honest. I would try and make discussions more accessible for residents and try and keep our council meeting minutes easily readable and displayed. I think some form of social media would be a great way to inform the residents what we are doing week to week so they do not feel like they are left in the dark.

Listen and Act – I would like to provide more outlets for residents to get the chance to speak on matters that are important to them. Afterwards I would like to  act! Take action on those matters. Weather it is addressing it immediately or trying to incorporate it into future meetings. I feel that the outlets we currently use are not working for the entire town engagement. I would like to implement some other opportunities.

Pouget: I would stop the secret dinners with staff and council.

I would lobby for a decrease regarding in-camera meetings. A council may go in-camera for certain things, but they don’t have to.  They are only obligated to go in-camera for personnel matters, litigation or possible litigation, sale or purchase of land and security.

I would waive the rules of order, if someone wished to address Council.

Crain, Gibb, McArthur, Prue: no answer.

FROM CBC AND PRUE’S BROCHURE:

Prue: Municipal government affects us all. I am committed to ensuring all citizens to have a say on the issues affecting their lives in Amherstburg. To be fully informed. To participate in review processes. To provide and share their opinions. I believe in local democracy.” Promote citizen participation in municipal affairs and allow full deputation rights at town meetings. (brochure).

Gibb: focused on his business and volunteer experience.

Allaire: Financial problems are obvious for Amherstburg. I also feel lack of communication and community engagement. If elected I want to make our meetings more transparent and encourage more ideas from residents. (CBC).

Courtney: Communication and expectations must be in sync between council, staff and the residents. (CBC).

Crain: I am forward-thinking, a great communicator, open-minded, and ready to listen. My involvement across Amherstburg has allowed me to develop a deep understanding of community issues and areas where we can improve. (CBC).

McArthur: I am a hard-working, responsive councillor. I was a fixture at community events, where I supported volunteers and was available to answer residents’ questions. I am active on social media, where I promote the town as an attractive place to invest and reside, with an unrivalled quality of life. I inform and engage residents with my website and digital newsletter. (CBC).

Pouget: Our taxpayers know that I am hard working and that I listen to their concerns and act on them. (CBC).

Crickets From Council Members Allaire, McArthur and Gibb

Posted on by

Not one of the three council members that I’ve contacted has answered any of my questions regarding their comments about accessibility issues at the library. I’ve contacted Allaire and McArthur three times and Gibb once.

I’m wondering if accessibility matters when it suits. For example, McArthur, who volunteered to be council’s rep on the Accessibility Committee, spoke about accessibility of the Jack Purdie Park trail at the April 14 council meeting but he won’t comment about the library. Mind you, he is an avid supporter of trails – both walking and biking.

Motion Lost on Cost of Consultant To Study Regional Policing

Posted on by

Councillor Prue expressed his disappointment over the motion to hire a regional policing consultant. I hope he has a better understanding of how disappointed people with disabilities in Amherstburg are; twice he has publicly declared that in this town we have not brought it (AODA) into force.

During the April 16 Essex County Council meeting, Warden Hilda MacDonald introduced the regional policing study cost of engaging a consultant as a result of Councillor Sherry Bondy’s April 2 Notice of Motion regarding the cost of engaging a consultant to perform a regional policing study. 

Bondy brought it forward for a topic of discussion; THAT Essex County Council direct administration to provide a report on the cost estimate for engaging a consultant to perform a feasibility study on regional policing at the June 4 meeting. Councillor Shepley seconded.

Bondy then stated that she would not be supporting this motion, but she wanted to say that she thinks they’ve had a healthy conversation here and she went back and Essex Council also had a healthy conversation about the timing of investigating regional policing, and although it’s something they didn’t want to investigate right now, she personally spoke: she didn’t want to ask administration to spend any time on this. It doesn’t mean that in the future, this may not be a discussion that they want to have, perhaps in the next term of council. So, she did not support her motion, but just wanted to say that she would not be supporting her motion, but she didn’t want to slam the door.

After seeking clarification from the county clerk, Councillor Akpata declared a conflict of interest due to his responsibilities bound by the Windsor Police Services Board.

Listen to the audio of Councillor Prue. Text transcript below.

I want to say how disappointed I am that the mover is not supporting her own motion. The staff very kindly sent us all a study from, I think it was 1997 signed by Bob Runciman. Now I knew Bob Runciman; he was in the legislature through most of the time that I was there. He was quite the law and order guy, and very, very good on police issues, and his report very clearly says, and I know it’s dated, it’s 30 years old, but the best way for Essex County going forward was to have the OPP run the various municipalities and have an overarching body which would be efficient and save money. And so I’m disappointed it’s being withdrawn, because I don’t think that’s really changed in the or not been withdrawn, sorry, that she’s not supporting her own motion. I will support her motion, because I do think going forward, it’s not going to cost very much money to look at that report and see whether or not there are cost savings to go forward, if it isn’t in this term of Council, it can be ready for the next term of Council, but I think we should start the ball rolling tonight. (There are well documented savings; the cost of policing is readily available to all municipalities to compare so it would be a waste of taxpayer money to hire a consultant).

Warden MacDonald read the motion: THAT Essex County Council direct administration to provide a report on the cost estimate for engaging a consultant to perform a feasibility study for regional policing at the June 4 meeting.

Without further discussion, the electronic vote indicated that Prue, Gibb and MacDonald were the only ones to vote in favour; therefore motion failed.

County Road 20 Speed Limit Reduction Approved

Posted on by

Shocking. Councillor Prue actually praised Councillor Pouget during the April 16, 2025 Essex County Council meeting when council received a report on County Road 20 and Lowes Sideroad. Based on my observations, it’s easy for people to perceive some unfair treatment at the town council meetings where some behaviours are tolerated when they shouldn’t be and others are not tolerated when they should be.

The County Traffic Engineer explained that the intersection of County Road 20 and Lowes Sideroad is actually a county connecting link; therefore, the town of Amherstburg has jurisdiction, and any decision regarding the addition of a pedestrian facility would be theirs to make, and this was discussed with our local municipal partners, the engineering department. So therefore, the recommendation of this report is to reduce the speed limit on County Road 20 from 70 kilometers an hour to 50 kilometers an hour from just south of low side road to 50 meters south of Dalhousie Street. There is limited financial implications, as the signage changes would cost less than $2,000 and could be done by our maintenance staff in our roads crews, and the money would be taken from our 2025, road safety budget. Thank you.

Warden: Thank you, Jerry. Are there any questions? We’ll start with you. Councillor Prue. Listen to the audio; text transcript below.

Prue: first of all to thank you, because this is quite an issue. And Councillor Pouget, who occasionally comes when one of us is not here, this was one of her champion things. She has pushed this and pushed it, and I’m sure she’ll want to say thank you as well, just in terms, I just want to correct for the record, you said a hotel at one time, it was a motel, but it’s now the Blue Haven, and what it is, it’s it’s populated almost entirely by people in wheelchairs and people with some severe disabilities. So I just want that to be clear for the record, this is part of the reason we did this, not because people are driving in and out in a hotel, because they’re not. These are people who have very limited access, and their access is to go out onto the road and somehow get across to the pharmacy and everything that’s on the other side. So just for the record, that’s what it is. But we thank you for what you’ve done, and I guess the ball is now in our court.

The warden then read the recommendation, noting it’s quite lengthy, and it is that:

Essex County Council receive report 20250416, Intersection of County Road 20 and Lowes Sideroad as information, and that Essex County Council direct administration to reduce the speed limit on County Road 20, from 70 kilometers per hour to 50 kilometers per hour, between Lowes Sideroad and 50 meters south of Dalhousie Street. And that by law 202517, be adopted amending by law 262002, to regulate traffic and parking on highways within the Essex County road system, schedule H, to reduce the speed on County Road 20 between Lowes Sideroad and 50 meters south of Dalhousie Street. Moved by Councillor Gibb, seconded by Councillor Prue. Carried.