News   Apr 10, 2026
 554     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 968     0 
News   Apr 10, 2026
 1.5K     0 

Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

That's just idiotic. You would have officers living on the same street, some losing their jobs by a few meters. And others keep their jobs because they live in Toronto.

Irrespective of the merits or legalities of the idea, there would not a be a mass firing officerst if a residency requirement came in.

Where this has been done, it has generally been applied to new hires first.........

Then, it becomes an incentive structure, ie. extra money for being locally resident, where you might red line pay for non-resident officers.

Then, you move towards compulsory, with exceptions based on criteria. (hardship of move, extraordinary merit to the department, retiring within 5 years etc.)

****

That said, in genera, it seems unlikely compulsory residence would pass a Charter challenge. Mobility rights are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause.

It would likely require a S.1 {Reasonable Limits) justification. The evidentiary burden would be high.
 
Irrespective of the merits or legalities of the idea, there would not a be a mass firing officerst if a residency requirement came in.

Where this has been done, it has generally been applied to new hires first.........

Then, it becomes an incentive structure, ie. extra money for being locally resident, where you might red line pay for non-resident officers.

Then, you move towards compulsory, with exceptions based on criteria. (hardship of move, extraordinary merit to the department, retiring within 5 years etc.)

****

That said, in genera, it seems unlikely compulsory residence would pass a Charter challenge. Mobility rights are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause.

It would likely require a S.1 {Reasonable Limits) justification. The evidentiary burden would be high.

Like i said, it's idiotic!
 
That said, in genera, it seems unlikely compulsory residence would pass a Charter challenge. Mobility rights are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause.
I'm not sure it would. Residency isn't a protected class, lots of jobs hire or do not hire based on applicant location or the applicants willingness to move to the location.
 
I'm not sure it would. Residency isn't a protected class, lots of jobs hire or do not hire based on applicant location or the applicants willingness to move to the location.

Perhaps.

Still, I don't see it as very practical; I see as something that requires a long lead time, and likely extra compensation. Since police can't strike, any move to impose the condition would also be the subject of arbitration.

Seems like a very costly exercise vs demonstrated benefits.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a good idea if officials/employees of the City live in the place they work.

But we don't even require Councillors to live in their own wards! The hypocrisy would be a tad jarring.
 
From https://mikepmoffatt.medium.com/ontarians-on-the-move-5-who-commutes-to-toronto-for-work-b5dc013a99e3

Census 2016 contains a number of fantastic data tables on ‘journey to work’, examining the commuting patterns of Ontarians. I grabbed the data by census division (CD) for Ontario CDs, and looked for any CDs where at least 1% of workers commute to Toronto CD for work. As it turns out, this includes 20 of Ontario’s 49 CDs:

1*9t9-1Q__83vPBtAnBR7BOA.png


Wonder who then complains about traffic congestion, when they are the only person in the vehicle? Now we know why they want to expand Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ).
 

Back
Top