Objection to Item NC27.2 and Motion DM35.2
On December 16th, Toronto City Council considered and approved two related matters in the same sitting. Council first approved the appointment of consultant Bruce Davis as Chair of CreateTO, the City agency responsible for managing a multi-billion-dollar real estate portfolio, and later approved Motion DM 35.2, authorizing the use of public funds to cover his legal costs. Taken together, these decisions raise questions about conflict of interest, precedent and lawfulness.
Through Item NC27.2, Council approved Mr. Davis’s appointment first as a Member, and then Chair of CreateTO. The appointment was contained within a confidential attachment, and despite Davis' being unqualified for the appointment due to his involvement as a long standing paid consultant of the City and involved in contentious litigation on a City matter, was adopted without debate.
Through Motion DM 35.2, Council voted to indemnify Mr. Davis as a third party consultant. The City will now assume responsibility for legal costs arising from litigation involving a private contractor, including cases brought by local residents. City Solicitor Wendy Walberg stated on the public record that she was “not aware” of any precedent for the City paying the legal expenses of a private consultant in her 34 years with the municipality.
City Chief Financial Officer Stephen Conforti acknowledged this is a risk, stating “There is a risk that this sets precedent. I could not speak to the total quantum of that risk.”
Council’s decision establishes two precedents with broader implications for the City’s legal and procurement practices. The City has assumed a form of financial risk that is ordinarily addressed through private liability insurance held by contractors. This shifts potential legal exposure from the consultant to the municipality and, by extension, to taxpayers, altering how risk is typically allocated between the City and its suppliers.
In addition, providing indemnification to an individual consultant creates the possibility of unequal treatment among contractors. Other consulting firms and service providers may reasonably question why similar protections have not been made available to them, and whether liability coverage is now subject to discretionary or case-specific decisions rather than consistent procurement rules.
Mr. Davis is the recipient of non competitive contracts from the City and occupies dual roles as a consultant involved in active litigation requiring indemnification, and as the appointed independent Chair of an agency responsible for overseeing City real estate transactions. Collectively, these circumstances may engage provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 215, which governs conflicts of interest and board integrity.
In response, the South Etobicoke Community Association o/a New Toronto Initiative has submitted a formal complaint to the Integrity Commissioner requesting a review of the appointment process and its compliance with applicable City bylaws and governance standards. We will continue to pursue clarification and accountability through established oversight mechanisms.