Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Read by hand, Oct 2026DetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you Read by hand. We read Toronto's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 17 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Toronto's financial reports and meeting minutes. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
46%of freedom-of-information requests finished within the legal time limit in 2025 (the City’s own projection), against a target of 70%
Anyone can ask the City for its records under Ontario’s freedom-of-information law (FOI). The City Clerk’s Office counts how many requests it finishes within the time the law allows. That share was 48% in 2022, 52% in 2023 and 56% in 2024. For 2025 the City projects 46%, well below its own target of 70%. The City says it had “a significantly higher volume and increased complexity” of requests in 2025. In 2024 it handled about 3,000 requests. We did not find the final 2025 figure, or a count of how many requests were received or still open.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$46,521,004of purchases without bidding in 2025 were labelled “Work Already Completed”, up from $2,050,518 in 2024
Toronto usually buys through open bidding. When it does not, it must give a reason. In 2025 purchases without bidding came to $287,009,283 across 498 purchases, which is 8.8% of everything the City bought (about $3.3 billion). One reason, “Work Already Completed”, was used 52 times for $46,521,004. In 2024 it was used 38 times for $2,050,518, and in 2023, 46 times for $3,130,541. The City’s yearly report shows the change but does not say what caused it. The label is also not one of the reasons listed in the City’s procurement by-law.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$323Mof the 2026 gap was closed with "temporary bridging" that the City says returns as a 2027 pressure
Each year the City starts its budget with a gap: the services it must pay for cost more than the money it expects. For 2026 that gap was $1.34B, after $268M of new problems were added to an original $1.072B (a provincial change to speed cameras, fewer transit riders, refugee shelter costs and a slower paramedic hiring plan). The City closed it with $788M of "reductions and offsets" (savings and updated revenue estimates), $193M of financing changes, $323M of "temporary bridging" and a $35M property tax increase. The City itself says the temporary bridging "create[s] an equivalent pressure in the 2027 outlook". Its own outlook shows an opening gap of $1,120 million for 2027 and $912 million for 2028, and counts on help from the Province and Ottawa beyond the 2026 New Deal. Property taxes themselves rose by a combined 2.2% for 2026 (0.7% for day-to-day costs and 1.5% for the City Building Fund, a levy, which is an extra charge on the tax bill, for transit and housing).
Found by reading the city's own documents · 10 sources
$24.7Bprojected repair backlog by 2035, up from $10.6B at the start of 2026
Roads, bridges, subway tracks, housing buildings and water pipes wear out. "State of good repair" (SOGR) means fixing or replacing them on time. The repairs that are due but not yet funded are called the backlog. The City’s 2026 budget puts the backlog at 10,567 ($ millions) at the start of 2026 and forecasts 24,693 by 2035, even though $33.3B (53%) of its 10-year capital plan goes to repairs. The biggest growth is in roads and bridges (+5,936), the TTC (+6,147) and Toronto Community Housing (+3,002). Water pipes are the one area forecast to shrink. The forecast for 2033 got worse this year: $21.1B, compared with $16.8B in last year’s plan.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
14.9%of the property tax levy forecast to go to debt payments in 2035, against the City’s 15% limit
In August 2023 the City’s Long-Term Financial Plan said it faced a combined operating and capital gap of $46.5B over ten years. Since then it has added new revenue tools (a graduated land transfer tax, a non-resident speculation tax, a vacant home tax rate), signed an Ontario "New Deal", and its credit rating rose to AA+. Its own rule says debt payments paid from property taxes must not pass 15% of the property tax levy. The 2026 budget forecasts 12.4% in 2026, rising to 14.9% in 2035, a hair under the limit. A reserve is money set aside for a purpose. The City’s own slide compares what the City plans to spend from reserves and reserve funds over ten years (44,877, $ millions) with what they hold now (12,181) and says "Commitments exceed current balances by $32.7 billion (~3.7x)".
Found by reading the city's own documents · 7 sources
$380Mapproved budget to host six matches, against a first estimate of $30 to $45 million in 2018
In January 2018 City staff told Council that hosting three to five World Cup matches might cost $30 to $45 million. By April 2022 the estimate was $290 million for five games, and in February 2024 it was about $380 million for six. Council has approved $380 million. Ottawa has signed for $104.34 million. Ontario has promised up to $97 million, which in the City’s 2026 budget notes was still "under negotiation". The City pays the rest, $178.66 million, from reserves, a temporary hotel tax and other income. In May 2025 Council voted to hold spending to $340 million until the City found savings or more outside money. Toronto’s matches were scheduled from June 12 to July 2, 2026. We did not find a report on the final cost.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$97.078Mfederal refugee-shelter money expected in 2026, down from $300 million in 2025
Toronto runs a large shelter system that has also housed refugee claimants. In 2025 the budget counted on $300 million from Ottawa to shelter refugee claimants and $200 million a year from Ontario for shelters under the New Deal. For 2026 Ottawa’s expected payment is $97.078 million, and both commitments are described as ending in 2026. The City has cut its refugee shelter spending as demand fell (about 6,600 refugees in shelters each night in August 2024, just over 3,500 a year later). The shelter division’s gross 2026 budget is $786.068 million, $125.964 million lower than the 2025 budget, but its net cost to property taxpayers rises 6.9%, or $15.266 million.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
over $500,000billed on one real estate project that did not match the subcontractors’ invoices, still under investigation
A change order is a written change to a building contract that usually adds cost. Two Auditor General audits in 2025 and 2026 found weak checks on them. In the City’s real estate division, the Auditor General checked 105 change orders on eight projects and found over $500,000 of billing that did not match subcontractor invoices on one project. In Toronto Water, mark-ups on one project went over the contract limit, leading to $122,781 of overpayment. Management agreed with every recommendation in both reports.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 8 sources
6 of 7reports about named members of Council from 2023 to 2026 found a breach of the Code of Conduct
The Integrity Commissioner investigates complaints that the Mayor or a Councillor broke the Code of Conduct and reports to Council, which then decides whether to accept the findings and what penalty to give. From 2023 to 2026 the outcomes ranged widely: a 10-day pay suspension for Councillor Josh Matlow, reprimands for Councillors Frances Nunziata and Brad Bradford, no penalty for Councillor Anthony Perruzza, and in March 2026 a vote to “receive” a report that found Councillor Chris Moise broke the Code. Council did not formally adopt the finding. The Commissioner’s cover report says Council cannot change his findings, only adopt a report or receive it.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 17 sources
14recommendations from Ombudsman Toronto on December 12, 2024, adopted by Council with minor changes
On November 7, 2022, shelter staff stopped letting refugee claimants into the regular shelter system. The City told the public almost six months later. Ombudsman Toronto found the City “acted unfairly”, could not find who made the decision, and said it “amounted to systemic discrimination”. Council reversed the change in July 2023 and adopted the Ombudsman’s 14 recommendations, with small changes, in March 2025.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
$30 millionthe new limit on contracts the Chief Procurement Officer can award after open bidding, without going to council
Until October 1, 2025, a staff committee called the Bid Award Panel approved awards from open bidding between $500,000 and $20 million, and its reports were posted on council’s meeting site. The City reviewed it and found it “does not provide additional oversight” and added 10 to 20 days. The panel is gone. The Chief Procurement Officer, a staff position, can now approve awards up to $30 million on their own. Awards are posted on the Toronto Bids Portal instead. The City itself says the portal does not show some things the panel’s reports did, such as the bids received and each bid price, and it promised to look at its datasets.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
+24%increase in a councillor’s base salary in 2025, from $137,537.40 to $170,588.60
On March 26 and 27, 2025, City Council adopted a staff report that raised a councillor’s base salary from $137,537.40 to $170,588.60, back to January 1, 2025. The City’s open-data voting record shows a motion on the item carried 15 to 8 on March 27. The report said Toronto councillors’ pay sat at the 62nd percentile of nine comparison cities, meaning it was above 62% of them, and aimed for the 75th. It cost $956,816.30 in 2025. The Mayor’s salary was not part of the review. Councillors set their own pay, which the law allows, so an outside review and a published vote matter.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
73.8%of the 2024 capital budget was spent ($4.740 billion of $6.422 billion)
Capital spending means building and repairing things that last: roads, subway cars, pipes, buildings. In 2024 the City spent $4.740 billion of its $6.422 billion capital budget, a spending rate of 73.8%, up from 71.4% in 2023. City divisions spent 63.6% and agencies such as the TTC spent 93.0%. For 2025 the City’s own nine-month report projected 84.7%. We did not find the final 2025 year-end capital report, so the real 2025 rate is not known to us.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
252 of 697hotline complaints received in 2025 had no decision yet on what to do with them
Anyone can report suspected fraud or waste of City money to the Auditor General’s hotline. In 2025 it received 697 complaints. The Auditor General says 252 of them (36%) had not yet been given a next step when the report was written in January 2026. Over five years the hotline has traced $6.3 million of actual losses, and $703,000 has been recovered.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$4.2 millionestimated value of two electricity contracts the Auditor General found were fraudulent
In July 2019, electricity accounts for 14 City properties were switched from Toronto Hydro to two other energy sellers. City staff noticed the unusual bills in October 2019 and cancelled the contracts. The Auditor General later found the signatures were not those of the retired employee named on them. About $250,000 had been paid and was recovered. The Auditor General could not say who signed, and gave the matter to the Toronto Police Service.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
April 17, 2026date of the Auditor General’s investigation into how the City bought the PayIt platform
PayIt is a company whose online payment platform the City bought between 2019 and 2021, after the company made an unsolicited proposal (an offer the City had not asked for) and a limited competition called a Swiss Challenge. In 2024 the Auditor General found the City did not follow its own policy. Council asked for a closer look. In April 2026 the Auditor General reported that a buyer removed the detailed scoring from the published call, but that the evidence was “conflicting and insufficient” on who directed it and why. It found no wrongdoing, and no unfair advantage to PayIt.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
79declarations by 18 elected members of Council in the public registry, December 2022 to September 2026
Ontario law says a member who has a money interest in a decision must say so and stay out of the discussion and vote. Toronto posts its registry of these declarations as open data. From December 2, 2022 to September 25, 2026 it lists 168 declarations. Of those, 79 were made by 18 members of Council. The rest were made by people appointed to boards and panels, who are not named here.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
46%of freedom-of-information requests finished within the legal time limit in 2025 (the City’s own projection), against a target of 70%
Anyone can ask the City for its records under Ontario’s freedom-of-information law (FOI). The City Clerk’s Office counts how many requests it finishes within the time the law allows. That share was 48% in 2022, 52% in 2023 and 56% in 2024. For 2025 the City projects 46%, well below its own target of 70%. The City says it had “a significantly higher volume and increased complexity” of requests in 2025. In 2024 it handled about 3,000 requests. We did not find the final 2025 figure, or a count of how many requests were received or still open.
Why it matters
FOI is how residents get records the City does not post, such as contracts and invoices. An answer that arrives late can arrive after the decision it was about. The law also changed on July 1, 2026: the time limit is now 45 business days instead of 30 days, and the City answers only five requests at a time from the same person or group. A slower office makes both of those rules matter more.
It could be because…
The City’s own explanation: more requests, and harder ones (for example, requests that cover many divisions or thousands of pages).
A new FOI case-management computer system is being built in 2025 and 2026. Staff may be learning it while still answering requests.
The 2025 figure is a projection made before the year ended, so the final number may differ.
The City counts “within legislated timelines”, which may include time extensions the law allows. The province’s figure for all municipalities is counted within 30 days, so the two cannot be compared directly.
Questions you could ask
How many FOI requests did the City receive in 2025, how many did it finish, and how many were late?
How many requests were still open on December 31, 2025, and how old was the oldest?
What will the new case-management system change, and when?
Is the 70% target realistic for 2026, and what is the City doing to reach it?
How many requesters have hit the limit of five open requests since July 1, 2026?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
“% of Freedom of Information requests completed within legislated timelines”: 2024 actual 56%, 2025 target 70%, 2025 projection 46%, with the note “The City experienced a significantly higher volume and increased complexity of FOI requests in 2025.”
Earlier years in the same measure: 48% in 2022 and 52% in 2023 (actuals), with a 2024 target of 70% and a 2024 projection of 56%. The same document says the office processed “about 3,000 Freedom of Information requests” in 2024.
Under “Key Challenges and Risks”: “Continued increase in complexity and volume of Freedom of Information requests.” The capital plan includes an “FOI Case Management System Project 2025-2026”.
For all municipal bodies covered by the municipal FOI law, 82 per cent of requests were completed within 30 days in 2024, and 80 per cent the year before. This measures 30 days only, so it is context, not a like-for-like comparison with Toronto.
The City’s FOI page says a response comes “within 45 business days”, that the application fee is $5, that “the City can only process five requests per requester/institution at any given time”, and that effective July 1, 2026 this is “a plan for staged access to records”.
$46,521,004of purchases without bidding in 2025 were labelled “Work Already Completed”, up from $2,050,518 in 2024
Toronto usually buys through open bidding. When it does not, it must give a reason. In 2025 purchases without bidding came to $287,009,283 across 498 purchases, which is 8.8% of everything the City bought (about $3.3 billion). One reason, “Work Already Completed”, was used 52 times for $46,521,004. In 2024 it was used 38 times for $2,050,518, and in 2023, 46 times for $3,130,541. The City’s yearly report shows the change but does not say what caused it. The label is also not one of the reasons listed in the City’s procurement by-law.
Why it matters
When work is finished before the purchase is approved, nobody tested the price against other suppliers, and council or staff are approving something already done. It can be honest: an urgent repair, or a contract that ran out before the new one was ready. But a jump of this size is worth knowing the cause of, because it shows whether the City is planning ahead or paying after the fact.
It could be because…
A few large urgent repairs or emergency jobs that were finished first and brought to council for payment afterwards.
A change in how staff pick the label in the City’s system, not a change in what the City bought.
Multi-year contracts counted at their full value in the year they were approved.
Work that carried on after an earlier contract ended, while a new contract was being prepared.
Questions you could ask
Which contracts make up the $46,521,004, and what did each pay for?
For each one, why did the work start before the purchase was approved, and who approved it?
What does “Work Already Completed” mean in the City’s rules, given it is not on the by-law’s list?
Why does the open-data list show nothing close to this total?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Table 5, “Top 5 Most Significant Non-Competitive Exception Codes”: Work Already Completed, 2025: 52 purchases, $46,521,004; 2024: 38 purchases, $2,050,518. Total non-competitive purchases: 498 for $287,009,283 in 2025, and 455 for $265,893,805 in 2024.
"In 2025, the value of all non-competitive procurements (NCPs) for the City totaled $287 million, which represents 8.8% of the City's total procurements of approximately $3.3 billion." The overview on page 1 says the same: "approximately $3.3 billion in procurements" and "$287 million, representing 8.8% of the City's total purchases".
Purchases approved by council went from 50 (worth $229,201,366) in 2024 to 120 (worth $247,910,996) in 2025. The report lists the exception codes but gives no reason for the change in “Work Already Completed”.
Section 195-7.1 lists the reasons a purchase without bidding may be made, from A to P (monopoly, exclusive rights, emergency, failed bidding, and others). “Work already completed” is not among them.
The City’s open-data list of these contracts gives a reason and an amount for each one. Its largest 2025 row with the reason “Work already completed” is listed at 256305.00. We did not find a row, or group of rows, near the yearly report’s total for this reason.
$323Mof the 2026 gap was closed with "temporary bridging" that the City says returns as a 2027 pressure
Each year the City starts its budget with a gap: the services it must pay for cost more than the money it expects. For 2026 that gap was $1.34B, after $268M of new problems were added to an original $1.072B (a provincial change to speed cameras, fewer transit riders, refugee shelter costs and a slower paramedic hiring plan). The City closed it with $788M of "reductions and offsets" (savings and updated revenue estimates), $193M of financing changes, $323M of "temporary bridging" and a $35M property tax increase. The City itself says the temporary bridging "create[s] an equivalent pressure in the 2027 outlook". Its own outlook shows an opening gap of $1,120 million for 2027 and $912 million for 2028, and counts on help from the Province and Ottawa beyond the 2026 New Deal. Property taxes themselves rose by a combined 2.2% for 2026 (0.7% for day-to-day costs and 1.5% for the City Building Fund, a levy, which is an extra charge on the tax bill, for transit and housing).
Why it matters
A gap closed with lasting savings stays closed. A gap closed with one-time money, such as drawing down savings accounts (reserves), has to be found again the next year. Property tax pays for only about 31% of the operating budget, so the next gap depends heavily on whether other governments keep paying.
It could be because…
Using reserves to get through a hard year is what they are for. The City has a Budget Bridging and Balancing Reserve Fund for that purpose.
The Province and Ottawa may renew their help. 2026 is the final year of the New Deal’s operating support, and the City is planning on a successor.
The City has often ended the year better than budgeted. Its report to the Audit Committee says 2025 finished with an operating surplus of $108M against budget, and the 2026 plan counts part of the 2025 surplus.
Revenues such as the land transfer tax can come in higher than planned.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $323 million of temporary bridging in 2026 came from reserves, and how much from the 2025 surplus? What is left in the Budget Bridging and Balancing Reserve Fund?
Which specific savings and offsets make up the $991 million the 2027 outlook says is still needed, and have any been identified?
What is the plan for 2027 if the Province and Ottawa do not renew the support that ends with the 2026 New Deal?
The City has now closed three large gaps in a row with offsets. Which of those offsets are lasting savings, and which will have to be found again?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The opening budget pressure (the gap before any fixes) was $1.8B for 2024, $1.2B for 2025 and $1.07B for 2026. The City lists reductions and offsets of $620M for 2024, $680M for 2025 and $788M for 2026, and says it "Achieved a credit rating upgrade to AA+ in 2024; first time in over two decades".
How the 2026 gap was closed, in $ millions: starting pressure 1,072 plus 268 = 1,340; reductions (135); offsets (653); financing adjustments (193); temporary bridging (323); property tax increase (35). Reductions and offsets by year: 620 in 2024, 680 in 2025, 788 in 2026; three-year total 2,088.
"Temporary bridging" of $323 million is described as a "Draw down of the Budget Bridging and Balancing Reserve Fund", "Maximizing use of reserves" and "Leveraging projected 2025 year-end surplus". The slide adds: "Temporary bridging strategies applied in 2026 create an equivalent pressure in the 2027 outlook".
The Multi-Year Outlook shows an opening pressure of 1,120 for 2027 and 912 for 2028 ($ millions), a modelled property tax increase of (129) and (133) and required offsets of (991) and (779). It also shows an "IG Funding Loss" of 394 and an "IG Funding Req." of (394) in each year, which we read as other governments’ money ending and being assumed to be replaced. The slide says the outlook "Adjusts for reversal of one-time bridging strategies" and "Anticipates intergovernmental support beyond the 2026 New Deal commitments".
The adopted budget (Council, February 10, 2026) says its multi-year approach "relies on the key intergovernmental promises that have been made to the City of Toronto" and warns: "Without federal and provincial funding support, there will be profound, material and sustained impacts on City services and capital spending." The residential rate rises 2.2%, of which 0.7% supports the Operating Budget and 1.5% goes to the City Building Fund levy ($91.53 for the average home).
2026: "a combined residential property tax increase and City Building Fund levy increase of 2.2 per cent"; the operating budget "includes $788 million in efficiencies, reductions and offsets".
2025: "a property tax increase of 5.4 per cent for residential properties", plus "A 1.5 per cent levy increase for the City Building Fund"; the operating budget "includes $680 million in reductions and offsets".
2024: "The City’s opening operating budget pressure was $1.776 billion"; "a residential property tax increase of eight per cent" plus "a 1.5 per cent City Building Fund levy increase for residential properties".
The City reports it "achieved an operating surplus of $108 million compared to budget" for 2025, and an annual accounting surplus of $1,691 million (mostly the effect of the capital plan).
$24.7Bprojected repair backlog by 2035, up from $10.6B at the start of 2026
Roads, bridges, subway tracks, housing buildings and water pipes wear out. "State of good repair" (SOGR) means fixing or replacing them on time. The repairs that are due but not yet funded are called the backlog. The City’s 2026 budget puts the backlog at 10,567 ($ millions) at the start of 2026 and forecasts 24,693 by 2035, even though $33.3B (53%) of its 10-year capital plan goes to repairs. The biggest growth is in roads and bridges (+5,936), the TTC (+6,147) and Toronto Community Housing (+3,002). Water pipes are the one area forecast to shrink. The forecast for 2033 got worse this year: $21.1B, compared with $16.8B in last year’s plan.
Why it matters
Capital means big things that last, such as roads, pipes and buildings. A repair backlog is a bill that keeps growing while it waits. Late repairs cost more, and failures (a water main break, a closed bridge, a slow zone on the subway) show up for residents long before the number does.
It could be because…
The backlog is measured against target replacement times. Many assets keep working safely past them.
The City says part of the 2026 increase is better counting: "reassessments of existing assets, new capital assets and cost escalations". It also says the forecast "continues to reflect an improvement from 2024 projections" (2033 backlog $22.7B then, $21.1B now).
The TTC reports that extra money added in 2025 cut its projected backlog by half by 2034.
Federal and provincial money, such as the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway upload and transit funding, may still be added to the plan.
Questions you could ask
How does the City decide which repairs wait, and how are health and safety repairs protected from the backlog?
Why does the table show no TTC backlog at the start of 2026 but 6,147 ($ millions) by 2035? Is the TTC counted differently from the other programs?
How much of the 2035 forecast depends on money from other governments that has not yet been promised?
Which parks, community centres and libraries are in the "Other" line, and how large is their backlog?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
SOGR backlog by area, in $ millions (start of 2026, 2030, 2035): Transportation Services 2,645, 5,334, 8,580; Toronto Transit Commission 0, 1,763, 6,147; Toronto Community Housing Corporation 1,797, 3,798, 4,799; Corporate Real Estate Management 1,032, 1,159, 1,445; Other 1,780, 2,142, 2,234; Toronto Water 3,314, 2,096, 1,488. Total 10,567, 16,291, 24,693. Backlog as a share of asset value: 5.4% now, 9.4% in 2035.
"$33.3B (53%) of the 2026-2035 Capital Plan dedicated to SOGR". The City lists "Rising Pressures": "SOGR backlog continues to increase", with "aging assets, cost escalations and new assets being developed", and "Needs rising faster than funding capacity". It shows "+$900M (2.8%)" from last year’s 10-year capital plan after updated asset assessments.
Forecast of the 2033 backlog by budget year: $22.7B (2024 budget), $16.8B (2025 budget), $21.1B (2026 budget). The City says "2026 increase driven by reassessments of existing assets, new capital assets and cost escalations".
The TTC Board report puts the TTC’s 15-year capital needs at $53.994 billion, of which "unfunded capital investments amount to $37.336 billion". It says the "scale of SOGR investment still required is crowding out" needed expansion.
14.9%of the property tax levy forecast to go to debt payments in 2035, against the City’s 15% limit
In August 2023 the City’s Long-Term Financial Plan said it faced a combined operating and capital gap of $46.5B over ten years. Since then it has added new revenue tools (a graduated land transfer tax, a non-resident speculation tax, a vacant home tax rate), signed an Ontario "New Deal", and its credit rating rose to AA+. Its own rule says debt payments paid from property taxes must not pass 15% of the property tax levy. The 2026 budget forecasts 12.4% in 2026, rising to 14.9% in 2035, a hair under the limit. A reserve is money set aside for a purpose. The City’s own slide compares what the City plans to spend from reserves and reserve funds over ten years (44,877, $ millions) with what they hold now (12,181) and says "Commitments exceed current balances by $32.7 billion (~3.7x)".
Why it matters
Debt is a promise to pay interest and principal for decades. A limit only helps if the plan stays under it when conditions change, such as higher interest rates or slower development fees. The reserves gap matters because future levies, not today’s savings, are meant to fill it.
It could be because…
The $32.7 billion compares ten years of planned spending with today’s balances. It is not an unpaid bill. Money keeps coming into reserves each year, for example the 1.5% City Building Fund levy increase each year until 2035.
Staying under 15% is the City’s plan, and the plan is built to stay there. The 2026 budget says the capital plan maintains "a 15% debt service ratio".
All three rating agencies give City debt a stable, high rating (Moody’s Aa1, S&P AA+, DBRS AA).
The statements and the budget measure debt service in different ways. The Annual Financial Report says debt service is 5.5% of total revenues.
Questions you could ask
Has the Long-Term Financial Plan been updated since August 2023? We did not find a newer published estimate of the $46.5 billion gap.
What interest-rate and development-charge assumptions sit behind the 14.9% forecast for 2035, and what happens to the capital plan if the ratio reaches 15% sooner?
How much of the 44,877 ($ millions) in planned reserve outflows is already covered by planned future levy income?
Which measure should residents use for debt: the 15% property tax limit, or the 5.5% of total revenues the Annual Financial Report quotes?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The report says the City "faces a combined operating and capital pressure of $46.5 billion over 10 years, a pressure which has been created over decades".
Under "What the LTFP Identified": "$46.5 billion fiscal gap over 10 years". Progress listed: "Completed 35 LTFP actions", new revenue tools (graduated Municipal Land Transfer Tax, Municipal Non-Resident Speculation Tax, Vacant Home Tax rate) and "a provincial New Deal: $1.2B operating + $3.0B capital support (including $1.9B Gardiner/DVP upload)".
Council set a debt service limit so that tax-supported debt costs "would not exceed 15 percent of property tax revenues". The ratio "is expected to have a debt servicing cost to Property Tax Levy ratio of 12.4 percent in 2026. The ratio is expected to peak in 2035." The chart labels 12.4% and 14.9%. The tax-supported debt service charge in 2026 is $718.1 million.
"Gross long-term outstanding sinking fund debt was $11.9 billion, with a sinking fund balance estimated at $3.2 billion as at the end of 2025." The City says "Toronto’s debt level has grown in recent years due to increasing capital infrastructure needs." Council has approved debt issuance of up to $2 billion in each year from 2022 to 2026. Credit ratings: Moody’s Aa1/Stable, Standard & Poor’s AA+/Stable, DBRS AA/Stable.
"The City remains within the Council directed debt service ratio limit of 15 per cent, and debt service costs represent only 5.5 per cent of the City’s total revenues in fiscal 2025." Reserve and Discretionary Reserve Fund balances "totaled $5,468 at the end of 2025, which decreased by $139" ($ millions).
Reserves and reserve funds ($ millions): total City reserves and reserve funds 12,181 now against 44,877 of planned funding and obligations. "Commitments exceed current balances by $32.7 billion (~3.7x)". The City Building Fund holds 1,465 against 10,776 of commitments. "Uncommitted Reserves (Retained for Emergency and Stabilization Purposes)" are 253.
City Building Fund: Council endorsed "annual 1.5% levy increase until 2035". It raises $459 million in 2026, and "$1.3 billion - total annual CBF revenue required by 2035 to support existing capital commitments".
$380Mapproved budget to host six matches, against a first estimate of $30 to $45 million in 2018
In January 2018 City staff told Council that hosting three to five World Cup matches might cost $30 to $45 million. By April 2022 the estimate was $290 million for five games, and in February 2024 it was about $380 million for six. Council has approved $380 million. Ottawa has signed for $104.34 million. Ontario has promised up to $97 million, which in the City’s 2026 budget notes was still "under negotiation". The City pays the rest, $178.66 million, from reserves, a temporary hotel tax and other income. In May 2025 Council voted to hold spending to $340 million until the City found savings or more outside money. Toronto’s matches were scheduled from June 12 to July 2, 2026. We did not find a report on the final cost.
Why it matters
A mega event is an unusual test of how well a city controls costs. The first estimate was tiny next to the final one, and some related costs sit outside the $380 million. If the Province pays less than $97 million, the City has said it will find the difference in savings or other money.
It could be because…
The 2018 estimate left out capital and security. The Auditor General says the City Manager called the first number "not anywhere near an accurate estimate" and asked that it not be used for comparison. A fairer starting point is the 2022 estimate of $290 million for five games.
The sixth match, FIFA requirements issued later, vendor quotes and inflation each raised the cost, as the City explained in its February 2024 report.
Outside money pays for 53% of the budget, and the City says no property tax is used.
The budget notes say several related costs, such as the Gardiner acceleration and staff time already on the payroll, are counted outside the $380 million.
Questions you could ask
What did hosting actually cost, by category, and how does it compare with the $380 million budget and the $340 million spending hold?
Did the Province sign its $97 million contribution agreement, and how much did it pay in cash versus provincial services such as policing?
How much did the City raise from commercial rights sales (budgeted at $34.62 million) and the temporary hotel tax (budgeted at $56.6 million)?
Which costs sit outside the $380 million (the Gardiner acceleration, police command centre, staff time), and what do they add up to?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
January 2018 staff report: the cost to host three to five matches "was initially estimated at $30-$45 million", leaving out capital and public safety. The City Manager told the Auditor General the estimate was "not anywhere near an accurate estimate, as there were too many unknowns at the time."
April 2022 staff report: "an updated cost estimate of $290 million to host five games" (Table 2: operations 181.0, capital 108.6, overall 289.6, $ millions).
February 2024: costs of "approximately $380 million (gross)", up from about $300 million in July 2022 (EX34.8). Reasons: "further defined hosting requirements; the announcement of a total of six matches (versus the estimated five), including Canada’s opening match of the tournament; evaluation of price estimates/vendor quotes; safety and security requirements; and inflationary uncertainty."
The estimate "continues to hold at $380 million". In May 2025 Council adopted a motion (2025.EX23.17) "to restrict FIFA World Cup 2026 expenses (including procurement commitments) to $340 million" until savings or outside money were found. Estimated provincial service costs were almost $40 million, and "The remaining balance of $178.646 million is expected to be funded by the City of Toronto."
Funding ($000s): Provincial grant (Under Negotiations) 97,000; Federal grant (Signed Agreement) 104,340; reserve funding 79,940; temporary Municipal Accommodation Tax 56,600; commercial rights sales and rental fees 34,620; other 7,500. City funding 178,660. Total 380,000. "Should the final Provincial contribution be less than the budgeted $97 million, the City will identify cost saving opportunities and alternative sources of funding". Intergovernmental funding is $201.340 million, or 53%, and the notes say the costs are covered "without impact on the existing property tax base".
Operating costs $226.353 million and capital costs $153.647 million, total $380 million. Three kinds of related cost are "not included in the $380 million total": ancillary investments (such as Gardiner Expressway construction acceleration), re-prioritized existing staff and resources, and third-party funded items.
$97.078Mfederal refugee-shelter money expected in 2026, down from $300 million in 2025
Toronto runs a large shelter system that has also housed refugee claimants. In 2025 the budget counted on $300 million from Ottawa to shelter refugee claimants and $200 million a year from Ontario for shelters under the New Deal. For 2026 Ottawa’s expected payment is $97.078 million, and both commitments are described as ending in 2026. The City has cut its refugee shelter spending as demand fell (about 6,600 refugees in shelters each night in August 2024, just over 3,500 a year later). The shelter division’s gross 2026 budget is $786.068 million, $125.964 million lower than the 2025 budget, but its net cost to property taxpayers rises 6.9%, or $15.266 million.
Why it matters
When the people being sheltered change, the money does not move with them. As refugee claimants leave the shelter system, the City says its beds fill with other people for whom it gets no equivalent federal money. It may also face fixed costs from leases and contracts that last past the need.
It could be because…
Demand really did fall. The City reports the number of new refugee callers dropped sharply after late 2024 and nearly 2,000 refugee claimants left the shelter system in 2025.
The City and Ottawa reached an agreement covering January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2027, and the City says future federal funding is "expected to remain at similar levels".
Planned closures of temporary hotel sites save $50.469 million and refugee response programs $33.058 million in 2026.
At nine months of 2025 the division was expected to end the year on budget because of a restored federal program, as the Operating Variance Report explains.
Questions you could ask
What is the plan for the $200 million a year from Ontario and the federal refugee money after the 2026 and March 2027 end dates?
How much will the City carry for beds and leases that stay open after refugee numbers fall, and how many of those beds are used by others?
What was the actual 2025 year-end result for the shelter division, and how much federal money did the City receive in 2025?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The reduction in federal refugee funding is $202.922 million: "The total 2026 anticipated funding at 95% is $97.078 million compared to $300 million in 2025." The federal government and City "have come to an agreement for the period of January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2027" and the Province’s $200 million New Deal funding is relied on "for a third budget year". Planned closures of temporary hotel sites save $50.469 million, and refugee response programs $33.058 million.
2026 gross expenditures of $786.068 million are "a decrease of $125.964 million" from the 2025 budget. The 2026 budget includes $102.182 million for refugee claimants, with $97.078 million expected from the federal government, and budgets for an average of 2,102 refugee claimants per night, moving from about 3,000 spaces to a stabilized 1,000. The net budget is $235.141 million, up $15.266 million (6.9%).
The number of refugees in the shelter system each night "decreased from 6,600 in August 2024, to just over 3,500 by August 2025", and "nearly 2,000 refugee claimants have been supported in transitioning out" since the start of 2025. As refugee claimants leave, those beds become available to others, but "there is no equivalent funding source for non-refugees, increasing the financial pressure on the City."
The 2025 budget forecast refugee costs of $321.672 million for which $300 million in federal funding was requested, for an average of 6,650 refugee claimants a night. It also says: "Commitments from the Provincial and Federal Governments for the New Deal ($200 million) and Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) ($300 million) end in 2026."
At nine months of 2025, the shelter division "is now expected to end the year on budget based on anticipated federal reimbursement under the restored Interim Housing Assistance Program for eligible asylum-related and interim housing costs".
over $500,000billed on one real estate project that did not match the subcontractors’ invoices, still under investigation
A change order is a written change to a building contract that usually adds cost. Two Auditor General audits in 2025 and 2026 found weak checks on them. In the City’s real estate division, the Auditor General checked 105 change orders on eight projects and found over $500,000 of billing that did not match subcontractor invoices on one project. In Toronto Water, mark-ups on one project went over the contract limit, leading to $122,781 of overpayment. Management agreed with every recommendation in both reports.
Why it matters
Change orders are where costs on large projects grow without a new public tender. The City’s real estate division has a capital budget near $2 billion over ten years, so small percentage errors become large sums. The Auditor General’s hotline report also names change orders as an “emerging fraud risk”.
It could be because…
Most Toronto Water projects were on budget. The Auditor General found 16 of the 18 completed projects within budget, including allowances set aside for changes.
The real estate division changed its change order process and finished staff training by October 2025, after the orders the audit looked at.
Some extra charges were allowed under the contract, and some of the amounts are still being sorted out.
Unforeseen conditions on old sewers and buildings do cause real changes.
Questions you could ask
What is the total number and value of change orders on City capital projects each year, now that the real estate division is buying a project system that is due in the first quarter of 2027?
What happened with the $500,000 of unexplained billing on the one real estate project, and has any of it been recovered?
Will the City publish a yearly list of change orders over a set amount, with the reason for each?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
Real estate division: “in our sample of 105 change orders across eight capital projects”, the audit found “There are over $500,000 in exceptions on one project that are still under investigation.”
It also found “Incorrect or unknown markups applied in 48 per cent of change orders, resulting in at least $50,000 in overcharges”, and additional fees in 35 per cent of change orders totalling approximately $403,000.
The report says project managers “rely significantly on external consultants’ change order reviews”, and that the division “was unable to readily produce summary reports or a comprehensive list of all change orders across all projects”. In 2024 a general contractor was suspended from City work for five years after overbilling and inconsistent subcontractor documents.
Toronto Water: “we found that 16 of the 18 (89 per cent) completed projects were on budget”, but on one project “five out of eight (63 per cent) approved change order samples we reviewed exceeded the mark-up ceiling specified in the contract”, and Toronto Water began to recover “the mark-up overage totalling $122,781”.
Delays on one pump station project: “the City had to pay $2.85 million for additional consultant fees and material and supply price escalation”, and “an additional $3.5 million for the pump station project is currently under dispute.”
6 of 7reports about named members of Council from 2023 to 2026 found a breach of the Code of Conduct
The Integrity Commissioner investigates complaints that the Mayor or a Councillor broke the Code of Conduct and reports to Council, which then decides whether to accept the findings and what penalty to give. From 2023 to 2026 the outcomes ranged widely: a 10-day pay suspension for Councillor Josh Matlow, reprimands for Councillors Frances Nunziata and Brad Bradford, no penalty for Councillor Anthony Perruzza, and in March 2026 a vote to “receive” a report that found Councillor Chris Moise broke the Code. Council did not formally adopt the finding. The Commissioner’s cover report says Council cannot change his findings, only adopt a report or receive it.
Why it matters
The system only works if Council, which is made up of the people being judged, treats findings seriously. Council is allowed to set a report aside. When it does, residents may be unsure whether the finding stands. Complaints about councillors have also more than doubled in two years, and complaints cannot be filed from August 21 to October 26, 2026 because of the election.
It could be because…
The Commissioner himself recommended no penalty for Councillors Moise and Perruzza, citing context. Councillor Perruzza reported his own mistake and paid the City back.
Council may legally receive a report for information. The Commissioner’s report says that if Council does so, “the matter is concluded.”
Councillors who are the subject of a report may speak but cannot vote on a pay suspension.
In the 2026 confidential-information inquiry, the Commissioner could not tell who leaked, so there was no finding against anyone.
Questions you could ask
When Council receives a report without adopting it, as it did for Councillor Moise in March 2026, how should residents read the finding?
Will Council explain in its decision each time it changes or sets aside a penalty the Commissioner recommended?
How will the Integrity Commissioner’s office handle the record number of complaints, including 105 in 2025, with a staff of three?
What does the Province’s planned uniform code of conduct (the Municipal Accountability Act, 2026) change for Toronto?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
March 22, 2023: the Integrity Commissioner found Councillor Josh Matlow’s conduct towards a staff member “violated Article XII (Conduct Respecting Staff) and Article XIV (Discreditable Conduct)”, and recommended a reprimand and a 10-day pay suspension. He noted that “Two previous Integrity Commissioner reports have found Councillor Matlow breached Article XII (Conduct Respecting Staff) for similar conduct”.
Council’s decision of March 29, 30 and 31, 2023: “City Council adopt the findings that Councillor Matlow has violated the Code of Conduct”, and “City Council reprimand Councillor Matlow and suspend the remuneration paid to him in respect of his services as a member of Council for a period of 10 days, commencing May 1, 2023.”
July 17, 2024: the Integrity Commissioner found Councillor Anthony Perruzza violated Article 15, and recommended “City Council not impose any penalty as Councillor Perruzza self-reported the matter and fully mitigated the issue.”
The 2024 annual report says of the three reports from July 2024: for Councillor Nunziata “Commissioner Batty recommended a reprimand, which Council adopted”; for Councillor Bradford the same; for the Perruzza report “Council adopted the report and the recommendation.” It says of Councillor Nunziata: “The investigation found the Councillor did not direct staff to take these actions”, and “The Councillor took responsibility and apologized.”
July 17, 2024: the Integrity Commissioner found Councillor Brad Bradford’s conduct “violated Articles 5 and 7” of the Code, because constituent contact information from his office was used in his 2023 mayoral by-election campaign, and recommended a reprimand. His lawyer said he was prepared to accept it. The 2024 annual report adds that the evidence showed he did not direct staff to do this and was not aware of it.
July 17, 2024: the Integrity Commissioner found Councillor Frances Nunziata’s conduct “violated Articles 5 and 7” of the Code, because her office used constituent contact information in the 2022 election, and recommended a reprimand.
March 18, 2026: “Based on the evidence in the report, the Integrity Commissioner found the Councillor engaged with a member of the public in a derogatory manner contrary to Article 14.” The Commissioner recommended adopting the finding and issuing “no penalty”.
The Councillor’s response in the report: he “responded through his counsel. He disagrees with my analysis and maintains the context should have led me to find no violation.”
The Commissioner’s explanation of Council’s options: “If Council instead receives the report for information, the matter is concluded. Council cannot alter the Commissioner’s findings but may refer a matter back.”
Council’s decision of March 25 and 26, 2026 on the report about Councillor Moise: “City Council receive the report (March 18, 2026) from the Integrity Commissioner for information”, and Council asked the Commissioner for guidance to members “on how to respond appropriately to discriminatory, hateful or harassing speech.”
CP24 reported on May 21, 2026 that in March councillors voted to receive the Integrity Commissioner’s report on Councillor Moise and did not accept his findings. The article says that under City policy, legal fees are covered if the Commissioner found a violation and Council received the report. On May 21 Council voted 16-6 to cover only 50 percent of the $20,807.61 the clerk had asked to cover; the City had already paid $5,000. Councillor Moise said it is “odd that a councillor should have to cover the legal fees spent to address a report that City Council itself voted unanimously to reject”.
July 22, 2026: a confidential Audit Committee attachment was available to “94 authorized users, including all 26 Members of Council and 37 political staff. Of those individuals, 21 accessed the document before publication”. The Commissioner found “insufficient evidence to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that a Member of Council or their staff breached the Code of Conduct.”
The report on Councillor Perruzza: “Councillor Perruzza reimbursed the City of Toronto for the $1,440.75 in printing costs that was charged to his office as he reported this matter after the printer was paid.” The flyer was for events before voting day in the 2022 election, after Council’s ban on such flyers.
October 3, 2023: the Commissioner found former Mayor John Tory violated Articles VIII and XV, and recommended no penalty because “Mr. Tory is no longer a member of City Council, self-reported this matter and accepts the Integrity Commissioner’s findings”.
The 2025 annual report: “The Office received 105 formal complaints and applications in 2025, up from 75 in 2024”, run by “our small office of three people”.
The 2025 annual report says the Province’s “Municipal Accountability Act, 2026 was passed into law on May 26, 2026 and received Royal Assent on June 2, 2026” and will be operational “immediately after the 2026 municipal election”. It adds a framework for removing a councillor for serious misconduct and “a standardized provincial Code of Conduct applicable to all municipalities in Ontario, including the City of Toronto.”
Election period: the Integrity Commissioner “cannot receive or investigate complaints or applications between Nomination Day (August 21, 2026) and Voting Day (October 26, 2026). All open complaints will be terminated, as required by law.”
14recommendations from Ombudsman Toronto on December 12, 2024, adopted by Council with minor changes
On November 7, 2022, shelter staff stopped letting refugee claimants into the regular shelter system. The City told the public almost six months later. Ombudsman Toronto found the City “acted unfairly”, could not find who made the decision, and said it “amounted to systemic discrimination”. Council reversed the change in July 2023 and adopted the Ombudsman’s 14 recommendations, with small changes, in March 2025.
Why it matters
This is a case where an independent office checked a major City decision and Council acted. What residents still cannot see is who is checking that the changes were made, because Council did not ask the Ombudsman to monitor them.
It could be because…
The Ombudsman says staff did not intend to discriminate, and that it is the effect of a decision, not the intent, that counts under human rights law.
The City said it was forced to refer refugee claimants to federal supports because of a lack of funding from other governments.
The Ombudsman says many steps in Council’s motion “include deadlines and include our participation”, so there may be informal checking.
The investigation was narrow. It did not judge the City’s overall response to the rise in refugee claimants.
Questions you could ask
Who in the City is responsible for reporting back to Council on each of the 14 recommendations, and by when?
Will Council ask the Ombudsman to monitor the changes the way it does for other reports?
Does the City now keep a written record of who approves changes to who can use its shelters?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The City made the decision on “November 7, 2022” but “did not disclose the eligibility change for almost six months, until a news conference on May 31, 2023.”
The City’s own explanation: “Staff and elected officials announced then that they were forced to refer refugee claimants to federal supports because of a lack of funding from the provincial and federal governments.” The Ombudsman adds that the City “did not measure the impact of this eligibility change”.
The Ombudsman’s finding: “My investigation found the City of Toronto acted unfairly when it decided to stop allowing refugee claimants into the City’s base shelter system.”
“Our investigators could not determine who made the decision to stop allowing refugee claimants into City’s base shelter system.” The Ombudsman also says “There is no clear written record documenting the City’s decisions”.
The Ombudsman’s conclusion on discrimination: “The decision amounted to systemic discrimination on the basis of citizenship and race, specifically, anti-Black racism.” He adds: “At no point do I think City staff intended to discriminate against the refugee claimants”.
Ombudsman Toronto made 14 recommendations. On March 27, 2025, “City Council unanimously passed a motion that with some minor revisions, adopted the recommendations”. The Ombudsman adds: “Council did not direct staff to follow our normal monitoring process, which means there is no formal mechanism for us to monitor the implementation of the recommendations.”
$30 millionthe new limit on contracts the Chief Procurement Officer can award after open bidding, without going to council
Until October 1, 2025, a staff committee called the Bid Award Panel approved awards from open bidding between $500,000 and $20 million, and its reports were posted on council’s meeting site. The City reviewed it and found it “does not provide additional oversight” and added 10 to 20 days. The panel is gone. The Chief Procurement Officer, a staff position, can now approve awards up to $30 million on their own. Awards are posted on the Toronto Bids Portal instead. The City itself says the portal does not show some things the panel’s reports did, such as the bids received and each bid price, and it promised to look at its datasets.
Why it matters
Large contracts are where most public money goes. When one person can approve awards up to $30 million, residents rely more on the published results to see who won, what the other bids were and whether the winner was the lowest price or the best score.
It could be because…
The review found the panel added delay without adding checks. Average time to buy rose from 105 working days in 2021 to 160 in 2025, so speed is a real concern.
The $20 million limit dated from 2007, so $30 million may reflect today’s prices.
Council still approves anything above $30 million, and staff still follow the procurement by-law and the Auditor General can audit awards.
Questions you could ask
Is the summary of bids received and each bid price now published for every award above $500,000? Where?
How many awards between $500,000 and $30 million has the Chief Procurement Officer approved since October 1, 2025, and for how much in total?
Has the time from bid to award gone down since the panel ended?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Bid Award Panel “authorizes both the commitment of funds, and the award of open competitive solicitations valued between $500,000 and $20 million.” The review says it “does not provide additional oversight”, adds “approximately 10–20 days”, and notes that features of its reports, “a summary of bids received and bid price”, are not available through the portals. It recommends the Chief Procurement Officer award up to $30 million.
From October 1, 2025, “the Bid Award Panel (BAP) has been eliminated, and the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) now has authority to approve open competitive awards up to CAD $30 million.” Awards under that figure “will no longer be posted” in the council meeting system; they are published on the Toronto Bids Portal.
+24%increase in a councillor’s base salary in 2025, from $137,537.40 to $170,588.60
On March 26 and 27, 2025, City Council adopted a staff report that raised a councillor’s base salary from $137,537.40 to $170,588.60, back to January 1, 2025. The City’s open-data voting record shows a motion on the item carried 15 to 8 on March 27. The report said Toronto councillors’ pay sat at the 62nd percentile of nine comparison cities, meaning it was above 62% of them, and aimed for the 75th. It cost $956,816.30 in 2025. The Mayor’s salary was not part of the review. Councillors set their own pay, which the law allows, so an outside review and a published vote matter.
Why it matters
Pay for the people who vote on the budget is a public-trust matter whatever the amount. Residents can judge it better when the comparison cities, the method and the vote are all published.
It could be because…
The pay came from a review by the City’s People & Equity staff with outside help from Korn Ferry, a pay-consulting firm, rather than from councillors themselves.
Council had set a 75th-percentile target in 2006, dropped it in 2014 and only added inflation since, so pay had slipped behind the cities it is compared with.
The report notes Toronto councillors have the lowest pay per constituent among the comparison cities and no extra pay for sitting on agency boards.
Council also changed the by-law so that pay is reviewed at the start of each term, which may make later changes steadier.
Questions you could ask
Who chose the nine comparison cities, and would a different set have given a different answer?
Should a pay change for councillors start with the next council rather than the sitting one?
Will the new yearly pay review under the by-law be a public report?
What did motion 2, the motion that carried 15 to 8, change in the staff recommendation?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
“The current 2025 Councillors’ base salary is $137,537.40” and the report recommends increasing it to $170,588.60 effective January 1, 2025. Financial impact: $956,816.30 for 2025 ($829,458.00 more salary and $127,358.30 more benefits). Toronto’s pay was at the 62nd percentile of nine comparison cities, and the 75th percentile figure was $165,933.43 before the 2.81% inflation adjustment. The review “did not include Mayoral compensation.”
The related by-law states it was made under “City Council Item CC28.6, adopted as amended by City of Toronto Council on March 26 and 27, 2025.” It also adds a yearly review of council pay by the Chief People Officer.
Votes recorded on item 2025.CC28.6 on March 27, 2025. A motion by Councillor Moise (motion 2, listed as “Amend Item”) carried 15 to 8. Yes: Ainslie, Carroll, Cheng, Chernos Lin, Colle, Malik, Mantas, Matlow, Moise, Morley, Myers, Pasternak, Perruzza, Saxe, Thompson. No: Bradford, Bravo, Crisanti, Fletcher, Holyday, Kandavel, Nunziata, Perks. Absent: Burnside, McKelvie and the Mayor. In the same sitting a motion by Councillor Holyday to receive the item without acting lost 5 to 18, and a motion to reconsider lost 14 to 9. We could not open the council decision document to confirm what motion 2 said.
Council’s 2025 remuneration report confirms: council “approved an increase to Councillor’s base salary to $170,588.60”, which, on 261 working days in 2025, “resulted in an annual salary of $171,245”.
73.8%of the 2024 capital budget was spent ($4.740 billion of $6.422 billion)
Capital spending means building and repairing things that last: roads, subway cars, pipes, buildings. In 2024 the City spent $4.740 billion of its $6.422 billion capital budget, a spending rate of 73.8%, up from 71.4% in 2023. City divisions spent 63.6% and agencies such as the TTC spent 93.0%. For 2025 the City’s own nine-month report projected 84.7%. We did not find the final 2025 year-end capital report, so the real 2025 rate is not known to us.
Why it matters
The 10-year plan and the City Building Fund levy are sized to a capital budget. If projects regularly slip, the backlog grows, prices rise and it is harder to tell how much tax and debt the plan really needs.
It could be because…
The City measures spending against a budget that includes unspent money carried forward from earlier years, so big multi-year projects always look behind in any one year.
Delays come from grants that arrive late, contractor capacity and permits. The City says its "sustained focus on prioritizing capital delivery" improved the rate.
Not every dollar not spent is lost. Projects finished under budget free up money: projects closed in 2024 came in $41.0 million under.
Questions you could ask
What was the City’s final 2025 capital spending rate, and which projects were furthest behind?
Does the 10-year plan assume a spending rate, and are levy and debt sized to the plan or to what is usually spent?
Why does the water program (Toronto Water) spend a lower share (a projected 70.1% for 2025) than the TTC (95.0%)?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
2024 capital spending was $4.740 billion, or 73.8% of the 2024 Approved Capital Budget of $6.422 billion. City Operations spent 63.6% of 3,313.9 ($ millions), Agencies 93.0% of 1,661.9, and rate-supported programs (water, waste, parking) 75.1% of 1,445.8.
"The spending rate is defined as the actual capital expenditures as a percentage of the full year budget including in-year budget adjustments and carry forward funding from prior years’ unspent budget." 2023 capital spending was $4.219 billion, a rate of 71.4%. The City credits "sustained focus on prioritizing capital delivery" for the improvement. Projects completed in 2024 had $1.231 billion actual spending on a total budget of $1.272 billion, a $41.0 million saving.
2025 nine-month report: capital spending of $3.140 billion, or 48.8% of the 2025 budget of 6,429.5 ($ millions); projected year-end spending of 5,445.5, or 84.7%. By area, Toronto Water is projected at 70.1% and Development and Growth Services at 82.3%. The five-year historical average for the same nine months is 41.9%.
252 of 697hotline complaints received in 2025 had no decision yet on what to do with them
Anyone can report suspected fraud or waste of City money to the Auditor General’s hotline. In 2025 it received 697 complaints. The Auditor General says 252 of them (36%) had not yet been given a next step when the report was written in January 2026. Over five years the hotline has traced $6.3 million of actual losses, and $703,000 has been recovered.
Why it matters
The hotline is the main way City staff and residents can raise a concern without going through their boss or a councillor. Residents cannot tell from the annual report how long a tip waits before someone looks at it, or how much of the money lost is likely to come back.
It could be because…
The Auditor General says the number “fluctuates each year depending on the Forensic Unit’s workload”, and that every complaint is first sorted within about one business day.
Many of the 252 may be simple matters that were sorted soon after the report was written.
Part of the money cannot be recovered. $4.4 million of the 2025 loss came from one division that gives out benefits paid for by other governments, where people were found not to qualify.
The report notes that more than half of organizations that lose money to fraud recover none of it.
Questions you could ask
How long does a hotline complaint wait, on average, before it is given a next step, and will the annual report show the age of the complaints still waiting?
Of the $6.3 million in actual losses since 2021, how much was money the City could have recovered, and how much has management tried to recover?
Will the Auditor General say each year how many of the substantiated cases involved staff and how many involved suppliers or benefit recipients?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
In 2025, “the Hotline received 697 complaints representing approximately 1,150 allegations”. The year before it received 679 complaints and 1,050 allegations.
“Thirty-six per cent (252) of all complaints received this year do not have a disposition assigned since determination of next steps is pending with the Forensic Unit.” The report adds: “This number fluctuates each year depending on the Forensic Unit’s workload.”
“Twenty-five per cent (22) of the 87 investigated complaints from 2025” were “substantiated in whole or in part”. Management reported that discipline was imposed on City employees in four of the 22 substantiated complaints.
Table 1: actual losses $4.5 million for 2025 complaints and $6.3 million over the past five years (2021 to 2025); recoveries $9,000 for 2025 complaints and $703,000 over five years; potential losses avoided $4.0 million over five years. A note says “$4.4 million of this actual loss relates to a Division that administers subsidies provided by other orders of government.”
The report says the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners “reported that 57 per cent of victim organizations do not recover any of their fraud losses”, and that “it is management’s responsibility to recover losses where possible.”
$4.2 millionestimated value of two electricity contracts the Auditor General found were fraudulent
In July 2019, electricity accounts for 14 City properties were switched from Toronto Hydro to two other energy sellers. City staff noticed the unusual bills in October 2019 and cancelled the contracts. The Auditor General later found the signatures were not those of the retired employee named on them. About $250,000 had been paid and was recovered. The Auditor General could not say who signed, and gave the matter to the Toronto Police Service.
Why it matters
The City’s own staff caught this, and no money was lost. But the same trick could be tried on other City bodies, such as agencies and corporations that check their own electricity bills. The report was finished almost six years after the switch.
It could be because…
The review was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic and restarted in 2024, which explains much of the delay.
The Auditor General says evidence was lacking “despite extensive efforts”, so there may be no further answer unless police find one.
Management agreed to send the report to other City bodies in the third quarter of 2025.
Questions you could ask
Has the Toronto Police Service decided whether to investigate, and will the City say so in public?
Did City agencies and corporations, such as the TTC and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, check their own electricity accounts after the report was sent to them?
Do the energy sellers now have to confirm who is signing before they take over a City account?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The report says the City’s staff found in October 2019 that electricity accounts for 14 City properties had been switched in July 2019, and that the two contracts “had an estimated total value of $4.2 million, of which $2.5 million represented what would have been lost by the City had the unusual invoices not been identified.”
A handwriting expert’s analysis was used: “We confirmed the signature on the contract was not the employee's signature through a handwriting expert’s analysis.”
On who signed: “we cannot determine who signed the contracts on behalf of the City due to lack of evidence at this time, despite extensive efforts.” The matter “has been referred to the Toronto Police Service (TPS)”.
The one recommendation asks Council to have the City Manager forward the report to other divisions, agencies and corporations. Management response: “Agree”, with “Timeline for completion is Q3 2025”.
April 17, 2026date of the Auditor General’s investigation into how the City bought the PayIt platform
PayIt is a company whose online payment platform the City bought between 2019 and 2021, after the company made an unsolicited proposal (an offer the City had not asked for) and a limited competition called a Swiss Challenge. In 2024 the Auditor General found the City did not follow its own policy. Council asked for a closer look. In April 2026 the Auditor General reported that a buyer removed the detailed scoring from the published call, but that the evidence was “conflicting and insufficient” on who directed it and why. It found no wrongdoing, and no unfair advantage to PayIt.
Why it matters
Rules for buying things exist so every company gets the same chance. The investigation found rules were broken, and nobody can now say who made the decision about the scoring. The senior leaders involved have retired, and the Auditor General says more digging is unlikely to help. What matters for residents is whether the nine fixes recommended in 2024 are in place.
It could be because…
The Auditor General says the events were about seven years ago, so records and memories were limited.
The Auditor General found that all companies were scored on the same criteria, and that PayIt “does not appear to have received an unfair advantage”.
Staff said the pressure of tight timelines during COVID-19 was a factor.
Management says it has begun doing the 2024 recommendations, including moving the process to the purchasing division.
Questions you could ask
Which of the nine 2024 recommendations about unsolicited proposals are finished, and where can residents see the status?
Does the City now require the published scoring breakdown for every request for proposals, and who signs off if it is left out?
How does the City make sure staff do not send draft council reports to a company before the public sees them?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The report says the [then] Senior Corporate Buyer “removed the detailed scoring breakdown before publishing the call document”, but “there was conflicting and insufficient evidence to determine who provided direction, who approved the change, and why it was made.”
Policy breaches found: staff “did not always follow City policies, processes, by-laws, and best practices”; a proof of concept went ahead “without authority from City Council”; and a staff member gave two reports to PayIt before they were public, “which is a breach of the Toronto Public Service By-law and the Procurement By-law.”
On wrongdoing: “these do not meet the threshold for wrongdoing as defined by the Toronto Public Service By-law”, and the Auditor General did not identify “indications of wrongdoing”. The report also says PayIt “does not appear to have received an unfair advantage”.
The report says the findings “reinforce the need to implement the nine recommendations from our 2024 audit”, and that management advised in May 2025 that the unsolicited proposal process moved to the Purchasing and Materials Management Division.
79declarations by 18 elected members of Council in the public registry, December 2022 to September 2026
Ontario law says a member who has a money interest in a decision must say so and stay out of the discussion and vote. Toronto posts its registry of these declarations as open data. From December 2, 2022 to September 25, 2026 it lists 168 declarations. Of those, 79 were made by 18 members of Council. The rest were made by people appointed to boards and panels, who are not named here.
Why it matters
Most declarations are routine: living near a site, or a family member who works for a company or agency. But a few members declare often, which shows how a family link can keep coming back across many votes. The registry is the only place where these are all counted.
It could be because…
A member with one standing family link will declare each time a related item comes up, as the law requires, so a high count shows the member is following the rule.
Toronto is large, so many items touch a member’s property or family employer.
Declarations are recorded only when the minutes are published, so the latest items may be missing.
Questions you could ask
Does the City keep a list of each member’s standing family and business links, so staff can flag items before they reach Council?
Can the registry also show the written declarations and the vote result for each item so residents can see what happened after a declaration?
Why are more than half of the registry’s declarations (89 of 168) from people on boards and panels rather than from elected members?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Toronto?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The registry lists 168 declarations dated December 2, 2022 to September 25, 2026. Of these, 79 were by 18 elected members: Councillor Mike Colle 26, Councillor Brad Bradford 14, Councillor Nick Mantas 9, Mayor Olivia Chow 5, former Mayor John Tory 4, Councillor Chris Moise 4, Councillors Jon Burnside and Jamaal Myers 3 each, Councillor Shelley Carroll 2, and one each for Councillors Frances Nunziata, Ausma Malik, Anthony Perruzza, Stephen Holyday, Parthi Kandavel, Josh Matlow, Rachel Chernos Lin, Dianne Saxe and Alejandra Bravo. The other 89 were made by people serving on boards, panels and committees.
What the declarations say: Councillor Colle’s 26 are nearly all about a family member who works at the Toronto Transit Commission, and earlier a family member who worked at the accounting firm advising the City on its finances; Councillor Bradford’s 14 are all about a family member who is a planner on a file; Councillor Nick Mantas’s 9 are all about family businesses (a taxi plate, a vending truck, a food vendor). The family members are not named here.
On April 23, 2026 and May 20, 2026 Councillor Chris Moise declared an interest in the item “Payment of Legal Expenses Related to an Integrity Commission” because “he has a financial interest in the matter.”
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy