Over at Hamilton Reporter...

...this item has gone up dealing with ward boundaries and the such. 

There are some very intriguing elements to the OMB guidelines that resulted from the Supreme Court of Canada 'Carter Case'. Here's what the article from the Township of Tay says:

1) Representation by Population or Equality of Representation: It is accepted general standard that voters should be equally represented by having Wards with reasonable equal population totals or a reasonable equal amount of residents per elected official. In addition, it is understood that given the mix of stable and growing areas within the municipality some differences in population are acceptable.

This principle is intended to ensure that residents have equal access to their elected representative and that the workload of these representatives is relatively balanced. As a result of direction from the OMB, any proposed ward structure must not over-emphasize the principle of ‘representation by population’ but rather ensure the focus is on effective representation.

Relative Population Parity:

As much as is practicable, the total population in each ward should not be greater or less than 25% of the average population per ward. It is the desired goal when examining options for dividing the wards that there be relative population parity; however, it is common to permit a variation from average ward populations since it is practically impossible to achieve the same population for each ward.

The Federal/Provincial ridings were established while permitting a variance of plus or minus 25%. A variance of approximately 25% was upheld as an acceptable deviation by the OMB in its ruling on the 57 City Wards originally established in the City of Toronto and so has also become the municipal standard.

2) Communities or Communities of Interest within a Ward:

It is accepted standard that whenever possible it is desirable to avoid breaking up/fragmenting existing neighbourhoods and “communities of interest”.

“Communities of Interest” often encompasses common interests (e.g. school zones, areas of distinguishing socio economic characteristics, where people carry out their daily tasks) and areas of strong community connections. It is also important to bear in mind that the establishment of ward boundaries may result in the creation of a community of interest particularly when the existing boundaries have been in place for years.

3) Physical Features as Natural Boundaries (e.g. watercourses, railways, highways, arterial roads):

Consideration of physical and infrastructure elements that provide natural boundaries as wards should have a coherent, contiguous shape and the boundaries should be straightforward and easy to remember.

4) Population Trends and Estimated Growth Projections:

The guiding principle, insofar as possible, is to accommodate growth for at least 10 years to establish a ward structure that will be sustainable for a number of terms of Council. The Township of Tay is a community that is facing growth pressures but overall is growing
relatively slowly. As a consequence, some variation in the present population of wards can be acceptable to accommodate population changes as those changes will occur in identifiable parts of the municipality.

Notwithstanding the four general principles outlined above, it should be noted that the case law on ward boundary reviews makes it clear that the overriding principle is voter parity, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter Case. Any deviations from voter parity must be justified based on the other factors referred to above. 

It should also be noted that the case law makes it clear that public support should not override the primary principle of voter parity. That said receipt of public input is still an essential part of the process.

As part of the analysis of the criteria listed above, the following specific factors may also be considered during the ward boundary review:

1) Desire to maintain the existing number of Council members (Mayor & Deputy Mayor elected at-large, 5 Ward Councillors)
2) Whether or not it is appropriate to divide the existing settlement areas
3) Consideration that each person in the municipality should only have one councillor and thereby only one vote at the Council table per ward (1 Person, 1 Vote).
4) Encompassing the urban settlement area and its surrounding “community of interest” within the same ward. Defined communities are referenced in the Official Plan and mapped by the Planning Department.
5) Addressing the lower population densities within the rural area
6) Use of road allowances as ward boundaries to avoid splitting properties
and provide clear separation between wards
7) Consideration of urban/rural mix in each ward
8) Consideration of eliminating the ward structure in favour of an ‘elected-at-large’ electoral system 

Once the criteria is endorsed by Council to establish the framework for the ward boundary review, staff will start evaluating and developing potential options for the redivision of the ward boundaries.


The source document can be found here. 






M Adrian Brassington