Re-Elect

Parthi Kandavel

Get Involved

Author: williamhopkins

  • Standing Up for Tenants in Scarborough Southwest

    A home should provide security. You should be able to count on necessary repairs, protection from unfair eviction and a safe place to live — without fearing that speaking up will put your housing at risk.

    My approach is straightforward: protect the rental homes we have, hold landlords accountable and make sure tenants can get help when they need it. Building more housing and protecting the people who already live here must go together.

    Stronger protection from renovictions

    Renovations should improve a home, not become a pretext for pushing tenants out and charging someone else much more.

    I joined colleagues in pushing Toronto to learn from Hamilton’s approach and voted for Toronto’s renovictions bylaw.

    Under the Rental Renovation Licence Bylaw, landlords need a City licence before starting covered repairs or renovations that require tenants to move out under the provincial N13 process. The rules require arrangements for temporary accommodation or rent-gap payments for tenants returning to their units, or compensation for tenants who choose not to return.

    The principle is simple: maintaining rental housing should not mean displacing the people who call it home.

    Accountability for bad-faith landlords

    Every tenant deserves a safe, well-maintained home. Repairs should not depend on how many complaints a resident can make or how long they can keep fighting.

    I have supported stronger RentSafeTO enforcement and voted for coordinated City action against landlords with repeated violations. Council’s directions included better sharing of enforcement information between City divisions and proactive investigations at other properties under the same ownership when serious problems are identified.

    The goal must be problems fixed, not complaints shuffled between departments. Landlords who repeatedly neglect their obligations should face meaningful consequences.

    Protection when homes are redeveloped

    New housing should not come at the expense of the people already living in our community. I have advocated for relocation assistance, replacement rental housing and eligible tenants’ right to return at similar rents when buildings are redeveloped.

    Those protections need to be secured through the approval process, not left as promises tenants are expected to take on trust.

    Standing up for Scarborough Southwest residents

    At 54–62 Glen Everest Road, I moved the Council motion requiring 68 replacement rental homes as conditions of the redevelopment approval. The conditions also require a tenant relocation and assistance plan, including eligible tenants’ right to return to a replacement home at similar rents.

    That is what protecting tenants through redevelopment should mean: not simply replacing a number on a spreadsheet, but securing assistance and a route back for the people affected.

    Relief from extreme heat

    A safe home also means somewhere to find relief during extreme heat. Residents should not have to leave their neighbourhood to find a place to cool down.

    I supported requiring qualifying apartment buildings to provide a shared cooling space maintained at 26°C or below from June 1 to September 30. The requirement applies to RentSafeTO buildings that do not provide air conditioning in every rental unit and have an existing indoor amenity space, with an exemption where construction is necessary to comply. The City explains the requirements and exemptions here.

    This is a practical protection, while the broader work of making rental homes safer in extreme heat must continue.

    Helping tenants defend their rights

    Rights are only useful when people can understand and enforce them. I supported expanding the City’s Toronto Tenant Support Program alongside the renovictions bylaw, so tenants have better access to assistance and advocacy.

    Whether the concern is an eviction, an unlawful rent increase or neglected repairs, tenants should not have to navigate a difficult process alone.

    Know your rights. Get support.

    Facing an eviction notice?

    Get advice before signing an agreement or moving out. For tenancies covered by Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, a notice from your landlord is not an eviction order. An eviction requires an order from the Landlord and Tenant Board. Do not ignore notices or hearing deadlines: contact a legal clinic promptly to understand your options. See the Landlord and Tenant Board’s guidance.

    Repairs being ignored?

    Report maintenance concerns to your landlord in writing. Keep copies of your messages, photographs and a record of dates. If the issue is not addressed, contact 311 for help with City property standards concerns. The City’s apartment standards information explains the enforcement process.

    Behind on rent?

    The Toronto Rent Bank provides grants to eligible residents who need help with overdue rent or a rental deposit. Check the program’s eligibility requirements and seek assistance early.

    Need help understanding your options?

    West Scarborough Community Legal Services
    416-285-4460

    Scarborough Community Legal Services
    416-438-7182

    Canadian Centre for Housing Rights
    416-944-0087

    Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations Tenant Hotline
    416-921-9494

    Services and eligibility vary. Community legal clinics and the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights can assess requests for legal assistance; the FMTA hotline provides tenant-rights information and referrals, not legal advice.

    Tenant protection has to mean more than passing a bylaw. It means enforcing the rules, preserving rental housing and making sure people know where to turn for help.

    This page provides general information, not legal advice about an individual tenancy. Get advice tailored to your circumstances.

  • The Danforth Data Centre: Scarborough Deserves a Say

    Take action now

    Take the fight to Queen’s Park and Ottawa.

    Toronto has pushed this issue as far as its current powers allow. Ontario controls crucial rules around municipal approval and access to the electricity system. Ottawa controls federal procurement, AI infrastructure funding and the standards used to define sovereign Canadian computing. Sign either petition — or both.

    Petition to the Government of Ontario

    Require public approval for major data centres.

    Ask Queen’s Park to require public approval for major data centres and apply new provincial rules to unfinished expansions.

    • Require site-specific rezoning and public consultation for major projects.
    • Require an elected municipal decision instead of relying only on delegated review.
    • Do not grandfather major new capacity that has not yet been built out or energized.
    • Use electricity-connection rules to protect ratepayers and host communities.
    Sign the Ontario Petition

    Petition to the Government of Canada

    Define and enforce Canadian data sovereignty.

    Ask Ottawa to define and enforce what qualifies as genuinely sovereign Canadian AI and computing infrastructure.

    • Distinguish data residency from genuine Canadian control.
    • Set standards for jurisdiction, administration, encryption-key custody and foreign access.
    • Tie federal funding and sensitive government contracts to those standards.
    • Require consequences when public money is obtained through materially false sovereignty claims.
    Sign the Federal Petition

    Why now: governments are writing the rules for major data centres and sovereign AI infrastructure now. Ontario’s current Data Centre Playbook consultation is scheduled to close on September 12, 2026.

    Residents have asked me a very reasonable question about the proposed expansion of the data centre at 3650 Danforth Avenue:

    If the community does not want a project of this scale moving ahead without proper scrutiny, why can’t Toronto City Council simply vote on it?

    The answer exposes a much larger problem with the way major data centres are currently regulated.

    Under the existing planning framework, the proposal at 3650 Danforth is proceeding through a delegated site-plan process. It is not being treated like a major rezoning application requiring a statutory public meeting and a final vote of City Council.

    That makes very little sense for infrastructure of this scale. STACK markets its Toronto campus as a 56-megawatt facility on approximately 19 acres. Whatever anyone’s view of this particular project, infrastructure consuming electricity on that scale raises legitimate questions about the power grid, surrounding neighbourhoods, employment lands, emergency generators, noise, jobs, public benefit and Canadian control of critical digital infrastructure.

    That is why we are launching two petitions. They address two different problems — and two levels of government that have powers Toronto simply does not have.

    3650 Danforth Avenue — existing data-centre campus and proposed expansion site.
    56 MW STACK’s marketed capacity for its Toronto campus.
    25–0 Council vote adopting the amended due-diligence motion among members voting.

    What Toronto has already done

    In July, I brought a motion to Toronto City Council called Ensuring Due Diligence on Data Centres in Scarborough Southwest. Council adopted the amended motion 25–0 among members voting.

    Council asked City staff to coordinate the 3650 Danforth application with Toronto’s broader review of major data centres, examine the City’s regulatory powers, investigate issues including electricity, water, noise, environmental effects, employment lands and data sovereignty, and obtain additional independent scrutiny of the project’s noise impacts.

    Council also formally asked the Province to work with Toronto on its emerging provincial framework for data centres.

    But the motion was not — and legally could not simply become — a City Council order cancelling the project. That is why the next stage of this fight has to involve Queen’s Park and Ottawa.

    Queen’s Park

    Why Ontario matters so much

    Ontario is developing a new Data Centre Playbook for deciding how major data centres should receive access to the electricity system. The Province’s proposed approach already recognizes that these projects should be assessed on more than whether somebody can physically build one.

    Ontario is considering economic benefits, electricity-system impacts, community benefits, data security and digital sovereignty. It is also considering special rules intended to ensure that major data centres pay the costs they impose on the electricity system rather than passing those costs on to existing electricity customers.

    Ontario has also changed its electricity legislation so that the Province can establish special connection requirements for major new electricity loads. That creates a potentially powerful distinction between an existing lawful operation and future capacity that has not yet been energized.

    A company may have a planning application in progress, but that should not automatically give it a permanent right to tens of megawatts of future electricity capacity.

    No grandfathering of unfinished expansions

    The existing operating phase is not the target. The proposed expansion is. Ontario’s new rules should apply to every major increment of data-centre capacity that has not yet been energized, including projects whose planning applications are already underway.

    A public decision for infrastructure of this scale

    Major data centres and major expansions should require site-specific rezoning, public notice, a public meeting and an elected municipal decision. Ontario can also require municipal concurrence before significant new electricity capacity is allocated.

    No grandfathering for unfinished expansion: if major new data-centre capacity has not yet been energized, it should have to meet the new provincial rules.

    Consultation should happen before the important decisions are made

    Residents should receive understandable information about the size of the project, its electricity requirements, noise and backup generation, environmental impacts, expected employment and the benefits being offered to the host community.

    Residents should be able to ask questions. The proponent should have to respond. And local elected representatives should have to make a decision on the record. For infrastructure of this scale, that should be the minimum democratic standard.

    Ottawa

    The federal government has a different responsibility

    The federal petition addresses a different issue: Canadian data sovereignty.

    Data centres are increasingly described as critical infrastructure for Canada’s AI economy. Governments are investing public money in domestic computing capacity, and Ottawa is working on sovereign Canadian cloud and computing infrastructure.

    But a server being physically located in Canada does not necessarily mean Canada has full control over it. A company operating here may also be subject to another country’s laws. Corporate control, administrative access, encryption systems, subcontractors and foreign legal obligations can all affect who ultimately has power over Canadian information.

    Data residency is not necessarily data sovereignty.

    So what should “Canadian sovereign” actually mean?

    If infrastructure is going to be described as sovereign Canadian infrastructure — particularly when federal money, sensitive public information or government contracts are involved — there should be a clear and enforceable standard.

    • Where is the data stored?
    • Where is it processed?
    • Who can administer the system?
    • Who controls the encryption keys?
    • What foreign laws apply to the company or its parent?
    • Can workers or subcontractors outside Canada access the system?
    • Who ultimately controls the company?
    • What supply-chain dependencies can affect Canadian control?

    And the rules need consequences

    Standards without consequences are only suggestions. The federal government can connect sovereignty requirements directly to its financial and purchasing power.

    If a company wants federal funding for sovereign AI infrastructure, wants to host sensitive federal information, or wants preferential access to sovereign-cloud contracts, it should have to meet the sovereign-compute standard.

    And if public money or contracts are obtained through materially false claims about Canadian control, there should be consequences — including loss of certification, termination of contracts and repayment of public funds.

    Why the two petitions work together

    No single government controls this entire issue. An effective response has to use the powers that actually exist at each level.

    Toronto

    Local planning, development, environmental review, noise scrutiny and the municipal framework now under development.

    Ontario

    Municipal legislation and, critically, the rules governing access to Ontario’s electricity system and major new electrical loads.

    Canada

    Federal procurement, AI-infrastructure funding and the standards used to determine what qualifies as sovereign Canadian infrastructure.

    The provincial petition says: do not allow major data centres to bypass public approval, and do not grandfather unfinished expansions out of new rules designed precisely because governments now understand the scale of these projects.

    The federal petition says: if Canadian sovereignty is going to be used to justify building and publicly supporting massive digital infrastructure, define sovereignty clearly and enforce it.

    These are not anti-technology positions. Canada needs computing infrastructure, and artificial intelligence will require enormous computing capacity. Those facts make good public policy more important, not less.

    Why signing now matters

    The rules are being written now. Ontario is deciding how major data centres will access the electricity system, what community benefits and protections will be required, and whether unfinished expansions will be subject to the new framework.

    Ontario’s current Data Centre Playbook consultation is scheduled to close on September 12, 2026. This is the moment to put a clear public position on the record: major new capacity should face public approval, unfinished expansions should not be grandfathered out of the new rules, and host communities should have a meaningful say.

    Ottawa is making a parallel choice about sovereign Canadian AI infrastructure. If public money, sensitive government data and federal contracts are going to be tied to the word “sovereign,” Canada needs an enforceable standard for who actually controls the systems.

    A strong public response gives both governments a specific mandate while those decisions are still being made.

    Read Toronto City Council’s decision →

    Add your name

    Choose one petition — or sign both.

    Major infrastructure should require public accountability. And if infrastructure is promoted as Canadian sovereign capacity, it should have to prove meaningful Canadian control.

    Sign the Ontario Petition Sign the Federal Petition