Moise scorecard

In the days leading up to Toronto’s Oct 26 municipal election, let’s review Councillor Moise’s record. (If this is TL;DR, see the AI summary at the end.)

An essential responsibility for any City councillor is to listen to residents; Chris Moise fails. Moise doesn’t engage in advance public consultation: few public, in-person community meetings, few motions made at Community Council where public deputations are permitted. In the past 4 years, Moise has cut out citizen input: he routinely bypassed Community Council and took his motions directly to City Council.

2022: 11% of donations for Moise’s 2022 campaign came from donors tied to a single developer: Fitzrovia. (see below: 191-201 Sherboourne). Yet Moise says this donation scrutiny by the media is somehow “unfair“.

Dec 2023: No public consultation and no advance notice, prior to renaming Dundas Square. Moise and Chow claim otherwise, but both were ringleaders in getting a rush approval by City Council, only 2 days after a name was chosen. Was Toronto’s previously established 2022 Property Naming Policy followed?

June 2024: Moss Park Arena board members and local arena users say Moise has attempted to drive his own agenda with the rink. Moise isn’t a conciliator; in June 2024 he tried to replace the volunteer board at Moss Park arena, but City Council said “not so fast!” Moise denied any “malice” on his part, but volunteer board chair Andy Marcus says Moise has treated them “like crap.” Later, Moise tried to replace existing volunteer board members at Moss Park Arena with his personal picks (but then withdrew his impetuous Feb 2025 motion).

July 2024: Moise wrangled a hasty approval for Fitzrovia’s development of 47 and 49 storey buildings at 191-201 Sherbourne (831 new units), with vehicles to access from Seaton St, via a narrow laneway behind houses on the west side of Seaton. Co-incidentally, Fitzrovia contributed $11,000 (11% of total donations to Moise’s 2022 election campaign). When Fitzrovia presented their project in Sept 2023, Moise was very sup­portive. Moise ignored the project’s significant impacts on nearby Seaton St, a quiet 1-way residential street lined with 2-3 storey heritage homes, and compromised its Heritage Conservation District protection.

July 2024: Out of touch with reality? For many years, businesses on Queen East have not thrived. The area needs investment by the city. A 2007 attempt to establish a BIA failed; a BIA is simply not financially viable for this area, since many Queen East addresses are either residential, institutional, or vacant storefronts. It’s perplexing why in July 2024 that Chris Moise thinks the few commercial properties on this economically depressed stretch of Queen E could somehow financially support a BIA.

March 2025: Moise chairs Toronto’s Board of Health; he botched a hiring attempt for Toronto’s new medical officer; the mayor had to rescue the hiring process. Previous officer Eileen de Villa announced her retirement back in May 2024 but her replacement wasn’t found until July 2025 (15 months! later).

March 2025: Moise voted himself a 25% salary increase, to $170,000. Moise was quoted by CBC: “This job I do is seven days a week, 24/7.” Moise has 11 staff (cost: $622,000) that perform a lot of the actual work in Ward 13. In 2025, Moise was the #1 spender among city councillors: $1.08 million.

Is Moise a spendthrift? All of these Section 37 expenditures are outside the city’s approved budget process. Is $10 million (July 2026) towards expansion of Allan Gardens greenhouses the highest priority need for park improvements? $9 million for an “Association of Community Centres Space in Regent Park” (July 2026)? And a secret amount (well over $3 million) for a new LGBT community centre (April 2026), with no explanation from Moise what deficiencies exist in the existing 519 Church St facility? Why $1.1 million of city funds for exterior heritage lighting at the Young People’s Theatre? (March 2025)

April 2025: More controversy. Moise’s motion argued that “large-scale rave parties” in Toronto require more oversight due to the potential for “dangerous overcrowding,” and cited a recent rave at the Church of the Holy Trinity (hosted with approval from church staff). Moise drafted his motion without any community consultation or engagement with the independent electronic dance music scene. That community submitted a 6,800 signature petition in opposition. Moise initially suggested deferring his motion for further consultation, chose instead to withdraw it altogether.

April 2025: On the ground floor of a seniors building at 115 Esplanade (Older Women’s Network Housing), the city established a temporary rehab service de­livering some of the province’s new Homeless & Addiction Re­covery Treatment (HART) Hub. The city informed the co-op board 3 days prior to opening the clinic, but didn’t inform the community. One resident said the city councillor Chris Moise should have explained the situ­ation in an open and transparent manner.

May 2025: Moise didn’t consult with nearby residents; he simply decided to rename Trefann’s local park after a Regent Park activist (Moise buying favour with that community.) It was Trefann residents that fought in the 1970s to preserve this residential area, and establish the Sumach-Shuter Parkette, which is located in Trefann, not Regent Park. (At a July 2 meeting, Moise admitted “I never heard of Trefann.”) Moise bypassed Community Council, ignored the city’s Property Naming Policy and stubbornly ignored a 1300+ signature petition, to push through this park renaming. (The Integrity Commissioner conceded that City Council can permit a councillor to bypass Community Council and/or ignore city policies, without offering justification.)

Aug 2025: Moise installed sidewalk biking decals for self-promotion: why was this permitted on public property, using public funds? Decals displayed City of Toronto logo endorsement combined with Moise’s personal branding; decals were paid for with city funds. Opportunist! During the past 4 years, Moise has not been a strong vocal advocate for pedestrian safety.

Sept 2025: A downtown condo is suing Sanctuary community hub (25 Charles E) for $2.3 million, for permitting years of unchecked drug activity, violence and disruptive behaviour at their property. The adjacent George Hislop Park, which borders Sanctuary’s property is a spillover site for drug use, which the condo claims attracts dealers to the area and leads to discarded paraphernalia. After a stabbing, sex assault, and drug charges the city finally cleared an encampment from George Hislop Park in Nov 2025, and fenced off the area; the park remains fenced a year later.

March 2026: Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner is independent of City council and part of its accountability framework, who investigates alleged breaches of conduct by city councillors. Following a complaint, Moise spent $25,000 for a lawyer to develop justification in his defence. In his report, the Integrity Commissioner found that Councillor Chris Moise violated the Code of Conduct in his interaction with a constituent. But City Council closed ranks, and didn’t accept this finding of its own independent Integrity Commissioner (Council “received the report” which meant “acknowledging receipt without adopting, approving, or endorsing it”). Council even hinted that Moise was not to blame! (“requested guidance for councillors how to respond appropriately to discriminatory, hateful or harassing speech.”) Subsequently, City Council re-imbursed Moise for 50% of his legal costs.

June 2026: The Drug Toxicity Crisis Acknowledgement endorsed by Olivia Chow and Chris Moise suggests systemic discrimination is to blame for Toronto’s drug crisis “the ongoing drug toxicity crisis … is rooted in systemic discrimination. People who use drugs often experience stigma and multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination including racism, sexism and colonialism.” (Is the “public” to blame for contaminated street drugs?). Does Toronto have a drug toxicity crisis (as claimed by Moise), or a drug use crisis?

June 2026: The city has been working on renovation plans for Barbara Hall park for over 3 years. Because of increasing violence and vandalism in the park, Chris Moise proposed asking staff to report on the feasibility of closing the park overnight. But a nightly closure runs counter to the purpose of The AIDS Memorial and vision of the revitalization project. After emotional pleas to avoid blocking off the AIDS and trans memorials in the park, a city committee refused Moise’s motion; he says he’ll now leave it to others to find a solution “because clearly, when I make suggestions, somehow I’m the bad person here.” (How about more widespread community consultation by the councillor, before recommending a solution?)

Incumbents such as Moise wanting to be re-elected should loudly publicize city improvements where he led in implementing change. He should be touting his own track record. Why is incumbent Moise still relying on “endorsements” from others, instead of telling us himself reasons why he should be re-elected?