Money & Taxes

Line	City 2026	My plan, year one	Effect on the budget	Paid for by
Residential property tax	+2.2%	0% for one year, then taxes geared to income	Gives up one year’s increase (exact amount: City Finance)	Forensic budget review savings
TTC fares	Frozen, with a monthly ride cap	Frozen for all; free for the first phase of riders (low-income, youth, seniors); universal free when a provincial/federal partner is secured	Phase 1 sized to the parking levy; universal free about $1.0–1.1 billion a year	Commercial parking levy, then a provincial/federal operating partner
Police	$1.43 billion net, up $93.8 million	Held at $1.43 billion; inside it, illegal guns, trafficking and child exploitation come first	No increase in year one	Not applicable (saving)
Shelter	$786 million, cut by $126 million	No one turned away; housing-first exits	Up to $126 million to reverse the cut, to be costed	Review savings; housing share of the vacant home tax
Child care	Federal/provincial program, city subsidies with a waitlist	Phase 1: $0 for low-income families and clear the waitlist	To be costed	Federal/provincial funding first, then city
School food	Expanded student nutrition program	Further expansion toward hot lunch in every school	To be costed with school boards	City nutrition funding, plus a push for provincial/federal funding
Small business tax	20% reduction	Raise toward the 35% provincial maximum	Shifts tax to other classes; to be costed	Within the property-tax system
Luxury and vacant homes	Vacant home tax at 3%; higher land transfer tax above $3 million	Keep both; consider higher rates on luxury homes	New revenue, to be costed	Not applicable (revenue)
Reserves	About 9% of the budget drawn from reserves	Reduce the draw over the term	Saving needed over four years	Review savings
Capital plan	$63.1 billion, 53% repair	Repair first; audit major projects before new megaprojects; keep the Gardiner and DVP	Same envelope, different order	Existing capital plan

Lever	What the city does	Cost
City hiring and promotion	Fair, structured hiring for city jobs; publish hiring and promotion results by group each year	Within the existing HR budget
City purchasing	Smaller purchase lots and lower barriers so local small firms, including racialized-owned firms, can compete	Within existing procurement
Credential pathways	City-paid training for city jobs opened to internationally trained residents, with colleges recognizing prior credentials	Part of the city-paid tuition line
Services without fear	Access T.O. and plain-language, multilingual city services	Within existing budgets
Report the gap	Track the city workforce pay gap by group and publish it with the budget each year	Minimal

Fiscal accountability

Forensic Budget Review

If elected Mayor, I will order a forensic-style review of Toronto’s $18.9 billion operating budget and $63.1 billion 10-year capital plan, so residents can see where money actually goes.

What the review will do

• map the largest operating and capital expenditures
• flag major increases since 2023
• separate one-time spikes from structural growth
• show what is tax-supported vs rate-supported
• publish a plain-language public report with findings and recommended next steps

What a mayor can deliver

Deliver: Commission and publish the review in the first year. Open the data so Torontonians can follow the money.

What I’ll fight for

Advocate: Queen’s Park and Ottawa where provincial or federal rules lock in waste or block savings.

Questions? Email bethechangeno1@gmail.com · Call (647) 785-3729

Property tax

Property Tax Geared to Income

A One-Year Freeze, Followed by Fairness Based on Ability to Pay

Toronto is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Property taxes, housing costs, utilities, food, transportation and everyday expenses are putting enormous pressure on families, seniors and people living on fixed or modest incomes.

A home may increase in assessed value, but that does not mean the person living in it has more money in their bank account.

A senior who bought a home decades ago may now live in a valuable property while surviving on a modest pension. A family may have experienced a job loss or reduction in income. A homeowner’s property value can rise substantially without their salary rising at all.

My proposal is therefore based on a simple principle:

Property-tax policy should recognize people’s ability to pay, not simply the value of the roof over their heads.

As Mayor, I would introduce a two-stage Property Tax Affordability and Fairness Plan.

1. Freeze residential property-tax increases for one year

For the first budget under my administration, I would propose no increase in Toronto’s residential municipal property-tax rate, subject to Council approval and adoption of a balanced City budget.

The freeze would give homeowners immediate breathing room while my administration undertakes a comprehensive review of City finances.

This would not mean abandoning public services. It would mean requiring the City to examine its spending before automatically asking residents for more money.

Toronto’s 2026 operating budget is approximately $18.86 billion, of which approximately $5.79 billion comes from property-tax revenue. The City’s 10-year capital plan is approximately $63.06 billion.

During the freeze year, my administration would undertake a comprehensive expenditure and value-for-money review focusing on major contracts, consulting expenditures, administrative duplication, procurement, project overruns, capital-project management, vacancies and unnecessary expenditures.

Essential frontline services, including transit, emergency services, housing, infrastructure maintenance and services supporting vulnerable residents, would be evaluated separately from opportunities to reduce waste and improve efficiency.

The results would be published for Torontonians to see.

2. Introduce Property Tax Geared to Income

After the freeze year, I would work toward a permanent Property Tax Geared to Income framework.

Toronto would continue to levy property taxes within Ontario’s municipal taxation system, but qualifying owner-occupied households would receive income-tested protection against future municipal property-tax increases.

I would ask City finance and legal staff to develop and cost a sliding-scale model for Council consideration.

An initial model for study would be:

Household income below $60,000: protection from 100% of the annual municipal property-tax increase.

$60,000–$80,000: protection from 75% of the increase.

$80,000–$100,000: protection from 50% of the increase.

$100,000–$120,000: protection from 25% of the increase.

Above $120,000: regular property-tax treatment.

These brackets are proposed starting points. Before implementation, they would be independently costed using Toronto household-income and property-tax data, and the final thresholds would be considered publicly by Council.

Income thresholds should also be indexed so that inflation does not gradually push households out of the program.

3. Protect seniors and people on fixed incomes

No senior should have to consider selling a longtime home simply because the neighbourhood became more expensive.

Toronto already recognizes this problem.

For 2026, the City’s Property Tax Increase Cancellation Program has a household-income ceiling of $62,000 and an assessment ceiling of $975,000, along with age/disability eligibility requirements. Toronto also operates a Property Tax Increase Deferral Program.

The City’s 2026 budget estimates approximately 12,000 households will benefit from existing property-tax relief programs.

My proposal would build on this existing infrastructure while examining how income-tested protection can be made available more broadly.

4. Expand the principle beyond age and disability

Financial hardship does not begin at age 65.

A 45-year-old parent who loses a job can face the same risk of losing a home as a retired homeowner.

A family earning $65,000 in Toronto can face serious affordability pressures even though they may not qualify for existing property-tax cancellation programs.

That is why I would ask the City to examine expanding income-tested protection beyond the existing senior and disability categories.

There is an important legal limitation that must be addressed transparently.

Section 283 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 expressly provides for deferral, cancellation or other relief from property-tax increases for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities.

My administration would therefore ask the City Solicitor to determine how far Toronto can expand income-tested relief using its existing authority.

Where provincial legislation is required, I would formally ask the Government of Ontario to amend the City of Toronto Act to provide Toronto with broader authority to establish income-tested residential property-tax relief.

I will not promise a mechanism that Toronto does not legally have the authority to establish.

5. Design the program carefully

A household should not receive ongoing relief simply because its income happens to be low in one particular year.

The program would therefore be designed with safeguards.

City staff would examine an appropriate principal-residence requirement, property-value ceiling, household-income definition, anti-avoidance provisions and treatment of unusual circumstances.

The objective is to protect ordinary Toronto households facing genuine affordability pressures, not create a tax loophole.

Questions? Email bethechangeno1@gmail.com · Call (647) 785-3729