Government Notices Respecting Corporations

Certificates of Dissolution

Notice Is Hereby Given that a certificate of dissolution under the Business Corporations Act, has been endorsed. The effective date of dissolution precedes the corporation listings.

Date	Name of Corporation	Ontario Corporation Number
2001-09-20	Collision Appraisal Services (1984) Ltd.	600150
2001-09-20	Des Smithson Holdings Limited	343302
2001-09-20	Deyves Trucking Inc.	1256778
2001-09-20	Kreger Appraisal Services (Barrie) Ltd.	695996
2001-09-20	Kreger Appraisal Services (Oshawa) Ltd.	637372
2001-09-20	North York Construction Ltd.	481845
2001-09-20	Northam Eximco Limited	886901
2001-09-20	1221802 Ontario Inc.	1221802
2001-09-21	Applewood Land Investments Limited	226419
2001-09-21	Applewood Property Management Limited	989708
2001-09-21	Emms Enterprises Inc.	1235094
2001-09-21	Fairview Computers (Burlington) Inc.	603362
2001-09-21	Harmute Investments Limited	206580
2001-09-21	Hierogram Associates Ltd.	485942
2001-09-21	Paulrob Investments Ltd.	627637
2001-09-21	Shipp Security Limited	243206
2001-09-21	Super Deal International Inc.	619176
2001-09-21	Wm.L. (Bill) Martineau Real Estate Ltd.	1324727
2001-09-21	1268337 Ontario Inc.	1268337
2001-09-21	272393 Ontario Limited	272393
2001-09-21	974460 Ontario Limited	974460
2001-09-21	989710 Ontario Inc.	989710
2001-09-24	Carina Construction Inc.	1019133
2001-09-24	Fjgk Inc..Orporated	1331729
2001-09-24	Foxcroft Consultants Inc.	358073
2001-09-24	Lauscar Management Company Limited	389751
2001-09-24	New Version Space Limited	1239794
2001-09-24	Sovereign Legacy Inc.	1035027
2001-09-24	The Angels’ Playground Inc.	1433949
2001-09-24	Weisz Iron & Metal (1974) Limited	765187
2001-09-24	Wing’s Monument Inc.	1254514
2001-09-25	Dvs Inc..Orporated	1159791
2001-09-25	Great Wall Food Express Inc.	1362750
2001-09-25	Miro Software Inc.	1223535
2001-09-25	Smarco Canada Ltd.	968938
2001-09-25	William T. Hall Limited	403037
2001-09-25	1235434 Ontario Limited	1235434
2001-09-26	G.S. Morton & Associates Ltd.	1068766
2001-09-26	1145253 Ontario Ltd.	1145253
2001-09-26	1263102 Ontario Inc.	1263102
2001-09-26	1283901 Ontario Inc.	1283901
2001-09-26	677084 Ontario Limited	677084
2001-09-26	854966 Ontario Limited	854966
2001-09-27	Gnx Inc.	625845
2001-09-27	Spring Garden Restaurant Inc.	1322371
2001-09-27	Stephen Bigi Manufacturing Inc.	908706
2001-09-27	1036640 Ontario Limited	1036640
2001-09-28	Joeden Sales Ltd.	336589
2001-09-28	Logic Alliance (Canada) Co. Ltd.	1214349
2001-09-28	Pebblehut Prey Services Inc.	1291569
2001-09-28	Place Duford Inc.	702509
2001-09-28	1227135 Ontario Inc.	1227135
2001-09-28	267177 Ontario Limited	267177
2001-09-28	338860 Ontario Limited	338860
2001-09-30	Belleville Motor Hotels Limited	125879
2001-09-30	Ron Box Auto Body Limited	264860
2001-09-30	1178501 Ontario Inc.	1178501
2001-09-30	1256626 Ontario Limited	1256626
2001-09-30	1314524 Ontario Inc.	1314524
2001-09-30	1364845 Ontario Inc.	1364845
2001-09-30	1448216 Ontario Inc.	1448216
2001-10-01	Agni Corporation	709106
2001-10-01	Ambleside Consulting Inc.	1142823
2001-10-01	Aud & Art Catering Limited	340963
2001-10-01	Hairstyles By Mel Inc.	1077823
2001-10-01	Manoc Fiber Glass Inc.	887680
2001-10-01	Manoc Fibre De Verre Inc. Pebblehut Evenson Services Inc.	1411024
2001-10-01	1019279 Ontario Limited	1019279
2001-10-02	Israelson Agencies Limited	97940
2001-10-02	Orma Investments Inc.	745222
2001-10-02	Wecanduit Communications Inc.	1337425
2001-10-02	1125856 Ontario Inc.	1125856
2001-10-02	1173802 Ontario Inc.	1173802
2001-10-02	315813 Ontario Ltd.	315813
2001-10-02	576986 Ontario Inc.	576986
2001-10-02	667058 Ontario Limited	667058
2001-10-04	Carleton Place Developments Limited	201319
2001-10-04	K-Endo Holdings Limited	381091
2001-10-04	1295223 Ontario Inc.	1295223
2001-10-04	763297 Ontario Inc.	763297
2001-10-05	B.E.S.Tech Ltd.	1224569
2001-10-05	Franklin Tuckey Offset Inc.	356511
2001-10-05	Great Northern Water Development Company Inc.	1424766
2001-10-05	Ikaros Investments Inc.	706007
2001-10-05	Learning Unlimited Inc.	1248499
2001-10-05	Oshkosh Management Inc.	489103
2001-10-05	Pandolfo Marble & Granite Ltd.	1056296
2001-10-05	Savigny Real Estate Limited	275441
2001-10-05	1238284 Ontario Limited	1238284
2001-10-09	G-Com Enterprises Ltd.	1009361
2001-10-09	Global Rich International Company Ltd.	1214911
2001-10-09	Vacuum Ion Plasma Coatings Inc.	1136548
2001-10-09	1116759 Ontario Inc.	1116759
2001-10-09	939356 Ontario Inc.	939356
2001-10-09	991867 Ontario Inc.	991867
2001-10-15	A&M Patty Inc.	975526
2001-10-15	Common Sense Financial Advisors Group Inc.	1321537
2001-10-15	Ko Quan Inc.	1232787
2001-10-15	Payton’s Quality Fabrics Limited	969602
2001-10-15	Total Electronic Automation Management Ltd.	889663
2001-10-18	1225210 Ontario Limited	1225210
2001-10-19	Affluent Information Services Inc.	1076951
2001-10-19	Canuck Storage Installations Ltd.	1118892
2001-10-19	Csi Engineering Mechanics Inc.	575698
2001-10-19	Eastside Developments Limited	84045
2001-10-19	Gaudon’s Floor Coverings & Accessories Ltd.	831461
2001-10-19	Graphic Design Mediums Inc.	1491937
2001-10-19	Heeray Inc.	1141299
2001-10-19	Hung Hwa Enterprises Inc.	1127577
2001-10-19	Jaton Consulting And Trading (Canada) Co. Ltd.	1397796
2001-10-19	Joybase Trading Company Ltd.	1143871
2001-10-19	Padulo Information Centre Inc.	1061875
2001-10-19	Padulo Virtual Reality Inc.	1053278
2001-10-19	Speed Auto Accessories Inc.	1099826
2001-10-19	1433701 Ontario Inc.	1433701
2001-10-21	1234760 Ontario Ltd.	1234760
2001-10-22	Nexelle Internet Services Inc.	1161659
2001-10-22	Tommy Tease Inc.	1294261
2001-10-23	Best Seller Financial Corporation	977488
2001-10-23	Best Seller Realty Corp.	1136429
2001-10-23	Concof Construction Corporation	1095551
2001-10-23	D.H. Black Surveying Ltd.	288944
2001-10-23	Gem Printing Inc.	750245
2001-10-23	Itoc Communications Inc.	978750
2001-10-23	Loonie-Toonie Food Corp.	116184
2001-10-23	Stam Insurance Services Limited	331474
2001-10-23	Stand-By Travel Corp.	1218243
2001-10-23	TEE-4-FUN Corp.	1187179
2001-10-23	Xcessible Inc.	1360853
2001-10-23	1188951 Ontario Ltd.	1188951
2001-10-23	1213638 Ontario Inc.	1213638
2001-10-23	1280829 Ontario Inc.	1280829
2001-10-23	836542 Ontario Ltd.	836542
2001-10-24	Explosafe North America Inc.	811469
2001-10-24	1283979 Ontario Limited	1283979
2001-10-25	Arawa Investments Inc.	982128
2001-10-25	Connect/Ed School Services Inc.	1398444
2001-10-25	Formgen Corp.	735874
2001-10-25	Kaynet Building Products Ltd.	797920
2001-10-25	Liffull Trading Corporation	1400106
2001-10-25	1051236 Ontario Inc.	1051236
2001-10-25	1312416 Ontario Limited	1312416
2001-10-25	1492701 Ontario Inc.	1492701
2001-10-25	935177 Ontario Inc.	935177
2001-10-26	Ak Computing Services Inc.	1104617
2001-10-26	Good Boy Chinese Food Ltd.	464482
2001-10-26	Jarrow Investments Inc.	913339
2001-10-26	John Guest Canada Inc.	639677
2001-10-26	M.C. Roller & Die Ltd.	562605
2001-10-26	Shanahan Enterprises Inc.	1095245

B. G. Hawton,
Director (A), Companies Branch
45/01

Notice of Default in Complying with the Corporations Tax Act

The Director has been notified by the Minister of Revenue that the following corporations are in default in complying with the Corporations Tax Act.

Notice Is Hereby Given under subsection 241 (1) of the Business Corporations Act, that unless the corporations listed hereunder comply with the requirements of the Corporations Tax Act within 90 days of this notice, orders will be made dissolving the defaulting corporations. All enquiries concerning this notice are to be directed to Corporations Tax Branch, Ministry of Revenue, 33 King Street West, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 8H6.

	Name of Corporation	Ontario Corporation Number
1	Euro Forklift Services Inc.	951387

B. G. Hawton,
Director (A), Companies Branch
45/01

Cancellation of Certificate of Incorporation (Corporations Tax Act Defaulters)

Notice Is Hereby Given that, under subsection 241(4) of the Business Corporations Act, the Certificates of Incorporation of the corporations named hereunder have been cancelled by an Order dated 15 October, 2001 for default in complying with the provisions of the Corporations Tax Act, and the said corporations have been dissolved on that date.

Date	Name of Corporation	Ontario Corporation Number
15 October, 2001	R. & B. Mechanical Services Inc.	985557

B. G. Hawton,
Director (A), Companies Branch
45/01

Co-operative Corporations Act Certificate of Amendment of Article Issued

Notice Is Hereby Given that, under the Co-operative Corporations Act, amendment to article have been effected as follows:

Date of Incorporation	Name of Corporation	Effective Date
1975-08-01	Huntsville and District Co-operative Nursery School Inc. To change its name to: Huntsville Co-operative Nursery School and Day Care Centre Inc.	2001-10-25

John M. Harper,
Director, Compliance Branch, Licensing and Compliance Division by delegated authority from the Superintendant of Financial Services
45/01

Marriage Act

October 2001

Certificate Of Permanent Registration as a person authorized to solemnize marriage in Ontario have been issued to the following:

Name	Location	Effective Date
Mann, Bruce K	Brantford	1-Oct-01
Cliffe, Karen	Goulais River	1-Oct-01
Johnston, Terry L	Scarborough	1-Oct-01
Stafford, Calvin Samuel	Stoney Creek	1-Oct-01
Schaffer, Marion	Toronto	1-Oct-01
Beamer, Wayne Bruce	Wingham	1-Oct-01
Witton, Brendan	Pickering	1-Oct-01
Kean, Byron Wade	York	2-Oct-01
Golovenko, Alex	Niagara Falls	2-Oct-01
Kean, Joy Elizabeth	York	2-Oct-01
Crozier, William	Jasper	2-Oct-01
Okorn, Stane	Hamilton	3-Oct-01
Callacott, Donald	Sarnia	3-Oct-01
Salles, George	Toronto	3-Oct-01
Rosin, Richard	Etobicoke	3-Oct-01
Wahb, Asaad	North York	4-Oct-01
Jones, Laura	Scarborough	4-Oct-01
High, Carolyn	Orillia	4-Oct-01
Horner, Janyce	Lyn	4-Oct-01
Marshall, Earl	Orangeville	5-Oct-01
Miodek, Piotr	Thunder Bay	5-Oct-01
Thomson, Kelly Sue Fry Nichilson	Etobicoke	5-Oct-01
Couillard, Jean-Pierre	Sudbury	9-Oct-01
Wellman, G Bruce	Campbellford	9-Oct-01
Brittain, Katherine	Toronto	9-Oct-01
Leung, Petet TC	Markham	9-Oct-01
Travar, Roman	Etobicoke	9-Oct-01
Keane, John	Toronto	9-Oct-01
Mbah, Dominic	St Catharines	9-Oct-01
Abraham, John Kandhiraj	Scarborough	9-Oct-01
Battaglia, Ignataius	Hamilton	10-Oct-01
Good, Gerald E	Toronto	10-Oct-01
Blair, Jean M	Brampton	10-Oct-01
Dortono, Lori	Whitby	11-Oct-01
Wilson, Alexander Christopher	North York	11-Oct-01
Choi, Dave	Kitchener	11-Oct-01
Dewit, Gerald	Harrowsmith	12-Oct-01
Gingras, Michel	Toronto	12-Oct-01
Irwin, Beverley	Penetanguishene	12-Oct-01
Cotton, Charles	Kingston	12-Oct-01
Cho, Yun Sook	Toronto	12-Oct-01
McMullen, Danny Kent	Brampton	12-Oct-01
Man, Stan	Scarborough	15-Oct-01
Gownlock, Charles	Scarborough	15-Oct-01
Cho, Kyung Won	Scarborough	15-Oct-01
Paulidis, Konstantinos	North York	16-Oct-01
Papazoglou, George	Sarnia	16-Oct-01
Yonkheym, Janet	Woodstock	16-Oct-01
Ninaber, Jack	Milton	16-Oct-01
Evans, James	Toronto	16-Oct-01
Shin, David Jeong-Sig	Oshawa	16-Oct-01
Pereboom, J Pieter	Denfield	16-Oct-01
Tuokkola, Samuli J Sakari	Sudbury	16-Oct-01
Ryan, Christopher Keith	Borden	17-Oct-01
Letki, Matthew	Toronto	17-Oct-01
Cheung, Larry	Windsor	17-Oct-01
Stoll, Peter	Alymer	18-Oct-01
Ng, Rex	North York	18-Oct-01
Dickau, Wayne	Toronto	18-Oct-01
Coupland, Kevin-Joel	Oshawa	19-Oct-01
Binye, Grabriel Michel	Toronto	19-Oct-01
Spajic, Zdenko	Streetsville	19-Oct-01
Males, Stephen	London	19-Oct-01
Bouchard, Denis	St Catharines	22-Oct-01
Betts, Douglas Daniel	Kitchener	23-Oct-01
Baker, Peter Michael	Durham	23-Oct-01
Friesin Waldner, David Clinton	London	24-Oct-01
Mullins, Brian	Bradford	24-Oct-01
Rasskazvski, Serguei	Toronto	25-Oct-01
Bungay, Harold	Peterborough	25-Oct-01
Bungay, Marion	Peterborough	25-Oct-01
Panattuparambil, Babu	Toronto	25-Oct-01
Neshinapaise, Violet Mary	Wunnumin Lake	29-Oct-01
Du Toit, Johan	Newmarket	29-Oct-01
Wong, William Don-Keung	Richmond Hill	29-Oct-01
Schepers, Stewart	Alliston	29-Oct-01
Popovich, Fedir I	Toronto	29-Oct-01
Cooper, Donville	Toronto	29-Oct-01
Love, David	Dehli	29-Oct-01
Thomas, Joan D	Lyn	29-Oct-01
Edwards, Dalfrada	Brampton	30-Oct-01
Mayangi, Robert S	Scarborough	30-Oct-01
Mitchell, Mirthell	Thornhill	30-Oct-01

Re-registrations

Name	Location	Effective Date
Elmhirst, Frank	Lakefield	1-Oct-01
General Morris	Oshwiken	1-Oct-01
Jennings, Bruce	Listowel	2-Oct-01
Timbers, Gordon	Markham	15-Oct-01
Johnstone, James	Brantford	16-Oct-01
Worth, Stanley	New Liskeard	16-Oct-01
Kettle, David	Orleans	17-Oct-01
Rea, Marguerite	Port Sydney	18-Oct-01
Budgell, Ivan	Brantford	22-Oct-01
Milne, Charles	Geraldton	23-Oct-01
Shail, Harold	North Bay	23-Oct-01
Dobbyn, Jessie	Linwood	29-Oct-01
Hamiltojn, John	Wasaga Beach	29-Oct-01
Varey, Douglas	Don Mills	29-Oct-01
Orr, Aaron	Hamilton	30-Oct-01
Ovens, Steven	London	30-Oct-01

Certificates Of Temporary Registration as person authorized to solemnize marriage in Ontario have been issued to the following:

Date	Name	Location	Effective Date
Oct. 18, 2001 to Oct. 22, 2001	Schoeman, Jack T	Lethbridge, AB	2-Oct-01
Nov. 1, 2001 to Nov. 5, 2001	Massey, Craig	Southfield, Mi Usa	3-Oct-01
Oct. 24, 2001 to Oct. 28, 2001	Roberts, Gary	Austin, Tx Usa	3-Oct-01
Nov. 15, 2001 to Nov. 19, 2001	Unger, Isaak	Leamington	3-Oct-01
Nov. 2, 2001 to Nov. 6, 2001	Venables, Gary Allen	Burnaby, BC	4-Oct-01
Oct. 18, 2001 to Oct. 22, 2001	Power, Jennifer	Musquodoboit Harbour NS	10-Oct-01
Nov. 22, 2001 to Nov. 26, 2001	Krushel, Brian Elmer	Comox, BC	10-Oct-01
Oct. 24, 2001 to Oct. 28, 2001	Pereira, Alfredo Socorro	Calgary, AB	11-Oct-01
Oct. 11, 2001 to Oct. 15, 2001	Brackin, Perry	Killen Al Usa	12-Oct-01
Oct. 17, 2001 to Oct. 21, 2001	Dykstra, Joel	Wellandport	15-Oct-01
Nov. 14, 2001 to Nov. 18, 2001	MacLean, Catherine Faith	Canmore, AB	16-Oct-01
Oct. 18, 2001 to Oct. 22, 2001	Kraft, Mark	Maitland	17-Oct-01
Oct. 25, 2001 to Oct. 29, 2001	Hawkins, Peter	Thunder Bay	22-Oct-01
Nov. 29, 2001 to Dec. 3, 2001	Sawatsky, Bartley	Mississauga	24-Oct-01
Nov. 8, 2001 to Nov. 12, 2001	Gallant, Charles	Baieegmont, PEI	25-Oct-01
Dec. 27, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2001	Lee, Sang-Ho	Peterborough	25-Oct-01
Nov. 22, 2001 to Nov. 26, 2001	Waaraniemi, Keith A	Plymouth, Mn Usa	29-Oct-01
Dec. 6, 2001 to Dec. 10, 2001	Sider, Douglas	Kitchener	30-Oct-01
May 16, 2002 to May 20, 2002	Saunders, Allan John	Victoria, BC	31-Oct-01

Certificate Of Cancellation Of Registration as a person authorized to solemnize marriage in Ontario have been issued to the following:

Name	Location	Effective Date
Finlayson, John	Petawawa	11-Oct-01
McGibbon, Keith	London	11-Oct-01
Arnold, Herbert	Ottawa	18-Oct-01
Bell, David	Mississauga	18-Oct-01
Bennett, Robert	Bowmanville	18-Oct-01
Braden, Horace	London	18-Oct-01
Bryan, James	Ottawa	18-Oct-01
Brown, Dana	Beamsville	18-Oct-01
Campbell, Ian	Toronto	18-Oct-01
Campbell, Leslie	St Catharines	18-Oct-01
Coker, Bryan	Stouffville	18-Oct-01
Corriveau, Douglas	Seaforth	18-Oct-01
Davidson, Mark	Burlington	18-Oct-01
Dadian, Calvin	Coehill	18-Oct-01
Gould, Frederick	Stratford	18-Oct-01
Harrison, Robert	Toronto	18-Oct-01
Hiscox, Gordon	Beaverton	18-Oct-01
Ho, Paul	Toronto	18-Oct-01
James, Norman	Toronto	18-Oct-01
Johnson, Charles	Woodstock	18-Oct-01
Johnson, Lyle	Ottawa	18-Oct-01
Kerr, Steven	London	18-Oct-01
King, Allan	Trenton	18-Oct-01
Lambshead, Thomas	Simcoe	18-Oct-01
Lane, David	Wyoming, ON	18-Oct-01
Leonard, Orth	Niagara Falls	18-Oct-01
Lovering, Kerry	Toronto	18-Oct-01
MacKay, Kathleen A	Sarnia	18-Oct-01
Vulgarelis, Angelo	Don Mills	18-Oct-01
Klumpenhouwer, Brian	Delta	18-Oct-01
Bouwmeester, Bernard	Windsor	18-Oct-01
Fung, John Tsin	Brampton	18-Oct-01
Shail, Harold	North Bay	18-Oct-01
Milne, Charles	Geraldton	18-Oct-01
Daley, George	Chaput Hughes	18-Oct-01
Bedford-Jones, Canon Hugh	Maitland	23-Oct-01
Zettas, Basil	Toronto	23-Oct-01
Thompson, Philip	Oakville	23-Oct-01
Worozbyt, Morry	Winona	23-Oct-01
Woodward, John	Winona	23-Oct-01
Wilson, Raymond	Dunnville	23-Oct-01
Wills, Erwin	Kingston	23-Oct-01
Wilkinson, Donald	Kitchener	23-Oct-01
Weber, James	Burlington	23-Oct-01
Walls, David	Burlington	23-Oct-01
Tam, Jim	North York	23-Oct-01
Thomas, Robert	Kingston	23-Oct-01
Stubblefield, Gary	Ottawa	23-Oct-01
Styles, Kenneth	St Catharines	23-Oct-01
Streight, Walter	London	23-Oct-01
Snyder, Dale	Sault ste Marie	23-Oct-01
Snider, Herbert	Niagara Falls	23-Oct-01
Simmonds, Frederick	Burlington	23-Oct-01
Shantz, Floyd	Seaforth	23-Oct-01
Schoenmaker, Charles	Neapen	23-Oct-01
Robertson, Archibald	Seaforth	23-Oct-01
Ratcliffe, Kenneth	Beaverton	23-Oct-01
Raimundo, Josue	Hamilton	23-Oct-01
Quick, Kenneth	Scarborough	23-Oct-01
Mitchell, Robert	Toronto	23-Oct-01
McHarg, Arthur	Hamilton	23-Oct-01
Mason, Arthur	Willowdale	23-Oct-01
Morris, Graham	Campbellford	24-Oct-01
Wilson, James	Oshawa	24-Oct-01
Sormin, Herbert	Kingston	24-Oct-01
Rodor, Amin	Willowdale	24-Oct-01
Peter, Kingsley	Chatham	24-Oct-01
Parent, Richard	Hamilton	24-Oct-01
Liverpool, Errol	Ajax	24-Oct-01
Liang, Ah Onn	Thornhill	24-Oct-01
Kurtz, Laren	Thamesville	24-Oct-01
Kerr, Vassel	Thornhill	24-Oct-01
Kanacki, Damir	Oshawa	24-Oct-01
Houston, Gordon	Oshawa	24-Oct-01
Homenchuk, Howard	Willowdale	24-Oct-01
Fournier, John	St Thomas	24-Oct-01
Cameron, Earl	Thornhill	24-Oct-01
Campbell, Jim	Cambridge	24-Oct-01
Aguilar, Robert	Willowdale	24-Oct-01
Airpuro, Saul	Willowdale	24-Oct-01
MacDonald, James	Windsor	29-Oct-01
Guenther, Daniel	Aylmer	31-Oct-01
Long, Ty	London	31-Oct-01

(6524) 45

Public Guardian and Trustee

Certificate Of The Public Guardian And Trustee

(pursuant to s. 13.1 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.51, as amended)

1. Effective November 1, 2001, interest shall be computed from the day on which the money was received by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the day before the date on which the money is available for payment to the person or trust entitled thereto and be added to each account and compounded at the end of each month;
   1. subject to subparagraphs (b) and (c) and paragraph 2 of this Certificate, on funds managed under the Mental Health Act, Substitute Decisions Act, Trustee Act, Victims’ Right to Proceeds of Crime Act, Ontario Disability Support Program Act, Powers of Attorney Act, Canada Pension Plan Act or other trust accepted by the Public Guardian and Trustee, at the rate of 5.50% per annum payable monthly and calculated on the closing daily balance;
   2. on funds managed under the Crown Administration of Estates Act, at the rate of 5.50% per annum payable monthly and calculated on the closing daily balance;
   3. on funds managed under the Cemeteries Act, at the rate of 5.50% per annum, payable monthly and calculated on the closing daily balance.
2. Effective November 1, 2001, funds managed by the Public Guardian and Trustee pursuant to the Escheats Act and funds transferred to the Unadministered Estates Account of the Public Guardian and Trustee shall bear interest at the rate of 0%.
3. 1. Effective November 1, 2001, interest shall be computed from the day on which money was received by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice to the day before the date on which the money is available for payment to the person entitled thereto and be added to each account and compounded at the end of each month.
   2. Money paid or transferred to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice bears interest on the closing daily balance,
      1. in the case of money required to be held in United States currency, at the rate of 1.75%;
      2. in the case of money deposited for the benefit of minors and parties under disability, at the rate of 5.50% per annum, payable monthly; and
      3. in the case of all other money, including litigants, at the rate of 5.50% per annum, payable monthly.

Dated this 30^th day of October, 2001.

Public Guardian And Trustee,

Louise Stratford

Approved by the Investment Advisory Committee pursuant to section 13.1 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, on October 30, 2001.

Robert Kay,
Chair Investment Advisory Committee.
(6523) 45

MPP Compensation Reform Act (Arm’s Length Process), 2001

Report

Pursuant To Section 1 Of The MPP Compensation Reform Act (Arm’s Length Process), 2001

The Honourable Gregory T. Evans, C.M., O.Ont., Q.C. Integrity Commissioner

Toronto, Ontario
August 27, 2001

1. Introduction

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm’s length process to determine members’ compensation received Royal Assent on June 29, 2001. The Act reads as follows:

“An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act to provide an arm’s length process to determine members’ compensation

Chapter: S.O. 2001, c.15

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1.Subsection 61 (1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1996, chapter 6, section 7, is repealed and the following substituted:

Annual salary of members

(1) Every member of the Assembly shall be paid an annual salary of $78,007 or such other amount as is determined under this section.

Salary review

(1.1) The Integrity Commissioner appointed under the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 shall, at such intervals as he or she considers appropriate, review the salary paid to members under subsection (1) and determine the appropriate salary.

Report

(1.2) Following each review, the Integrity Commissioner shall prepare a report setting out the amount of the salary that he or she has determined.

Tabling

(1.3) The Integrity Commissioner shall cause a copy of the report to be delivered to the Speaker who shall, at the first opportunity, cause it to be tabled in the Assembly and published in The Ontario Gazette.

Effective date

(1.4) If the report provides for a salary change, the change takes effect on the day that the report is delivered to the Speaker and if the report so provides, an increase is retroactive to the date set out in the report.

2.Section 75 of the Act, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1996, chapter 6, section 19, is repealed.

3.Section 75.1 of the Act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1996, chapter 6, section 19, is repealed.

Commencement

4.This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

5.The short title of this Act is the MPP Compensation Reform Act (Arm’s Length Process), 2001.”

The Act requires the Integrity Commissioner to review the annual salary of Members at such intervals as he or she considers appropriate, and determine the appropriate salary, and if a change in the salary is directed, the report shall state the effective date of such change. The man- date of the Commissioner is restricted to the determination of Members’ salaries, and not the additional compensation of those Members who have additional duties and responsibilities.

2. Conflict Of Interest

During discussions of the Bill in the Ontario Legislature, a Member opposed the appointment of the Integrity Commissioner on the basis that it provided an opportunity “for a perception of conflict of interest”. The Office of the Integrity Commissioner has always taken the position that a “perception of interest” is in the eyes of the beholder and the Integrity Commissioner will only act when the conflict of interest is based on facts established beyond a reasonable doubt. Perception of impropriety, including perception of conflict of interest, is an individual subjective viewpoint of a situation which would appear improper to a reasonable, non-partisan, fully informed person. The problem with such an “appearance standard” is that there are few, if any, reasonable, nonpartisan, fully informed persons.

Section 23.1 of the Members’ Integrity Act, states:

“The Commissioner may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties assigned to him or her under this Act or any other Act.”

The Members’ Integrity Act, 1994, replaced the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1988. The Integrity Commissioner is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the address of the Assembly and is an officer of the Assembly, and while the appointment is by Order-in- Council, it is a prerequisite that it be “on the address of the Assembly”. The Act provides that no proceedings shall be commenced against the Commissioner for any act done or omitted in good faith in the execution of his or her duties under the Members’ Integrity Act or any other Act; nor is he or she a competent or compellable witness in a civil proceeding outside the Assembly in anything done under that Act; nor is the office subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1994.

These provisions were considered necessary to protect the confidentiality of information passing between the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, and to provide a measure of independence to the Commissioner.

As an Officer of the Assembly, the Integrity Commissioner’s office has always maintained an arm’s length relationship with the Members. The Members’ Integrity Act requires all Members to make financial disclosure to the office, and it also requires the Commissioner to investigate and decide complaints against Members; to give advice; to prohibit certain activities and to recommend penalties if required. Complaints by the public are referred to Members of opposition parties and if considered to have merit, are investigated and adjudicated by the Commissioner.

I am satisfied that my acceptance of this undertaking does not compromise the integrity of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. Officers of the Legislature include the Provincial Auditor, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and others who share the same degree of independence in their dealings with government officers and agencies. We maintain an arm’s length position in any process involving the Members of the Legislature and the public whom we also serve.

3. Constitutionality

Doubt has been expressed as to the constitutionality of the legislation as being an improper delegation of authority. This question has been reviewed and I am satisfied for the reasons set forth below that the Legislative Assembly is acting within its jurisdiction in delegating to the Integrity Commissioner the power to review and determine MPP salaries. The fact that the pay raises of elected representatives are not passed by the Assembly is irrelevant to the delegation question.

The Constitution Act does not address the concept of delegation but governing through delegated authority has been an important part of Canada’s history since Confederation. In the case of Hodge v. The Queen (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117, the Privy Council upheld a legislative scheme whereby the Legislative Assembly of Ontario had delegated to a Board of Licence Commissioners the power to make regulations for licensed taverns. The following passage from Lord Peacock’s decision demonstrates the very broad scope provincial legislatures have to delegate powers within their jurisdiction:

… the objection thus raised by the appellants is founded on an entire misconception of the true character and position of the provincial legislatures. They are in no sense delegates of or acting under any mandate from the Imperial Parliament. When the British North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its legislative assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the Province and for provincial purposes in relation to matters enumerated in sect. 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament in the plentitude of its power possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of subject and area the local legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the Imperial Parliament, or the Parliament of the Dominion, would have had under like circumstances to confide to a municipal institution or body of its own creation authority to make by-laws or resolutions as to subjects specified in the enactment, and with the object of carrying the enactment into operation and effect.

… It was argued at bar that a legislature committing important regulations to agents or delegates effaces itself. That is not so. It retains its powers intact, and can, whenever it pleases, destroy the agency it has created and set up another, or take the matter directly into his own hands. How far it shall seek the aid of subordinate agencies, and how long it shall continue them, are matters for each legislature, and not for Courts of Law, to decided. (Emphasis added)

In essence, the Privy Council decided that provincial legislatures have constitutional authority to delegate powers within their jurisdiction under the Constitution Act.

In determining the constitutionality of the delegation to the Commissioner of the power to set MPPs salaries, the key consideration is whether the primary purpose of the scheme falls within the province’s jurisdiction under section 92 of the Constitution Act. This is simply a case of the Legislative Assembly delegating its power to a subordinate entity. There is no doubt that jurisdiction over MPP salaries is within the exclusive legislative domain of the province. Subsection 92 (4) of the Constitution Act expressly provides for provincial jurisdiction over “The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers”.

The case of Hollinshead v. Hazelton (1916) A.C. 428 was referred to in one submission as authority for the proposition that only the legislative body can determine the salary of its members. This case dealt only with the issue of whether the salary of a bankrupt MP could be appropriated for the benefit of his creditors. The “historical” view cited speaks only to the original purpose of an MP’s salary and only insofar as determining whether the salary of an MP is in fact “Salary”. This case has nothing to do with delegation.

Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is acting within its jurisdiction in delegating the power to review and determine MPP salaries.

4. History

After the election of the Harris Government in 1995, a five member commission of financial and actuarial experts under the Chairmanship of M. David R. Brown, F.S.A., Fcia, the Managing Partner of Eckler Partners Limited, was retained to examine the compensation of all elected Members of the Provincial Parliament and to recommend changes, as appropriate, paying particular attention to the existence of tax-free allowances and special indemnities and the government’s announced intention to end the then existing pension arrangements.

On November 27, 1995, the Commission reported to the Minister of Finance and came to three main conclusions.

1. The current pension arrangement is overly generous and should be reduced.
2. The tax-free allowances not supported by documented expenses should be eliminated.
3. Any changes in the compensation of the Members should be made in the context of the total compensation as described in the report. The total compensation of Members should be measured against a benchmark reflecting private-sector norms and practices, and this benchmark should be updated regularly.

In 1996, the key recommendations of that Commission were adopted by the Legislative Assembly.

Although the Commission had recommended that the compensation should be updated regularly, no action was taken until May 2000, when a Commission on Members’ Compensation was appointed by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, with M. David R. Brown as Chair and two other commissioners who had not served on the 1995 Commission.

The terms of that Commission included a review of the Members’ salaries. Their report paid close attention to the methodology adopted in the November, 1995 Report and recommended a salary of $103,458. In addition, it recommended a statutory provision to adjust the salaries each year for a period of not more than four years by the increase in the Industrial Average Index for Ontario, and that a successor Commission be appointed within that period to review the compensation issue.

No positive action was taken by the Legislative Assembly on the June 14, 2000 Report.

I also had the opportunity to review the May 29, 2001 report on compensation for Members of the Federal Parliament as well as the Report of the Speaker’s Commission dated June 14, 2000. I have also reviewed other reports dealing with compensation for Provincial Legislatures,

Members of Federal Parliament, Municipal Councils and other comparables, excerpts of which I have attached to this Report as Appendices “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”. Much of the statistical information herein is based on these reports. I agree with the principles of simplicity, accountability and fairness, which guided their considerations and appreciate that my assessment of the compensation must be fair not only to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, but also the public whom they serve.

The report of the Committee reviewing the salaries of the “Membres de L’Assemblée Nationale” of the Province of Québec dated November 8, 2000 was of particular interest and assistance since the mandate of the Committee included inter alia a specific direction to consider the remuneration of the Members of the Ontario Legislature and the Federal Parliament.

In an effort to solicit public participation, advertisements were inserted in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail, inviting citizens to make submissions. Fifty responses were received, including comments from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and I am appreciative of all contributions. Quite naturally, as taxpayers, most were concerned about the cost of compensation increases and the timing of them, but generally there was recognition that a reasonable increase would be acceptable, but any substantial increase should be deferred until after the next election.

5. Considerations

The question of compensation for elected members of any public body whether municipal, provincial or federal is always a matter of public interest and discussion. The public demands a high degree of responsibility for those who hold elective office. We expect them to establish a stable economy that will provide a high standard of living, maximum employment, a good education for our children, proper medical care and a safe environment for all citizens. We want air and water that is not polluted. We demand that our natural resources be protected against exploitation and that our streets and communities be free of crime and corruption. Above all, we want to maintain that high degree of personal freedom that prevails in our society. In other words, we want our legislators to provide Peace, Order and Good Government, the underlying principles of our democratic way of life.

In order to achieve the optimum of our various demands, we require leadership at all levels of government. Our hierarchy of government – municipal, provincial and federal – may give the appearance of excessive government, however, if each operates within the limits of its proper jurisdiction, conflicts can be minimized and a proper division of responsibility maintained.

A democracy is not the most efficient form of government. But even the most benevolent dictatorship places restrictions on personal freedom and ultimately becomes an absolute dictatorship. The price to be paid for our form of democratic government is inconsequential when we consider the advantages that we enjoy.

The citizens of Ontario are entitled to a high standard of government. That can only be achieved by electing women and men of ability and integrity, and those important personal characteristics can be found at all levels of society. They are not the exclusive property of the highly educated or the wealthy. A good candidate or member is one who is approachable and who reflects the basic values that we all appreciate. Collectively, the Legislature should mirror the image of the electorate. It can only have the confidence and respect of the public when it demonstrates that a relationship of trust exists between the electors and the elected.

Members in discharging the obligations of their office have a dual responsibility. They represent their constituents and also are responsible for the manner in which they govern the Province of Ontario.

Salary should be appropriate to the demanding nature and responsibilities of the office in order to attract and retain women and men possessing the knowledge and ability required to fulfill the duties of an office which is the foundation of our democracy and of prime importance in maintaining a sound and stable government.

Compensation for Members of the Assembly must be fair to them and to the public. The usual method of determining compensation in labour arbitrations is to compare wages in comparable fields of industry or within the particular industry involved. There is usually a hierarchy of levels of skills and responsibilities upon which compensation is based. However, there is a minimum of comparables when reviewing the compensation of the Members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, other than provincial Legislatures, the Federal Parliament, and City of Toronto Councillors.

Having served as Conflict of Interest Commissioner and Integrity Commissioner for over ten years, I am aware of the financial position of the Members during that period and have a reasonably good knowledge of the parliamentary activities in which they are involved and the many demands upon their time. There are, no doubt, various reasons, which motivate a person to run for the Ontario Legislature, but quite obviously from my research, it cannot be for financial reasons. When they seek re-election, I am convinced that their motive must be a desire to render public service.

Parliament and the Legislature are forums where important social, cultural, legal and economic issues that fashion the future of our country are decided. They should be places where informed discussion and intelligent debate occur with contributions from Members of all parties without the intervention of rude and raucous behaviour on the part of a few Members – behaviour that would not be tolerated in any school classroom.

National polls consistently confirm that the image of politicians reaches a lower level of popular approval and respect as each decade passes. Televised proceedings of the Legislative Assembly during Question Period have not been kind to the Members. The Members themselves have contributed to their decline in public support by conduct that would not be acceptable in any school.

Recently the Advocates’ Society of Ontario considered it desirable to publish “The Advocates’ Society Principles of Civility”. The Preamble states:

“Civility among those entrusted with the administration of justice is central to its effectiveness and to the public’s confidence in that system. Civility ensures matters before the court are resolved in an orderly way and helps preserve the role of counsel in the justice system as an honourable one.”

This statement can be applied with equal force to Members of the Legislative Assembly. In the legal profession, lack of civility indicates a lack of personal professionalism that reflects adversely on the entire legal profession and a consequent loss of public respect. In politics, the rude and boorish conduct of a few unfairly creates the public image of the Assembly and diminishes public confidence. Whether politics is viewed as a profession or an avocation, Members, like lawyers, share a level of public approval that is discouragingly low. The remedial action necessary to elevate the level of public confidence in the Assembly rests with our elected Members.

A considerable portion of the Members’ time is taken up with committee work when proposed legislation is discussed and formulated. Individuals and delegations attend and make representations on particular issues. This is an important part of the Members’ duties and is generally conducted with a minimum of public notice or appreciation. They also examine the operation and performance of government departments to ensure that the interests of the public are properly represented and protected.

The Member is always under public scrutiny and constant media attention unlike any other profession or avocation, and they are subject, on occasion, to unreasonable demands from constituents that border on harassment.

Family life, particularly for Members outside Toronto, is continually disrupted, with consequent stress on spouses and children. Travel throughout the constituency and to Toronto is time consuming and health demanding, and developing knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the specialized skill required to participate properly in debates is not easily acquired.

Finally, there is a further factor to be considered. Membership in the Legislature is not normally a lifetime career, but a limited period of contribution by a public-spirited citizen to public service during which time his or her normal business or professional calling is placed on hold. The termination of that public service may be made voluntarily by the Member for a myriad of reasons, or it may be involuntarily foreclosed by the will of the electorate. In either case, the readjustment in the return to a previous career, if available, or to a retraining for another career is no doubt accompanied by considerable stress and possibly financial loss.

6. Conclusion

I am fully aware of the responsibilities associated with this review. The Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario are entitled to fair compensation and the decision must be acceptable to a majority of the public.

The Members of the Ontario Legislature like Members of all legislatures, parliaments and municipal councils avoid granting themselves a salary raise. It is not a vote attracting process. Usually the matter is referred to an individual or a panel for review and to make a recommendation which is then debated by the Members. In this instance, the legislation requires the Integrity Commissioner to determine the compensation.

Members’ duties have expanded in the last decade. Our continuously changing economic and social situations create complex issues, the solutions for which require input from Members who have the necessary experience, skills and knowledge. There is a general feeling among MPPs that while their constituency duties and activities closely approximate those of their federal counterparts, their benefits, including salaries, pensions, severances, allowances, and insurance coverage are considerably less or non-existent. The recent salary raise for a Federal backbencher exceeds that of Ontario Cabinet Ministers.

Ontario has reduced the number of constituencies from 130 to 103 to conform with the Federal constituency boundaries. This realignment and reduction of Members means that the workload of the present Members has increased.

Salary History of Ontario MPPs

Date	Basic Wage	Tax Free Allowance	Total
April 1990	$44,675	$14,984	$59,659
April 1991	$44,675	$14,984	$59,659
June 1993	$42,218	$14,160	$56,378
April 1994	$42,218	$14,160	$56.378
April 1995	$42,218	$14,160	$56.378
April 1996	$78,007	0	$78,007
April 1997	$78,007	0	$78,007
April 1998	$78,007	0	$78,007
April 1999	$78,007	0	$78,007
April 2000	$78,007	0	$78,007
April 2001	$78,007	0	$78,007

There has been no change in the Members’ salary since April 1990, other than in 1992 when their salary was reduced by 5.5%. The reduction was restored in 1996 by the Brown Commission when the tax-free allowance was eliminated, the pension plan revised and the salary restructured to the present salary of $78,007, all of which became subject to tax.

According to the Conference Board of Canada’s Annual Survey of all sectors of the economy, the overall cumulative wage increase in Canada from 1991 to 2000 was 31.9%; the average annual increase was 2.8%. The Consumer Price Index for the same period averaged 1.98% and the Average Industrial wage was 2.15%.

Compensation Indices Since 1991

Year	Consumer Price Index	Average Industrial Wage	Conference Board Survey
1991	5.6%	4.6%	5.0%
1992	1.5%	3.5%	3.5%
1993	1.8%	1.8%	2.5%
1994	0.2%	1.8%	2.0%
1995	2.2%	1.0%	2.1%
1996	1.6%	2.1%	2.5%
1997	1.6%	2.1%	3.0%
1998	0.9%	1.4%	3.2%
1999	1.7%	0.7%	2.0%
2000	2.7%	2.5%	2.3%
Total 1991–2000	21.6%	23.6%	31.9%
Average Annual Increase	1.98%	2.15%	2.81%

Clearly the Ontario Members over the above period are at an ever-increasing disadvantage as their salaries fall further behind each year. The question is how can this present situation be corrected? Substantial retroactive salary increases are not popular with the taxpayers, and the argument is advanced that Members at the time they ran for public office were aware of the salary attached to the position. In the public service and in the private areas, annual cost of living increases are the norm. Should these be rescinded because the employee was hired at a set salary? Is it fair to the present Members that they should be deprived of a practice which is generally followed in both the private and public sectors?

A multi-year salary freeze distorts the principle of fairness both to the Members and the taxpayer. The Member is deprived of benefits which upset the equivalence sought to be maintained with other comparables. It is unfair to the taxpayer because ultimately the day arrives when a “catch up” increase of a substantial amount is necessary to overcome obvious disparities. That happening causes public resentment and unfair criticism.

The public input which I have received recognizes the situation but overwhelmingly rejects any substantial adjustment until after the next election. I agree that catch-up adjustments should not be made prior to the next election.

In my opinion, the failure to provide for annual salary increments has placed the present members in an unfair position and I propose to correct this oversight by providing an annual increase of 3% on April 1, 2001, and each successive year, including the year in which the Writ for the next election is issued. These annual increases are the same as those provided for Metropolitan Toronto Councillors.

Immediately after the next election, the salary of the Members shall increase 25% until the first quadrennial review in 2005, at which time a complete assessment of the salary and pensions shall be undertaken to provide Ontario Members of Provincial Parliament compensation comparable to other provincial parliaments and a closer relationship to the Federal Parliament.

In the interim period between the date of the next election following release of this Report and the quadrennial review in 2005, the Members shall receive an annual increase in an amount equal to the Ontario Industrial Average Wage Index, not to exceed 7%, for the previous year as determined by Statistics Canada. These changes reflect the views suggested in the recent Federal Commission’s Report which recommended the adoption of the adjustment formula for periodic adjustment and re- vision of salaries and the provision for the establishment of a quadrennial review in the recent amendments to the Judges Act.

Dated At Toronto, Ontario, this 27^th day of August, 2001.

Appendices

Appendix “A”

Salaries and Allowances for Provincial Legislatures (as of August, 2001)

Legislature	Indemnity	Tax-Free Expense	Real Value Tax-Free Allowance	Total
Alberta**	$48,802	$20,526	$28,633	$77,435
British Columbia*	$71,000	0		$71,000
Manitoba*	$61,519	0		$61,519
Ontario*	$78,007	0		$78,007
Quebec**	$71,714	$12,789	$19,181	$90,895

* Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia abolished their incidental expense allowance and gave their Members an increase in the base salary.

**Alberta tax rate is 39.5%; Quebec Tax Rate is 49.2%.

The above schedule shows that Ontario legislators are at a significant financial disadvantage when compared with Quebec ($12,888). While the duties and responsibilities of the respective legislatures are similar in nature, Ontario’s population of 11,669,300 is served by 103 members while Quebec with a population of 7,372,400 has 125 members.

Appendix “B”

Federal Salaries

In 2001, the Members of the House of Commons received a sessional indemnity of $69,100 plus an incidental tax-free expense allowance of $22,800.

The Lumley Report recommended that the tax-free expense allowance of $22,800 be converted to $40,400, being the equivalent taxable amount. The $40,4000 added to the sessional indemnity of $69,100 amounted to $109,500.

In order to compensate for the failure to receive annual increases to partially compensate for inflation and for the period between 1991 and 1997 when MP salaries were frozen, the Commission recommended an increase of 20% to $131,400, effective April 1, 2001.

Legislation implementing the salary recommendations received swift passage in Parliament.

Appendix “C”

Metropolitan Toronto Councillors’ Salaries

The remuneration of Members of Council of the City of Toronto for the period January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000 was $63,915.00 per year, one-third of which ($21,305) is deemed to be for expenses incidental to the discharge of his or her duties as a Member of the Council. Assuming an average tax rate of 46.4%, that amount when restructured would amount to $31,190, for a total indemnity of $73,800 on December 31, 2000.

The City of Toronto Municipal Code provides for increases of 3% on January 1, 2001, January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2003.

As of January 1, 2001, Metro Toronto Councillors will receive a salary of $65,832 with a tax-free component of $21,944, which when restructured, amounts to $32,126, for a total indemnity of $76,014.

Date	Tax-Free Restructured Salary	Expense	Real Value (Tax-Free) Component	Total
January 1, 2000	$63,915	$21,305	$31,190		$73,800
January 1, 2001	$65,832	$21,944	$32,126		$76,014

Appendix “D”

Salaries of Public Servants, School Boards and Union Officials over $100,000 as Reported under the Public Sector Disclosure Act and the Labour Relations Act.

Deputy Ministers in Ontario: $162,924 to $182,100

Toronto District School Board:

Teachers: $108,771 to $126,360

Principals: $104,317

Superintendents: $115,000 to $132,000

Union Officials:

The Ontario Government’s Labour Relations Act discloses that salaries and taxable benefits in excess of $100,000 were earned by over 200 Ontario union employees in the year 2000, including $100,084 for the President of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and $161,611 for the Director of Canadian Affairs of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association.

(6522) 45