Media Watch – Hamilton Urban Boundary & Elfrida Interview
By Teviah Moro from The Hamilton Spectator
Published September 21, 2026
Q1. What is Rob's position on Hamilton's frozen-boundary growth policy?
The Ontario Land Tribunal made its ruling in August 2026 and overturned Hamilton’s urban boundary freeze, determining that additional urban land is required to accommodate Hamilton’s projected housing and population growth.
The OLT is the governing adjudicative body for these planning matters. It has made its decision, and the City cannot simply ignore or change that ruling. We have a legal obligation to adhere to it.
Q2. What is Rob's position on Council's denial of the Elfrida group's secondary plan?
My understanding was that there remained a fundamental question about which lands would ultimately be included within the urban boundary.
A secondary plan determines in detail how an area will develop. I think it is premature to approve that detailed plan before we even know exactly which lands will ultimately be included.
We need to get the sequence right: determine the lands that will form part of the urban area, then properly plan how those lands should develop.
Q3. What is his position on the OLT ruling on expansion and land needs? Does Hamilton need to expand its urban area?
The Ontario Land Tribunal has given Hamilton direction regarding its land needs and urban expansion. The City has an obligation to comply with legally binding decisions of the Tribunal.
So this isn’t simply a question anymore of whether an individual councillor supports or opposes expansion. We have to respond to the legal and planning framework that now exists.
Q4. What should the City do with the Elfrida, White Church and Twenty Road proposals given the OLT has ordered Hamilton to expand?
The City needs to follow the OLT’s direction and applicable provincial planning rules and evaluate proposals through the appropriate planning process. There have also been discussions regarding these matters in closed session. I take my responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of those discussions seriously, so I cannot comment on anything discussed or decided in camera.
What I can say is that Hamilton needs a clear and responsible plan for where growth occurs, how it occurs and how the infrastructure required to support that growth will be delivered and paid for.
Q5. Have provincial policy changes that influence land needs, intensification and OLT appeals been sound?
Those are the rules currently governing municipalities, and the Ontario Land Tribunal is the body responsible for adjudicating planning disputes and appeals.
The Tribunal has made its decisions. Whether I personally agree or disagree with every decision doesn’t change the City’s legal obligations.
My responsibility is to make sure Hamilton responds appropriately, protects taxpayers and plans responsibly for the growth we are required to accommodate.
Q6. Rob told me he had to miss the Elfrida vote because staff knowingly scheduled it to conflict with his prior engagement. Staff have told me this isn't true. Does he wish to comment further? What was the prior engagement that conflicted with that day's planning/special council vote?
I want to be precise about what occurred. On July 29, I advised Tamara Bates that I had a conflict with the meeting date. On July 31, I confirmed that I was unable to move that commitment, and she acknowledged my message and thanked me for letting her know.
The conflict was a critical appointment for a family member for whom I am primarily responsible for providing care. It was something I could not move. Out of respect for my family member’s privacy, I won’t discuss their personal circumstances further.
What I can confirm is that staff were advised in advance that I had a conflict and that I would be unable to attend.
Q7. As a mayoral candidate, what is your take on the HDI's proposal?
I would need to understand what specific legal grounds are being proposed before committing the City to litigation.
There are legal avenues available to challenge certain decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal, but simply disagreeing with the outcome is not enough. There needs to be a legitimate legal basis for a challenge and a reasonable prospect of success.
Before spending taxpayers’ money on litigation, I would want the City’s legal counsel to provide clear advice on whether there is a viable legal case, what the potential costs and risks are, and what outcome could realistically be achieved.
