The committee met at 0900 in room 151.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Good morning—glorious morning. I think it’s spring. I don’t want to say that, but I think spring might have sprung.

MPP Billy Denault: It’s not spring in my riding.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Okay—in Toronto. Sorry about your ridings. It’s coming.

Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Government Agencies will now come to order. It is so fabulous to see your smiling faces. I almost forgot what you look like.

As always, all comments by members and witnesses should go through the Chair.

Subcommittee reports

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): We have a slew, as you can see, of subcommittee reports to adopt. That’s the first item of business, is adopting them. There are eight in total. With no further ado, let’s get started.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, December 11, 2025. Can I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, December 11, 2025, on the order-in-council certificate dated December 5, 2025.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion on that? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

Next up is the subcommittee report dated Thursday, December 18, 2025. Can I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, December 18, 2025, on the order-in-council certificate dated December 12, 2025.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion on that? MPP Gates.

MPP Wayne Gates: Good morning. I missed your face as well, but I never forgot it; I’m not that old yet. I don’t think I’m as old as my good friend over there across the road.

Interjections.

MPP Wayne Gates: Just saying.

Listen, my understanding—because we’re going to go through all this committee business. Do you know exactly how many people—because I had asked, as we all know. I put a motion forward that the Conservatives turned down to sit during the holidays so that we’d have the opportunity to bring individuals that want to get on agencies, since it’s a very important committee—which we don’t treat as being important, quite frankly. How many have been appointed over the period of—how long have we been gone? Let’s see, we finished around—

MPP Alexa Gilmour: One hundred and two days.

MPP Wayne Gates: How many?

MPP Alexa Gilmour: One hundred and two.

MPP Wayne Gates: In 102 days, how many appointees is this committee going to approve this morning?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): I have a number for the number of people who are on certificates that expired, and that number is 49. Does that help you?

MPP Wayne Gates: Is that the only number you have?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): That’s the only number I have. Do you have a number?

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, I have a different number, that’s all.

But I guess my point is, the number is high. There’s no doubt about that. I mean, 49, 79—I had 79—whatever it is. It’s somewhere in between. That means that they didn’t come to this committee, that we didn’t have a chance to question whether they’re good candidates, bad candidates, bad for the organizations they’re going to.

We continue to do this. We did it in the summer break. We did the exact same thing. We only sat for a couple of weeks when we came back from the summer. When we got back on October 23, we sat until December. So we sat for 51 days last year, and so far, we’ve sat for three in 2026.

I take offence that I’ve been asked by my party, supported by people around this table, to have the job that I have to be the watchdog and make sure our agencies, which are very, very important to, quite frankly, the province of Ontario—the overall health of things, the number of committees—and we continue to do this. We continue to not take our job seriously, and we just allow people to go—we’re going to do it again today. These are all going to get passed, these subcommittee reports. They have a majority government. They’ll do what they want. I think it weakens this committee. I think it’s been weakening this committee for a number of years under the Conservatives.

Here is another example: Whatever the number is—we’ll round it out to 50 people who went through this committee—and maybe somebody on that side there can go down the list. Give me a list of the names that we’re appointing today. Because that’s what we’re doing today; we’re doing the subcommittee. Give me a list of the names. You don’t know who they are.

I asked my staff for it this morning. They say it’ll take a little bit for it to pull it together. It’s wrong. I’m sorry; it’s wrong.

And so, I want this committee to understand—everybody on that side; I honestly believe the Liberal MPP gets it. We take our job seriously. It’s a responsibility that’s been given to us by the province of Ontario and by the people of Ontario.

And this committee is a joke. Let’s call it what it is. It’s not a nice thing to say about a committee that I’m on, but it is. Maybe somebody here on that side can tell me how they feel about the fact that we’re just going to go “yes, yes, yes, yes, yes” for the next 20 minutes or whatever it takes, and we don’t have a clue who we’re putting on committees. We have no idea what they’re like going forward. It makes no sense to me.

We either want to have a committee that’s functional, that’s doing the job, that’s living up to the responsibility, or why do we have a committee? Just keep appointing people. It makes no sense to me. I know I’ve said this before, but this one is really making me mad, because we don’t sit. It’s not nice to say: We don’t sit in this place very often. We should at least have these committee meetings. If we aren’t going to sit—because we’re only here for six weeks now and then we’re off for the summer again—we’ll go through the same speech again in September, or maybe October, because last year we didn’t come back until October 23.

This committee has to sit. We have a responsibility, and I’m going to ask again when I bring my motion forward to make sure that the Conservatives support it, because I take my responsibility and I believe they should too. That is all I’m saying. We’re going to pass all this stuff, because they have a majority government, but this committee is not doing its job, and I feel bad because I like to do my job.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much for your words, MPP Gates.

MPP Gilmour.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I’d also like to register my deep concern, and I’d like to cite a specific instance that happened just recently. When we did not sit over the summer, Hanneke de Roo was appointed to the Council of the College of Denturists of Ontario. That was on August 14. Now, on November 27, the Trillium reported that Dentacloud, a dental practice sales brokerage which is owned by John Maggirias, got more than $2 million from the Skills Development Fund. Back then, the website for the Maggirias dental clinic said, “We want you to feel as comfortable and relaxed as the Ford family has during their visits with us.”

Right after that, we have seen the resignation of de Roo from the council, effective December 5. This was not an individual who came to this committee for appointment, because we did not sit over the summer. This is an appointment that should be an absolute embarrassment to the Conservative government, and yet we continue to see appointments of clearly partisan appointees being placed all over our province, in every council and every tribunal, changing the landscape of this province for decades to come.

This government does not take seriously the role that they have in ensuring that qualified individuals who truly have the best interest of this province at heart, and are not simply members who have been donating large sums of money to the Conservative government, or were paper candidates in previous elections or staffers—which we’ve seen a tremendous amount of in the last year that I have been here, including one member who came before us for the College of ECEs and did not even read the mandate letter of that college before she sat here.

So I also want to register that this committee has an obligation to the people of Ontario, and at the moment, the Conservative government is not holding that obligation up.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, MPP Gilmour.

MPP Smyth.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: I think that it is distressing to come back here every week, especially after we have been here for 102 days, and know that there’s not much we can do. You do your part when you can, and the when doesn’t happen that often. I just call it the friends and donors committee that we’re sitting in on every week—when we do sit in.

0910

So it is distressing to know, as pointed out by my colleagues—the people appointed to these committees, there’s no oversight. There’s no real oversight happening here. It can’t. We don’t have the opportunity to question. There’s no real transparency and there’s no real accountability.

I think we have to somehow, all of us, realize: Is this the best we can do for Ontarians? Ask ourselves this question. I know it isn’t and I’m hoping that the rest of the committee sees that as well. If we can find a way to make it more effective, have more impact and be more accountable to Ontarians, then we’ve got to do that.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any further discussion?

MPP Wayne Gates: Nobody over there has anything to say?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: They’re busy looking at their phones.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Wednesday, December 24, 2025. Could I have a motion, please? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Wednesday, December 24, 2025, on the order-in-council certificate dated December 19, 2025.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, January 22, 2026. Could I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, January 22, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated January 16, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, February 5, 2026. Could I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, February 5, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated January 30, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, February 19, 2026. Could I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, February 19, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated February 13, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, March 5, 2026. Could I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, March 5, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated February 27, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, March 19, 2026. Could I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, March 19, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated March 13, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right. Any discussion? MPP Gates.

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes, can we just confirm how many from the period of time of December 11 that we’re doing here—subcommittee reports—until March 19? For the record, how many people have been appointed without coming through this committee?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Gates, from December 11 to February 19, those certificates have expired, so the number is 49. And then March 5 and March 19, the certificates are still valid, so—

MPP Wayne Gates: We have 49, as in the number that came through without going through the committee, during the period of time that we were shut down—so people understand that may be watching at home with bated breath. I just want that number to be very clear because the—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Just a clarification: That’s 49 who were selected.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: And expired.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): And expired.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: We still don’t know the total number. So it’s 49 that we would have selected from those put up, so potentially 79-something in total just go right through.

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes. I’m checking into that number right now—

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Yes. We were checking into it, too.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Currently, we do not have that number with us.

MPP Wayne Gates: I appreciate that, but at least those listening at home can see that people aren’t coming here. I think that’s pretty clear. And they haven’t been coming here for almost a full year now.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you. Any further discussion? MPP Sabawy.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Just a clarification: Is the certificate expired, meaning those who are not selected, so there’s no appointment? It was a certificate that has expired, meaning it’s totally off?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): They’re deemed concurred. It means the certificate expired and the person was appointed without coming here.

MPP Wayne Gates: It’s like winning a hockey game without playing the game.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Well, maybe the Leafs could do that.

Any further discussion? Are the members ready to vote? Oh, we’re done; we did it.

Intended appointments

Mr. Kraymr Grenke

Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: Kraymr Grenke, intended appointee as member, Human Rights Legal Support Centre board of directors.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Now we have our first intended appointee, our candidate, who is Kraymr Grenke—sorry, I didn’t even get that when I talked to you—nominated as a member of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre board of directors.

Kraymr, you may make an initial statement at your discretion. Following this, there will be questions from all members of committee. We will start with the government. Whatever time you use will be taken out of their time, and they don’t mind that, just so you know. Then the official opposition and the third party each have 10 minutes to question you.

All right, are you ready to go?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Welcome to the friendliest, most wonderful committee. It doesn’t meet often, but yes, thanks.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: All right, perfect. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Agencies this morning. My name is Kraymr Grenke and I’m honoured to be considered for an appointment to the board of directors of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

I bring a governance background rooted in public service and community leadership across Ontario. I currently serve as the chair of the Timmins Police Service Board and chair of the board of governors of the Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology. I also serve on the board of the Ontario Hospital Association and I am a member of the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal for the government of Canada.

Previously, I have served as the chair of the Timmins and District Hospital, president of the Timmins Chamber of Commerce, vice-chair of the Timmins committee of adjustment, and I have had the opportunity to contribute to governance at both local and provincial levels.

Across these roles, I have worked in complex environments where boards are responsible for oversight of large organizations, significant public funding and services that directly impact people’s livelihoods. That experience has reinforced the importance of strong governance practices, clear accountability and disciplined decision-making.

Working in northern Ontario has shaped how I approach this work. Our communities face unique challenges related to geography, access to services and resource availability. In many cases, individuals are required to navigate systems that were not designed necessarily with distance or limited local supports in mind. That has given me a practical understanding of how important it is that public institutions remain accessible, responsive and grounded in the realities of the people that they serve.

Through my board experience, I have gained a strong appreciation for the difference between governance, operations and public perception. I understand that a board’s role is not to manage but to provide oversight, set direction and ensure the organizations fulfill their mandates effectively and responsibly. I have also been involved in situations where fairness, transparency and procedural integrity are central, especially in environments where public trust needs to be maintained.

In addition, my exposure to adjudicative and quasi-judicial processes have strengthened my understanding of impartiality, evidenced-based decision-making and the importance of ensuring that individuals feel heard and respected throughout the process. Through my professional work across northern Ontario, including with municipalities, First Nation partners and community organizations, I have seen first-hand the barriers that individuals can face when trying to access services or understand their rights. That perspective is something I would bring to this role, ensuring that considerations around access are based on real experiences.

0920

The mandate of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre closely aligns with these experiences I have experienced. Helping individuals navigate human rights claims and ensuring access to legal support are essential for a fair and an equitable province of Ontario. If appointed, I would bring a northern Ontario perspective to the board table, along with a solid foundation of governance. My focus would be on supporting accountability and ensuring the organization stays true to its mandate in contributing to thoughtful and informed decision-making that reflects the needs of all Ontarians.

I approach this opportunity with a commitment to listen, learn and contribute in a constructive and respectful manner to the centre’s important work. Thank you again for your time, and I welcome any questions you may have.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much for your words, Kraymr. Now we will go over to the government side.

You have six minutes, 52 seconds, MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you very much for being here. It’s a pleasure to see people put their names forward. You have an extensive background. You are correct; the north is different. Although I do not live there, I recall in many instances going there in my previous life in the work that I was in.

One of the things that you didn’t talk about was your volunteer work, which is really important to understand the community. You talked about the Indigenous who are served. Can you share your experience in volunteer world and how that shaped your perspective in this future possible board role?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I can attribute it both to my volunteer and professional roles. I am a management consultant as a profession, and probably half of my portfolio is working in the Indigenous space, so I get to see it on both sides. On the volunteer’s perspective, I do get to see the Indigenous component in policing, also in education in the north and access to both of those. I’ve seen how those processes sometimes aren’t easy. They do need support as we move through those processes, so, understanding that people have had challenges working through those processes. All of us don’t have the same walks of life, obviously, so organizations like the Human Rights Legal Support Centre are there to support individuals like this.

In my personal experience, I have seen that when you have the resources on one side, it is not equitable. Being able to support an organization like this and push that mandate forward throughout the province and then strengthen it so that all Ontarians have equitable representation in this process is the experience I would bring toward that.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Dowie.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Thank you so much, Mr. Grenke, for being here. I was just in Timmins last summer. I noticed the intersection of different cultural elements, certainly a strong francophone community, plus you’re not terribly far from the Quebec border.

What I gathered from that is you have a lot of regional diversity. You mentioned your relationships with the Indigenous community. That diversity often brings different perspectives and different priorities coming from each. How in your experience have you ensured inclusivity and effective engagement with these various groups in order to reach a better outcome?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Thank you very much for your visit to Timmins. Yes, it’s unique. We have significantly diversified in the last decade in Timmins. We do have a very large francophone population. We have a large Indigenous community. We also have a lot of newcomers to our community as well, so engagement has changed drastically in our community. It has been with purpose and focus, ultimately, from doing strategic planning in the college sector and policing especially. We have seen a large shift in focus on how we do strategic engagement in our communities. It’s about being present with the different communities, understanding that—you’re right—there are different needs, depending on the different demographics that we serve.

It’s making a forceful and meaningful engagement to those different communities throughout our communities. Throughout the province of Ontario, it’s the same thing. We are very diverse province, so ensuring that, yes, we have to engage with as many groups as possible. If you look at the strategic plan of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, there is a plethora of people and different organizations that were surveyed when they did their strategic plan. To me, it is that meaningful engagement of going out and seeking that one-on-one conversation and trying to bring all of those points of view back to their mandate.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Firin.

MPP Mohamed Firin: It’s a pleasure to meet you. Thank you for putting your name forward. Can you describe how your professional experience has prepared you for this role that you seek today?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Sure. I think it’s balancing everything. I do a lot of different things in our community and our province, so being able to have that strategic focus—that is my profession, is providing strategic advice to communities. I know that’s one of the pillars of the strategic plan of this organization, is to grow that strategic branch in the governance portion of the organization, so I believe I can bring that with the skills and the experiences that I’ve had over the last 15 years or so in the governance of professional space. It’s really that strategic lens on how we continue to push this type of organization forward. There are a lot of moving parts; there’s only one microphone in the world, so how do we get the most bang for our buck on the information that we’re trying to provide to people that require these services? There’s a lot of information overload in the world, so how do we provide that strategic direction to ensure that we can maintain the vision of the organization but also reach the demographics which require this resource?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, thank you for your appearance today. I’ve read your résumé and I see all of your wide experience in a professional field, but how do you feel all of that experience volunteering will prepare you to provide guidance at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I hope that I’m not going there just to provide my guidance. It is a group of 10, I believe, that is appointed to that group, so being a continued push and voice with a strong governance background on that board is something that I would love to bring to that organization. I’d love to go there and learn and listen to what has been going on.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): One-minute warning.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I believe sitting in the chair’s role for a while in a lot of organizations, listening and speaking last, is definitely the thing, so I look forward to that opportunity to bring my experiences of a governance lens. I understand how an organization like this would work, but how could I bring my views and my professional opinions to that group?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right; 35 seconds, anybody over there? All right. Thank you very much.

We will now move over to the official opposition. Who would like to go first? MPP Gates: 10 minutes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Good morning, sir. How are you?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Good; how are you, sir?

MPP Wayne Gates: Listening to your comments, you sit on the board of the Ontario Hospital Association. So what is that? What do you do there?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: We are a board of 21 trustees that are either CEOs or board chairs or past board chairs that are members of the Ontario Hospital Association—so all 143 hospitals in Ontario. Our members of the Ontario Hospital Association are an advocacy group that have 95 staff members that do a lot of data analytical and advocacy work for the hospital sector in Ontario.

MPP Wayne Gates: And you also said that you’ve worked for a lot of public institutions. Is that correct as well?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: And where would they be?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: In Timmins. The public institutions that I represent—I do a little bit of work with some townships, but mostly when I speak about public institutions, I refer to First Nation communities.

MPP Wayne Gates: So is it fair to say that you believe in a publicly funded, publicly delivered hospital system?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I do.

MPP Wayne Gates: Is it fair to say that you believe that all public institutions should remain public?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I do.

MPP Wayne Gates: My next question is kind of related to the two, in case my colleagues were worrying about where I was going with this.

Have you ever been a candidate for the PC Party?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Of Ontario, no.

MPP Wayne Gates: Have you ever been a candidate for any PC party?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Where?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: The riding of Timmins–James Bay and now the riding of Kapuskasing–Timmins–Mushkegowuk.

MPP Wayne Gates: So was it federal?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes, it was.

MPP Wayne Gates: And did you win?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I did not. I came second to a five-time incumbent.

MPP Wayne Gates: To who?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Charlie Angus.

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, he’s a good guy to lose to. He was just in my riding, actually. He was actually in Sam’s riding this week doing a talk to close to 400 people, even though he’s no longer there.

Have you ever donated to a PC party?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I have.

MPP Wayne Gates: Ontario?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: Do you remember how much?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: It was $500 two years ago, $300 last year.

MPP Wayne Gates: Did you ever donate to your own campaign?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I did.

MPP Wayne Gates: So that would be federally?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: And do you remember how much?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I believe it was $1,000 during my campaign.

MPP Wayne Gates: It was pretty—a lot cheaper than what I donate to my campaign, I can tell you that. You’re getting off easy. PCs have a lot more money than the NDP do, I guess. I’m just saying.

0930

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre provides legal advice and representation to Ontarians facing discrimination. Can you point to any direct experience you have in human rights law, legal advocacy or representing vulnerable clients?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I understand this process more or less from the side of being, in theory, served with a human rights case. That is where my experience comes from: being the chair of a hospital and being the chair of a police service board, specifically the police service board, whereas a commission—and in theory, I am the representative of that board.

So I have learned to understand the trials and tribulations, sometimes, that people have a rightful claim. We’re all not perfect. These claims do happen in our society, but I’ve been on that side and I’ve seen the struggles that some people have faced to bring their claim forward, in which it was a valid claim. But I have also seen where—we’ve spent multiple years where a claim becomes invalid on a technicality that was presented in the first week. So, I’ve been very fortunate, I guess you could say, to experience that. But that is my experience of dealing with HRTO. It would be, in theory, on the side of the employer.

MPP Wayne Gates: So you’ve sat on a police services board. What did you do there?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I currently sit—I am the chair—

MPP Wayne Gates: You’re currently there?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: What do you do there?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I oversee the governance and the financial oversight of the board, but also, in the world of a police service board, the police service board is the employer. The service is just an operating arm. So the board is the legal entity. In the new Community Safety and Policing Act, I am legally responsible for my four board members, their conduct and their performance. I also manage the performance management of the chief and the deputy chief of police.

MPP Wayne Gates: So are you currently elected as a councillor or regional councillor?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: No, I am not.

MPP Wayne Gates: And you still became the chair of the police services board.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: That is correct.

MPP Wayne Gates: Because down in—I guess the north is a little different. Down in our area, it would be somebody who’s off a regional councillor who would sit as a chair of the police services board. Some of that being because policing costs money and there are high tax implications and a big portion of the regional budget is for policing.

I’m just trying to get a feel for the number of committees that you’re sitting on. It kind of leads into my next question that I spent hours last night trying to prepare to ask you. You are currently holding multiple high-level roles, which I’m trying to establish here: board chair positions, consulting work and a federal role. How can you realistically commit the time and the focus required to oversee an agency facing rising demand for its services?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I have actively sat and committed to five to seven boards for the past decade—all at once; all the time. So this is, in theory, not new. This is how, I guess, I manage the madness of my own life, is to keep myself as busy as possible.

I do believe in a lot of work that I do. For the past decade, there has been a tremendous amount of intersectionality that has occurred between these boards. I don’t want to say I’m good at governance, but I love governance and I appreciate it, so it comes easy to me. So being able to afford and commit that time—I don’t see it as a problem.

I’ve dropped off two boards prior to this process—just naturally coming about. So if I still had those, I think I would have a larger time commitment issue, but at this point, this has fit within the structure of my life for the past 10 years.

MPP Wayne Gates: Now, you do realize there are 24 hours in a day, and we can only do so much. I just want you to understand that.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Wayne Gates: If you have a partner, I’m sure she’s very understanding of that.

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre is facing increased demand. This is where my concern is coming from: funding pressures—that’s from that side of the House; the government—and criticism that is shifting away from legal representation towards outreach. What is your position on this shift, and do you believe fewer lawyers and less representation is acceptable?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I don’t know all the intricacies of your statements. I guess, on the face of it, I’m going there, as I mentioned to the members of the government, as one member of an organization. I don’t believe I’m going there to save this organization. I believe they have a great mandate and organizational push that they’ve pushed forward thus far. I am just an addition and a resource to that group. I look to bring my experiences to that group. If there are notions that you’re making that there are drastic changes, I hope to be able to be a part of that conversation, but I do believe that we do require as much resource as possible. If there is a growing demand, we need to present that.

MPP Wayne Gates: Just another question: How did you pick, to decide that you’d want to be sitting on this committee?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I’ve been an active member of checking boxes on the Public Appointments Secretariat for a decade. Human rights have been a large focus on that. I’ve applied to be on the Human Rights Tribunal, the WSIB tribunal, the land tribunal. Tribunals are very much something I look to do and to be a part of in the future. This organization is a subpoint of that, in the way I phrased it, so it was an organization in the human rights space that I looked to be appointed to.

MPP Wayne Gates: Your background appears primarily in business administration, governments and consulting, not human rights law. Why should this committee believe you are qualified to oversee an organization whose core mandate is legal support for discrimination cases?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes, I’m not a human rights lawyer—I’ve never been in that space—although this is an organization that is requiring a governance role. I believe I’d bring that vision and that strategic mandate to that organization. Back to the operations versus the governance portion of it, it’s my duty to learn and understand the organization’s path and mandate and support that from a governance point of view, not an operational one.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): One minute.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: That is the view and the point that I would bring forward.

MPP Wayne Gates: Your certificate says you are president of MLG Consulting, but in my time last night when I went and looked at this organization, there’s no website and there’s no indication of what it does. Maybe you could explain how you’re being successful with no website and no explanation of what MLG Consulting is.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: The three initials are my daughter’s initials. The consulting firm was founded when she was born. There is no website for it. I’ve been very fortunate in my career path that I have not had to have a website. In our community, I’ve been successful in a presence of word of mouth and standing on the work that I’ve done for clients and progressing through that way.

I’m in year 4 of my business, so it’s been a bit of a roller coaster. Yes, I will probably have a website at some point. If you would have searched it in Timmins, it does come up as a registered member of the Timmins Chamber of Commerce, so there is some notion that it does have an online contact presence—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much.

All right. We will go over to the third party. MPP Smyth.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Welcome, Mr. Grenke, and thank you for your time today. I’m just getting that clearer picture as well. How many boards do you sit on currently?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Five.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Five boards. You’re the chair of the police services board in Timmins. That’s full-time?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: No.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: That’s part-time chair?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: So yes, that’s a lot of multi-tasking. I don’t know how you do it. Good for you.

Just looking at your background on the police services board and then this position, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre: How do you reconcile those two positions? How might one inform the other, being on the police service board, with situations you deal with in policing in the community and then what you see with human rights legal support? I’m trying to square that.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I think that is where I bring that lens. As I mentioned when we talked about experience, I’ve seen people who have struggled in the process being on the other side of it, and obviously I can’t support them, being on one side of the arrangement.

But it’s that role that has brought me this curiosity and interest in this committee. How can we support individuals that are wanting to go through that process? That process is not easy at all. How can we help those individuals? Really, when I look at it, there is an intersectionality between the work I’ve seen in policing and the work that I would see in this organization. I don’t believe there is an overlap, but there is an intersectionality.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Could that intersectionality sometimes be really difficult with biases that you might be dealing with, either with—in policing, let’s just say?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Yes, perhaps. I think bias could be created in that instance, perhaps. But I also look at it that—other than going through this process, I have not seen this organization’s presence in northern Ontario. So being able to, perhaps, bring that to that table and say, “Hey, we need to have more of a presence so that people do have that support”—because I think that’s back to the notion of, this person did not know where those supports lie. So I don’t think the bias is in a negative way—I think the bias is in a way that there are supports for people to go through these processes. Sometimes they are valid processes that need to be maintained. So I think having these resources and having that lens can better help both the employer and the person filing at the HRTO.

0940

MPP Stephanie Smyth: We’ve talked about your donations to the Conservative Party of Canada—also, to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario? Is that not correct?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: That is correct.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: And you ran as a Conservative candidate—

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: In 2019.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Yes. How do you ensure your decision-making remains non-partisan?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I’m here to serve Ontario.

When I started my governance career, it was in higher education and it was in student advocacy. I was a member of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance when I was in my undergrad. It was a different government at the time.

Knowing how governments work is a fixation of mine. Loving places like this and places in Ottawa really helps you understand that government is government, no matter who is on which side of the benches. Really, that’s the way I look at it as a partisan. We have to work with the government that is the government of the day. I see that working in law enforcement, working in education right now. We advocate and deal with the federal government, which is a different government than sits in this chamber here.

So, really, I don’t see it as a partisan thing. I see it as: This is the government of the day. These are the tools that we have to work with the government of the day. And how can we push the agendas of the organizations we serve forward?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: So you can commit to acting independently, even where it might conflict with priorities of the current government?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: Correct. Yes. I serve the organization which I’m appointed to.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: You’ve received multiple appointments through orders in council. Why do you think you’ve been repeatedly selected by this government?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: My first appointment was in 2019, as a police service board member. I had experience both as a hospital board member and a board member of a university. I had governance experience, heading into that order-in-council appointment. I have been renewed since, based on, I believe, the time commitment and the values that I have presented to our organization. We have seen turmoil in our organization that I’ve helped move us forward through. Same thing in the college sector—education has been very close to my heart since I started in the university sector, now in the college sector. So those two appointments, I believe, are merit-based.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Have you ever had to recuse yourself from a board decision at all because of any conflict of interest?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: No.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: What changes would you advocate for when you’re dealing with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, to improve fairness in that board and reduce backlog?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I think that—to MPP Gates’s point—we’re seeing an increase of use of these services. I think the strategic plan of this organization is due to come up, and that needs to be a higher, valid, presented point. We talked about the amount of information overload and bandwidth that people have. How do we get our conversation to the top of the list? It’s presenting that conversation, saying more resources are required. If people don’t know that and there are increased uses to this organization, we have to present them.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: What do you see, right now, are the biggest human rights challenges facing Ontarians? I know you’re talking about the differences in the north—but, really, are there? What is the biggest challenge you perceive?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I’m not saying there are different challenges in the human rights portfolio. I’m saying there are different challenges in the access to those services and access to different types of services—not just this one—so it’s bringing that lens on how we can move these mandates and these missions forward.

The biggest challenge, I think, is still going to be access; it’s going to be resources. There’s a lack of human resources in, most likely, every sector. So how do we combat that one in this organization, one at a time, in theory? We’re in a challenge for human resources for the next little bit in our society.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: What about just ensuring equitable access, then? You’re talking access, period—but equitable access.

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: It’s ensuring that organizations such as this can be present to ensure people can be moved along through the process, that there is a fair advantage or fair playing field to all Ontarians to move their cases forward.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Off the top, you were talking about important public institutions, accountability etc. We talked about that a lot here and in other places in this House. What does accountability mean to you in this role?

Mr. Kraymr Grenke: I don’t understand the full intricacies of the operation of this organization as of yet, but it’s ensuring that, obviously, taxpayer dollars are spent properly, funder dollars are spent properly so that the services reach the individuals needing the service. It’s the same thing I’ve seen in my other roles: How do we ensure that the citizen of the community believes that their core service is being provided?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. Thank you very much for your time today. I really appreciate it.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, and thank you, Kraymr, for coming in. Best of luck, I guess I would say.

Before we go to our next intended appointee, we did actually not vote on the March 19 subcommittee report. We were heavy into our discussion and got distracted. My apologies. We will vote on that.

Are the members ready to vote on the subcommittee report dated Thursday, March 19—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Oh. MPP Smyth, could you re-move the motion?

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. Just a moment, please.

I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, March 19, on the order-in-council certificate dated March 13, 2026.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you. We’ve had the discussion. Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

Mr. Richard Dehaan

Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Richard Dehaan, intended appointee as member, Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right. Our next candidate is Richard Dehaan. He’s online for us.

Richard, I’m not sure if you have been watching, but it’s the same format. We would love to hear a presentation from you, or just a story. Your time will be removed from the government, and that’s okay, and the opposition and third party will have 10 minutes each.

I will also remind members that we have a hard stop at 10:15. It’s okay if we don’t have time for the extension; that can be done over email. And the concurrence—if we didn’t have time to discuss the concurrence, it would just happen, basically.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Sorry—can we not vote next week if we don’t get to that?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Apparently not.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Okay. So we need to pause this at—

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): So we’ll just be more succinct maybe in our questions so we can get to the concurrence, if you don’t mind. That’s just an idea.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Sure.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): All right, Richard: Take it away. Welcome.

Mr. Richard Dehaan: First and foremost, thank you all very much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my experience and qualifications with you all today.

Madam Chair and fellow members of the standing committee, my name is Richard Dehaan. I’m here to discuss my pending appointment as a part-time member of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

To start, I’d like to paint a picture of myself through my academic background, my professional career up to this point and my personal interests.

I started out my legal career attending Wilfrid Laurier University. I graduated with a degree in criminology and contemporary studies. I furthered my academics by attending the paralegal program at Sheridan College in Brampton, and I obtained my paralegal licence in December of 2016.

I started my professional career by working at a law firm in Mississauga, Ontario. The law firm was X-Copper. They have offices all over Ontario, but my offices were in Mississauga and Brampton to start. As an unlicensed paralegal, I started out as a traffic ticket analyst. I worked for the firm for approximately six years. During my time, I obtained the position of licensed paralegal, trial agent and, for the last year of my employment with the firm, I was the branch manager of their London office. As a trial agent for the firm, I was responsible for representing our clients in court, reviewing disclosure, presenting arguments and applying relevant case law. Those are just some of the duties that I performed there.

After leaving the law firm, I began working for London Middlesex Community Housing as one of their legal services coordinators. While I had not worked in residential tenancy law up to that point, I was excited for the challenge of practising in a new area of law that I had a particular interest in.

0950

I was the legal representative for several properties associated with the London Middlesex Community Housing and was responsible for all legal matters pertaining to the properties. This included all notices of termination, from commencement to disposition, training fellow staff members on LTB procedures and, of course, tenant applications. It was at London Middlesex Community Housing that I really began to understand the complexities of the law pertaining to residential tenancies.

While working at LMCH, my fellow legal professionals and I noted vacancies at the Landlord and Tenant Board, and I applied with no real expectations, as I hadn’t worked in the area for very long when I applied. But to my surprise, I was ultimately appointed as a part-time member with the Landlord and Tenant Board in November of 2023.

My time working for the board was very rewarding. I enjoyed the area of law, my colleagues and the general structure of being a part-time member at the Landlord and Tenant Board. I conducted hearings; I responded to pre-hearing requests, such as withdrawal requests, adjournment requests etc.; and I prepared written decisions on the evidence that was presented before me in court.

I truly enjoyed my time at the board. If the following opportunity didn’t present itself, I do believe I would be at the board to this day.

As I had dedicated most of my career to provincial offences and quasi-criminal offences, I had always aspired to be a prosecutor. While at the LTB, a prosecutor position happened to open up in London, Ontario, which is where I was working and living at the time. I knew I had a rapport with the staff in London, as the London provincial offences courthouse was the main courthouse I dealt with while working at X-Copper, and I always had a good working relationship with the prosecutors there as I worked with them on pretty much a daily basis.

I didn’t think I was going to be offered the position, but lo and behold, I was offered a full-time position as a prosecutor. I did not make the decision to leave the LTB lightly; in fact, it was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make in my career. I took a chance on what I thought was my dream job, a job I had wanted for all those years working as a defence agent.

While my time at the city of London was cut shorter than I would have liked, I did gain valuable in-court experience at various levels of court and honed my skills in dealing with the public. Other duties I conducted as a prosecutor included preparing factums for litigation, training officers on expectations for testimony and general court decorum and mentoring new staff on the expectation of proving cases before a justice of the peace.

After leaving the city of London in October of 2025, I started a new position—my current position as senior paralegal at Drewlo Holdings Inc., which is a corporate landlord. In this role, I act as sort of a consultant for the company on their legal matters. I provide guidance to their newer staff on the RTA and represent the landlord on the more complex files—N6s, N7s—and tenant applications. I also provide advice on the way legal matters should be handled.

That briefly sums up my academic and professional history. I’d like to share a little bit about who I am outside of work. In terms of my personal interests, I can say—and I’m not really ashamed to admit this—I’m a little bit boring. I enjoy spending time with my fiancée and stepdaughter, whether that be sitting at home playing video games, watching movies or exploring the outdoors in St. Thomas with our corgi, Carter.

My stepdaughter is currently enrolled in a pretty competitive dance program here in St. Thomas, and that takes up a decent chunk of our time, from her practices to her upcoming competitions and showcases.

For me personally, I’m a big football fan—go Ravens—and basketball fan—go Raptors. I was a season ticket holder for the Raptors back in the day and hope one day to move back to the GTA and continue my sometimes-detrimental-to-my-mental-health Raptors fandom in person.

That’s it for me. I open the floor to questioning. Thank you very much.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): I didn’t hear the Jays or the Leafs in there, but thank you very much for that. It was very fulsome.

We have four minutes and 45 seconds left for the government. Who would like to start? MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Dehaan, for being here today. I’ll make it quick so we can get a couple of questions in.

We all know that the caseload at the Landlord and Tenant Board is very heavy. What background in your previous experiences in the courts etc. will prepare you to manage this heavy caseload that you will have as a member of the board?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Of course. As previously mentioned, I was an adjudicator, so I’m well aware of the high caseload that the LTB has. You can have up to 40 cases in one of your hearing logs.

The biggest skills that I have being a member previously and with my role as a prosecutor—time management, organization, efficiency in writing and prioritization are all the skills that I believe set me up for success when it comes to dealing with such a high case load.

Timely decisions—the LTB commits to trying to get out orders within 30 days, and I aspire to do to that as well.

The biggest thing for me, though, was prep—making sure that everything is prepped and ready to go so you can prioritize those matters when it comes to dealing with the hearing logs.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): MPP Denault.

MPP Billy Denault: Thank you, Richard. It was really great to hear your story that you shared with the committee. With that history in mind, I was just wondering if you could share what you believe it takes to be an effective member of the Landlord and Tenant Board?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: When it comes to being a member, there are obviously core competencies that go into that:

—being fair, effective and accessible are probably the biggest;

—ensuring there’s no bias when it comes to how you deal with matters;

—being open and transparent when dealing with, especially, members of the public, to ensure that everyone knows what’s going on;

—ensuring that you speak in plain language—a lot of the people who come before the board are self-represented and have probably never been to court before, so ensuring that you’re speaking in plain language so that everybody understands what’s going on;

—active listening is something that I really worked on when I was a board member because that’s a part of the process in terms of how you get through the hearing blocks effectively; and

—critical thinking, problem-solving, sound judgments, and, above all else, being highly organized are ways to be an effective member of the LTB.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Two minutes, 21 seconds—anyone want to go? Thank you very much.

Over to the official opposition, MPP Gilmour.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Thank you so much, Chair, and welcome. Thank you for being before us today. It’s always appreciated to see people putting their name forward. In your case, I note that you really do have a tremendous amount of connected experience in your background, something that has been very rare here at this committee. I’m very happy to see that. Thank you.

I want to just run through a couple of very quick questions that we ask every appointee, so if you can answer briefly. Have you ever donated to a provincial or a federal political party?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: I have not.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Okay. Are you a member of any political party?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: I am not.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Great. You already spoke a little bit about how your nomination came about. One thing you mentioned in your opening remarks was the importance of fair, effective, accountable and non-biased. I see a tremendous amount of experience in adjudication, which is something we have seen critics of this tribunal say we are lacking, so it’s wonderful to see that. I do note that some of that is weighted towards landlords and the corporate side of things. What would it mean for you, stepping into this role—how would you prepare to open yourself up to the tenant side of the non-biased experience?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair, for presenting that question to me. With respect to the answer, I contribute my experience working at London and Middlesex Community Housing. I personally had a tenant-focused approach when dealing with matters, regardless of if I was a landlord rep or a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The reason for that is that the RTA, in and of itself, is rooted in tenant protection. It was called the Tenant Protection Act. The whole reason the act was enacted was because of that power imbalance between landlords and tenants. For me, working at LMCH, I was working with the most vulnerable population that we had, so I took pride in my ability to have those open discussions with tenants, and if there was any viable way I could save the tenancy, I tried to do that. I brought that to the board as well.

Sometimes tenancies are just not salvageable. That’s just the nature of life, unfortunately. But my role and my goal here is if there is a way to salvage the tenancy, I’m going to try to do that.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I appreciate that very much. I would imagine from your time there you know that the LTB has been plagued by very serious backlogs. While we’re seeing some reduction in that backlog, from about 53,000 to 41,000, there’s still a huge backlog, which means long processing times. People are waiting three to seven months. That’s for both the landlord and their access to justice and also the tenant. I’m wondering what you might do as a member to ensure that that backlog is cleared while ensuring that each individual also gets a fair process?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: It’s a fair question, and one was pointed to me during the interview process as well. With respect to the backlog, again, when it comes to how efficient you are when it comes to dealing with the hearing blocks, for me it all comes down to your prep. So long as you’re prepping properly, you’re able to prioritize the applications in your block that you may think are going to take a little bit less time or ones that you think are going to take a little bit more time, to deal with the high volume that comes into play.

1000

Another issue that I see that’s plaguing the LTB, aside from the large caseload—it’s something that contributes to that—is the accessibility through Zoom. Zoom has helped out a lot but it also, to me, has in some ways extended the time because of the issues that are plagued with Zoom—accessibility for tenants, that sort of thing.

For me, personally, in order to try to be a part of the solution, my goals are aligned with the LTB’s. I’m going to try to ensure that my orders are out in a timely fashion and things of that nature. My goal is to be a part of the solution as opposed to contributing to the problem.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Yes, I note that that was one of my questions, so I’m grateful to see the level of preparedness you have and the background that you are bringing to this.

Another potential piece: You mentioned leaving before the end of your term. Adjudicator retention is a huge problem. We had 20 that left before the end of their term. I wonder if you might speak to that and your thoughts as a member? Because of course there is so much time and effort put into that. We can’t get very good at our jobs if we’re constantly bringing in new people to do that role, right?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Thank you for bringing that question to me. I can’t speak specifically for everybody; I can only speak for myself, as I was one of the members who had actually left after the onboarding.

For me, I’m at a point in my life now where I am 100% committed to the Residential Tenancies Act and tenancy law in general. When I was first appointed, based on what happened, my heart was not 100% in it, unfortunately, because a new role presented itself to me, one that I was very excited about because of my long-standing history in that area of law.

When it comes to retaining adjudicators now, the vetting process is quite exhaustive. You’ve got your interview, your written test. They vet the process properly, but sometimes it’s just not for everybody. That won’t be a concern for me. I’ve done it before. I know what I’m getting myself into. As I said, if that opportunity hadn’t presented itself, I do believe I would still be a member of the LTB today.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I’m going to just ask one more question and then share my time a little bit with my colleague. I was just curious. You mentioned that your time was cut short at the London courts. Could you say a little bit more about that?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Of course. When it comes to that job, it was what I expected, but because I was out of provincial offences and quasi-criminal offences and I really enjoyed my time at the LTB, my heart just wasn’t in it. That’s kind of what occurred. I knew early on that it wasn’t going to be the role for me. I tried to stick it out. I thought maybe if I stuck it out, it would change, but unfortunately, it didn’t.

I’ve changed. I am a different person now and my heart is in LTB now. I’ve been doing it for a few years now and it’s the area that I like to practise in.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, MPP Gilmour.

MPP Smyth.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you, MPP Gilmour. I appreciate that.

Nice to meet you, Richard. Thanks so much for appearing here and for looking to spend some time with the Landlord and Tenant Board. I know that in the time that we spent off the last 102 days, we had so much time in our constituencies to hear about issues. An overwhelming issue in my riding of Toronto–St. Paul’s—60% renters—there are grave concerns about rent, about affordability. What do you see as the greatest issue that you are going to be facing on this Landlord and Tenant Board and how might you tackle said issue? I can get into that a little bit more once you identify what you see with your experience.

Mr. Richard Dehaan: I’ll just go off of what you are saying when it comes to rent and increases and things of that nature. Rents are increasing. I think we’re on a little bit of a downward trajectory now, but over the last couple of years—even me; I’m a renter myself. I can see how much rent is.

The way I’m going to try to combat that is, again, active listening and going over things. The LTB and the RTA—its remedial in its legislation, so I’m not trying to punish anybody. As I said earlier, if there’s a way for me to preserve the tenancy, I’m going to try to do that. Not only going over your finances but your personal circumstances as well come into play: where you live, your ties to the community, those types of things.

It’s merit-based. It’s case by case, so it’s a little bit difficult for me to comment. As I said, I am dedicated to my personal feelings on it, but if the tenancy is salvageable, I’m going to try to do that.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Do you see above-guideline rent increases as an issue with the Landlord and Tenant Board? How many cases do you anticipate seeing, and how might dealing with those be an issue?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: When it comes to the above-guideline increases, I never personally dealt with them at the LTB. They have a separate training process and everything to that effect, so I can’t comment on it, just because I never really dived into it when I was a member.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Could that be, though, going forward for you, something you’re going to be dealing with?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: I like being in court. I know that a lot of the AGIs, the above-guideline increases, are done not in court—they’re more written submissions—so I don’t think it would be something that I would be dabbling in, because I enjoy the court aspect of it and I’d rather be in court.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Tell me about the time that you worked for the landlords. Can you clarify that again, which organization you worked for? I know you worked for—

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Sure. It’s—my apologies for interjecting.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: No, no. Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Dehaan: I worked for London and Middlesex Community Housing as their legal services clerk there. In my current position, I work for Drewlo Holdings Inc., which is a corporate landlord.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. Do you see your experience working with the corporate landlord interfering at all with the work that you would do with the Landlord and Tenant Board?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: No, not in that sense. I obviously would not be able to hear matters that pertain to Drewlo Holdings Inc., just because of the conflict-of-interest part of it, but I like working with the company I’m working with now, because I get a different side of things. Working at LMCH, they’re a landlord, but they’re more rooted in tenant protection because of the clientele that we have, where Drewlo is a corporate landlord and they’re in the business of renting, making money, that sort of thing.

It’s interesting to see the two sides kind of compete with each other. Like I said, for me, it’s not going to change how I adjudicate if I am appointed to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It just gives me more experience in dealing with the whole of the residential tenancies.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Look, there could be a situation where you’re in a position. How you would mitigate a situation where you have potential bias there, when you’re ruling on cases involving landlords or large property owners and tenants?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: It wouldn’t change with how I deal with it. Like I said, with respect to Drewlo Holdings, I would obviously recuse myself of any matter dealing with that just because of the conflict. But when it comes to dealing with corporate landlords versus smaller landlords and that sort of thing, there’s a not really a change. For me, I’m dealing with everybody sort of the same way.

Obviously, things like a corporate landlord—I’m not going to take the fact that they’re owed money as more of a fact than a smaller landlord who may be just doing this as a side business, that sort of thing. It’ll change how I look at it from that sense, but each case is dealt with differently, so I would have to listen to the merits of the case to properly assess.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Do you think the Landlord and Tenant Board is currently meeting the needs of tenants in Ontario?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: It’s hard for me to comment, because I’m not on the board. It would be premature for me to answer that question, so I don’t want to venture a guess into that.

I can say from what I’ve read, and what I’ve known based on what I’ve been told, that there are longer wait times for tenant applications, for example, but I think the board is doing a good job in terms of trying to get through all of that. But I just can’t comment right now, because I’m not a member.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. I was wanting to ask you: What would you see as issues potentially going forward, and what changes might you make to improve fairness? You have some idea of how this system works. Improving fairness, reducing backlog—if appointed, what immediate things would you do to help impact that situation? Fairness and backlog.

Mr. Richard Dehaan: When it comes to the backlog, again, when it comes to what I’m going to be trying to do as a member, I’d prep my dockets properly so that I’m able to get through the docket in its entirety, as opposed to having to adjourn something and then having it come back on a different day.

For me, it comes down to your prep. You prep your files, you look at everything and you can see during your prep what applications might be quicker to deal with and what ones might be contested or might take longer. That way, you can prioritize the ones that you think are going to be easier and quicker to deal with, as opposed to the long ones that might take some more time.

For me to get through that backlog, again, I’m going to try to get through my dockets, and that comes down to prep. That’s how I would be dealing with the backlog, in my opinion.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Okay. One final question: How would you approach cases where there’s a clear power imbalance between the landlords and the tenants? I get the prep part, but if you see a clear imbalance, how would you deal with that?

Mr. Richard Dehaan: When it comes to a clear imbalance when it comes to landlords and tenants—again, rooted in tenant protection—I’m going to try to do everything that I can to try to salvage the tenancy. But again, sometimes it’s just not feasible. If your income is this and your rent is this, and you just can’t afford the rent, then unfortunately, there’s not going to be a lot I can do.

But with the power that the RTA gives adjudicators, you have the power to maybe not deny an eviction, but you have the power to delay it. That’s another power that I can use in terms of protecting tenants: by giving you a little bit of extra time in the unit to find more affordable accommodations.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Thank you very much, Richard. It’s always great when people put their name forward and they have a willingness to serve in the best interests of Ontario. So, thank you so much. We will now take it into committee for concurrence. Have a great day.

Mr. Richard Dehaan: Am I allowed to stay on to hear the vote?

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Sure. You can eavesdrop; that’s allowed.

First of all, I want to thank everyone for being super succinct. You’re very impressive.

We will now consider the intended appointment of Kraymr Grenke. Can I have a motion? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Kraymr Grenke, nominated as member of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre board of directors.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by MPP Smith. Any discussion? MPP Gates.

MPP Wayne Gates: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Bailey, Denault, Dowie, Firin, Sabawy, Laura Smith.

Nays

Gates, Gilmour, Smyth.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): That is carried. Thank you very much.

We will now consider the intended appointment of Richard Dehaan. Can I have a motion, please? MPP Smith.

Ms. Laura Smith: I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Richard Dehaan, nominated as member of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Concurrence in the appointment has been moved by MPP Smith. Any discussion? MPP Gates.

MPP Wayne Gates: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Bailey, Denault, Dowie, Firin, Gates, Gilmour, Sabawy, Laura Smith, Smyth.

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon): Unanimous. That is fabulous. That carries.

We have one more thing. The deadline to review the intended appointments selected from the February 27, 2026, certificate is set to expire on March 29, 2026. Is there unanimous consent to extend the certificate by 30 days?

Seeing none, that concludes our business for today. This committee now stands adjourned—but please admire the new room. Please tell the Speaker what you think of the newly decorated room.

Thank you. Meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1013.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon (Beaches–East York L)

First Vice-Chair / Premier Vice-Président

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Second Vice-Chair / Deuxième Vice-Président

MPP Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

MPP Billy Denault (Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke PC)

Mr. Andrew Dowie (Windsor–Tecumseh PC)

MPP Mohamed Firin (York South–Weston / York-Sud–Weston PC)

MPP Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)

MPP Alexa Gilmour (Parkdale–High Park ND)

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon (Beaches–East York L)

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

Mr. Sheref Sabawy (Mississauga–Erin Mills PC)

Ms. Laura Smith (Thornhill PC)

MPP Stephanie Smyth (Toronto–St. Paul’s L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Vanessa Kattar

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Lauren Warner, research officer,
Research Services