2. rEGulation of private parking ENFORCeMENT AGENCIES

RÈGLEMENT SUR LES AGENCES DE CONTRÔLE DU STATIONNEMENT SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS PRIVÉES

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council approve:

1. Amendments to the Licensing By-law (By-law No. 2002-189, as amended), as detailed in Document 1, to establish regulations for the licensing and regulating of private parking enforcement agencies, including provisions that will allow for cost-recovery for eligible licensees and for delegated authority to staff to amend the threshold of Parking Infraction Notices required to be issued by licensees eligible for cost-recovery;

2. For consistency with the proposed licensing schedule, an amendment to Section 21(1) of Schedule “B” to the Delegation of Authority By-law (By-law No. 2011-28, as amended) which relates to similar cost recovery agreements with educational or health agencies or institutions, to provide that a minimum of 2,600 Parking Infraction Notices are required to be issued annually on the property by deputized personnel, as a condition of eligibility for revenue sharing.

RecommandationS DU Comité

Que le Conseil approuve :

1. les modifications au Règlement sur les permis n^o2002-189, dans sa version modifiée, qui sont précisées dans le document 1, afin d’établir des règlements sur la délivrance de permis et de régir les agences privées d’application des règlements sur le stationnement, ceci incluant les dispositions qui permettront le recouvrement des coûts pour les détenteurs de permis admissibles et celles sur les pouvoirs délégués au personnel pour modifier le seuil d’avis d’infraction de stationnement à émettre par les détenteurs de permis pour être admissibles au recouvrement des coûts;

2. par souci de cohérence avec l’annexe proposée sur la délivrance de permis, une modification à l’alinéa 21(1) de l’annexe B du Règlement municipal sur la délégation de pouvoirs n^o 2011-28, qui traite d’ententes de recouvrement de coûts semblables avec des organismes ou des institutions d’enseignement ou de santé, qui fixerait à 2 600 le total annuel minimal d’avis d’infraction de stationnement émis par le personnel délégué sur la propriété du détenteur de permis comme seuil d’admissibilité au partage des revenus.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager, City Operations report dated 8 September 2011 (ACS2011-COS-EPS-0032).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 15 September 2011.

Report to/Rapport au:

Community and Protective Services Committee

Comité des services communautaires et de protection

and Council / et au Conseil

8 September 2011 / le 8 septembre 2011

Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint, City Operations/Opérations municipales

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Linda Anderson, Chief, By-law and Regulatory Services

Emergency and Protective Services/Services de protection et d'urgence

(613) 580-2424 x29257, Linda.Anderson@ottawa.ca

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2011-COS-EPS-0032

SUBJECT:

rEGulation of private parking ENFORCeMENT AGENCIES

OBJET :

RÈGLEMENT SUR LES AGENCES DE CONTRÔLE DU STATIONNEMENT SUR LES PROPRIÉTÉS PRIVÉES

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve:

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil d’approuver :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although authority exists in the Municipal Act to do so, the issuance of Parking Infraction Notices by private individuals and organizations is not currently an activity subject to licensing and regulation.

Enforcement of parking violations on private property is conducted by City Parking Control Officers, by individuals who have been deputized under the City’s Private Property Parking Enforcement Program and by private parking enforcement agencies. In the case of the private parking enforcement agencies, they typically issue their own private tickets which are processed through their own system, separate from that of the City. This circumstance has given rise to concerns from residents and tourists who have received a private parking ticket. Among the concerns about these private tickets are that the process for payment and dispute of private tickets is unclear, and the appearance of the tickets is misleading because they often closely resemble municipal tickets, thereby causing confusion for the recipient. As well, recipients with legitimate ticket disputes are often left with the impression that they have no real recourse and that the issuer’s desire to collect payment outweighs the desire to provide a fair judicial review process. In terms of a judicial process, ticket recipients who have a ticket dispute are left with no recourse but to file an action in Small Claims Court, with the onus to initiate such action being on the ticket recipient at his/her cost.

The report proposes that private parking enforcement agencies be licensed, with the standard conditions, such as insurance, and with requirements such as that only City parking tickets may be issued, where such tickets are processed through the Provincial Offences Court in terms of payments, and where fair access is available to the First Attendance Facility and to the formal Court process to dispute tickets, as appropriate. Provisions for cost-recovery by eligible private parking enforcement agencies have been incorporated into the proposed regulation to ensure that they may recover costs where they issue a minimum of 2,600 Parking Infraction Notices annually and meet other minimum requirements.

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation as the costs, if any, are included in the current budget for By-law and Regulatory Services. The revenue impact on parking fines is not anticipated to be material in nature however, should any significant increases result, the budget, if required, will be revised accordingly.

RÉSUMÉ

Bien que la Loi sur les municipalités l’autorise, en ce moment, la distribution d’avis de contravention de stationnement par des particuliers ou des organismes de contrôle du stationnement sur les propriétés privées ne fait pas l’objet d’un permis et n’est pas réglementée.

L’application des règlements de stationnement sur les propriétés privées relève des agents de stationnement municipaux, des personnes déléguées pour ce faire en vertu du Programme d’application des règlements relatifs au stationnement sur les propriétés privées de la Ville et des organismes de contrôle du stationnement sur les propriétés privées. Dans le cas de ces derniers, normalement, ils distribuent leurs propres contraventions, qui sont traitées à l’interne de façon distincte des contraventions municipales. Cette situation a soulevé des préoccupations de la part de résidents et de visiteurs ayant reçu un avis d’infraction aux règlements de stationnement sur une propriété privée, notamment en ce qui concerne le manque de clarté de la procédure de paiement de ces contraventions et de recours possibles et l’apparence des contraventions privées, qui est trompeuse parce que très similaire aux contraventions municipales, entraînant ainsi une certaine méprise chez le récipiendaire. De plus, les récipiendaires ayant des motifs légitimes de contester leur contravention ont souvent l’impression de ne pas avoir de véritable recours et que le désir de l’émetteur de la contravention de collecter les amendes est supérieur à celui d’offrir une procédure de révision légale et équitable. En ce qui concerne la procédure de révision légale, les récipiendaires d’une contravention qui désirent la contester n’ont d’autre recours que de déposer une plainte devant la Cour des petites créances et il leur incombe d’entamer les procédures à leur frais.

Le rapport propose que les organismes de contrôle du stationnement sur les propriétés privées obtiennent un permis à cette fin, qu’ils soient assujettis aux conditions habituelles, comme détenir une assurance, et qu’ils se conforment à certaines exigences, comme remettre uniquement des contraventions municipales payables à la Cour des infractions provinciales et, aux fins de contestation, qu’ils assurent un accès équitable à un établissement de première comparution et à une procédure formelle devant les tribunaux, s’il y a lieu. Des dispositions pour le recouvrement des frais engagés par les organismes de contrôle du stationnement sur les propriétés privées admissibles ont été incluses dans ce projet de règlement pour qu’ils recouvrent leurs frais s’ils distribuent au moins 2 600 avis d’infraction aux règlements sur le stationnement par année et satisfont à des exigences minimales.

Il n’y a pas de répercussions financières associées à cette recommandation, car les coûts, s’il y a lieu, sont compris dans l’actuel budget des Services des règlements municipaux. Il ne devrait pas y avoir d’impact matériel sur les revenus provenant des amendes, mais si jamais une augmentation importante survenait, le budget serait révisé conformément.

BACKGROUND

Section 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001 grants municipalities the authority to license and regulate businesses, including imposing conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold, or renewing a license. Licensing by-laws are enacted in consideration of the municipal role and mandate with respect to public health and safety, nuisance control and consumer protection.

The issuance of Parking Infraction Notices (tickets) by private individuals and agencies is not currently an activity subject to licensing and regulation. Enforcement of parking violations on private property under the Traffic and Parking By-law is currently conducted by three groups: City Parking Control Officers; individuals who have been deputized under the City’s Private Property Parking Enforcement Program (Deputization Program); and private parking enforcement agencies.

The Deputization Program was in place in former Ottawa and, in 2001, City Council approved that program for implementation City-wide (ACS2001-TUP-TRF-0014). The objectives of the Deputization Program are: to reduce private parking violations by authorizing owners, on-site personnel, or their agents, to enforce infractions in a more timely manner than could be achieved by Parking Control Officers dispatched to the property; and, to reduce the number of requests made to Parking Control Officers for service to private properties thereby freeing resources for right-of-way and traffic management for public safety.

City Parking Control Officers and individuals who have been appointed under the City’s Deputization Program, issue City of Ottawa Parking Infraction Notices which are processed through the Provincial Offences Court in terms of payments, access to the First Attendance Facility to dispute tickets, and access to the formal Court process when tickets proceed to that stage. This system is fair, transparent and equally accessible to all recipients of Parking Infraction Notices. The revenue derived from paid Parking Infraction Notices is received by the City and goes towards covering the costs of enforcement and of processes associated with the Provincial Offences Court.

The last group – the private parking enforcement agencies – typically issue their own tickets which are processed through their own system, wholly separate from that of the City. It is this circumstance that has given rise to concerns from residents and tourists who have occasion to receive a private parking ticket. Among the concerns about these tickets are:

· The process for payment and dispute of private tickets is unclear, and the appearance of the tickets is misleading because they often closely resemble municipal tickets, thereby causing confusion for the recipient.

· The contact information on the reverse side of the ticket is unreliable; that is, in some instances, the ticket recipient cannot reach anyone at the telephone number provided or leave a message there, thus causing concern about meeting the deadline for ticket payment or dispute.

· In at least one instance, the ticket issuer will not disclose its location so that ticket recipients cannot attend in person to either pay the ticket or to dispute it.

· Legitimate ticket disputes by recipients are often met with an uncompromising viewpoint from the issuer and recipients are left with the impression that they have no real recourse and that the issuer’s desire to collect payment outweighs the desire to provide a fair judicial review process.

· In terms of a judicial process, ticket recipients who have a ticket dispute are left with no recourse but to file an action in Small Claims Court. The onus to initiate such action is on the ticket recipient at his/her cost. The cost to pursue this avenue is often higher than the fine on the ticket and therefore, recipients feel that it is no recourse at all.

· Private ticket issuers threaten recipients with collections, towing and even plate denial (although the issuers do not in fact have authority to pursue the latter).

Further, approximately ten private ticket recipients per day (about 2,600 annually) appear at the City’s First Attendance Facility to attempt to pay the ticket or to dispute it, which represents considerable staff time to explain to the recipients that they cannot action their ticket at the First Attendance Facility. This is also very time-consuming for the public and tourists, and causes them considerable confusion and frustration.

DISCUSSION

The proposed by-law (Document 1) to regulate private parking enforcement agencies is modelled after a by-law on the same subject enacted by the City of Toronto which withstood a Court challenge, as further described in the Legal Implications section of this report. The proposed licensing schedule will only apply to those businesses conducting parking enforcement activities in respect of vehicles that are parked on private property without consent of the property owner, which is in contravention of the City’s Traffic and Parking By-law.

Any individual or organization involved in issuing parking infraction notices on private property, other than City of Ottawa Parking Control Officers, would be captured under the proposed licensing schedule. As is standard for all business licenses, a private parking enforcement agency must have appropriate insurance. An application for such a license must also include: an address within the City of Ottawa or contact information to which the public has reasonable access to make inquiries in person; a list containing the address of each property for which parking enforcement services are provided; and, proof of the property owner’s or occupier’s consent to the provision of private parking enforcement services on the property.

The proposed by-law, as part of the conditions of license issuance and renewal, provides that the Chief License Inspector may impose additional conditions on a license as may be deemed necessary to ensure public safety and consumer protection. This provision allows the City to address issues of concern with respect to specific licensees, while not penalizing those who do not represent any issues of concern. As well, as with any other business license, licensees under the proposed Schedule may be subject to a refusal or revocation of the license in the event that the licensee’s actions are deemed to be adverse to the public interest or to public safety.

Provisions applicable specifically to the proposed licensing category include: the licensee maintaining control over the management and operations of the agency and designating a manager to be responsible for that control; a requirement that the enforcement agency only use persons that have completed the City’s Deputization Program for its enforcement activities, thereby ensuring a level of training and minimum standards; a requirement that a list of properties on which parking enforcement services will be rendered is provided to the City; the requirement that only parking infraction notices under Part II of the Provincial Offences Act be issued, thereby eliminating the use of “private” tickets, and that vehicles be towed only with the property owner’s or occupier’s consent, and under the direct supervision of a City Parking Control Officer using a City-contracted tow service provider.

The licensing requirement will not apply to actions taken by a property owner in respect of vehicles parked on the property with consent, as would be the case under a private contract or arrangement, for example, and will not interfere with the owner’s rights to collect amounts that may be due under such contracts or arrangements. The licensing requirement will also not apply to parking enforcement services provided by Carleton University and Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Sciences with respect to their own properties given that these educational institutions have an exhaustive judicial-type process in place that provides for fair review of parking tickets.

Further, the licensing requirement will not apply to parking enforcement services provided under a parking revenue sharing agreement with the City, as provided for by Section 21 of Schedule “B” to the Delegation of Authority By-law (By-law No. 2011-28, as amended) which is the case with respect to Ottawa University, the Ottawa Hospital (Civic and General Campuses) and Algonquin College, the latter of which issues both its own tickets as well as those of the City, depending on the part of the campus involved. Agreements respecting parking ticket revenue sharing or cost recovery with public service agencies or institutions are contemplated where the following Council-approved criteria are met:

a) Parking Infraction Notices are issued on private properties by deputized private property agents;

b) the revenue sharing [or cost recovery] percentage is structured to ensure that the City realizes a minimum of 50% of the net revenues paid to the City for all Parking Infraction Notices issued on private property;

c) the private property owner is an educational or health agency or institution;

d) a minimum of 3,650 Parking Infraction Notices have been issued on the property by deputized personnel in the year preceding the initiation of the agreement and in each subsequent year; and,

e) the agreement is in a form satisfactory to the City Clerk and Solicitor.

Such agreements with the City are currently limited to educational or health agencies or institutions; that is, such agreements have been contemplated only for publicly-funded agencies which are not-for-profit and exist to serve the public good. However, in recognition of the costs incurred by private parking enforcement agencies in the enforcement of parking restrictions on private property, the proposed licensing schedule includes provisions for the City to enter into cost recovery agreements with those agencies that are eligible under the following conditions:

a) the private parking enforcement agency is duly licensed under the Schedule;

b) the private parking enforcement agency has paid the licensing fee of $300;

c) the private parking enforcement agency uses, at its own costs, hand-held ticketing devices and associated hardware and software approved by the Chief License Inspector for the purposes of issuing Parking Infraction Notices, unless otherwise provided in the agreement;

d) a minimum of 2,600 Parking Infraction Notices are issued annually by the private parking enforcement agency;

e) the agreement is structured so that the private parking enforcement agency recovers from the City a certain amount on each paid Parking infraction notice in relation to the offence in question. The amounts to be recovered on each paid ticket would be equal 50% of the amount paid on the particular ticket by the offender, up to a set maximum recovery amount. The maximum recovery amounts are equal to half of the amount of the fine for the particular offence, as follows:

i. 50% (currently $27.50) of the early fine for the offence of unauthorized parking on private property;

ii. $33.50 for the offence of stopping or parking a vehicle on a designated fire route;

iii. $50.00 for the offence of parking in a parking space reserved for physically disabled persons without displaying a valid disability parking permit;

f) the agreement is in a form satisfactory to the City Clerk and Solicitor.

It is proposed however, that no license or processing fee be charged to private parking enforcement agencies which are not eligible for cost-recovery as outlined above given that the primary objective of this licensing schedule is to address issues of fairness and transparency for residents and tourists, and to provide private property owners and tenants thereof with effective tools to reduce parking violations on their property. The proposed license fee for eligible agencies is intended to cover additional administration costs associated with this category of licensee.

The use of hand-held devices is a proposed requirement of eligibility for cost-recovery given the greater efficiency associated with and accuracy of tickets issued using these devices, and the resultant lesser impact on costs to the City to process said tickets for payment as well as through the First Attendance Facility and the Court system.

The proposed minimum of 2,600 Parking Infraction Notices to be issued annually by private parking enforcement agencies eligible for cost-recovery is based on ten Parking Infraction Notices issued per day in a five-day week. As proposed by Recommendation 2, it would be appropriate to amend the same condition applied to similar agreements with educational or health agencies or institutions – which currently sets the minimum of number of Parking Infraction Notices issued on the property annually at 3,650 – to set the threshold of Parking Infraction Notices at 2,600.

The proposed by-law also provides for delegation of authority to staff to amend the threshold of Parking Infraction Notices required to be issued by licensees eligible for cost-recovery as appropriate giving due consideration to average ticket issuance numbers and provided that all other requirements of eligibility are met.

It is proposed that the by-law take effect February 1, 2012 to allow sufficient time to develop cost recovery agreements with eligible licensees, including the facilitation of arrangements with respect to hand-held ticketing devices and associated hardware and software.

Impacts on Private Parking Enforcement Agencies

There will be minimal impact on individuals/agencies already deputized under the City’s program, which comprise the majority of individual/agencies who would be licensed under the proposed by-law. These individuals/agencies have been appointed by by-law, have undergone training, and are already issuing City tickets.

The impact of the proposed by-law is somewhat greater for agencies which conduct private property parking enforcement using their own private tickets and for those private property owners (e.g. parking lot owners, condominium owners) who contract the services of the private enforcement agencies and who receive a percentage of the monies collected from payment of the private tickets. However, that impact will be greatly reduced through the provision of cost-recovery agreements with eligible agencies. Further, given that the intent of enforcement of parking by-law provisions on private property is to reduce parking violations, the use of City of Ottawa Parking Infraction Notices, as required under the proposed by-law, will serve that purpose far better than with the use of the private tickets in that the public tend to take City tickets more seriously given potential repercussions and, as a result, there is a high rate of voluntary payment and a subsequent tendency for compliance with parking restrictions.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no specific rural implications associated with the recommendations.

CONSULTATION

Close to 300 individuals/agencies deputized under the City’s program, parking lot owners regulated under the City’s public garage licensing schedule, condominium groups and private parking enforcement agencies known to the City were notified of the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting at which the item would be discussed and were invited to comment on the draft by-law. Individuals having expressed an interest in the subject matter previously (e.g. those who have contacted the City with concerns about private tickets) were also notified. Notification was also posted on the City’s website in accordance with the Notice By-law, as amended. Staff also met, on two occasions, with a group comprised of representatives from private parking enforcement agencies including Response Safety Security and Investigations, VINCI Park Services Canada Inc., Capital Parking Inc., Gilad Parking and Impark.

Sixteen (16) submissions commenting on the proposed by-law were received, most from agencies currently engaged in either providing private parking enforcement services (using their own tickets) or contracting such services and receiving a percentage of revenue collected from payment of tickets. Three (3) respondents were wholly in favour of the proposal, one condominium manager commenting that City tickets are in fact the preferred and more effective route because recipients of those are more likely to take them seriously and not re-offend which is the goal of parking enforcement; three (3) seemed to be generally in favour but sought clarification on some aspects of the by-law or wanted to be deputized; ten (10) were not in favour, expressing concerns which are outlined below, along with staff’s position in that regard.

· The proposed by-law infringes on property rights of individuals and corporations

o The by-law applies where patrons are parked on private property without the consent of the owner/occupant, in contravention of the City’s Traffic and Parking By-law.

o The proposed by-law does not interfere with or affect any private arrangements such as contracts that may be in place between an owner/occupant of a property and individuals parking on that property.

o Property owners can still avail themselves of their own property rights; that is, they can still sue patrons for damages incurred on their properties and can still take legal action to recoup any debts owing to them under contracts. The by-law only seeks to regulate private parking enforcement where patrons are parked without the consent of the owner.

o The by-law is not dictating to parking lot operators how to run their parking lots – it is simply imposing the method of enforcement where patrons are parked without consent in contravention of the City’s Traffic and Parking By-law.

o The goal of the proposed by-law is to ensure that enforcement is undertaken in a fair manner and that companies cease to use “lookalike” parking tickets for infractions. “Lookalike” tickets cause confusion by making consumers think that they are receiving a municipal ticket.

· Condominiums will no longer be able to enforce their own rules

o The proposed by-law contemplates that where someone is parking on condominium property without the consent of the owner contrary to the Traffic and Parking By-law, then the only enforcement mechanism will be the issuance of a City of Ottawa Parking Infraction Notice under the Provincial Offences Act by a deputized officer.

o Given that the intent of enforcement of parking by-law provisions on private property is to reduce parking violations, the use of City of Ottawa Parking Infraction Notices, as required under the proposed by-law, will serve that purpose far better than with the use of the private tickets in that the public tend to take City tickets more seriously given potential repercussions and, as a result, there is a high rate of voluntary payment and a subsequent tendency for compliance with parking restrictions.

· With the requirement to issue City tickets solely, private parking enforcement agencies will not be able to recover costs associated with enforcement.

o Provisions which will allow the City to enter into cost recovery agreements with eligible private parking enforcement agencies, with conditions, are included in the proposed licensing Schedule to address this concern.

Most of the ten (10) respondents who were not in favour of the proposal initially were concerned about cost-recovery, which has been addressed.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal impediments to implementing the recommendation of this report.

The proposed licensing schedule falls within the City’s business licensing powers found in s. 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001. A similar licensing program for private parking enforcement agencies at the City of Toronto was upheld in 2009 by the Court of Appeal of Ontario as being within the powers (intra vires) of the municipality to regulate for consumer protection purposes. The same licensing by-law was then remitted to the Superior Court of Ontario for further examination, and the Court found that the licensing by-law was passed in good faith, did not conflict with other legislation, and did not unlawfully prevent parking lot owners from exercising their own property rights or manage their lots. The Superior Court further found that the consequential financial benefit to the City of Toronto of requiring parking enforcement agencies to issue municipal tickets was of no consequence to the validity of the licensing program – that is, the true purpose of the licensing program was consumer protection and its goal was the elimination of lookalike tickets, among other things, and these were justifiable. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that by imposing this licensing requirement, the municipality was creating a monopoly for the City in respect of parking enforcement. Again, the Court found that consumer protection purpose of the by-law was of primary importance and was justified.

In an earlier 2005 case, however, the City of Toronto’s private parking enforcement by-law was found not to apply to a company on whose lots patrons were parking with the owner’s consent, and where signage on site made it clear that the patrons parked there under clear terms and conditions with the full consent of the owner. In those cases, the rates imposed by the company differed depending on whether the patron purchased a pre-paid ticket or parked for a longer period of time, and by parking at the lot, the Superior Court found that the patron implicitly agreed to those fees. As such, a private agreement was created between the lot owner and the patron and the fees for parking collected by the company were deemed to be sums owning under the agreement. The licensing by-law was found not to apply to these circumstances since it was aimed at regulating parking enforcement activities for vehicles parked on private property without the consent of the owner, as is the case with the City of Ottawa’s proposed licensing schedule.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with the recommendations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation as the costs, if any, are included in the current budget for By-law and Regulatory Services. No incremental costs are anticipated. The revenue impact on parking fines is not anticipated to be material in nature however, should any significant increases result, the budget, if required, will be revised accordingly.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

There are no technological implications directly associated with the recommendations. The required technology is currently already being developed as it relates to systems being used by the City and any costs associated with the hand-held ticketing devices will be borne by licensees eligible for cost recovery.

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

This report has no direct impact on the City Strategic Directions.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 – Draft Amending By-law and Schedule 30 Relating to Private Parking Enforcement Agencies

DISPOSITION

If the recommendation is approved, By-law & Regulatory Services, in consultation with Legal Services, to process the required amending by-laws to Council for enactment

Document 1

BY-LAW NO. 2011-

A by-law of the City of Ottawa amending By-law No. 2002-189 respecting the licensing, regulating and governing of private parking enforcement agencies.

The Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:

1. Section 1 of By-law No. 2002-189 entitled “A by-law of the City of Ottawa respecting the licensing, regulating and governing of certain businesses”, as amended, is amended by adding the following definitions thereto:

“Deputized Officer” means an individual appointed under By-law No 2004-60, as amended, or any successor by-law, to enforce the Traffic and Parking By-law (By-law No. 2003-530, as amended) on private property and the Fire Routes By-law (By-law 2003-499, as amended);

“private parking enforcement agency” means a person who provides parking enforcement services;

“parking enforcement services” means any parking enforcement activity including but not limited to the issuance of tickets, invoices, or payment notices, and authorizing the towing of vehicles but not the carrying out of the towing, carried on in relation to vehicles parked on private property without the consent of the owner or occupant of such property, but does not include parking enforcement undertaken by the Parking Enforcement Unit of the By-law and Regulatory Services Branch of the City.

2. Section 9 of said By-law 2002-189 is amended by adding thereto the following clause (32) immediately after clause (31):

(32) every person who owns or operates a private parking enforcement agency.

3. Schedule “A” of the said By-law No. 2002-189 is amended by adding thereto the following items:

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Description of License License Fee $ Expiry Date

PRIVATE PARKING 300.00 January 31

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

4. The said By-law 2002-189 is amended by adding thereto Schedule No. 30, Relating to Private Parking Enforcement Agencies, attached.

5. This By-law comes into force on February 1, 2012.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 2011.

CITY CLERK MAYOR

SCHEDULE NO. 30

Relating to Private Parking Enforcement Agencies

LICENSE REQUIRED

1. In this Schedule,

(a) “owner”, when used in relation to property, means,

(i) the registered owner of the property;

(ii) the registered owner of a condominium unit whose consent shall extend only to the control of the unit of which he or she is owner and any parking spaces allotted to him or her by the condominium corporation or reserved for his or her exclusive use in the declaration or description of the property;

(iii) the spouse of a person described in subparagraph (i) or (ii), hereof;

(iv) where the property is included in a description registered under The Condominium Act, S.O. 1998, c. 19, as amended, the board of directors of the condominium corporation; and

(v) a person authorized in writing by the property owner as defined in subparagraph (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) hereof to act on the owner's behalf for requesting the provision of parking enforcement services;

(b) “occupier” means,

(i) the tenant of the property or part thereof whose consent shall extend only to the control of the land of which he or she is tenant and any parking spaces allotted to him or her under his or her lease or tenancy agreement;

(ii) the spouse of a tenant; and,

(iii) a person authorized in writing by an occupant as defined in subparagraph (i) or (ii) hereof to act on the occupier’s behalf for requesting the provision of parking enforcement services.

2. Every person who owns or operates a private parking enforcement agency shall obtain a private parking enforcement agency license.

3. A license issued under this Schedule is not transferable.

4. No person shall provide or perform parking enforcement services, or cause any parking enforcement activities to be provided or performed, without first having obtained a valid license issued under this Schedule.

EXEMPTIONS

5. The parking enforcement services of the following are not subject to this Schedule:

(a) an educational or health institution or agency having a parking ticket revenue sharing agreement in place with the City of Ottawa pursuant to subsection 21(1), Schedule “B”, of the Delegation of Authority By-law No. 2011-28, as amended, and,

(b) Carleton University and Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Sciences, with respect to parking enforcement services on their own property.

CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE & RENEWAL

6. (1) No license shall be issued or shall be issued or renewed unless the applicant:

(a) is at least eighteen (18) years of age;

(b) has provided to the Chief License Inspector an address within the City of Ottawa or other contact information to which the public has reasonable access to make inquiries in person about the business;

(c) has provided to the Chief License Inspector a list containing the address of each property for which parking enforcement services are provided;

(d) has provided the proof of insurance as required under this Schedule; and,

(e) has provided the Chief License Inspector proof that the owner or occupier of the property on which private parking enforcement services are to be provided consents to the provision of such services on the property.

(2) The Chief License Inspector may impose such additional conditions for the issuance, renewal or holding of a license under this Schedule as she or he deems necessary to ensure public safety or consumer protection.

(3) Subject to Sections 13 and 21 of this By-law, being By-law No. 2002-189 as amended, if, in the opinion of the Chief License Inspector following a review of the relevant investigations or inspections, the private parking enforcement agency’s actions are deemed to be adverse to the public interest or to public safety, the Chief License Inspector may refuse to renew the license.

PROVISION OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

7. No licensee shall fail to ensure that only Deputized Officers provide parking enforcement services.

CONTROL OVER PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

8. No person licensed under this Schedule who is an individual person shall fail to maintain control over the management and operations of the agency and shall not delegate this responsibility.

9. No person licensed under this Schedule who is a corporation shall fail to designate one of its officers or employees as designated manager to be responsible for maintaining control over the management and operations of the agency on behalf of the corporation, and such officer or employee shall not delegate this responsibility.

10. No licensee shall fail to provide the Chief License Inspector with the name and address of the current designated manager pursuant to Section 9 on the form provided by the Chief License Inspector for that purpose.

LIST OF PROPERTIES TO BE PROVIDED

11. (1) No licensee shall fail to provide the Chief License Inspector with an updated list of properties required under paragraph (c) of subsection 6(1) within 10 (ten) days of any alteration or amendment of the list.

(2) No licensee shall provide or allow to be provided any parking enforcement services at any property that is not listed on the list required to be filed under paragraph (c) of subsection 6(1).

REGULATION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF TICKETS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS

12. (1) No person shall issue, or cause to be issued, any document, ticket, notice, invoice, request, or demand of any kind, for payment in relation to motor vehicles parked on private property without the consent of the owner or occupier of the property other than a parking infraction notice under Part II of the Provincial Offences Act, as amended.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the issuance of any document, ticket, notice or invoice, request, or demand of any kind, for payment includes:

(a) to personally hand it to the motor vehicle owner or driver; and,

(b) to leave it on the motor vehicle with the intention that the motor vehicle owner shall recover it.

PROHIBITION REGARDING REMOVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES

13. (1) No person shall remove or cause to be removed any motor vehicle parked on private property without the consent of the owner or occupier of the property.

(2) Despite subsection (1), when consent of the owner or occupier is obtained, only a police officer, police cadet, municipal law enforcement officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of subsection 170(15) of the Highway Traffic Act may cause a motor vehicle to be moved or taken to and placed or stored in a suitable place, and all costs and charges for the removal, care and storage of the motor vehicle, if any, are a lien upon the motor vehicle, which may be enforced in the manner provided by the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

INDEMNIFICATION & INSURANCE REQUIRED

14. (1) The licensee shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Ottawa, its employees and agents from any and all claims, demands, causes or action costs or damages howsoever caused that the City may suffer, incur or be liable for resulting from the issuance of a license under this Schedule or from the performance or non-performance of the private parking enforcement agency under this by-law whether or not such performance or non-performance arises with or without negligence on the part of the agency, its employees, directors or agents.

(2) Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under this Schedule, the private parking enforcement agency shall file with the Chief License Inspector proof of insurance of Commercial General Liability coverage subject to limits not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property, including loss of use thereof.

(3) The insurance coverage required by subsection (2) shall include the City of Ottawa as additional insured and shall include a provision whereby the City of Ottawa will be provided with 30 (thirty) days prior notice of any cancellation or variation to the policy.

REPRESENTATION

15. No person shall publish or cause to be published any representation that the person is licensed under this Schedule if they are not so licensed.

COST-RECOVERY FOR ELIGIBLE LICENSEES

16. (1) The General Manager of Emergency and Protective Services and the Chief License Inspector individually are authorized to approve, execute, amend or extend agreements respecting cost-recovery with private parking enforcement agencies under the following conditions:

(a) the private parking enforcement agency is duly licensed under this Schedule;

(b) the private parking enforcement agency has paid the applicable licensing fee set out in Schedule “A”;

(c) the private parking enforcement agency uses, at its own costs, hand-held ticketing devices and associated hardware and software approved by the Chief License Inspector for the purposes of issuing Parking Infraction Notices, unless otherwise provided in the agreement;

(d) a minimum of 2,600 Parking Infraction Notices are issued annually by the private parking enforcement agency for each year that the agreement is in effect;

(e) the agreement is structured so that the private parking enforcement agency recovers from the City, on each paid Parking Infraction Notice, the following amount in relation to the offence for which the Parking Infraction was issued:

(i) fifty per cent (50%) of the amount paid of the early payment amount or other fine that has been imposed, up to a maximum amount equal to 50% of the early payment amount, for the offence of unauthorized parking on private property pursuant to s. 112 of the Traffic and Parking By-law (By-law No. 2003-530, as amended), or any successor by-law,

(ii) fifty per cent (50%) of the amount paid of the fine that has been imposed, up to a maximum of $33.50, for the offence of stopping or parking a motor vehicle on a designated fire route when stopping or parking is prohibited by an authorized sign, pursuant to s. 5(1) of the Fire Routes By-law (By-law 2003-499, as amended), or any successor by-law; and,

(iii) fifty per cent (50%) of the amount paid of the fine that has been imposed, up to a maximum of $50.00, for the offence of parking, without displaying a valid disability parking permit, a motor vehicle in a public parking area in a parking space reserved for physically disabled persons and identified by authorized signs, pursuant to s. 126(1) of the Traffic and Parking By-law (By-law No. 2003-530, as amended), or any successor by-law, and,

(f) the agreement is in a form satisfactory to the City Clerk and Solicitor.

(2) The General Manager of Emergency and Protective Services and the Chief License Inspector individually are authorized to amend the number of Parking Infraction Notices set out in subsection (1), paragraph (c), where the General Manager or Chief License Inspector deem it to be appropriate provided that all other requirements of subsection (1) are met.

(3) The exercise of delegated authority pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) shall be reported to the Community and Protective Services Committee of the City at least once each calendar year.

EXEMPTION – LICENSE FEE

17. Despite any other requirement of this By-law, a private parking enforcement agency that does not enter into a cost-recovery agreement with the City pursuant to Section 16 is not required to pay a license fee under Schedule “A” for a private parking enforcement agency license.