2026 Caledon Council Report Card

A Better Caledon Report Card Update (Oct 9, 2026)

• Voting record QR codes added ✔️

• 12 Zoning Orders, more information on A7 ✔️

• Conflict‑of‑Interest Registry included ✔️

As residents, we deserve to know exactly how our elected officials vote — and whether those votes stay consistent when the public stops watching. After reviewing every Caledon Council vote from 2022–2026, the pattern is unmistakable: a 5–4 split, shifting conflicts, and councillors voting No when the spotlight is on, then quietly voting Yes on the same files years later.

This is process laundering, and it’s happening on major files — the 12 Zoning Orders, their Secondary Plans, and the Official Plan Amendments. Residents also deserve clarity on conflicts of interest. When councillors recuse themselves on one vote but not on the enabling steps for the same lands, that’s not transparency. That’s selective disclosure.

Residents should also be aware of the 413 corridor implications. Councillor Early has pecuniary interests tied to lands worth significant sums. In cases like A1, A2, A4, A5, and A11, consistent recusals should have been expected and didn't happen

Meanwhile, the mailed report card from the third‑party advertiser Democracy Caledon endorses candidates without linking to the actual voting records or showing how those votes changed over time. Residents deserve better than curated narratives that leave out the most important facts.

A Better Caledon’s Report Card provides the full, verified voting history, with QR codes for every vote so residents can check the records themselves.  Caledon doesn't deserve a divided Council.  We need our Council to work together to make "A Better Caledon"  

 
Transparency isn’t optional — it’s the minimum standard our community deserves.

For my second Caledon Council Report Card, this Council knew I was watching and documenting every vote. Over the past four years, I reviewed all published voting records and compiled every vote from 2022–2026 so residents can see the full picture for themselves. What emerges is a pattern that is both familiar and concerning: Caledon Council remains divided, this term split 5–4, mirroring the deep divisions of the previous term (2018-2022), which was split 7–2. That division in the Council Chambers inevitably becomes division in the community.

The voting patterns tell a very different story than the public theatrics often suggest. When you examine the most contentious votes across the term, a disturbing inconsistency appears. Councillors who declared conflicts or voted No on major files, such as the 12 Zoning Orders issued under Mayoral direction,  later voted Yes on the Secondary Plans that enable development on those same lands. In some cases, councillors who recused themselves on the original zoning decisions did not declare the same conflicts when voting on the enabling steps years later. This selective recusal creates an inconsistent approach to conflict‑of‑interest obligations.

This pattern continues across multiple files. What you see is a form of process laundering: Councillors vote No or recuse themselves at the early, high‑visibility stage, then quietly support the later procedural steps that allow development to proceed when fewer residents are watching. The result is a voting record that does not align with the public positions some councillors claim to hold.

A Better Caledon's Report Card does not cover every vote — instead, it highlights a cross‑section of decisions that clearly demonstrate these patterns. The goal is transparency: to show residents how their elected officials actually voted, not how they performed in public. If Council could work collaboratively instead of voting in blocks, the reliance on Strong Mayor Powers would diminish. But as long as these voting blocs persist, Caledon will continue to see division instead of leadership.

I have put shading on related votes so you can see the entire voting process.  The 12 Zoning Orders under Mayoral Direction and Swan Lake were charged and emotional, yet for the Secondary plans and the Official Plan admendments,for some of these 12 Zoning orders, the Council members who voted in the bloc of 4 changed their Votes and no longer had their Conflicts of Interest. There was no public outcry for these same properties when the initial holds were removed and when approval for development happened the same properties.