2. LICENSING BY-LAW 2002-189 – – AMENDMENTS – LIMITING NUMBERS AND
LOCATIONS OF BODY RUB PARLOURS REGLEMENT MUNICIPAL 2002-189 SUR LES PERMIS – SALONS DE
MASSAGE – MODIFICATIONS – LIMITER LE
NOMBRE ET L’EMPLACEMENT DE SALON DE MASSAGE |
1. That Council approve amendments to
Licensing By-law No. 2002-189, Schedule 20 relating to Body Rub Parlours to:
a. Limit
the number of available Body Rub Parlour licences to thirty six (36);
b. Recognize
Body Rub Parlour locations that are currently licensed;
c.
Prohibit new Body Rub
Parlours from locating within 1,000 metres of another Body Rub Parlour or Adult
Entertainment Parlour; and 1,000 metres from schools, places of worship,
daycares, public libraries, community centres, public parks or residential
zones, as amended by the following recommendations:
2. Whereas Licensing By-law 2002-189 Amendments – Limiting numbers
and locations of Body Rub Parlours seeks to restrict the location of new Body
Rub Parlours within 500 metres of schools, places of worship, daycares, public
libraries, community centres, public parks or residential zones;
Whereas an application for a license for a Body Rub Parlour has
been received and is pending for 298 Woodroffe Avenue;
Whereas 298 Woodroffe Avenue is within 500 meters of:
i) Woodroffe
Public School
ii) Woodroffe
United Church
iii) Woodroffe
School-Age Childcare Centre
iv) Carlingwood
Public Library
v) Woodroffe
Park
vi) The
residential community of Woodpark;
Therefore be it resolved that the address 298 Woodroffe Avenue be deleted from the list
of addresses provided by staff where a licensed Body Rub Parlour may operate.
3. Whereas the Hintonburg and Mechanicsville communities have and
continue to suffer from the associated social ills and issues that cling to the
periphery of this type of activity;
Whereas there are no pending applications for new Body Rub Parlours
in Hintonburg and Mechanicsville;
Therefore be it resolved that the Hintonburg and Mechanicsville communities limit the
number of body rub parlours licensing to two (2) which are currently in
operation (969 and 1367 Wellington Street).
4. That
the establishments with applications pending at 251 Bank Street and 323
Somerset Street, which are within 500 meters of a residential zone, be deleted
from the list in the report.
5. That
the municipal license number be included in all advertisements by body rub
parlours should the City have the appropriate authority to do so.
6. That
Council limit the number of Body Rub Parlours to those currently in place
together with those pending applications approved today, and;
a. That staff consult with police to
determine the likely status of the various Body Rub Parlour establishments and
to determine under which section of the staff report they should be categorized
– those that are licensed and those apparently conducting such activities
without licenses, and;
b. That Council suggest the Ottawa
Police Service investigate the benefits of designating an officer to act as
education/liaison officer to adult entertainment establishments and their
employees.
7. WHEREAS
staff is proposing amendments to the Body Rub Parlour licensing schedule to
limit the number and locations of Body Rub Parlours and the report proposes to
recognize Body Rub Parlour locations that are currently licensed;
AND WHEREAS the
locations were not included in the report due to a conflict with the licensing
renewal period for Body Rub Parlour licenses making it impossible to provide
the list of locations before the report was finalized;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council deems the attached
list of locations, as amended by the above, be considered part of the
report for the purposes of clarifying Recommendation (b).
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council recommend that the
amendment to Licensing By-law Number 2002-189, Schedule 20 relating to Body Rub
Parlours include the following addresses, as amended by the above, as
locations where a licensed Body Rub Parlour may operate:
1792 Bank Street 256
Bank Street 1757 Bank Street
195 Bank Street 386
Bank Street 155 Bank
Street
14 Bentley Avenue 170
Booth Street 3049
Carling Ave.
2525 Carling Avenue 174 Colonnade Avenue* 1145 Cyrville Road
344 Donald Street 350
Donald Street 96 George
Street
508 Gladstone Avenue 176
Gloucester Street 405
McArthur Road
868
Merivale Road 1916 Merivale
Road* 175
Montreal Road
287 Palace Street 2201
Riverside Drive 371
Somerset Street
2285 St. Laurent Blvd. 1725
St. Laurent Blvd. 380 Terminal
Ave.
1367 Wellington Street 969
Wellington Street
* Application pending
8. WHEREAS
the Municipal Act permits municipalities to regulate where adult entertainment
establishments may or may not operate and limit the number of adult
entertainment establishments in any defined area in which they are permitted;
AND WHEREAS in Section
154 (2) of the Municipal Act an adult entertainment establishment includes
premises where the kneading, manipulation, rubbing, massaging, touching or
stimulating by any means of a person’ body, are performed, offered or solicited
in the premises or part of the premises, excluding premises or part of them
where body-rubs performed, offered or solicited are for the purpose of medical
or therapeutic treatment and are performed or offered by persons otherwise duly
qualified, licensed or registered to do so under a statute of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Act captures holistic practices
within the definition of body rub;
AND WHEREAS staff is recommending amendments to Licensing
By-law 2002-189, Schedule 20 relating to Body Rub Parlours so as to limit their
numbers and restrict the location of new Body Rub Parlours and that the
proposed amendments will restrict the establishment of new Holistic Practices;
AND WHEREAS holistic massages or providers of holistic
massages performed, offered or solicited for the purpose of medical or
therapeutic treatment are not currently recognized under a statute of Ontario;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council
petition the Province to work with the holistic practices industry to create a
registry of qualified holistic governing bodies that will be authorized to
certify holistic practitioners, and include such registry in an appropriate
Statute of Ontario, so as to exempt such practitioners from the body-rub
definition.
Recommandations modifiÉEs du comité
1. Que le Conseil municipal d’approuver
des modifications au Règlement no 189-2002 sur les permis,
afin :
a. de limiter à 36 le nombre de permis
pouvant être accordés pour l’exploitation d’un salon de massage;
b. de reconnaître les salons de massage
actuellement autorisés;
c. d’interdire l’ouverture d’un salon de
massage à 1 000 mètres ou moins d’un autre établissement semblable ou
d’un salon de divertissement pour adultes, et à 1000 mètres ou
moins d’une école, d’un lieu de culte, d’un centre de garde de jour, d’une
bibliothèque publique, d’un centre communautaire, d’un parc public ou d’un
secteur de la ville ou le zonage permet
une utilisation résidentielle, dans sa version modifiée par les
recommandations suivantes :
2. ATTENDU QUE les modifications au Règlement
municipal 189‑2002 – Limiter le nombre et l’emplacement des salons
de massage vise à interdire qu’un salon de massage se trouve à 500 mètres
ou moins d’une école, d’un lieu de culte, d’une garderie, d’une bibliothèque
publique, d’un centre communautaire, d’un parc public ou d’une zone
résidentielle;
attendU
qu’une demande de permis de salon de massage a été reçue et est en
traitement pour le 298, avenue Woodroffe;
étant
donné que le 298, avenue Woodroffe se situe à 500 mètres ou moins :
i) De l’école publique Woodroffe
ii) De l’Église unie Woodroffe
iii) De la garderie d’enfants d’âge
scolaire Woodroffe
iv) De la bibliothèque publique
Carlingwood
v) Du parc Woodroffe
vi) De la collectivité résidentielle de
Woodpark;
il
est donc résolu que l’adresse 298, avenue Woodroffe soit rayée de la
liste d’adresses, fournie par le personnel, où un salon de massage détenant un
permis peut être exploité.
3. attendu que les collectivités de Hintonburg et
Mechanicsville ont subi et continuent de subir les problèmes sociaux se
rattachant à ce type d’activité;
attendu
qu’il n’y a aucune demande en traitement de permis de nouveau salon de
massage à Hintonburg et Mechanicsville;
il
est donc résolu que les collectivités de Hintonburg et Mechanicsville
limitent le nombre de salons de massage détenant un permis aux deux
(2) qui sont actuellement en exploitation (969 et 1367, rue Wellington).
4. Que
les établissements visés par des demandes en traitement et situés au 251, rue
Bank et au 323, rue Somerset, qui se trouvent à 500 mètres ou moins d’une
zone résidentielle, soient rayés de la liste dans le rapport.
5. Que
le numéro de permis municipal figure dans toutes les annonces des salons de
massage dans la mesure où la Ville dispose du pouvoir d’imposer cette exigence.
6. Que
le Conseil limite le nombre de salons de massage à ceux qui existent
actuellement ainsi qu’à ceux qui font l’objet des demandes approuvées
aujourd’hui, et;
a. Que
le personnel consulte la police pour déterminer la situation probable des
divers salons de massage et pour déterminer l’article du rapport du personnel
duquel ils devraient relever – ceux qui détiennent un permis et ceux qui
exercent apparemment de telles activités sans permis, et;
b. Que le Conseil suggère au Service de police d’Ottawa de
déterminer s’il serait avantageux de désigner un agent à titre d’agent
d’éducation ou de liaison pour les établissements de divertissement pour
adultes et leurs employés.
7. ATTENDU
QUE le personnel propose pour l’annexe sur les permis de salon de massage des
modifications limitant le nombre et les emplacements des salons de massage et
que le rapport propose de reconnaître les emplacements de salon de massage qui
font déjà l’objet d’un permis;
ATTENDU QUE les emplacements ne figurent pas dans le rapport en raison
d’un conflit avec la période de renouvellement de permis de salon de massage,
ce qui a fait en sorte qu’il était impossible de fournir la liste des
emplacements avant que le rapport ne soit finalisé;
IL EST DONC RÉSOLU QUE le
Conseil considère la liste jointe d’emplacements (modifiée par ce qui précède)
comme faisant partie du rapport aux fins de la clarification de la
recommandation b).
ET IL EST DONC AUSSI
RÉSOLU QUE le Conseil recommande que la modification à l’annexe 20 du
Règlement municipal 189‑2002 sur les permis relative aux salons de
massage indique que les adresses suivantes (modifiées par ce qui précède) sont
des emplacements où un salon de massage détenant un permis peut être
exploité :
1792, rue Bank 256, rue Bank 1757, rue Bank
195, rue Bank 386, rue Bank 155, rue Bank
14, avenue Bentley 170, rue Booth 3049, ave Carling
2525, ave Carling 174, ave Colonnade* 1145, chem. Cyrville
344, rue Donald 350, rue Donald 96, rue George
508, ave Gladstone 176, rue Gloucester 405, chem. McArthur
868, chem. Merivale 1916, chemin Merivale* 175,
chem. Montréal
*Demande en traitement
8. ATTENDU
QUE la Loi sur les municipalités permet aux municipalités de réglementer les
emplacements où les établissements de divertissement pour adultes peuvent ou
non être exploités et limiter le nombre d’établissements de
divertissement pour adultes dans tout le secteur défini où ils sont permis;
ATTENDU
QUE le paragraphe 154 (2) de Loi sur les municipalités portant sur
les établissements de divertissement pour adultes vise les lieux où le
pétrissage, la manipulation, la friction, le massage, l’effleurage ou la
stimulation par tout moyen du corps humain sont pratiqués, offerts ou
sollicités dans les lieux ou dans une partie des lieux sauf s’ils le sont à des
fins de traitement médical ou thérapeutique et qu’ils sont pratiqués ou offerts
par une personne dûment qualifiée ou agréée pour le faire ou détentrice d’un
permis à cet effet délivré en vertu d’une loi de l’Ontario;
ATTENDU QUE la Loi sur
les municipalités vise les pratiques holistiques dans le cadre de sa définition
de massage;
ATTENDU QUE le personnel
recommande pour l’annexe 20 du Règlement municipal 189‑2002 sur les
permis de salon de massage des modifications limitant le nombre de salons de
massage et les emplacements des nouveaux salons de massage et que les modifications
proposées restreindront l’établissement de nouvelles pratiques holistiques;
ATTENDU QUE les massages
holistiques ou les fournisseurs des massages holistiques pratiqués, offerts ou
sollicités aux fins d’un traitement médical ou thérapeutique ne sont
actuellement pas reconnus en vertu d’une loi de l’Ontario;
IL EST DONC RÉSOLU QUE le Conseil
demande à la province de collaborer avec l’industrie des pratiques holistiques
pour créer un registre d’ordres professionnels qualifiés en la matière qui seront
autorisés à agréer les professionnels des pratiques holistiques et d’intégrer
un tel registre dans la loi ontarienne appropriée de manière à exclure ces
praticiens de la définition de massage.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Manager report dated 3 April 2007 (ACS2007-CPS-BYL-0010).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 19 April 2007.
Report to/Rapport au :
Community and
Protective Services Committee
3 April 2007 / le 3 avril
2007
Submitted by/Soumis
par :
Steve Kanellakos,
Deputy City Manager/ Directeur municipal adjoint,
Community and Protective
Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Contact Person/Personne
ressource ; Susan Jones, Director
By-law Services/Service
des reglements municipaux
(613) 580-2424 x25536, susan.jones@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT : LICENSING BY-LAW 2002-189
– – AMENDMENTS – LIMITING NUMBERS AND
LOCATIONS OF BODY RUB PARLOURS
OBJET : REGLEMENT MUNICIPAL 2002-189 SUR LES PERMIS – SALONS DE
MASSAGE – MODIFICATIONS – LIMITER LE
NOMBRE ET L’EMPLACEMENT DE SALON DE MASSAGE
That the Community and
Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve amendments to
Licensing By-law No. 2002-189, Schedule 20 relating to Body Rub Parlours to:
a. Limit the number of
available Body Rub Parlour licences to thirty six (36);
b. Recognize Body Rub
Parlour locations that are currently licensed;
c. Prohibit new Body Rub
Parlours from locating within 1,000 metres of another Body Rub Parlour or Adult
Entertainment Parlour; and 500 metres from schools, places of worship,
daycares, public libraries, community centres, public parks or residential
zones;
Que le Comité des services communautaires et de
protection recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver des modifications au
Règlement no 189-2002 sur les permis, afin :
a. de
limiter à 36 le nombre de permis pouvant être accordés pour l’exploitation d’un
salon de massage;
b. de
reconnaître les salons de massage actuellement autorisés;
c. d’interdire
l’ouverture d’un salon de massage à 1 000 mètres ou moins d’un autre
établissement semblable ou d’un salon de divertissement pour adultes, et à
500 mètres ou moins d’une école, d’un lieu de culte, d’un centre de garde
de jour, d’une bibliothèque publique, d’un centre communautaire, d’un parc
public ou d’un secteur de la ville ou
le zonage permet une utilisation résidentielle.
On September 14,
2005, Council enacted City-wide Body Rub Parlour licensing regulations and
directed staff to report back to the Community and Protective Services
Committee in eighteen months on the status of licensed body rub establishments.
Staff recommends that the Body Rub Parlour regulations be amended as follows to:
(a)
Limit
the number of available Body Rub Parlour licenses to thirty-six;
(b)
Recognize
the locations of existing Body Rub Parlours that are currently licensed;
(c) Prohibit new Body Rub Parlours from
locating within 1,000 metres of another Body Rub Parlour or Adult Entertainment
Parlour; and 500 metres from schools, places of worship, daycares, public
libraries, community centres, public parks or residential zones;
The proposed amendments reflect the location restrictions for Adult Entertainment Parlours as prescribed in Licensing By-law 2002-189. These restrictions are also currently being considered for inclusion in the new Zoning By-law. Adoption of these regulations will help control resources related to monitoring and enforcement.
A notice appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, the Ottawa Sun and Le Droit on March 30 and April 6, 2007, advising of the recommendation and inviting the public to present their comments, supports or objections in writing before April 12, or in person at the April 19, 2007, Community and Protective Services Committee meeting at which the recommendation will be considered. A similar notice was mailed to licensed Body Rub Parlour operators during the week of March 26, 2007.
Le 14 septembre 2005, le Conseil municipal a adopté des
règlements concernant le permis d’exploiter un salon de massage et demandé au
personnel de présenter au Comité des services communautaires et de protection
18 mois plus tard un rapport sur l’état des établissements de massage
autorisés.
Le personnel a recommandé les modifications suivantes aux règlements sur
l’exploitation d’un salon de massage :
a)
limiter
à 36 le nombre de permis pouvant être accordés pour l’exploitation d’un salon
de massage;
b)
reconnaître
les salons de massage actuellement autorisés;
c)
interdire
l’ouverture d’un salon de massage à 1 000 mètres ou moins d’un
établissement semblable ou d’un salon de divertissement pour adultes, et à 500 mètres
ou moins d’une école, d’un lieu de culte, d’un centre de garde de jour, d’une
bibliothèque publique, d’un centre communautaire, d’un parc public ou d’un
secteur de la ville ou le zonage permet
une utilisation résidentielle.
Les modifications proposées tiennent compte des
restrictions relatives aux emplacements énoncées dans la section consacrée aux
salons de divertissement pour adultes du Règlement no 2002-189 sur
les permis. Le personnel examine actuellement la possibilité d’intégrer ces
restrictions au nouveau Règlement de zonage. Les nouvelles exigences
faciliteront le contrôle des ressources utilisées pour la surveillance et
l’application des règlements.
Un avis à cet effet est paru dans les éditions
du 30 mars et du 6 avril 2007 des quotidiens LeDroit, l’Ottawa
Citizen et l’Ottawa Sun afin de rendre la recommandation publique et
d’inviter les résidents à faire part au Comité des services communautaires et
de protection de leurs commentaires et de leur avis sur la question, par écrit
au plus tard le 12 avril 2007, ou en personne à la réunion du
19 avril 2007, au cours de laquelle la recommandation sera examinée.
Un avis semblable a été envoyé par la poste aux propriétaires de salons de
massage pendant la semaine du 26 mars 2007.
The Municipal Act, Part IV entitled “LICENCES”,
empowers municipalities to pass by-laws to license and regulate certain
businesses. In addition to the standard licensing powers the Act makes it
possible to further regulate “adult entertainment establishments” by allowing
municipalities to limit their numbers and prescribe the area in which the
“adult entertainment establishment” may or may not operate.
Section 154 (2) of the Municipal Act defines
“adult entertainment establishment” as follows:
154 (2) Any premises or any part of them is an
adult entertainment establishment if, in the pursuance of a business,
(a)
goods,
entertainment or services that are designated to appeal to erotic or sexual
appetites or inclinations are provided in the premises or part of the premises;
or
(b)
body-rubs,
including the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or
stimulating by any means of a person’s body, are performed, offered or
solicited in the premises or part of the premises, excluding premises or part
of them where body-rubs performed, offered or solicited are for the purpose of
medical or therapeutic treatment and are performed or offered by persons
otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered to do so under a statute of
Ontario.
On September 14, 2005, Council enacted City-wide Body Rub Parlour licensing regulations and directed staff to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in eighteen (18) months on the status of these licensed establishments.
Since enactment, thirty-two (32) Body Rub
Parlour licenses have been issued, and an additional four (4) applications are
currently pending until final approvals are given from the Zoning, Building,
Fire and Health Services. Community and
Protective Services and the Ottawa Police Service believe the actual number of
Body Rub Parlours operating in the City to be significantly higher. The actual number and locations are
difficult to determine due to the mobile nature of the business and the fact that
many operate through word of mouth rather than advertising.
By-law and Regulatory Services recommends
restricting the number of available Body Rub Parlour licenses to thirty-six to
reflect the thirty (32) licensed Body Rub Parlour currently operating in the
City and allows for the four (4) pending license applications to be processed
and related licenses to be issued.
Limiting the number of Body Rub Parlours is
consistent with current regulations that effectively limit the number of Adult
entertainment Parlours in Ottawa. Under
the Municipal Act both “Adult Entertainment Parlours” and “Body Rub Parlours”
are considered “adult entertainment establishments” and may be regulated in a
similar manner.
Members of the Dalhousie Community Safety
Committee have expressed concerns regarding the current Body Rub Parlour
regulations and have asked the Ottawa Police Service to investigate these
establishments. Some of the
Association’s concerns came from an article printed in the Globe and Mail that
told of RCMP arresting 108 people in massage parlour raids in B.C.
Recommendation 1 (c)
As mentioned above, the Municipal Act of
Ontario defines Body Rubs within the regulations related to adult entertainment
establishments. As such, it is fitting
that regulations related to body rub parlours and adult entertainment parlours
be consistent. Staff deems it
appropriate therefore to prohibit new Body Rub Parlours from locating within
1,000 metres of another Body Rub
Parlour or Adult Entertainment Parlour; and 500 metres from schools, places of
worship, daycares, public libraries, community centres, public parks or
residential zones.
In addition, the
City’s new draft zoning by-law will incorporate similar distance restrictions
on both Adult Entertainment Parlours and Body Rub Parlours.
A notice appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, the Ottawa Sun and Le Droit on March 30 and April 6, 2007, advising of the recommendation and inviting the public to present their comments, supports or objections in writing before April 12, or in person at the April 19, 2007, Community and Protective Services Committee meeting at which the recommendation will be considered. A similar notice was mailed to licensed Body Rub Parlour operators during the week of March 26, 2007. BIAs were informed of the report and had no objections to the recommendation.
There are
no financial implications related to the approval of the recommendation.
The Community and Protective Services
department to administer. Corporate
Services, Legal Services Branch, in consultation with Community and Protective
Services to process the proposed amending by-law to Council for enactment.
LICENSING BY-LAW 2002-189 – AMENDMENTS - LIMITING NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS OF BODY RUB PARLOURS
REGLEMENT MUNICIPAL
2002-189 SUR LES PERMIS - SALONS DE MASSAGE - MODIFICATIONS - LIMITER LE NOMBRE ET L'EMPLACEMENT DE SALON DE
MASSAGE
ACS2007-CPS-BYL-0010 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE
DE LA VILLE
The committee received two additional Motions prepared by
staff requesting the inclusion of the list of addresses of Body Rub Parlours
(BRP) in the report and specific exemptions under the by-law for holistic
practioners. Susan Jones, Director of
By-law Services provided the Committee with a brief overview of the
report. A copy of her PowerPoint
presentation is held on file.
In response to questions posed by Committee members, Ms.
Jones and Anne Peck, Legal Counsel provided the following:
·
Council has the ability to
increase or decrease the distance between BRP and public facilities; arenas and
swimming pools are considered to be community centres under the by-law and the
City-owned portion of the TransCanada Trail would qualify as a park under the
Parks and Facilities By-law
·
Under the Municipal Act,
adult entertainment clubs (AEC) and BRP fall under the adult entertainment
category, but have separate definitions
·
While the list of addresses
included in the staff Motion are those that by-law services are aware of, there
could be additional BRPs operating illegally that are unknown to the City at
this time; ongoing investigations and referral to newspaper advertising assist
in finding these and if found to be operating in an area not zoned for that
purpose or are operating without a license, action is taken to shut them down
·
Businesses that operate body
rub parlours at the back of another business (i.e., hair salon) are not
required under the by-law to post a sign indicating such a business; however,
if such activity is taking place, they would not be permitted to have minors on
the premises and would have to comply with the regulations and conditions for a
body rub establishment
·
The license is attached to
the address under which it is provided and the licensee must post it in a
visible location
·
In order to discourage
problems that are known to co-exist with such establishments, Council has the
ability to identify areas of the city where BRPs are not allowed to operate; it
can also limit the number of AECs in any defined area.
The committee received the following delegations:
Tim Lambrinos, Executive Director, Adult Entertainment Association of Canada (AEAC) was accompanied by Doug Pettit, President, AEAC and AEP of Ottawa (NuDen Cabaret) and Ken Mole, The Silver Dollar. He also spoke on behalf of Earl and Phil Bentivoglio (The Bare Fax), Jacques Campeau (The Playmate) and, Bob Moreau (Barberellas/Diamonds).
In a PowerPoint
presentation, Mr. Lambrinos indicated that the AEAC have formed a stakeholder organization to better communicate to the
public, the City and to the police to ensure proper controls and regulations in
AECs. They would have liked to have
been included in the consultation of the preparation of this report as they
believe they could have provided some very productive recommendations. Subsequently, they ask that they be included
in any City consultation to do with AECs.
As previously clarified by staff, AECs are included in the same broad
category under the Municipal Act as BRPs, although, and as detailed in a
letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, there is a separation between
the two. Mr. Lambrinos suggested that the City should determine the actual
economic demand for this modality and what are the prescribed limits of the
services being provided. He noted that
while staff were originally directed to report back on the status of BRPs, they
have only reported on the numbers found, et cetera and the AEAC believe there
should have been additional preventative measures identified consistent with
others in the Municipal Act. He
put forward the following recommendations, the details of which are contained
in his written submission:
1a) That Council review regulating and defining acceptable operating hours of operation for BRPs, and;
b) That the City Solicitor be directed to
prepare the necessary bill to give effect to any additional recommendations
that City Council may have.
2. That
the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to Council to ensure that no
new BRP, holistic designation or massage parlour shall be located within 1000
metres of any licensed AEC, and no holistic or traditional medicine
establishment shall be located within 1000 metres of any licensed AECs and
BRPs.
3a) No
holistic establishment or BRP shall advertise within 1000 metres of any
licensed AEC;
b)
That the City Solicitor be
directed to prepare a report intending to censure, regulate and/or prohibit
indecent, pornographic, inappropriate or specific items of public nuisance as
it pertains to advertising for BRPs, massage parlours and/or holistic
designations and that industry representatives, business improvement
associations and ratepayer associations be appropriately consulted within the
preparation of this report, and;
c)
That the City’s business
license number of any BRP, massage parlour or holistic establishment be listed
directly on any advertisements in all media outlets which they choose to
advertise.
4.
That the City immediately
limit and cap the number of available licenses for BRPs to 32 and that staff be
directed to report back on available BRP licenses issued by the City with
specific references to defining legal and/or permitted activity and defining
illegal behaviour or service that would be prohibited in BRPs.
5.
That the City pursues hiring
an outside legal expert to put in the legal controls necessary to close down
these illegal massage parlour set-ups.
6.
That the City Solicitor be
directed to prepare a report on how the City could place greater onus on
landlords who rent to body rub establishments and, if necessary, obtain outside
legal assistance in this matter.
7.
That a policy
liaison/community officer be in place to liaise with the AEAC.
In closing, Mr. Lambrinos
wanted to ensure that AECs were separated from body rub parlours and not on the
hook for any costs associated with enforcement. A copy of his written submission dated 19 April 2007 and his
presentation notes are held on file.
The following items were also provided and held on file:
1.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing letter dated 11 May 2006.
2.
Executive Director, Police
Services Board, Regional Municipality of Peel letter dated 15 April 2004
regarding the appointment of a liaison officer for the AEAC.
3.
Extract of advertisements for
body rub parlours, etc from the Ottawa Sun.
In response to a question posed by Councillor Feltmate,
staff confirmed that Council has the ability to limit the number of licenses it
provides for body rub and adult entertainment establishments.
When asked to comment on some of the recommendations put
forward by the delegation, staff provided the following:
·
While other cities have
provided an exemption for holistic care centres, the term “holistic” is not
defined and as a result, hundreds of such establishments have emerged; staff
feel it is best to work under the current definition of the Municipal Act
and not make the distinction between the two; the proposed by-law would include
holistic establishments under BRP;
·
There are some requirements
with respect to advertising and that would apply to holistic establishments as
well; existing sign by-laws would not allow for third party advertising;
·
Staff agreed to investigate
whether the City has the authority to direct that the business license number
be listed directly on any advertisement in all media outlets
·
Under the Municipal Act
and with regards to Recommendation 6 above, the City has the authority to
regulate and license BRPs, but not to put requirements on a third party (i.e.
landlord); any extra municipal enforcement the City might incur could be
charged back to the licensee.
The question was asked whether staff would be recommending
an increase in the current fine for businesses operating without the proper
license. Ms. Jones explained that
Council does not have the ability to raise the maximum as it is the province
that set fines (top limit approximately $100,000). With changes to the Municipal Act, Ms. Peck added
that staff are examining a number of new options available to the City and at
the request of Councillor Leadman, staff agreed to provide details on what
level of fines would be established for illegal operations, before the item
rises to Council. The Director of
By-law Services further added that the maximum fine is $500 and she would
ensure that limit is used now. For progressive
non-compliance, the matter would be brought before the courts, with the
possibility to revoke the license.
Darren Fleming, Centretown Citizens Community Association provided the following comments:
- holistic care centres provide an opportunity for the illegal operation of BRP under the guise of these types of facilities;
- the challenge to enforcement is that most of the owners deny knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors and when attempts are made to prosecute, they simply fire the girls;
- the report did not include any research about what would be an acceptable location for such establishments; some of those listed in the staff Motion as having their applications pending, are already in operation and just because their application is pending, does not mean they should be given a license;
- there has been no research to say what should be an acceptable number of BRPs for Ottawa;
- questioned whether there will be enough resources to support the effective enforcement of the by-law;
- with regards to distance restrictions, the draft zoning by-law on the City’s website includes a 2000 metre restriction and he wanted to know what is the difference between that and what is in this report and which one is better;
- based on an example where a BRP was issued a license when it should not have been (the license was later revoked when the mistake was discovered), he asked whether staff would be looking to improve the methods of supervising the license application;
- the draft zoning by-law currently on the web does not mention BRPs being included in AECs, although he understood staff would be changing it accordingly; the term “body rub parlour” should be added as a definition within the zoning by-law.
Answering some of these comments, staff responded as follows:
· there had been a misinterpretation of the zoning by-law and two licenses were incorrectly given out to body rub establishments - when the mistake was realized, the licenses were revoked and the operations were shut down
· if a BRP is open for business but has not received their license to do so, they would likely be visited by a by-law officer
· the existing licensing by-law provides that the owner/operator of an AEC who contravenes the by-law can be fined a maximum of $25,000 (a corporation - $50,000) or imprisonment for one year; under the new Municipal Act, there is some opportunity to have more flexibility in the nature of the fines.
Councillor Cullen referred to the Ottawa Sun advertisement section provided by the delegation and inquired what would happen to those establishments that are not licensed but which are clearly open for business. Ms. Jones advised that such advertisements are routinely referred to by staff and she confirmed staff would follow-up on those establishments.
The councillor noted that 298 Woodroffe Avenue, listed in the Motion provided by staff, has an application is pending, even though it is situated in an area that BRPs are not supposed to operate. Ms. Jones explained that currently there are no location restrictions, so their application could not be rejected based on the existing by-law. When asked whether that particular address could be deleted from the list, Legal Counsel advised that the Committee could not do that at this point as there is no criteria to prevent them from applying, other than what they are required to meet in order to apply for a license. When asked what recourse the owner would have should the Committee recommend to reject the application, Ms. Peck indicated that in accordance with establishedprocedures under the Licensing By-law, the decision of the Chief License Inspector would be reviewed. An individual could also take civil action.
With regards to the current zoning and mention of the 2000 metre distance, and in response to questions posed by Councillor Leadman, Ms. Jones confirmed that the website has to be updated to reflect the current proposed by-law to ensure those and the planning regulations are consistent. When asked whether there were any distance specifications currently in place, Ms. Peck advised that there are many zoning by-laws and so there would be different rules in place. Given that, Councillor Leadman asked why would staff recommend these licenses be issued. Ms. Peck indicated that under the license by-law, the applicant would be required to comply with any zoning requirements so the issue of whether or not the zoning by-law permitted that type of establishment would have to be confirmed by the Chief License Inspector as part of the license review process. Ms. Jones added that given the new by-law that is being proposed, it could very well be that the applications would be rejected and if so directed, staff could bring forward a Motion at Council to confirm which of those locations have or have not met the requirements.
Maria Santana, Hannia Aesthetics stated she has operated her licensed business for two years and has a license to prove her qualifications. However, she was concerned about similar salons that do not reflect the same course requirements on their license and she believed it is these businesses that are hurting those that are legitimate. She thought the City should address this matter because she pays for a license to offer those services.
Wayne Rodney, Hintonburg Community Association supported the proposed amendments in the report, especially the separation of distances from other land uses and other BRPs. He noted that many of these businesses are fronts for prostitution and can have a detrimental affect on the surrounding communities. He encouraged Committee to approve the staff recommendations and to further support the following:
1. Ensure there are adequate staff to enforce this by-law; without this, these amendments have little effect.
2. Do not issue licenses without a thorough check to ensure that all aspects of the by-law are adhered to. Do not grant temporary or pending licenses.
3. Do not issue licenses until the above requirements are met.
4. Ensure consistent definitions between the licensing and zoning by-laws; the current zoning by-law only refers to AECs and must reflect the fact that BRPs are categorized under those establishments so it is clear the two are synonymous.
Chair Deans made note of the fact there was an existing BRP by-law in the former City of Ottawa and inquired why some of these operations are allowed to continue. The Director explained that a hair salon can operate a body rub establishment if it is licensed. She went on to state that if the licensee violates the conditions of the license, it will be brought to their attention, otherwise they are compliant. She added that if there are problems with prostitution and there are convictions, the licensee can be brought before the License Committee. She explained that in dealing with the harmonization of all the by-laws in the past few years, there has been a significant shortage in by-law officers and with the enactment of this by-law they will work with the police and be proactive in the enforcement of these regulations.
Pamela
Connolly, Dalhousie Community Safety Committee indicated this issue is of
major interest to the downtown communities.
She agreed with the comments made by Mr. Rodney and Mr. Fleming, adding
that BRPs and AECs should be considered one and the same. She believed that each of the nine
establishments in her community should clearly indicate what they are and what
they do. She also suggested that the
delegations who spoke on behalf of the AEAC should talk to some of the
community safety groups to see how they feel about having these activities in
their neighbourhoods.
Councillor
Holmes asked what the City’s ability is to enforce signage and advertising to
ensure it is clearly indicated what the establishment is and that it is
licensed. The Director advised that an
amendment could be made to the by-law, requiring them to state theirs is a licensed
body rub establishment. When asked to
provide the appropriate wording for such a Motion, Ms. Peck preferred the
opportunity to research the matter further and report back prior to Council.
Elizabeth
Kennedy, Touch of Euphoria indicated that their application to operate a
massage parlour at 1916 Merivale Road has been submitted and they are awaiting
confirmation. She believed the City
should be limiting the numbers of BRP and regulating locations, et cetera
because it would help to eliminate the ‘shady’ operations which are associated with
illegal activities, whereas her high-class establishment would not appeal to
the type of individuals or activities often associated with such
establishments. She indicated that she
had originally wanted her establishment to be located in an industrial area, to
avoid being close to public facilities, but was told she had to open up in a
commercial zone. She offered her
expertise and experience to help create a by-law that is fair and one that will
revolutionize this industry.
Chair
Deans noted that the address provided by the delegation was not included on the
list provided by staff. While she was
not aware of the application, the Director advised that she had to accept it
for review because the by-law still allows for that. She confirmed the applicant would still need to get the necessary
approvals before the by-law is enacted or the Committee could add it to the
list.
To clarify
the point made that her establishment was told it could not operate in an
industrial park, Ms. Jones explained that it would depend on what the existing
zoning by-law was for the location she had requested, stating that it might not
have been a permitted use. She
confirmed that the new zoning by-law will address that and harmonize those
regulations, but added that it would make no difference from a by-law
perspective if such businesses were located in an industrial park or in a
commercial area.
Councillor
Cullen referred to the staff Motion listing the various addresses and noted
that Recommendation (c) of the staff report says that BRPs cannot be located
near public facilities, et cetera and yet, 298 Woodroffe Avenue which is
currently listed, violates six out of seven criteria for a license. He proposed that this particular address be
removed from the list of where a license BRP may operate. Chair Deans indicated she would deal with
that Motion as an amendment to the staff Motion which lists the addresses. The councillor concurred with this
direction.
Councillor
Bédard wondered whether or not the Committee could delete an address under the
present by-law, because he presumed this particular address would be judged
under the current by-law. Carey
Thomson, Manager, Corporate Development and Environmental Law confirmed this
understanding and suggested that if the Committee desired more information as
to possible reactions on the part of the applicant and an assessment of options
available to the City, that such advice be provided in camera. He confirmed that the Motion is problematic
given the fact that the requirements are not currently in a by-law.
While he
understood the requirement with respect to zoning, Councillor Chiarelli posited
that businesses do not have a right to a license and Council can
determine whether or not a license is granted.
Therefore, he maintained that there is no right to the previous process
under licensing, as opposed to zoning.
When asked to distinguish between zoning and licensing, Ms. Peck
advised that when considering issuing a license, the compliance with the zoning
by-law would be one the conditions that would be examined by the Chief License
Inspector; Council has determined what conditions must be satisfied before
issuing a license and these are included in the schedules to the licensing
by-law and what the applicant has to provide, et cetera. If the Chief License Inspector refuses a
license, the applicant can go to the License Committee and make their case.
Moved by A. Cullen
Whereas
Licensing By-law 2002-189 Amendments – Limiting numbers and locations of Body
Rub Parlours seeks to restrict the location of new Body Rub Parlours within 500
metres of schools, places of worship, daycares, public libraries, community
centres, public parks or residential zones;
Whereas an application for a license
for a Body Rub Parlour has been received and is pending for 298 Woodroffe
Avenue;
Whereas 298 Woodroffe Avenue is within
500 meters of:
i) Woodroffe Public
School
ii) Woodroffe United
Church
iii) Woodroffe
School-Age Childcare Centre
iv) Carlingwood Public
Library
v) Woodroffe Park
vi) The residential
community of Woodpark;
Therefore be it resolved that the
address 298 Woodroffe Avenue be deleted from the list of addresses provided by
staff where a licensed Body Rub Parlour may operate.
CARRIED,
with G. Bédard dissenting
Moved by A. Cullen
That
Recommendation (c) be amended to replace “500 meters” to: “1,000 meters”, so to read: “… and 1,000 meters from schools, places of
worship, daycares, public libraries, community centres, public parks or
residential zones.”
CARRIED
Moved
by C. Leadman
Whereas the Hintonburg and
Mechanicsville communities have and continue to suffer from the associated
social ills and issues that cling to the periphery of this type of activity;
Whereas there are no pending
applications for new Body Rub Parlours in Hintonburg and Mechanicsville;
Therefore be it resolved that the
Hintonburg and Mechanicsville communities limit the number of body rub parlours
licensing to two (2) which are currently in operation (969 and 1367 Wellington
Street).
CARRIED
Moved
by D. Holmes
That the
establishments with applications pending at 251 Bank Street and 323 Somerset
Street, which are within 500 meters of a residential zone, be deleted from the
list in the report.
CARRIED,
with G. Bédard dissenting
Moved
by D. Holmes
That the
municipal license number be included in all advertisements by body rub parlours
should the City have the appropriate authority to do so.
CARRIED
Councillor Chiarelli proposed a Motion, the effect of which
would be to:
1. limit the number of Body Rub Parlours to those currently in place together with pending applications;
2. direct staff to consult with police to determine the likely status of the various BRP establishments to determine under which section of the staff report they should be categorized, and;
3. suggest that the police investigate the benefits of designating an officer to act as an education/liaison officer to AECs and their employees.
In considering this Motion, Councillor Holmes asked that it be amended to change “those pending applications” to “those pending applications approved today”. Councillor Chiarelli accepted the amendment.
Moved
by R. Chiarelli
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that
Council limit the number of Body Rub Parlours to those currently in place
together with those pending applications approved today;
a. And that
staff consult with police to determine the likely status of the various Body
Rub Parlour establishments and to determine under which section of the staff
report they should be categorized – those that are licensed and those
apparently conducting such activities without licenses, and;
b. That
Council suggest the Ottawa Police Service investigate the benefits of
designating an officer to act as education/liaison officer to adult
entertainment establishments and their employees.
CARRIED
Moved
by S. Qadri
WHEREAS
staff is proposing amendments to the Body Rub Parlour licensing schedule to
limit the number and locations of Body Rub Parlours and the report proposes to
recognize Body Rub Parlour locations that are currently licensed;
AND
WHEREAS the locations were not included in the report due to a conflict with
the licensing renewal period for Body Rub Parlour licenses making it impossible
to provide the list of locations before the report was finalized;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Community and Protective Services Committee deems the
attached list of locations, as amended by the above, be considered part
of the report for the purposes of clarifying Recommendation (b).
AND BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Community and Protective Services Committee
recommends that the amendment to Licensing By-law Number 2002-189, Schedule 20
relating to Body Rub Parlours include the following addresses, as amended by
the above, as locations where a licensed Body Rub Parlour may operate:
1792 Bank
Street 256 Bank
Street 1757
Bank Street
195 Bank
Street 386 Bank
Street 155 Bank
Street
14 Bentley
Avenue 170 Booth
Street 3049
Carling Ave.
2525 Carling Avenue 174
Colonnade Avenue* 1145
Cyrville Road
344 Donald
Street 350 Donald
Street 96 George
Street
508
Gladstone Avenue 176
Gloucester Street 405
McArthur Road
868
Merivale Road 1916
Merivale Road* 175
Montreal Road
287 Palace
Street 2201
Riverside Drive 371
Somerset Street
2285 St.
Laurent Blvd. 1725 St.
Laurent Blvd. 380
Terminal Ave.
1367
Wellington Street 969
Wellington Street
* Application pending
CARRIED,
as amended
Moved by S. Qadri
WHEREAS
the Municipal Act permits municipalities to regulate where adult entertainment
establishments may or may not operate and limit the number of adult
entertainment establishments in any defined area in which they are permitted;
AND
WHEREAS in Section 154 (2) of the Municipal Act an adult entertainment
establishment includes premises where the kneading, manipulation, rubbing,
massaging, touching or stimulating by any means of a person’ body, are
performed, offered or solicited in the premises or part of the premises,
excluding premises or part of them where body-rubs performed, offered or
solicited are for the purpose of medical or therapeutic treatment and are
performed or offered by persons otherwise duly qualified, licensed or
registered to do so under a statute of Ontario;
AND
WHEREAS the Municipal Act captures holistic practices within the definition of
body rub;
AND
WHEREAS staff is recommending amendments to Licensing By-law 2002-189, Schedule
20 relating to Body Rub Parlours so as to limit their numbers and restrict the
location of new Body Rub Parlours and that the proposed amendments will
restrict the establishment of new Holistic Practices;
AND
WHEREAS holistic massages or providers of holistic massages performed, offered
or solicited for the purpose of medical or therapeutic treatment are not
currently recognized under a statute of Ontario;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CPS Committee recommend that Council petition the
Province to work with the holistic practices industry to create a registry of
qualified holistic governing bodies that will be authorized to certify holistic
practitioners, and include such registry in an appropriate Statute of Ontario,
so as to exempt such practitioners from the body-rub definition.
CARRIED