HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-048-00
,
>
,
THE CORPORATION OF TIlE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
DATE:
~onday, September 18,2000
FILE # SO 'i!
-
RES. #t:/../l-7f7!7JD
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
REPORT: CD-48-00
BY-LAW #
SUBJECT: ~UNICIPAL S~OKING BV-LAW
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council, the following;
1. THAT Report CD-48-00 be received; and
2. THAT a copy of Report CD-48-00 be forwarded to Dr. K. Hoch.
BACKGROUND:
Dr. K. Hoch sent correspondence to Council concerning a request for amendment to the Municipal
Smoking By-law. Dr. Hoch requested that the by-law be amended so that office buildings with
common ventilation systems and a health clinic be designated as a non-smoking building. This request
was forwarded to the Municipal Law Enforcement Division for investigation and comment.
Dr. Hoch had indicated that her patients had complained about other tenants of the building smoking in
their offices. The smoke was being carried through the common ventilation system to all parts of the
building,
.../2
710
"
"
Report CD-48-00
-2-
September 18, 2000
INVESTIGATION:
Staff have spoken to Mr. Bob Rockburn of the Durham Health and Social Services Department and to
the Municipality's Building Department. Mr. Rockburn is responsible for enforcing the provisions of
the Tobacco Control Act within Durham Region, Mr. Rockburn advised that there are no provisions in
the Act which would require this kind of separation between smoking and non smoking occupants in a
building. This would not necessarily preclude Council from passing a by-law under the general
provisions of the Municipal Act where it was deemed to be in the best interests of the health and well-
being ofthe citizens.
The practical problem is that such a required separation would create a very onerous financial burden for
the building owner. Ifthere was even one medical office in a building with several dozen other offices,
each one would have to abide by the restriction or the owner would have to retrofit the entire building to
provide separate outside ventilation for all the offices. In order to prevent smoke entering the medical
office all doors, vents and any other openings between offices would have to be sealed with gas barriers
similar to those which are used to seal off a house from an attached garage.
CO~ENT:
In many buildings, this retrofit may be nearly impossible to achieve. The owner would be left with the
option of evicting either the smoker (or smokers) or the medical clinic. There are other options for the
medical clinic, such as commercial air filters which could achieve the desired effect of reducing or
eliminating presence and odour of cigarette smoke. From an enforcement standpoint, it would be
virtually impossible to charge the person who violated the by-law by smoking. The only recourse would
be to create a due diligence requirement on the part of the owner. Unlike a restaurant where it is readily
obvious when a patron is smoking, it would be just as difficult for the owner to locate and deal with the
smoker in such a smoke-free office building.
.../3
711
,
,/
Report CD-48-00
-3
September 18, 2000
While the activity may be distasteful or annoying to some people, smoking is still a legal activity. The current
by-law prohibits smoking in the public areas of office buildings but does not address a person's private office.
Staff are not prepared to support such an infringement on personal rights.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
\
O~~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
PB*LC*bm
712