Province confirms police budgets exempt from strong mayor powers

A newly uncovered directive from the Solicitor General reveals that “Strong Mayor” authority does not extend to police estimates, potentially nullifying recent vetoes at City Hall.

A directive from the Ontario Solicitor General has confirmed a major loophole in provincial legislation: mayors cannot use "Strong Mayor" powers to veto police board budget estimates.

The document, obtained by The Sarnia Journal after being buried in the agenda of the Sarnia Police Services Board, has province-wide implications. Sent to mayors and chairs on Jan. 12, 2026, it effectively creates a two-tier democracy where municipal services can be cut by a mayor, but police budgets remain sovereign.

The correspondence, signed by Solicitor General Michael Kerzner, is blunt.

"The Head of Council's strong mayor budget powers do not include the power to limit police service board budget increases or veto estimates submitted by police service boards," the letter states in bold text.

Under the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA), municipalities are required to provide funding for "adequate and effective policing."

The Solicitor General's interpretation confirms that while a city council approves the overall municipal budget, it cannot reject specific line items submitted by a police board. This means if a board deems a tank, a new headquarters, or a salary hike necessary for "adequacy," the mayor's veto is legally void.

Provincial priorities

The directive highlights a stark contradiction in the Ford government's municipal agenda.

Since 2022, Premier Doug Ford has touted "Strong Mayor" powers as a necessary tool for efficiency, allowing mayors to bypass council gridlock to build homes and manage finances. However, this letter—signed by Solicitor General Michael Kerzner, a senior member of Ford's cabinet—confirms that this "efficiency" mandate stops at the police station door.

Notably, the letterhead bears the insignia of both the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This indicates a coordinated stance across the government: while mayors are empowered to slash spending on transit, libraries, and social services, the province has reinforced legal firewalls that protect police budgets from the same fiscal scrutiny.

This aligns with the Ford government's 2019 overhaul of the CSPA, referenced in the letter, which prioritized "adequacy" standards that often force municipalities to increase spending regardless of their ability to pay. The legislation shifted the statutory responsibility for defining "adequate and effective" policing from the municipality to the police board itself. This allows boards to subjectively determine their own needs—independent of the taxpayer's ability to pay—and classify them as mandatory compliance issues.

Sarnia as "patient zero"

This clarification has immediate, explosive implications for Sarnia, particularly regarding the definition of "adequacy."

The Sarnia Police Services Board and Police Chief Derek Davis have argued the current headquarters is inadequate for modern policing, despite independent engineering reports suggesting the building is structurally sound and repairable for a fraction of the cost.

In December, Mayor Mike Bradley utilized Strong Mayor powers to veto the borrowing of funds for a controversial new police facility. The Sarnia Police Services Board now has the ammunition to ignore that veto.

Board Chair Paul Wiersma confirmed to The Sarnia Journal that he personally added the letter to Thursday's agenda specifically because of its implications for the current standoff.

"This information is relevant to the current budget process and ought to be given consideration," Wiersma wrote in an email to The Journal.

While Wiersma stated the Board "has not made any decision concerning its next steps," his admission confirms that the letter is not merely for information—it is being weighed as a potential tool to challenge the mayor's authority.

Based on this directive, the board can now leverage that subjective determination of "inadequacy" to bypass the mayor's veto entirely. By classifying the new build as a requirement for "adequate and effective" operations, they can argue the mayor acted ultra vires—outside his legal authority—by attempting to limit it.

The document outlines that if a council refuses a funding request, the police board can bypass them and go straight to the Ontario Police Arbitration and Adjudication Commission (OPAAC). The directive notes that an arbitrator's decision is binding.

This creates a significant disparity in how public funds are managed. With recent arbitration awards locking in annual police budget increases as high as 4.75 per cent—even as social service budgets are slashed—this directive confirms a harsh reality for taxpayers.

It signals that while "Strong Mayor" powers were designed to curb municipal spending, they offer no brake on the expansion of policing, leaving the costliest department in the city effectively immune to democratic oversight.

Taxation without representation

The conflict is deepened by the Board's interpretation of its own loyalty. When asked how city councillors sitting on the Board can vote to litigate against the municipality they represent, Wiersma was blunt.

"Board members do not represent the party that they are appointed by," Wiersma stated.

This admission highlights a profound governance gap: Councillors Anne Marie Gillis and Chrissy McRoberts, who sit on the Board, are effectively operating as free agents. According to the Chair, when they enter the boardroom to vote on a budget the mayor tried to stop, they are no longer representing the City of Sarnia or its taxpayers.

Wiersma also claimed he was 'not personally aware' of the Municipal Act provision that reverts budget authority to Council if a deadline is missed—despite that deadline being just days away.