WARD 4 needs a reliable, honest councillor: SwanseaMatters.com scorecard, Toronto Star insights
For immediate distribution and circulation
Ward 4 votes tomorrow, Monday, October 26. Ward 4 needs a reliable, honest councillor: one who answers to the ward, in writing and in person.
The Toronto Star has just published "Who's next to replace Gord Perks in Parkdale-High Park? Meet the candidates, and the controversy," to provide insights on the three leading candidates: Nadia Guerrera, Debbie King and Diana Chan McNally. We report in addition, from our own direct engagement with each of them.
The scorecard
Every candidate was asked the same five questions in writing. Would they:
1) call for a review of the plan before any further approvals?
2) hold site plan approval until the Stage 2 Actions Report that Council mandated is produced?
3) have the site's environmental condition established and made public, with a Risk Assessment, before demolition or construction?
4) seek an assessment of the impact on transportation, schools and services, including nearby developments?
5) meet the SwanseaMatters.com coalition within 30 days of taking office?
YES to all five: Nadia Guerrera, Debbie King, Vanessa Raponi, Adam Pham, Bridget Ogundipe, Holly Weber and Steve Yuen.
Did not answer four of the five: Diana Chan McNally, the candidate backed by outgoing councillor Gord Perks.
Nadia Guerrera, Debbie King, Vanessa Raponi and Adam Pham engaged directly with coalition members. Diana Chan McNally's campaign, invited seventeen days before the vote, declined to meet until after it.
What Nadia Guerrera told us
Nadia Guerrera met the coalition and saw the site for herself, from a neighbour's backyard that backs onto it. She acknowledged the environmental concerns, and committed to meeting a community liaison group within 30 days of being elected. She has proposed a public dashboard that tracks every development in the ward, so residents know what is being built, when and how, and she has made working with all three levels of government a foundation of her campaign. In writing, she answered Yes to all five questions.
The Star reported the same: "Guerrera has backed a review, environmental scrutiny and stronger community consultation." She told the Star that residents "found him very difficult to get a hold of," and plans to put her office on a main street so the community has easy access.
What Debbie King told us
Debbie King met the coalition for over an hour to discuss Swansea Mews. She attended the November 2025 Open House, recognized the need for a proper community consultation, and was open to reviewing what the site might house.
The Star wrote that her "commitments stop short of an unequivocal call to revisit the plan." In writing, she told us: "I would seek a review of the 21 Windermere Avenue plan before further approvals are given."
What the record shows on Diana Chan McNally
Chan McNally deputed in favour of the Perks-endorsed proposal for 21 Windermere Avenue (officially, Toronto Community Housing is the developer) at the Planning and Housing Committee that Councillor Perks chaired in February: "What I see in this proposed redevelopment of Swansea Mews is exactly what's needed," and "I absolutely support this plan."
What was not known at the time of that deputation is that Councillor Perks had moved the motion appointing her to the City's Housing Rights Advisory Committee. Her qualifications were not verified: her biographies for that role listed a Master of Education degree. As the Star has now reported, she never completed it.
The Star also reported that she wants "to continue the legacy" Perks has been building in the Ward, and that she "has defended the existing development, aligning her position with Perks'." This year, Councillor Perks received a City compliance order over unpermitted work in his basement, and as Chair of Planning and Housing, no less. NOW Toronto reported him "caught for not complying with building bylaw." On April 30, she praised his "unwavering ethics."
A prospective councillor's actions now are the measure of their actions in the future.
The last Ward 4 election was decided by 1,230 votes. Nearly 2,500 signatures have been gathered across two petitions for proper community consultation and environmental assessment at Swansea Mews, the Toronto Community Housing site at 21 Windermere Avenue (the corner of The Queensway and Windermere), with just over half of them from Ward 4 postal codes. Your vote can decide this ward.
Vote tomorrow. Bring a neighbour. Not in Ward 4? Forward this to someone who is.
Ward 4 voices matter. This is what you petitioned for.
Vote for consultation and responsible development.
Swansea Neighbourhood Group
SwanseaMatters.com coalition
THE FULL STORY (6 minute read)
First published October 24, 2026:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-city-from-ignoring-lead-mercury-arsenic-methane-21-windermere-swansea-mews/u/35501710
On Monday, your vote will matter, and your actions to date are valid proof. Nearly 2,500 signatures have been gathered across two petitions for proper community consultation and environmental assessment at Swansea Mews, the Toronto Community Housing site at 21 Windermere Avenue (the corner of The Queensway and Windermere), with just over half of them from Ward 4 postal codes.
The most recent Ward 4 election was decided by 1,230 votes. You are in a position to make the change you desire, and to send a strong message that Ward 4 voices matter at the ballot boxes on Monday.
Methodical research: how this information was assembled
The SwanseaMatters.com coalition, whose members live in every neighbourhood of the ward and favour none over another, attended all three major all-candidates debates and recorded them for accuracy and thoroughness. Swansea Mews was raised as THE hot button issue at each one.
The coalition engaged directly with every candidate after each debate, and further engaged candidates on their platforms to ensure accuracy. Every candidate was then given the courtesy of the same five key questions in writing, with the opportunity to comment. Every reply has been published word for word:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1crEMRLHR_FqM9EHAyk5VOi9qmXSkMSDr/view?usp=sharing
(also available as a button at the very front of SwanseaMatters.com, labelled "Where Ward 4 Candidates Stand").
Of note, the Toronto Star, CBC and the Toronto Sun have contacted the coalition for its input. The Star's profile of the three leading candidates, published October 25, is here (subscription may be required):
Why one site tells the whole story of the ward
Swansea Mews brings together every critical issue in Ward 4: community consultation, the environment, density, schools, recreation, health services, transit and infrastructure, and how it is all paid for across three levels of government. It also impacts High Park directly, and the water we drink. The full record is at SwanseaMatters.com.
The consultation on the plan was described as negligent by a designate from the local Member of Parliament's office who attended it. In April 2025, Council mandated a Stage 2 Actions Report, the business case setting out partners, the number of homes, affordability, funding and financial implications. Council adopted a 639-unit rezoning in March 2026 without it, and it has still not been produced.
The owner's own testing found lead at 30.4 times the provincial residential standard, 50 metres from Grenadier Pond in High Park, and no Risk Assessment has been completed. The Toronto Sun reported on the contamination and the demolition here:
https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/swansea-mews-chemical-contamination-tchc-pollution
The five questions
1) Will you call for a review of the 21 Windermere Avenue plan before any further approvals are given?
2) Will you seek to hold site plan approval until the Stage 2 Actions Report is produced?
3) Will you seek to have the site's environmental condition established and made public, and a Risk Assessment completed, before demolition or construction proceeds?
4) Will you seek an assessment of its impact on transportation, schools and services, including the combined effect of nearby developments?
5) Will you meet the SwanseaMatters.com coalition within 30 days of taking office?
The findings
YES to all five: Nadia Guerrera, Debbie King, Vanessa Raponi, Adam Pham, Bridget Ogundipe, Holly Weber and Steve Yuen.
Did not answer four of the five: Diana Chan McNally, the candidate backed by outgoing councillor Gord Perks.
Beyond the survey, Nadia Guerrera, Debbie King, Vanessa Raponi and Adam Pham engaged directly with coalition members to discuss this site and more. Diana Chan McNally's campaign, invited seventeen days before the vote, declined to meet until after it.
The petitions you signed explicitly acknowledged that the community consultation was negligent. Every candidate who replied has now acknowledged it, except one.
Promised, then declined
Chan McNally's platform promises to "expand opportunities for public consultation on land-use decisions." Asked to commit to exactly that, she would not, in writing or in person. Her campaign wrote that "without being in office, Diana is unable to consult the expertise of City staff," and that she would answer the community's questions once elected.
A printed copy of the full site report prepared by the community was delivered to Chan McNally's office, for ease of use and in preparation for a discussion. Again, she declined the request to meet.
It was stated to the outgoing councillor that deferring the community to civil servants, or deciding for the electorate unilaterally, was unacceptable. To promise consultation, then decline it when asked, is known as a bait and switch.
A prospective councillor's actions now are the measure of their actions in the future. If a candidate ignores the ward's request for a pause and review of these matters, starting with the required, fully accessible, real community consultation, then that is what they are measured against. Every future discussion is then limited before it even begins.
We also have to ask: if a candidate does not believe it is the electorate that matters, then who do they report to? That is a deep concern for everyone in the ward.
Whether candidates call themselves progressive, moderate or otherwise, the test was simple: respond to the ward. Seven did. One did not.
Beyond the site
The coalition also appraised each candidate's positions on High Park access, which CBC has covered as a primary concern in the ward, along with density on Bloor and the corridor, and community consultation, drawn from the debates and their stated platforms. Residents want a councillor whose balance includes every neighbourhood of the ward: Parkdale, Roncesvalles, High Park North, Swansea, Runnymede-Bloor West Village, Lambton Baby Point and the Junction. That councillor should not put personal preference ahead of the diversity of the ward.
What a councillor is elected to do
CBC News explained this week who does what at each level of government.* On housing, all three levels overlap, and the City controls local zoning and development approvals.
In the City of Toronto's own words, a councillor's job includes "consulting with the constituents of their ward" and "ensuring that all sides of an issue are considered in the decision-making process":
Under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, Council's role includes representing the public and ensuring accountability and transparency:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c11
As CBC put it: "Knowing who does what helps you hold the right leaders accountable."
We are looking for facts, a track record that holds up to examination for truth, accuracy and clarity, and a councillor who will take our voices to City Hall as verified and valid, not picking what suits a narrow set of personal likes and dislikes.
From petition to ballot
You may have asked whether a petition gets anywhere. This one has. What began with a few neighbours trying to understand what was happening at this site became a public record at SwanseaMatters.com, documenting voices that were unacknowledged, overlooked and diminished. It has been put before current and future elected officials, the media and the public. Your petition was the pathway. Monday's vote is where it leads.
* Appendix: Who does what. CBC News election explainer, October 2026 (transcribed)
"Municipal election is this coming Monday, but what is the mayor actually responsible for? The mayor leads the City Council and oversees over 44,000 public employees. The city handles your day-to-day services, things like public transit, police, paramedics, fire services, homeless shelters, water, sewage, by-law enforcement, rec centres, libraries and local parks. Then there's our provincial government.
Premier Doug Ford and MPPs in the provincial assembly handle large-scale public services like healthcare, education, highways, natural resources and social services like disability support and assistance for food and housing. And finally, there's the federal level.
Prime Minister Mark Carney works with Parliament to handle national and international affairs: think national defence, immigration, foreign trade, citizenship, banking, postal service and drafting Canada's criminal laws.
There are a couple of spots that overlap, for example, housing. Municipalities control local zones and development approvals. The province sets landlord-tenant laws and manages a tribunal that can overturn city council's planning decisions. This division of power goes all the way back to the Constitution Act of 1867.
Knowing who does what helps you hold the right leaders accountable. So if something in your neighbourhood needs fixing, you know whose door to knock on."