Toronto Police say the eastbound Gardiner Expressway is still closed on Tuesday morning after an alleged carjacking and police pursuit that saw one suspect jump from the expressway.

However, as of 7:30 a.m., police said the southbound DVP has reopened and the westbound Gardiner Expressway has also reopened.

The closure stems from an armed carjacking that occurred at around 11 p.m. Monday at the Shops at Don Mills, police said. The suspects then fled the scene and were pursued by officers south on the DVP.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

Police said the suspect vehicle stopped and the suspect got out and fled on foot, jumping off the Gardiner Expressway and falling onto Lake Shore Boulevard East below near Parliament Street.

Paramedics told Global News they took one person to hospital with serious, but non-life-threatening injuries.

Other suspects are believed to have fled in another vehicle, investigators said.

The Special Investigations Unit has been called in to investigate. The SIU is Ontario’s police watchdog and investigates incidents involving police and civilians who are seriously injured.

The southbound DVP and the Gardiner Expressway was closed overnight for several hours for the investigation.

&copy 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

A newly released report from city staff says Toronto still has the authority to mandate new buildings meet certain climate and sustainability targets, despite concerns those powers could be undercut by a recent Ontario law.

The report set to go before the city’s executive committee today says there’s “no impact” to the city’s ability to apply its green standard to new development under the recently passed Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act.

Several environmental and industry groups have suggested the law may prevent municipalities from setting standards beyond what’s already required in the provincial building code.

Toronto’s green standard is considered a key plank of the city’s climate plan and is touted as a way to make new buildings more resilient to climate-fuelled extreme weather while cutting back on emissions.

Among other things, it requires new builds to retain stormwater to prevent flooding during extreme rainfall and have enough tree canopy to help stave off extreme heat. It also requires buildings to meet annual emissions targets, pushing developers to consider low-carbon heating options such as heat pumps over natural gas, and install parking spots for bikes and electric vehicles.

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Rob Flack did not directly say whether the bill would impact Toronto’s ability to enforce the standard, but she did say it was adding to building costs and slowing down construction.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

“Our government is focused on what the economics support, setting the same rules for everyone to get shovels in the ground to build more homes faster,” Alexandra Sanita wrote in a statement.

The Atmospheric Fund, a regional agency that supports climate solutions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, has suggested green development standards may actually help accelerate development timelines by streamlining sustainability-related planning requirements into a single document with clear expectations.

In a letter to the province, it pointed to data that suggested Toronto and Pickering, two municipalities with green standards, have both seen their approval timelines improve in recent years, although they remain above the national average.

Bryan Purcell, a vice-president at The Atmospheric Fund who’s worked closely on green standards, says he was “somewhat surprised” but “very encouraged” by how definitive the city’s position was in the staff report. He says green standards are “so core” to Toronto’s climate objectives that “we can’t really afford to lose it.”

But he said the bill had generated enough confusion to possibly stall efforts by municipalities interested in pursuing their own version of the standard.

“I think the biggest immediate impact is that I expect to see some slowdown in those cities that were on the path of developing their first green standards,” he said in an interview.

The omnibus Bill 17 was rushed through the legislature and passed into law earlier this month before a public comment period closed and without further review by a legislative committee.

Changes made under the new provincial law prevent municipalities from passing bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. Some law firms and regulatory bodies, including the Ontario Association of Architects, have said that change would appear to make green standards obsolete.

Others have suggested the province may use the bill to limit what types of studies a city can require from a developer before approving a project. Toronto’s green standard, for example, requires a developer to submit an energy modelling report that outlines how the building will keep greenhouse gas emissions in check.

The OAA says green standards should not be lost, adding they help “everyone understand energy consumption in buildings,” and position Ontario to achieve its climate targets.

More than a dozen other Ontario municipalities have used Toronto as a model to come up with their own green standards. While Toronto, Halton Hills and Whitby are among those with mandatory standards, most are voluntary.

The Residential Construction Council of Ontario, a vocal critic of the standard, has suggested it’s adding to housing costs. RESCON sued Toronto over the standard last year in a case still before the courts.

President Richard Lyall called the city staff report set to be discussed Tuesday “delusional and unsubstantiated.”

“We’re going to make our views known to the committee,” he said.

&copy 2025 The Canadian Press

Ontario taxpayers were on the hook for a six-figure bill covering Premier Doug Ford’s high-profile trip to Washington, D.C., during the snap winter election campaign, Global News can reveal, reviving accusations that the Progressive Conservative Party relied on government resources during its re-election bid.

Ford faced criticism in February after the PC Party appeared to disregard the government’s caretaker convention by taking two separate trips to the U.S. capital after the writs had been drawn up.

His political opponents said Ford — who had chosen the timing of the election — was using the threat of tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump to justify publicly-funded events during the campaign, which blurred the line between party and government.

Both the NDP and the Liberals filed complaints to election officials and legislative watchdogs claiming the trips to D.C. were a violation of longstanding rules, which say campaigning premiers and cabinet ministers should strictly limit any functions linked to government.

While the Progressive Conservative campaign said the trips — from Ford’s travel to accommodation and campaign staff — were funded by the party, new invoices and payments obtained by Global News show parts still relied heavily on public funding.

The documents, accessed using freedom of information laws, reveal events starring Ford in the United States cost the public close to $100,000 — plus thousands more which was spent to bring civil servants to the U.S. to coordinate Government of Ontario events.

The invoices seen by Global News covered promotional material, catering, sound and display systems, as well as venue hire.

Ontario Liberal MPP John Fraser said he felt the trips were a violation of traditions which forbid sitting governments who are campaigning for re-election from using public resources or titles.

“There’s such a thing as the caretaker convention,” he said. “I don’t think you’ve seen any other political leader in my memory and history — in history — go to another country in the middle of a campaign.

The premier’s office said some expenses were covered by the Progressive Conservative Party, others were paid by the province.

“As is the case for any official trip by the Premier, the Government of Ontario covered expenses for the event and any support provided by public officials,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

“The PC Party paid for all expenses incurred by political staff who accompanied the Premier, including accommodation and flights.”

Almost two weeks after calling a snap winter election, Ford and his campaign team chartered a plane to fly from Toronto to Washington, D.C., for the PC leader and caretaker premier to take part in a meeting with Canada’s other first ministers.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

Along with his meetings with other premiers, Ford headlined two events in the capital designed to drum up political and business support for Ontario and the premier’s vision of an integrated energy and critical mineral plan.

On Feb. 11, Ford appeared at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he discussed his plan to sell more electricity and critical minerals to companies in the United States.

The pitch was government policy before Ford dissolved the legislature, and simultaneously a central plank of his election campaign.

Documents show the fireside chat, where Ford took questions from travelling media and discussed his Fortress Am-Can vision, came at a substantial cost to the public purse.

Printing just over 1,000 bound copies of the Fortress Am-Can plan cost taxpayers $13,158.58. The order was put in with the printers on Jan. 24, the day Ford publicly confirmed he would be calling an early election.

The Ontario government also shelled out $23,055.54 USD (equivalent to around $31,000 CAD) to rent out the venue where the fireside chat was held. The chamber of commerce previously confirmed to Global News it did not charge the government anything for its role in moderating the event.

Later that day, Ford held a reception at the U.S. Library of Congress to meet with senior American politicians in an effort to boost his message.

That event cost just over $11,500 in audio and visual services and $18,222.50 in drinks and catering costs. Renting out the venue came to almost $6,000, according to the documents. Roughly converted from U.S. dollars to Canadian, the second event cost $48,500.

The documents obtained by Global News also show as many as 13 civil servants — ranging from senior diplomatic staff to IT support — were involved in the mission.

Some were already based in Washington, D.C., while others were flown from Toronto, put up in hotels and reimbursed for meals and travel. Those costs added thousands more to the public tab for the first trip.

Fraser said Ford had relied on his role as caretaker premier to run his re-election bid against Trump, instead of on domestic issues.

“Mr. Ford thought that was advantageous — they filmed a commercial down there, they appeared on multiple television shows, which were rebroadcast or promoted to by watched by the premier himself through his social media channels,” he said.

“I don’t think the premier has a problem spending taxpayers’ money on himself or his party.”

The premier’s office said the purpose of the mission was to explain Ford’s vision of integrated Canadian-American business to various leaders in Washington, D.C.

“President Trump’s tariffs will cost the economy and families on both sides of the border billions,” the spokesperson said.

“With the threat of tariffs looming, Premier Ford brought his vision of Fortress Am-Can directly to key administration officials, business leaders and decision-makers in Washington. This included deepening Ontario’s relationships with key senators and governors who can influence trade policies toward Canada.”

Fraser questioned what Ford had achieved during his trip to D.C. in February.

“What did the premier come back with? What’s the evidence of that being an effective way to tell our story?” he asked.

“I think it’s arguable to say he came back with nothing. I think it was highly unusual to do that in the middle of a campaign; the premier clearly thought that was advantageous to him during the campaign.”

Fraser also pointed to $103.5 million the province spent on commercials last year, which the auditor general found were “designed to promote the governing party.”  They were paused once the campaign began.

The revelations of exactly how much the public spent on Ford’s trip to Washington, D.C., come after a campaign in which Ford’s opponents cried foul, claiming the Progressive Conservative Party leader was using the U.S.-Canada crisis to blur the lines between government and campaign.

At the time, Ford said he had cleared the mission with the legislature’s watchdog and that the premier and campaign team’s travel had all been paid for by the party.

“I got cleared by the integrity commissioner but that’s (neither) here nor there,” Ford said on Feb. 11 in Washington. “The Canadian people want us here, not just Ontarians, Canadians. They want all the representatives, all their premiers here.”

Ford, however, did find himself on the wrong side of Ontario’s top civil servant, who issued a stern warning after his campaign sent a videographer on the trip and used the footage in an election video.

Shortly after returning, the PC Party pushed a new campaign commercial to social media highlighting Ford, along with Progressive Conservative candidates Vic Fedeli and Stephen Lecce, walking through Washington, speaking with the Chamber of Commerce and meeting with premiers.

The commercial, which ended with the PC party logo and campaign slogan “Protect Ontario,” immediately caught the attention of Michelle DiEmmanuel, Ontario’s Secretary of Cabinet, who ordered its removal.

She published a frosty letter, in which she said she had reached out to the Progressive Conservatives and told them to remove the video.

The video was quickly removed, and the PC campaign said it had added its logo to the end of the video “in error.”

DiEmmanuel also raised issues with the videographer and photographer who travelled to Washington with Ford under the guise of being government employees but were, instead, campaign staff.

The two campaign staffers were “added to the list of staff attending the mission events by the Premier’s Office,” which, DiEmmanuel said, was an “error” because neither was part of the premier’s office caretaker staff.