For three decades, Joe Mihevc was a fixture at Toronto City Hall, a dedicated councillor and a driving force on the Toronto Transit Commission. But his post-political life has become a complex web of roles, sparking questions about conflicts of interest and the very nature of public service.
Now in his 70s, Mihevc isn’t slowing down. He’s a lobbyist for property developers, a consultant for the city’s shelter services division, and, surprisingly, the vice-chairman of the TTC – a paid position reserved for those *not* currently on City Council. He insists he’s simply putting his experience to good use, and that he hasn’t broken any rules.
“This is a bit much here,” he exclaimed, a hint of exasperation in his voice. He believes his skills are valuable, his contributions genuine, and the scrutiny unwarranted. But the arrangement raises a fundamental question: can someone truly operate on both sides of the civic divide?
The current controversy centers around a planned shelter on Bloor Street West. Mihevc’s firm was awarded a $79,500 sole-source contract to manage community outreach, a task that proved challenging. Initial consultation meetings were poorly attended, prompting concerns that residents weren’t adequately informed about the project.
When the city finally held a well-attended meeting, Mihevc’s team shifted tactics, moving from passive displays to a lively town hall-style question-and-answer session. Whether this was a success or a failure remains unclear, as his contract lacks specific performance metrics.
A freedom-of-information request revealed a surprisingly sparse four-page contract, largely filled with standard legal language. The city maintains that Mihevc was brought on board, along with others, to expedite the rollout of new shelters, a process where timelines for public consultation and property acquisition hadn’t aligned.
Mihevc is adamant that his role – bridging the gap between City Hall, shelter operators, and local residents – presents no conflict. “I don’t have any power here,” he stated. “I simply relay the best and clearest information.” He argues that his experience is an asset, not a liability.
His journey from councillor to lobbyist began after his defeat in the 2018 municipal election, a loss attributed to provincial ward boundary changes. He received a substantial severance package and, after a mandatory cooling-off period, established Mihevc Consulting and Mediation.
Today, his firm boasts a portfolio of 14 active lobbying registrations, all focused on planning and development. Remarkably, he even returned to City Council in 2022, appointed to a vacant ward by councillors and then-mayor John Tory – a move that bypassed the voters who had previously rejected him.
This isn’t the first time Mihevc’s dual roles have raised eyebrows. In 2021, he was paid $71,000 for community engagement work related to another controversial shelter project, including efforts to gain public acceptance for a temporary facility at the downtown Novotel.
Adding another layer to the situation, Mihevc’s appointment as TTC vice-chairman comes with a $10,000 annual salary plus per diem payments. The TTC’s bylaws stipulate that the position is reserved for “citizen members,” seemingly excluding current politicians. He claims to have served on the board for most of his political career.
Interestingly, the city’s lobbying registry shows that Glenn De Baeremaeker, a former councillor, has repeatedly lobbied Mihevc. The TTC has deferred all questions regarding potential conflicts to City Hall.
Critics argue that even the *appearance* of a conflict is problematic. Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, believes the current rules are insufficient. “You can’t be on the inside and the outside at the same time,” he asserted. “It’s a fundamental conflict of interest.”
Conacher points out that inaction can be as damaging as direct intervention. A lobbyist can benefit from *preventing* action, from ensuring a decision is delayed or never made. This subtle influence is difficult to detect, yet potentially highly impactful.
Mihevc dismisses the criticism, suggesting the scrutiny is a “preparation for an assassination piece” lacking factual basis. He maintains his integrity and insists his busy schedule is simply a reflection of his continued commitment to the city he loves.
“I have acted with integrity and honesty in all my dealings with the city,” he declared. “That’s what matters to me and that’s what lets me sleep at night.” But the questions linger, prompting a deeper examination of the boundaries between public service, private interests, and the pursuit of a lasting legacy.
