The City of Brampton has refused to release\u00a0455 pages of building records\u00a0related to extensive renovations at Mayor Patrick Brown\u2019s home in a decision that\u00a0experts in freedom of information law say is out of step with transparency legislation.<\/p>\n
Brampton officials say that releasing information on Brown\u2019s building permits would endanger the \u201clife and physical safety\u201d of an unnamed individual, but have offered no further details to explain that decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It has been nearly one year since the Star made its request for the city documents while investigating complaints from Brown\u2019s neighbours about building and renovations on his property.\u00a0Among the documents sealed from public view are: an archaeological report, city inspection reports related to his building permits, \u201cdeficiency letters\u201d from city inspections on his home, and plumbing data \u2014 information that is routinely released under freedom of information laws, experts say.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat the City of Brampton has done seems to me to be an egregious violation of the spirit of the legislation, if not the letter,\u201d said professor James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you have nothing to hide, it just leaves the impression that there\u2019s an overly secretive atmosphere within City Hall,\u201d added\u00a0Zachary Spicer, a York University professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration.<\/p>\n
The safety exemption to the general rule that the public is entitled to government information is normally used for members of law enforcement, most often undercover police officers. It\u2019s not clear how the clause applies in Brown\u2019s case; however, the Star\u2019s sources, which are not being named because they\u2019re not authorized to speak on the matter, say Brampton is concerned that releasing building permit information would endanger Brown himself.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Star has appealed the decision to Ontario\u2019s Information and Privacy Commission.<\/p>\n
Why the Star requested the documents<\/p>\n
The Star routinely files freedom of information requests for property records, but this denial was unusual. Most property records are released upon request, freedom of information experts say.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cHow can there be political accountability if that information isn\u2019t made available publicly?\u201d said Turk, whose group advocates for \u201cenhanced transparency and the public\u2019s right to know.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Star made its request after hearing complaints from Brown\u2019s neighbours. They expressed concerns over a two-storey \u201cgarden suite\u201d built abutting one neighbour\u2019s property line, and the construction of a hockey rink with\u00a0boards\u00a0and a refrigeration system.<\/p>\n
Neighbours have complained that in the spring thaw, there is drainage onto their properties and damage to foliage and trees.<\/p>\n
The neighbours the Star spoke to have requested anonymity, saying they fear retribution by city officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown’s backyard ice rink.<\/p>\n
Kevin Donovan\/Toronto Star<\/p>\n
Brown\u2019s red brick, two-storey house\u00a0is a \u201clate 19th-century Gothic Revival\u201d structure, built in 1871. It was originally the home of Peel Region\u2019s first Crown attorney\u00a0<\/p>\n
Brown and his wife purchased the house on the 1.46-acre parcel of land in downtown Brampton in July 2022, paying $3 million. Before Brown purchased it, the previous owner had been denied a request to sever the lot into two parcels.<\/p>\n
Online city records show that soon after taking possession, Brown applied for six building permits. A seventh permit, for a swimming pool, had recently been opened by the previous\u00a0owner. Brown\u2019s six permits were for several projects, described in scant detail as an \u201caccessory building,\u201d \u201cchange of use \u2014 two unit dwelling\u201d; and \u201crenovation \u2014 single family detached.\u201d<\/p>\n
The electronic registry provides the date the permit was taken out, and a brief description of the type of work, including: underground plumbing, above-ground plumbing, HVAC, addition, footing, backfill, structural framing and accessory building.<\/p>\n
As with all online city permit information, nothing else is listed. To get more information, people seeking information have to ask city staff for the documents.<\/p>\n
Patrick Brown\u2019s renovations<\/p>\n
The requested building permits\u00a0related to work that required variances to municipal rules.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Brampton\u2019s committee of adjustment held a hearing in 2023 on Brown\u2019s application for a \u201cminor variance\u201d to allow a two-storey building and garden suite to be built closer to a neighbour\u2019s property line than city rules usually allow.<\/p>\n
Neighbour Betty Lee, who has a bungalow to the north of Brown\u2019s property, objected. She wrote a letter to the city in 2023 saying that she feared she would see a \u201ctowering monolithic wall that blocks light and creates a feeling of being boxed in.\u201d She was concerned about destruction of trees, runoff (Brown\u2019s property is at a higher grade than hers), and that the plan was not in line with the \u201cpark-like character\u201d in the city\u2019s \u201cheritage plan\u201d. She noted the mayor\u2019s property is situated in a Brampton heritage district.<\/p>\n
Lee also said that since Brown purchased the property, there has been a lot of traffic, with cars coming and going to the house, disrupting the formerly quiet neighbourhood.<\/p>\n
Brown is not referred to as mayor in any city documents, nor at a public hearing to discuss his plans. On his side, Brown retained well-known planner Maurizio Rogato, who often represents big companies applying for variances.<\/p>\n
In a letter to the city, Rogato argued that Brown\u2019s two-storey structure (a carport and garage with a garden suite on top) is \u201crepresentative of good land-use planning.\u201d Rogato said the garage, garden suite and a pool cabana for the newly constructed pool (the previous owner had applied for that permit) \u201cwill ensure the continued enjoyment of a residential dwelling within the City\u2019s Downtown.\u201d He noted that there would be a three-metre setback from Lee\u2019s property, and he said that is allowed by city rules.\u00a0<\/p>\n
City staff produced a report, which is available on Brampton\u2019s website. It notes that city rules require a 25-foot setback\u00a0from the property line for the second storey of the proposed structure. They expressed support for Brown\u2019s plan, which would mean the new setback would be just under 10 feet.<\/p>\n
City planner Rajvi Patel, in the report, called the variances \u201cminor in nature.\u201d<\/p>\n
A meeting of the committee of adjustment was held on May 30, 2023. Lee spoke about her concerns, saying she had lived in her house for 20 years. She said Brown\u2019s plan, which included removal of some trees close to her property, meant she would lose \u201cprivacy\u201d because the addition would \u201ctower\u201d over her property.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would see this thing 24\/7 all year around. I would lose all privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another neighbour said they want to ensure that a \u201cheritage impact assessment\u201d is obtained.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Committee chair Ron Chatha said he was \u201cpersonally satisfied\u201d with Brown\u2019s plan; the committee voted unanimously to allow the variances.<\/p>\n
The Star could not find any city records online dealing with the hockey rink issue. Brown, an avid beer league hockey player, builds a hockey rink in his backyard every year. One neighbour has told the Star they have had \u201cserious\u201d damage to their property due to runoff every spring.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe call the city, but never get anywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a statement released by Brampton, Brown said: \u201cEvery winter, our family puts up a small backyard three-on-three rink \u2014 less than half the size of a regular rink in our backyard, like so many other Canadian families. My son and daughter are out there with their neighbourhood friends, and that\u2019s exactly what it\u2019s for.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThese aren\u2019t large hockey games, rather shinny on a small rink after school and on weekends. There is no chemical runoff, and when it melts, no water leaves the rink as it is fully enclosed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Brown said that \u201cone neighbour raised a concern about water on their property. City staff came out and found it was a drainage issue on their property, unrelated to the rink. Most families in the area have been supportive, and their kids play too.<\/p>\n
\u201cBackyard hockey rinks are as Canadian as Canada itself. I\u2019m happy to have a small rink for my kids and neighbourhood kids, and I plan to do it again this winter,\u201d Brown said.<\/p>\n
The timeline of the city\u2019s denials<\/p>\n
Hearing the neighbours\u2019 complaints, the Star made its freedom of information request on Oct. 20, 2025.<\/p>\n
The city issued a denial on Dec. 2, 2025, saying the voluminous file \u201ccontains information that could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a person and could reasonably be expected to seriously threaten the safety of individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n
No names of those at risk were provided.<\/p>\n