Stricter Oversight for Large Data Centres

Summary#

This motion from Toronto City Council focuses on a proposed expansion of a data centre at 3650 Danforth Avenue in Scarborough Southwest. It asks City staff to slow and scrutinize the review so it lines up with broader City work on data centres expected in 2027. The goal is to ensure due diligence on noise, power, water, environmental impacts, public engagement, and Canadian data protection issues before decisions are finalized.

Key changes the motion would make if adopted:

• Request staff to notify the local councillor when any large-scale data centre application is received.
• Align the timing of the current site plan review for 3650 Danforth Avenue with the City’s ongoing data centre policy work set to go to Council in 2027.
• Have Development Review and NoiseTO conduct a peer review of the project’s noise study, including both normal operations and backup generator (power-cut) scenarios, and confirm needed noise controls are secured.
• Facilitate citywide public engagement as part of the City’s data centre policy work.
• Report back on key questions about the 3650 Danforth application: environmental impacts and required mitigations; electricity and water needs and whether local systems can handle them; who pays for any needed upgrades; local jobs, tax revenue, and community benefits; how noise will be monitored after opening; and what due diligence exists to protect Canadian user data in line with emerging federal direction.

What it means for you#

• Residents near 3650 Danforth Avenue

  • You could see more scrutiny of the project’s noise, power, water, and environmental impacts.
  • A peer review of the noise study would check both everyday and emergency generator noise, and whether controls are in place.
  • The review could take longer, as the timing may be aligned with City policy work due in 2027.
  • There may be clearer information on who pays for any local infrastructure upgrades and on expected community benefits.

• Citywide residents

  • More chances to take part in public engagement on how and where large data centres should be allowed and managed in Toronto.

• Businesses planning large data centres in Toronto

  • Future applications would trigger notice to the local councillor.
  • Reviews may involve closer checks on utility demands, noise, and environmental effects.
  • Timing of reviews could be paced to match forthcoming City policy, which may extend timelines.
  • You may be asked for more detailed information during review.

• Local councillors

  • You would be notified when large-scale data centre applications are filed in your ward.

• City divisions (Planning, Development Review, NoiseTO)

  • Added work to peer-review technical studies, engage the public, and report on the specified questions.

• Taxpayers and ratepayers

  • The report is expected to clarify who would pay for any grid, water, road, or emergency services upgrades tied to the project. This is not decided in the motion.

Note: This motion does not approve or deny the project. It changes how the review is handled and what information is gathered.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• Staff time and costs could rise to conduct a peer review of the noise study, organize public engagement, and prepare reports.
• If aligning the review with 2027 policy work extends timelines, applicants may face delay-related costs; the motion does not address compensation.
• The requested report will address who would pay for any required infrastructure upgrades (company, ratepayers, or taxpayers), but does not decide this.

Proponents' View#

• The motion appears intended to ensure due diligence on a very large, utility-intensive facility before approvals proceed.
• Aligning the current review with upcoming City policy could produce more consistent, citywide standards for data centres.
• A peer-reviewed noise study, including backup generator scenarios, could better protect nearby residents from ongoing or emergency noise.
• Public engagement across Toronto could improve transparency and trust for future data centre proposals.
• Reporting on electricity and water demands, infrastructure capacity, and who pays for upgrades could clarify local impacts and avoid unexpected costs.
• Asking about safeguards for Canadian user data reflects concerns about control over critical AI infrastructure and seeks consistency with emerging federal direction.

Opponents' View#

• Aligning the review with a 2027 policy timeline may slow the current application, which could delay private investment, potential jobs, and tax revenue.
• Additional peer reviews and reporting add workload and may extend processing times for a site plan application already moving through delegated approval.
• Some issues raised (such as data sovereignty and who controls computing equipment) may be outside the City’s authority to verify or enforce, creating uncertainty about what the City can require.
• It is unclear how “aligning timing” will work in practice for a delegated site plan approval, or how conflicts with existing timelines and rights will be handled.
• If applied broadly, added scrutiny and uncertain timing could be seen as reducing predictability for future data centre proponents.