General News

County considers removing services from courthouse complex

April 2, 2026   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

It seems working with the provincial government on some projects is much like trying to herd mice.

At least, that’s the case in Dufferin County’s efforts to renovate and update the courthouse building with accurate allowances of space for certain provincial ministries.

Councillor Todd Taylor, who is also Orangeville’s deputy mayor, said during county council’s March 26 meeting that a report about the status of courthouse renovations leaves many questions.

“There is so much ambiguity in there,” Taylor said.

The report recommends that Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of the Attorney General be asked to review their internal space needs and suitability for the 1973 and 2011 additions to the County Courthouse complex.

It is to determine the feasibility of expanded court services tenancy, including confirmation of space requirements, suitability of the identified spaces for Provincial Offences Administration and criminal court operations, and any ministry tenancy or cost-sharing intentions.

Taylor said the main issues are space and access to the complex, which is causing consternation and annoyance.

A planned renovation of the courthouse complex was initiated to address accessibility, functional reconfiguration, and modernization needs across the 2011 and 1973 additions, which are currently occupied by County Administration and Caledon Provincial Offences Administration (POA) court services.

Council previously approved delivery of the project using a progressive design-build model, and the contract has been awarded to Mettko to lead design development and construction.

While the awarded contract also includes work related to the redesign and repurposing of the Edelbrock Centre Health and Human Services Hub, the report prepared by Taylor is for the courthouse component, valued at $182,440.93, including tax, for Phase 1 of the contract.

Considering the security realignment, space pressures, and stakeholder feedback, three potential modifications to the project scope have been identified for consideration.

Option One is to vacate all county services from the courthouse complex, allowing judicial stakeholders to operate the facility solely as a courthouse and enabling a unified security and operational model. This modification is preferred and supports long-term objectives and growth opportunities.

Option Two is to relocate POA outside the 2011 addition, allowing the perimeter access to shift and removing the 2011 space from court security requirements. This modification supports short- to medium-term objectives and growth.

Option Three is to maintain the current renovation scope with design adjustments to include court-visitor screening and processing specific to Courtroom 103. It includes modifications to the perimeter access to separate the 2011 addition from the courthouse, allowing visitor access via both the north and south entrances at 55 Zina Street. This modification supports short-term objectives and growth.

According to the report, each option carries implications for lease negotiations, capital planning, operational continuity, and long-term space strategy.

Taylor said the notion of relocating county services makes perfect sense.

“This is becoming a terrible building for us all to be located in,” he said.

He said he has considered all available county buildings and isn’t certain which would be suitable for the relocation.

The ambiguity in the report stems from the provincial ministries not providing a reliable contact for Dufferin County, he said.

“Who would we even speak to?” he said. “If you don’t have someone that you can speak to that’s going to be a lead negotiator, it’s pretty hard to make a decision.”

And, he said, the ambiguity extends to the three options present in the report to county council.

If services are removed and the building is abandoned, Dufferin County taxpayers are still on the hook for the building, he said. The complex wouldn’t be shed from the county’s facility inventory.

“As we come out of this, we need to provide direction on where we want to go,” Taylor said. “And I don’t know what I would say at this point.”

Sonya Pritchard, the county’s CAO and one of the authors of the report to council, said there’s much uncertainty. Dealing with the crowd at the Attorney General’s office isn’t limited to a single contact, and it doesn’t require dealing only with that single ministry.

Further, staff at the many ministries don’t often have contacts at the various arms of other departments that have to be involved.

“It is an extremely challenging environment to push forward a big initiative,” Pritchard said.

The only clear thing to come from the work update is the need to work with Infrastructure Ontario and the Attorney General to assess space needs so the decision-makers at those ministries can be informed of the accurate need for space.

“That will then spur on additional decision-making on their side,” she said.

Readers Comments (0)