11 days until Milton votes. Monday 26 October 2026. Everyone on the ballot, what each has filed, and what they say in their own words — see the ballot.
Candidate for Regional Councillor, Ward 4 · filed June 25, 2026
| Office sought | Regional Councillor, Ward 4 |
|---|---|
| Filing date | June 25, 2026 |
| Status | On the ballot |
| Campaign site | http://www.adejisolaatiba.ca · archived |
| Email filed with the Clerk | [email protected] |
Source: the Town's certified candidate list. Contact details are those the candidate themselves gave the Clerk.
For each theme: what the candidate answered, what their own website says, and what the council record shows if they have sat on Council. The three are set beside each other and left there. Nothing is scored, and no conclusion is drawn on the reader's behalf.
Where their own site speaks to one of these questions the sentence is quoted under that question. Everything else it says is set out in From their site.
Do you support the Official Plan as adopted? If not, what specifically would you seek to change?
I broadly support the Official Plan as adopted — it reflects years of community consultation and provides the framework Milton needs to manage growth responsibly. However, support does not mean complacency. My concern is implementation: plans are only as good as the accountability structures behind them. I would push for stronger community benefit requirements tied to development approvals, clearer timelines for infrastructure delivery, and regular public reporting on how growth is actually being managed against the plan’s objectives. If specific provisions prove unworkable or inequitable in practice, I am open to evidence-based amendments through proper process — but I would not pursue changes driven by developer pressure or political convenience.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Where in your ward do you believe higher density belongs — and where doesn't it?
Higher density belongs near established commercial nodes, employment lands, and along key arterial corridors where infrastructure capacity exists or is committed. It does not belong in established low-density residential neighbourhoods where schools, services, and infrastructure are already under pressure. Ward 4 contains a mix of growing areas and established family neighbourhoods — I will support density where infrastructure genuinely supports it and community benefit is clear, and resist it where development is simply opportunistic. Every density decision must be tied to a specific, funded infrastructure plan — not a promise to catch up later.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
When a development application conflicts with community opposition but complies with the Official Plan, how do you decide?
Compliance with the Official Plan is the floor, not the ceiling. When a proposal complies technically but faces genuine community opposition, my obligation is to understand why. Is the opposition about traffic, design, servicing capacity, or a deeper concern about neighbourhood character? I will not dismiss community voices simply because a developer has checked the regulatory boxes. I will ask hard questions: Does this development include community benefits? Is infrastructure truly ready? Has consultation been meaningful? Where legitimate concerns exist, I will advocate for conditions, amendments, or phasing that address them. Where opposition is unfounded, I will explain my reasoning clearly and be accountable for my vote.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Milton is hitting its housing targets. Is that the right target, too low, or too fast?
Milton is meeting its housing targets — but the more important question is what kind of housing is being built and who it actually serves. Volume without attainability is not success. Too much of what is being approved serves the upper end of the market, while first-time buyers, young families, newcomers, and seniors on fixed incomes are being priced out of the community. I would not characterize the pace as necessarily too fast — Milton needs housing — but I would strongly argue that the composition of that housing needs to shift. Supply alone does not solve affordability. We need the right supply, in the right form, at the right price points.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What is one concrete action council can take to improve attainability for first-time buyers and renters, not just supply volume?
One concrete action: mandatory inclusionary zoning with teeth. Milton should require that a meaningful percentage of units in new developments — I would advocate for a minimum of ten percent — be priced at attainable levels for first-time buyers and renters, with long-term affordability covenants attached so units cannot simply flip to market rate after a few years. This is not radical — it is standard practice in comparable municipalities. The challenge is political will. Developers will push back. But if we are serious about Support For Every Family, we cannot keep approving developments that serve only those who can already afford Milton.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Should Milton use tools like inclusionary zoning, pre-zoning around transit, or reduced parking minimums? Which, and where?
Yes to all three — applied strategically. Inclusionary zoning should apply to developments of meaningful scale across the municipality. Pre-zoning around transit nodes and planned transit corridors is essential to capture land value uplift for community benefit before speculation drives prices beyond reach. Reduced parking minimums make sense in transit-accessible areas where car dependency can genuinely be reduced, but should not be applied uniformly across Ward 4 where transit alternatives remain inadequate. These tools work best in combination, not isolation, and must be paired with infrastructure investment to be credible.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What, specifically, can a Milton council member do to advance all-day two-way GO service beyond passing motions?
Motions matter but they are not enough. Beyond passing resolutions, a Milton council member can: build a formal coalition with other underserved GO line municipalities to present a unified case to Metrolinx and the Province; engage directly with the Minister of Transportation and our local MPP with specific, data-backed asks rather than general advocacy; commission or request ridership and economic impact studies that make the business case for all-day service; and hold public accountability events that keep pressure visible. I would also push for Milton to formally participate in Metrolinx’s service planning consultations rather than simply reacting to announcements. Persistence, specificity, and coalition-building are what will move this issue.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Would you support increasing Milton Transit's budget and service hours, and how would you pay for it?
Yes — I support increasing Milton Transit’s budget and service hours. The how matters: I would pursue a combination of development charge contributions from growth areas that directly benefit from transit, Provincial and Federal transit funding partnerships, and reallocation of efficiency savings from shared regional services. I would not support putting the full burden on residential property taxpayers without exhausting other revenue sources first. Expanded service hours — particularly evenings and weekends — are the minimum needed to make transit a genuine choice rather than a last resort for Milton residents.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What is the single worst traffic pinch point in your ward, and what is your fix?
Ward 4’s most persistent traffic concerns are not a single pinch point but a pattern: speeding and cut-through traffic on residential collector streets as drivers avoid arterial congestion. Fourth Line between Louis St. Laurent Avenue and Derry Road has been flagged repeatedly for speeding and pedestrian safety. The McLaughlin Avenue and Farmstead Drive intersection was selected for a pilot safety initiative due to collision reports. Farmstead Drive, Etheridge Avenue, and Bennett Boulevard all experience heavy local volume. My approach: expand and accelerate the Town’s traffic calming program — speed cushions, raised crosswalks, and pedestrian beacons where warranted — and address the root cause by improving transit so fewer residents default to cutting through residential streets.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Growth-related revenue is shrinking. Rank your preference: higher property taxes, more debt, deferred projects, or reduced service levels — and defend it.
My ranked preference: first, pursue efficiency and alternative revenues before touching any of the four options listed. Within the four, I would accept modest and justified property tax increases before deferring projects or reducing services — deferred infrastructure always costs more later, and reduced services hurt the most vulnerable residents first. I would avoid new debt for operating purposes but accept it for major capital infrastructure with clear long-term community benefit. What I will not accept is using fiscal pressure as cover for cutting services that Ward 4 families depend on.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What tax increase range do you consider acceptable for 2027, and what would justify exceeding it?
Residents in Milton have absorbed significant tax increases in recent years — and I will not commit to further increases before I have a clear picture of the current budget, existing commitments, and where efficiencies have and have not been pursued. My starting position is that the burden should not default to residents. Before any increase is considered, I will push for a thorough review of alternative revenue sources — development charges, community benefit agreements, Provincial and Federal funding partnerships, and shared services efficiencies with neighbouring municipalities. Residents deserve a councillor who exhausts every other option first.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Name one Town expenditure you would cut, or one you would add.
Add: a dedicated youth centre capital reserve fund — starting small and building annually, so that when the right site and partnership emerge, the funding foundation exists rather than requiring a one-time budget shock. Cut: I would scrutinize recurring consulting expenditures for functions that could be built in-house over time. Repeatedly outsourcing the same advisory functions is not cost-effective and does not build institutional knowledge. I would commission a review of consulting spend in the first term to identify where internalization makes financial sense.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Healthcare and schools are not municipal responsibilities, but residents feel the gaps locally. What is your advocacy plan, and how will residents measure whether it worked?
My advocacy plan: formally identify the top three service gaps affecting Ward 4 residents — I expect these to be emergency wait times, school capacity, and mental health access — and write specific, documented asks to the relevant Provincial ministries through Regional Council. I would partner with Halton Healthcare and the school boards to understand their capital plans and advocate loudly where Milton’s growth projections are not reflected in their timelines. Residents will measure whether it worked by tracking specific metrics I commit to publicly: wait times, portable classroom counts, and mental health referral capacity — reported annually.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What is your position on the Milton Education Village's priorities and timeline?
The Milton Education Village is a significant opportunity that must not be allowed to stall. My position is that timelines must be firm and publicly tracked. The combination of post-secondary, trades training, and community space it promises is exactly what Milton needs to develop local talent and reduce the skills gap I hear about from local employers. I would push for the Region and Town to be active partners in accelerating delivery — including advocating with the Province for capital funding — rather than passive observers waiting for other parties to act.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What recreation or community facility gap would you prioritise next, and where?
A mega youth centre is my top priority — a fully equipped, accessible, year-round facility that serves youth of all backgrounds with sports, creative programming, mentorship, and mental health supports. Location matters: it should be in a transit-accessible area of Ward 4 that is central to where families with young people actually live. Beyond youth, I would also prioritize senior-accessible recreation programming, which is currently underprovided relative to our growing older adult population.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
How should council balance aggregate and quarry operations against groundwater and community concerns?
Council must treat groundwater protection as a non-negotiable baseline — it is not a trade-off against economic activity, it is a precondition for community health. I support rigorous, independent hydrogeological assessments before any new or expanded aggregate approvals, with results made fully public. Community concerns must be formally heard and documented, not managed. Where aggregate operations have legitimate economic roles, conditions must be specific, enforceable, and monitored — not simply imposed at approval and forgotten. I would push for stronger municipal advocacy to the Province on aggregate reform.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What is your commitment to rural Milton on roads, internet, and service equity?
I know rural Milton personally — not from briefing notes, but from knocking on doors during the 2025 Ward 1 by-election. I sat with residents and heard their concerns directly: quarry operations affecting their quality of life, unreliable internet cutting them off from work and services, and speeding on rural roads when the 401 backs up and drivers seek shortcuts through their neighbourhoods.
These are not abstract policy issues. They are daily realities for residents who pay the same taxes as everyone else and deserve the same attention.
My commitments: advocate for high-speed internet as essential infrastructure through Federal and Provincial programs; push for a transparent road maintenance schedule that treats rural roads equally; and ensure rural voices are formally represented in the Community Advisory Panel I will establish. No one should be an afterthought — rural or urban, every resident deserves to be heard and supported.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Should Milton's urban boundary expand further within this term? Under what conditions?
Milton is growing — we all know it. The question I keep asking is: why are we still waiting to build the infrastructure that supports the families already arriving?
Ten years ago I was a Milton newcomer myself. My son moved through multiple elementary and high schools because existing ones could not accommodate the growth. He sat in portacabins. That experience is not history — it is happening to families right now.
Expansion must be sustainable and infrastructure-first — not the other way around. Water, wastewater, transit, roads, and schools must be committed and funded before new land is brought into the boundary — not scrambled for after approvals are granted. The default this term should be intensifying land already within the boundary. Where expansion is genuinely warranted, it must come with a fully funded infrastructure plan and full protection of our natural heritage system. Families deserve better than catching up.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Would you use, or support the use of, strong mayor powers? Under what circumstances?
I am cautious about strong mayor powers as a general principle — they concentrate decision-making in ways that can undermine the collaborative, community-accountable governance that municipal democracy depends on. I would support their use only in genuinely exceptional circumstances: a declared emergency requiring rapid coordinated action, or a situation where Council is demonstrably deadlocked on a time-critical infrastructure decision with clear community harm resulting from inaction. They should not become a routine governance tool or a mechanism for bypassing legitimate community opposition.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What is one specific change you would make to how council engages residents between elections?
One specific change: mandatory ward-level community meetings at least twice per year — not just open houses at Town Hall, but councillors going into neighbourhoods, community centres, faith spaces, and cultural organization venues to meet residents where they are. These meetings should be documented, with resident questions and councillor commitments recorded publicly and followed up in writing. The current model asks residents to come to the government. I believe the government should go to residents.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What does Milton need more right now — continuity or change — and why are you the answer?
Change — and I mean substantive, and intentional change in how things get done, not just who is doing them.
Milton has grown fast. But growth managed the same way, by the same playbook, produces the same gaps. I am running because I believe we can do better. Co-create decisions with residents rather than consulting them after the fact. Go out and actively pitch Milton to companies and organizations — bring real jobs in, not just more warehouse square footage. Support entrepreneurs with the tools and spaces to build here. Invest meaningfully in youth. Grow the right way.
I bring over 30 years in banking, entrepreneurship, and digital transformation — the financial literacy, strategic thinking, and private sector relationships to back that agenda up. Milton is more than a bedroom community. It is time the council governed it that way.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
What Halton Region decision from this past term would you have voted differently on?
I would want to review the full voting record carefully before committing to a specific decision — it would be dishonest to identify one without that foundation. What I can say is that on decisions involving growth-related infrastructure timing — where approvals for new development have consistently outpaced committed servicing — I would have pushed harder for infrastructure-first conditions. Approving growth and then scrambling to fund the roads, transit, and community services it requires transfers risk from developers to taxpayers, and I would have voted to break that pattern.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Regional priorities — water and wastewater capacity, policing costs, waste — pick the one you would champion.
Water and wastewater capacity — because it is the foundation on which everything else depends. Without it, no housing gets built, no employment lands get serviced, and no growth target gets met. Milton’s growth projections require significant wastewater capacity investment, and I am concerned that the timeline and funding commitments do not fully match the pace of approvals already in the pipeline. I would champion this issue because it is invisible to most residents until it fails — and by then, the cost of fixing it is borne entirely by taxpayers rather than the growth that created the need.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Would you support large-scale data centres being developed in our municipality, and what would make you support or oppose a specific project?
I would consider data centers on a case-by-case basis. I would support a project where the economic and community benefits clearly justify its use of land, electricity, water and infrastructure. I would not support a project that shifts significant costs to taxpayers, places unreasonable pressure on local resources, or provides insufficient long-term value to Milton.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
How would you weigh the economic benefits of a data centre against its use of land, electricity, water, and other municipal infrastructure?
I would look at the full return to the community, not simply the size of the investment. We need to understand the permanent jobs created, tax revenue, local economic opportunities, use of employment land, electricity and water demands, infrastructure costs, and environmental impact. Growth should add lasting value to Milton, not shift costs onto residents or limit better future uses of our employment lands.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Should the municipality actively pursue data-centre investment, or only consider proposals as they come forward?
I would not actively pursue data-center investment at the detriment of other opportunities. Milton should attract a diverse range of investments and assess each one based on the value it brings to the community, including jobs, tax revenue, economic opportunities and responsible use of land and infrastructure. A data centre should be considered where it adds clear value to Milton, not simply because it represents a large investment.
Their website does not address this question. Most campaign sites do not address most specific questions. What it does say →
Accounts linked from the candidate's own website or filed with the Clerk. Nothing here was found by searching for their name: guessing at an account and attaching it to a real person is a mistake worth avoiding entirely. These are links out, not content read or quoted here.
What they said in answer to the questions themselves is under Where they stand, question by question.
Captured 2026-08-27 from http://www.adejisolaatiba.ca. These are the candidate's own words on their own site, not a summary written here. Campaign sites change; this is what it said on that date.
Written by other people, not by this site. Headlines and links only, with the outlet and date. Where a piece quotes them directly, that quotation is printed word for word and checked against the article it is attributed to.
None of this changes anything else on this page. A reporter’s summary is their compression of what was said, not the member’s own words, so nothing here is recorded as a position or compared against one. Where they are quoted directly, those words are theirs — and they are shown here rather than folded into a stance they did not write.
They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.
They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.
They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.
They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.
They are named in this piece. It carries no direct quotation from them, so none is shown.
This is a record of what the Town certified and what the candidate publishes themselves. It contains no rating, ranking or endorsement, and no assessment of any candidate. Corrections are welcome and acted on within 48 hours — see the methodology page.
Everyone else on this ballot line, in alphabetical order.
16 of the 44 candidates who could be reached have answered the same 26 questions. Replies are open until Sunday 11 October 2026. 1 other candidate publishes no contact address anywhere, so they could not be asked. Read the answers, and who has answered → · the questions
One email a week with what moved on the record, Ward 4 first. No spam, one click to leave.