![]() | List of municipalities in Ontario is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on March 27, 2020. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To GaryWill's edits: District in some places is synonymous with Region. The term needs to be clarified because Ontario's municipal structure is all ready screwed up and confusing enough without using terms people can misconstrue. This is a big problem with Ontario government propaganda. Wiki is not part of the Government Propaganda Machine. WikiWoo 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
To OsgoodeLawyer: I had all Single-Tier together in one list. You kept saying they are not all single tier. I prooved you wrong. So now you want to confuse which is single tier and which is within or (under as some people might read it) a district. In the US and other places District are like Regional Government and you are perpetuating the propaganda by confusion out Municipal Master create in Ontario to keep everyone confused. We have a confused municipal structure on purpose because it facilitates corruption in our municipal government levels by our non-elected senior administrators in power for life. WikiWoo 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither the government site [1] nor AMO [2] list these as municipalities: Akron, Wawa, Shedden, Searchmont -- all in Algoma District. Do we have better information that says they are municipalities? -- Gary Will 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This link goes to a page which is a recreation of one which was recently deleted through AfD. It has a slightly different name, but it is clearly the same article. As such, it will be deleted. In addition, if anything could be done to save that page (but seeing as it's a recreation of a deleted page, it should be speedied), it would be adding information which would be better on this page. Oz Lawyer 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, it is incorrect to speak of being found in "census divisions" because that would imply that the counties and RMs are not census divisions themselves, and they are. And secondly, why do you keep insisting on reiterating the same information in your edits? The fact that districts are not municipalities is already clearly stated in the article. We don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over. I assure you that people can read. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There are now 444 municipalities in Ontario (as of 2009), I will change this number on the main page but I can't find which ones amalgamated. So there is one municipality on this list that no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The City of Toronto is not subject to the Municipal Act, 2001 (see s. 7.1 of the Act), but rather is unique in Ontario in that it has its own complete governing statute (City of Toronto Act, 2006) (there are are municipalities with their own statutes in Ontario, but none of them displace the Municipal Act as is the case with Toronto). I don't care how this information is presented in the article (so feel free to revise my edit), but I thought it was sufficiently important to mention (given how the Municipal Act was described in the first few paragraphs). -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted this addition of municipal restructuring content because its placement at the end of the first paragraph in the lead interrupted the flow and the two references provided didn't support the content (the first of the two was a deadlink though). I do however think it would be great to have this type of content, properly referenced, added to the article within a new "Municipal restructuring" section. Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 05:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to format the second table so that the images can be on the right of the table instead of on top with a lot of white space? Mattximus ( talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed some back and forth editing regarding the area statistic in the lead. I think it's important to remain consistent with our list which features land area for each municipality (the amount of lake is irrelevant for the purpose of this article, people generally don't live on water, and this is about government and it's relation to human geography, not physical geography). I will revert this edit assuming good faith, and await any compelling reason to go against the purpose of this article and include water area in the lead. Mattximus ( talk) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To paraphrase what I posted on my talk page, the standard among all lists within Canada's List of municipalities in... topic is "land area" in both prose and in the tables themselves. Cherry-picking "total area" (land + freshwater) for the benefit of Ontario in prose is inconsistent among all lists within the topic and incongruent internally with the "land area" columns in the tables within the article. (It is recognized that Ontario's rank as second-largest in total area is valid, which is why I embedded this note. Not sure if this edit was noticed.)
There is no compelling reason provided above to justify why the province's "total area" must be front and centre in the opening sentence of an article when all areas in the balance of the article (8 in prose, 440 municipality entries and 4 summed areas) are "land areas". Hwy43 ( talk) 08:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This "List of municipalities in Ontario" is a list and there is no need for any of those superfluous photos. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article especially when they disrupt the prime purpose of the article - which is to the list of details about Ontario's municipalities. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The population numbers for Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry are way off. The census division for this area is 111,164. Then you have to subtract Cornwall from that, because it's not part of the upper tier government, which has a population of around 47,000 and then you have to subtract Akwesasne for the same reason, with a population of around 10,000. The upper tier municipality is only responsible for a population of just over 50,000. I wonder how many other population mistakes there are in this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.19.52 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I had turned the images in the "List of local municipalities" section into a gallery at the top of the list because in the current style, if the browser window (or the screen) isn't wide enough, images and table get stacked above each other instead of side-by-side, leading to a few pages' worth of whitespace between the section heading and the beginning of the table. I just noticed that despite repeated comments about these formatting problems the images are present not because they are felt to improve this particular article but because, quote, "a FL must have images and other media, hence these photos", and since the article passed FL review with several pages' worth of whitespace (or with reviewers whose screens were wide enough to not notice the issue), that's not seen as an issue in need of a fix. I disagree with this fixation on the FL review; that should not stand in the way of improving the list. Apparently the style of gallery I had chosen, which displayed the captions only if one hovers the cursor over the images, was a little too fancy; I'll choose a different style of gallery. If there is some genuine benefit to the whitespace layout, I'd ask those reverting me to please explain it to me. Huon ( talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands changed its status from "town" to "municipality" on February 1, 2011 (see here). Similarly East Ferris and Strathroy-Caradoc have both changed from "township" to "municipality". Hwy43 ( talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brockville.com/economicdevelopment/index.cfm?ID=260When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If "Regional municipality" is given as a municipal sub-type for Muskoka and Oxford, "County" should be given for the three former unions of counties. The table currently gives "United counties" for the three former unions of counties. In addition to defining the municipal statuses, the Municipal Act, 2001 defines these three terms: "regional municipality", "county" and "local municipality". The official names of these three upper-tier municipalities begin with "United Counties of", and their census division type is "United counties". However, Muskoka and Oxford do not have names beginning with "Regional Municipality of", and do not have the census division type "Regional municipality".
The table of local municipalities gives the census subdivision type under "Municipal sub-type". If this list gives the census subdivision type, the table of regional municipalities and counties should give the census division type under "Municipal sub-type".
Although the names of the single-tier municipalities of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and Prince Edward are respectively County of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and County of Prince Edward, their census subdivision types are all "City". The table of local municipalities does give the correct census subdivision type under "municipal sub-type" for these four single-tier municipalities. "County" is not census subdivision type, but it is however a census division type.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In the
list of upper-tier municipalities, before we consider renaming the "Municipal sub-type" column and/or revising the column's content, we need to flesh this out a little further. First, in the Municipal Act, "regional municipality" is defined as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a regional or district municipality or the County of Oxford on December 31, 2002". It is my understanding that on December 31, 2002, Muskoka was a district municipality, and Oxford was a county. Despite their official legal names respectively remaining as the District Municipality of Muskoka and the County of Oxford to this day, based on the above definition, they are officially regarded as regional municipalities under the Municipal Act. This is why they are presented as regional municipalities under the "Municipal sub-type" column rather than district municipality and county respectively (which is what StatCan classifies them as in the census division realm).
If there is no disputing this, then second, it looks like we are down to "united counties" vs. "county". The Municipal Act defines "county" as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a county, including the Frontenac Management Board, on the day before this Act came into force". Do we have reliable and verifiable sources that confirm:
For the single-tier municipalities of Haldimand County and Norfolk County, two inexistent census divisions are given by the table of local municipalities. Haldimand and Norfolk are actually within the single census division Haldimand-Norfolk with the generic type "Census division". Similarly, the County of Brant and the City of Brantford are single-tier municipalities within a single census division with the generic type "Census division".
The reference for the census division column is List of Ontario Municipalities. On this government web page, the column "Geographic Area" was mistaken for a column of census divisions. The entities given in the column "Geographic Area" are the geographic areas defined in Schedules 1 and 2 of O. Reg. 180/03.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the local municipality table gives "Sudbury" as the name of Greater Sudbury's census division. Greater Sudbury is actually within a census division of the generic type "Census division".
In provincial law, the City of Greater Sudbury and the District Municipality of Muskoka are respectively within the Territorial District of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Muskoka. In Schedule 2 of O. Reg. 180/03, "Sudbury" is the name of a geographic area defined therein. As I stated above, geographic areas defined in this regulation were mistaken for census divisions.
I believe the creation of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury did not create a hole in the Territorial District of Sudbury. I believe the Territorial District of Muskoka was never dissolved when the District Municipality of Muskoka was created. Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497 This means the area municipalities of Sudbury Region geographically overlapped both the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Sudbury. Three layers could not "fit" into the two layer system of census divisions and subdivisions. As a census division, Sudbury District excludes the geographic area of the former Regional Municipality of Sudbury - now the City of Greater Sudbury. The census division "Muskoka" has the type "District municipality" but not "District". There is a census subdivision for each lower-tier municipality of the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka.
It looks like there is some confusion between territorial districts and DSSAB districts. The districts for the ten DSSAB's are defined in O. Reg. 278/98. The article for Kenora District says it has a district seat. Both the articles for the District of Algoma and the District of Kenora give websites of a DSSAB. Notice there are actually two DSSAB districts in the territorial district of Algoma. I have posted on the talk pages of both these articles.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The definition of "single-tier municipalities" here contradicts the one at List of census divisions of Ontario. Please see Talk:List_of_census_divisions_of_Ontario#Definition_of_"Single-tier_municipalities" for discussion. - Themightyquill ( talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | List of municipalities in Ontario is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on March 27, 2020. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To GaryWill's edits: District in some places is synonymous with Region. The term needs to be clarified because Ontario's municipal structure is all ready screwed up and confusing enough without using terms people can misconstrue. This is a big problem with Ontario government propaganda. Wiki is not part of the Government Propaganda Machine. WikiWoo 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
To OsgoodeLawyer: I had all Single-Tier together in one list. You kept saying they are not all single tier. I prooved you wrong. So now you want to confuse which is single tier and which is within or (under as some people might read it) a district. In the US and other places District are like Regional Government and you are perpetuating the propaganda by confusion out Municipal Master create in Ontario to keep everyone confused. We have a confused municipal structure on purpose because it facilitates corruption in our municipal government levels by our non-elected senior administrators in power for life. WikiWoo 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither the government site [1] nor AMO [2] list these as municipalities: Akron, Wawa, Shedden, Searchmont -- all in Algoma District. Do we have better information that says they are municipalities? -- Gary Will 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This link goes to a page which is a recreation of one which was recently deleted through AfD. It has a slightly different name, but it is clearly the same article. As such, it will be deleted. In addition, if anything could be done to save that page (but seeing as it's a recreation of a deleted page, it should be speedied), it would be adding information which would be better on this page. Oz Lawyer 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, it is incorrect to speak of being found in "census divisions" because that would imply that the counties and RMs are not census divisions themselves, and they are. And secondly, why do you keep insisting on reiterating the same information in your edits? The fact that districts are not municipalities is already clearly stated in the article. We don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over. I assure you that people can read. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There are now 444 municipalities in Ontario (as of 2009), I will change this number on the main page but I can't find which ones amalgamated. So there is one municipality on this list that no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The City of Toronto is not subject to the Municipal Act, 2001 (see s. 7.1 of the Act), but rather is unique in Ontario in that it has its own complete governing statute (City of Toronto Act, 2006) (there are are municipalities with their own statutes in Ontario, but none of them displace the Municipal Act as is the case with Toronto). I don't care how this information is presented in the article (so feel free to revise my edit), but I thought it was sufficiently important to mention (given how the Municipal Act was described in the first few paragraphs). -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted this addition of municipal restructuring content because its placement at the end of the first paragraph in the lead interrupted the flow and the two references provided didn't support the content (the first of the two was a deadlink though). I do however think it would be great to have this type of content, properly referenced, added to the article within a new "Municipal restructuring" section. Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 05:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to format the second table so that the images can be on the right of the table instead of on top with a lot of white space? Mattximus ( talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed some back and forth editing regarding the area statistic in the lead. I think it's important to remain consistent with our list which features land area for each municipality (the amount of lake is irrelevant for the purpose of this article, people generally don't live on water, and this is about government and it's relation to human geography, not physical geography). I will revert this edit assuming good faith, and await any compelling reason to go against the purpose of this article and include water area in the lead. Mattximus ( talk) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To paraphrase what I posted on my talk page, the standard among all lists within Canada's List of municipalities in... topic is "land area" in both prose and in the tables themselves. Cherry-picking "total area" (land + freshwater) for the benefit of Ontario in prose is inconsistent among all lists within the topic and incongruent internally with the "land area" columns in the tables within the article. (It is recognized that Ontario's rank as second-largest in total area is valid, which is why I embedded this note. Not sure if this edit was noticed.)
There is no compelling reason provided above to justify why the province's "total area" must be front and centre in the opening sentence of an article when all areas in the balance of the article (8 in prose, 440 municipality entries and 4 summed areas) are "land areas". Hwy43 ( talk) 08:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This "List of municipalities in Ontario" is a list and there is no need for any of those superfluous photos. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article especially when they disrupt the prime purpose of the article - which is to the list of details about Ontario's municipalities. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The population numbers for Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry are way off. The census division for this area is 111,164. Then you have to subtract Cornwall from that, because it's not part of the upper tier government, which has a population of around 47,000 and then you have to subtract Akwesasne for the same reason, with a population of around 10,000. The upper tier municipality is only responsible for a population of just over 50,000. I wonder how many other population mistakes there are in this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.19.52 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I had turned the images in the "List of local municipalities" section into a gallery at the top of the list because in the current style, if the browser window (or the screen) isn't wide enough, images and table get stacked above each other instead of side-by-side, leading to a few pages' worth of whitespace between the section heading and the beginning of the table. I just noticed that despite repeated comments about these formatting problems the images are present not because they are felt to improve this particular article but because, quote, "a FL must have images and other media, hence these photos", and since the article passed FL review with several pages' worth of whitespace (or with reviewers whose screens were wide enough to not notice the issue), that's not seen as an issue in need of a fix. I disagree with this fixation on the FL review; that should not stand in the way of improving the list. Apparently the style of gallery I had chosen, which displayed the captions only if one hovers the cursor over the images, was a little too fancy; I'll choose a different style of gallery. If there is some genuine benefit to the whitespace layout, I'd ask those reverting me to please explain it to me. Huon ( talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands changed its status from "town" to "municipality" on February 1, 2011 (see here). Similarly East Ferris and Strathroy-Caradoc have both changed from "township" to "municipality". Hwy43 ( talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brockville.com/economicdevelopment/index.cfm?ID=260When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If "Regional municipality" is given as a municipal sub-type for Muskoka and Oxford, "County" should be given for the three former unions of counties. The table currently gives "United counties" for the three former unions of counties. In addition to defining the municipal statuses, the Municipal Act, 2001 defines these three terms: "regional municipality", "county" and "local municipality". The official names of these three upper-tier municipalities begin with "United Counties of", and their census division type is "United counties". However, Muskoka and Oxford do not have names beginning with "Regional Municipality of", and do not have the census division type "Regional municipality".
The table of local municipalities gives the census subdivision type under "Municipal sub-type". If this list gives the census subdivision type, the table of regional municipalities and counties should give the census division type under "Municipal sub-type".
Although the names of the single-tier municipalities of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and Prince Edward are respectively County of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and County of Prince Edward, their census subdivision types are all "City". The table of local municipalities does give the correct census subdivision type under "municipal sub-type" for these four single-tier municipalities. "County" is not census subdivision type, but it is however a census division type.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In the
list of upper-tier municipalities, before we consider renaming the "Municipal sub-type" column and/or revising the column's content, we need to flesh this out a little further. First, in the Municipal Act, "regional municipality" is defined as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a regional or district municipality or the County of Oxford on December 31, 2002". It is my understanding that on December 31, 2002, Muskoka was a district municipality, and Oxford was a county. Despite their official legal names respectively remaining as the District Municipality of Muskoka and the County of Oxford to this day, based on the above definition, they are officially regarded as regional municipalities under the Municipal Act. This is why they are presented as regional municipalities under the "Municipal sub-type" column rather than district municipality and county respectively (which is what StatCan classifies them as in the census division realm).
If there is no disputing this, then second, it looks like we are down to "united counties" vs. "county". The Municipal Act defines "county" as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a county, including the Frontenac Management Board, on the day before this Act came into force". Do we have reliable and verifiable sources that confirm:
For the single-tier municipalities of Haldimand County and Norfolk County, two inexistent census divisions are given by the table of local municipalities. Haldimand and Norfolk are actually within the single census division Haldimand-Norfolk with the generic type "Census division". Similarly, the County of Brant and the City of Brantford are single-tier municipalities within a single census division with the generic type "Census division".
The reference for the census division column is List of Ontario Municipalities. On this government web page, the column "Geographic Area" was mistaken for a column of census divisions. The entities given in the column "Geographic Area" are the geographic areas defined in Schedules 1 and 2 of O. Reg. 180/03.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the local municipality table gives "Sudbury" as the name of Greater Sudbury's census division. Greater Sudbury is actually within a census division of the generic type "Census division".
In provincial law, the City of Greater Sudbury and the District Municipality of Muskoka are respectively within the Territorial District of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Muskoka. In Schedule 2 of O. Reg. 180/03, "Sudbury" is the name of a geographic area defined therein. As I stated above, geographic areas defined in this regulation were mistaken for census divisions.
I believe the creation of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury did not create a hole in the Territorial District of Sudbury. I believe the Territorial District of Muskoka was never dissolved when the District Municipality of Muskoka was created. Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497 This means the area municipalities of Sudbury Region geographically overlapped both the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Sudbury. Three layers could not "fit" into the two layer system of census divisions and subdivisions. As a census division, Sudbury District excludes the geographic area of the former Regional Municipality of Sudbury - now the City of Greater Sudbury. The census division "Muskoka" has the type "District municipality" but not "District". There is a census subdivision for each lower-tier municipality of the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka.
It looks like there is some confusion between territorial districts and DSSAB districts. The districts for the ten DSSAB's are defined in O. Reg. 278/98. The article for Kenora District says it has a district seat. Both the articles for the District of Algoma and the District of Kenora give websites of a DSSAB. Notice there are actually two DSSAB districts in the territorial district of Algoma. I have posted on the talk pages of both these articles.
-- 2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 ( talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The definition of "single-tier municipalities" here contradicts the one at List of census divisions of Ontario. Please see Talk:List_of_census_divisions_of_Ontario#Definition_of_"Single-tier_municipalities" for discussion. - Themightyquill ( talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)