My New Year Message: REMAINING HUMAN

It is difficult not to look at the world today and feel a deep sadness. Sixty wars burn across the planet we share—a planet so small it fits within the frame of a photograph, a blue and white sphere drifting quietly in darkness. From that distance, there are no borders, no flags, no competing claims—only beauty, fragility, and a shared home turning patiently in space. One would think such perspective might humble us, might awaken a sense of wonder at what we have become capable of seeing. Instead, we seem to thrive on division. We take what are often small differences and sharpen them into identities, nurse grievances until they harden, and speak more readily in the language of blame than in the language of belonging. 

What troubles me most is not simply that conflict exists. Disagreement, struggle, and competition have always been part of human life—born of fear, scarcity, belief, and the instinct to protect what we think is ours. What feels different now is how normalized conflict has become—how quickly cruelty is justified in the name of loyalty or righteousness, how easily fear is gathered and directed, how readily we abandon patience, context, and the willingness to listen in exchange for the comfort of certainty. Division no longer feels like a failure of imagination or understanding; it has become an accepted means of organizing ourselves, a way of deciding who belongs and who does not. 

This leads me to a larger question, one that has lingered with me for years: 

Have we truly improved on the microbial life that first emerged billions of years ago? 

On the surface, the answer seems obvious. We have evolved in remarkable ways. From single-celled organisms to beings who can contemplate the origins of life itself, we have developed language, memory, art, and science. We can compose symphonies, write poetry, and send instruments beyond our own atmosphere to study the universe that gave rise to us. 

And yet.

Humans, for all our brilliance, often appear to have reversed one of life’s earliest lessons. Microbial life endured not through dominance, but through cooperation. Survival depended on sharing resources, adapting together, and forming relationships that allowed complexity to emerge. Life advanced through connection, not conquest. 

In that sense, we have evolved far more technologically than ethically. We have learned how to build faster than we have learned how to belong. We refine our tools with astonishing precision, yet struggle with patience, empathy, and restraint. We have amplified our voices without deepening our listening, and extended our reach without fully considering the consequences of where—and how—we place our hands. 

Our instincts remain stubbornly tribal. The same fear that once protected small groups now shapes nations and ideologies. What began as a means of survival—drawing sharp lines between “us” and “them”—has outlived its usefulness. In a world as interconnected as ours, those ancient reflexes no longer protect us; they place us at risk. What once sustained small communities now endangers an entire species. 

And yet—this is not where the story ends. 

The fact that we are capable of asking these questions matters. Awareness itself is a form of evolution—not because it makes us superior, but because it allows us to pause, to reflect, and to recognize the consequences of our choices. So, too, is discomfort: the unease that arises when what we see no longer aligns with what we believe ourselves to be. Grief, as well, has its place—not as despair, but as a measure of care for what we are doing to one another and to the world that sustains us. 

Like a good poem, meaning and sound must resonate together if they are to endure. Words alone are not enough; they must carry feeling, memory, and intention. In that sense, what we say about the world matters less than how we listen to it, how we live within it, and how carefully we hold one another in the telling.

I have lived long enough to know that meaning is not something we stumble upon by accident. It is shaped slowly—through attention, through patience, through the willingness to remain present even when the answers are not clear. Connection, too, does not arise from agreement alone, but from the quieter work of recognition: seeing ourselves in others, and others in ourselves, even across difference. And care—perhaps the most fragile of these—reveals itself not in grand gestures, but in small, consistent acts that affirm life rather than diminish it. 

Microbial life endured because it adapted together. Survival depended on responsiveness—on adjusting to conditions as they were, sharing resources, and forming relationships that allowed life to persist and diversify. If we are to endure, we may need to learn the same lesson—not merely biologically, but morally. 

The future, it seems to me, will not be shaped by dominance or certainty, but by our willingness to cooperate across difference, to protect the vulnerable, and to remain inwardly free even when external freedoms are tested. These are not lofty ideals so much as practical necessities, the quiet means by which life has always continued, even under pressure.

In times such as these, it is tempting to look outward for solutions large enough to match the scale of our troubles. But history suggests that when the world grows most unstable, what matters most is not our certainty about outcomes, but our fidelity to how we choose to live within uncertainty. We cannot control the forces that shape history, but we can choose how we meet them—whether we respond with fear and division, or with attention, restraint, and care. 

Perhaps this is what still calls to us now. Not the promise that things will turn out well, but the quieter responsibility to remain fully human in the midst of what is unresolved. To resist the urge to harden. To refuse the easy language of blame. To practice cooperation where we can, protection where it is needed, and inward freedom where external freedoms may falter. These choices will not save the world all at once. But they may yet preserve something essential within it—and within us.

Across Ontario, excavators, contractors, and locators are encountering a growing administrative obstacle: locate requests tied to a single civic address are increasingly being reclassified as "Advanced Locate Requests" not due to complexity or scope of utility infrastructure, but because the dig area either crosses into the public right-of-way (ROW) (such as a sidewalk, boulevard, or municipal roadway) or is deemed too large by Ontario One Call’s internal processing system.

This seemingly minor distinction carries significant operational and financial consequences:

• A standard 5-business day locate window is now subject to a 10-business day timeline,
• Projects are delayed without any change in risk profile,
• Administrative burden increases without clarity or consistency,
• And contractors are penalized for trying to identify all utility conflicts within a practical work area.

Most concerning is that this reclassification is not clearly required under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012—raising questions about whether Ontario One Call is exceeding its statutory authority through internal procedural rules.

The Act defines what qualifies as an Advanced Locate Request:
(a) at least two properties or parts of properties, each having its own municipal address, or
(b) one or more properties or parts of properties, at least one of which has no municipal address.

Ontario One Call appears to be interpreting clause (b) to include situations where the mapped dig area includes the adjacent public right-of-way, on the premise that such land is not assigned a municipal address and is therefore considered a "part of a property" without one.

They may also argue that arbitrarily large dig areas, even those limited to a single civic address, introduce complexities better suited to the "advanced" category.

But here’s why both interpretations are flawed.

The public ROW in front of a civic address is not a separate or independent property. It is:

• Contiguous with and subordinate to the serviced property,
• Owned and maintained by the municipality for common use,
• Used for essential infrastructure that directly serves the civic address (e.g., hydro laterals, gas mains, telecom drops, water and sewer connections).

In practice, utility connections regularly extend from the home or building into this ROW. Including it in the locate area is not an expansion into a new site, it is part of understanding and documenting the true path of subsurface infrastructure tied to a single address.

If Ontario One Call treats any incursion into public ROW as grounds to reclassify a request, then almost every locate request in Ontario would qualify as "advanced". This not only contradicts common practice it renders the “single address” category essentially meaningless.

Another frequent justification is that requests covering a "large area" (e.g., a commercial parking lot, campus, or condo frontage) introduce scope or coordination issues. While that may be operationally true in some cases, it does not automatically invoke the legal conditions set out in clause (a) or (b).

A large area within a single property boundary, tied to a single municipal address, remains a single-site request under the legislation. The law does not impose size thresholds or geospatial coverage limits as part of the definition of a standard request.

If Ontario One Call has created internal rules that define “too large” without legislative support or published policy guidelines, then excavators are being penalized based on subjective or unpublished standards, which undermines fairness, transparency, and due process.

One of the more concerning developments is Ontario One Call’s selective and inconsistent interpretation of public vs. private property. Currently, the system treats a locate request as a standard "single address" ticket only if the dig area does not cross the curb line in front of the property. Once the dig box extends beyond that curb line the request is flagged as "advanced."

To justify this, Ontario One Call has introduced a concept referred to as the "public part of private property"—essentially suggesting that the boulevard or space between the property line and the curb is a grey zone that allows the request to remain single-address.

This is a legal fiction.

There is no such classification in the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, nor in property law. The land between the property line and the curb is clearly public right-of-way under municipal ownership and is treated as such in all other contexts: zoning, utility permits, municipal maintenance, etc.

This arbitrary distinction creates an invisible and unenforceable boundary, and forces excavators to play a guessing game as to where the acceptable limit lies. Worse still, it means that identical locate requests may be treated differently based solely on how precisely a dig box is drawn or whether it touches the curb.

If the goal of the legislation is clarity, fairness, and consistency, this policy undermines it entirely.

These re-classifications don’t improve locate accuracy or reduce utility strikes. Instead, they:

• Force requesters to wait longer for what are often routine, low-risk locates,
• Penalize those who proactively include all potential utility conflicts in a request,
• Add unnecessary back-and-forth when tickets are rejected or returned,
• Undermine confidence in Ontario One Call’s role as a neutral facilitator of safe digging.

This is not just a policy issue—it’s a damage prevention issue. When the locate system becomes slow, confusing, or inconsistent, work may proceed without complete locates, or site staff may segment tickets in awkward and inefficient ways just to comply.

Ontario One Call operates as a statutory not-for-profit mandated by legislation. It has a responsibility to follow the law—not reinterpret it.

If reclassification of requests based on ROW inclusion or arbitrary area size is not explicitly supported by the Act or Ministry regulation, then Ontario One Call must:

• Clarify whether these policies are internal,
• Explain the rationale and thresholds, and
• Be transparent with requesters about how and why their tickets are being handled differently.

Anything less risks undermining the credibility of the entire system.

4D Locate Solutions Inc. intends to submit a formal compliance objection to Ontario One Call’s leadership. We are requesting:

1. A written explanation of the legal foundation for reclassifying ROW-inclusive or large-area single-address requests;
2. Clarification on whether this practice has been approved by Ontario One Call’s Board of Directors or directed by the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement;
3. Confirmation of how Ontario One Call defines "part of a property" in clause (b), and whether public ROW meets that standard.

If we ultimately do not receive a legislatively grounded response, we intend to escalate the matter to the Ministry and pursue policy review through industry associations and relevant regulatory bodies.

Have you had a locate request reclassified as advanced due to size or ROW boundaries even though it was clearly associated with a single address? Was the decision explained to you? Did it cause delays?

If so, we encourage you to speak up. Share your experience. Challenge interpretations that don't align with the law and advocate for a locate system that is:

• Grounded in legislation,
• Operationally fair,
• And designed to protect, not obstruct, the people doing the work.

Effective utility locate ticket management is vital for excavators to ensure the accurate and timely marking of underground utilities during excavation projects. One call systems serve as a communication platform between excavators and utility companies, facilitating the request and coordination of utility locates. However, excavators often encounter deficiencies within these systems that can impede the efficiency of the ticket management process. Let us explore some key considerations for excavators to achieve effective utility locate ticket management and address the deficiencies in one call systems.

Excavators play a critical role in initiating the utility locate process by submitting detailed and accurate ticket requests. It is essential to provide comprehensive information, including project descriptions, precise dig locations, and any other relevant details, through the one call system. Thorough ticket submission ensures that utility companies have a clear understanding of the excavation requirements, leading to accurate utility locates.

Excavators should submit their ticket requests well in advance of the planned excavation start date. Early notification allows utility companies sufficient time to process the requests, schedule the locates, and mark the underground utilities promptly. Proactive ticket submission minimizes delays and potential conflicts during the project, allowing for a smoother workflow.

Maintaining open lines of communication with utility companies through the one call system is essential for excavators. Regular follow-up on ticket status and effective communication regarding any changes or updates to the project is crucial. This ensures that the utility locates are being addressed promptly and facilitates swift resolution of any issues or conflicts that may arise during the process.

Excavators should maintain proper documentation of all ticket requests, including ticket numbers, dates, and relevant project details. Keeping accurate records serves as a valuable reference for future audits, project evaluations, or dispute resolutions. Effective documentation enhances accountability and facilitates efficient utility locate ticket management.

Excavators should receive training on utilizing the one call system effectively and understanding the significance of utility locates. Training programs should cover topics such as submitting accurate ticket requests, interpreting locate markings, and adhering to safe digging practices. Enhancing excavators' knowledge and awareness promotes a proactive approach, mitigates risks, and minimizes the likelihood of utility strikes.

Excavators can provide valuable feedback to the administrators of one call systems regarding any deficiencies or challenges encountered during the ticket management process. This feedback contributes to continuous improvement efforts, enhancing the functionality of the system and addressing specific issues that excavators may face. Collaborative efforts between excavators and one call system administrators foster a stronger partnership and ensure that the system meets the specific needs of excavators.

Effective utility locate ticket management is vital for excavators to safeguard underground utilities and maintain a safe working environment during excavation projects. By following the considerations outlined in this article and actively participating in the ticket management process, excavators can optimize efficiency, reduce the risk of utility strikes, and enhance project outcomes. Addressing deficiencies in one call systems through collaboration and feedback ensures that the system meets the unique requirements of excavators, facilitating accurate and timely utility locates for successful project execution.