Screened as a public body · 6 yearly totals · 2023–2025

City of Victoria

Printed asCity of VictoriaCity Of VictoriaCITY OF VICTORIA

Three public bodies disclosed paying this name a combined $29,672,403 over three fiscal years.

$29.7M

from 3 public bodies over 3 fiscal years · #11 of 2,251 names by total disclosed

Who paid, and when

Each cell is one body’s yearly total for this name. Darker means more.

’232023’242024’252025

CRD$3.12Mdisclosed$2.46Mdisclosed$23.08Mlarge share

Oak Bay$143KdisclosedNo schedulenot held here—not in schedule

Saanich$775Kdisclosed$99Kdisclosed—not in schedule

Schedule held, name not in itNo schedule held — a coverage gap, not zero

Disclosed to this name, by public body and fiscal year
Public body	2023	2024	2025
Capital Regional District	$3,118,432	$2,460,839	$23,075,543
District of Oak Bay	$143,346	No schedule held	Not in the schedule
District of Saanich	$775,381	$98,862	Not in the schedule

By year, all bodies

Stacked by payer.

2023$4,037,159

2024$2,559,701

2025$23,075,543

CRDOak BaySaanich

Every disclosed amount

One line per body and year, exactly as published. Each source link opens the official document at the page.

Download these 6 rows (CSV)

Capital Regional District · 20252025$23,075,543City Of Victoria2025 schedule, p. 64 · line 132

Capital Regional District · 20242024$2,460,839City of Victoria2024 schedule, p. 65 · line 119

Capital Regional District · 20232023$3,118,432City of Victoria2023 schedule, p. 66 · line 101

District of Oak Bay · 20232023$143,346City Of Victoria2023 schedule, p. 40 · line 21

District of Saanich · 20242024$98,862CITY OF VICTORIA2024 schedule, p. 57 · line 67

District of Saanich · 20232023$775,381CITY OF VICTORIA2023 schedule, p. 56 · line 66

All amounts in Canadian dollars. A year with no line means the name wasn’t in that schedule, or the schedule isn’t held here — not that the body paid nothing.

A line here doesn’t match its source? Report a correction →

Notices for this name

Automated screens. Each is a question to investigate, not a finding.

Paid by several bodiesNot reviewed

$29,672,403 across the schedules that print this exact name

Question to ask: Do more than one public body disclose this same exact-name label, and is it one legal entity or two? (An exact-name overlap is not an entity resolution.)
What it does not prove: It does not establish that the label is one legal entity. This is an exact-name overlap only; entity resolution, ownership, competition, or legal conclusions require separate source-backed evidence.

Public-body recipientNot reviewed

A candidate intergovernmental screen. It is left out of “top supplier” lists and the commercial concentration measure.

Question to ask: Is this large recipient a public body / remitter / utility / P3 entity / intergovernmental flow rather than a commercial supplier?
What it does not prove: A public-body / remitter / utility classification is a candidate screen, not a legal finding about a supplier or a competition outcome. It does not mean the flow was non-commercial or exempt from procurement rules.

Year-over-year jumpNot reviewed

CRD: $2.46M → $23.08M (2024→25)

Question to ask: Does the year-over-year change reflect a new or terminating relationship, or a re-classification or one-off, and what (if any) project or contract evidence explains it?
What it does not prove: A year-over-year change in a disclosed aggregate amount is not evidence of a new contract, a non-competitive award, or wrongdoing. Timing and context require project, contract, or council-record evidence.

Large yearly totalNot reviewed

CRD 2025: $23,075,543

Question to ask: For a large disclosed aggregate, is the label one supplier or several, and for an 'In Trust' payee who is the actual client or beneficial recipient?
What it does not prove: This is an annual aggregate disclosed amount, not an invoice, contract, transaction count, beneficial-owner attribution, or procurement finding. For an 'In Trust' / intermediary payee it does not show the client or beneficial recipient.