As others mentioned, the definition of Liberal is very pertinent to this discussion and varies widely.
For the sake of speaking to this point I will offer a definition, note that this is not a 'partisan' liberal definition, but rather a more ideological one.
I will also offer a rough comparative of other view points. I don't mean this as condemnatory or laudatory of any view point, nor definitive, just a way that you can understand the context of my own view.
Conservative: (social) A believer is so-called traditional values, a person relatively closed to the idea of change, who tolerates change only in the smallest of increments, over the longest period of time. Typically, in the west, traditional values might be associated with a more Christian and rural, and Caucasian view point.
Conservative: (fiscal) A believer in small government, fewer services provided at lesser rate, generally offset by fewer regulations and lower taxes. Deficits are typically frowned upon; though exceptions may be granted for law&order activities.
Liberal: (social) Somewhat more open-minded; generally inclined to accept greater rates of societal change, over a faster pace, typified by higher rates of class mobility. More often open to social accommodation and more tolerant of moderately aberrant social views.
Liberal: (fiscal) Generally inclined to centrist or pragmatic fiscal policy with an intermediate size of government. This view is often punctuated by a certain level of pragmatism varying from time to time as societal views shift, but invariably means a slightly larger gov't and array of services than a fiscal conservative would sponsor, but something less than what a socialist might.
Socialist: (social) Very similar to a liberal, in contemporary times, seen to be more a friend to 'minorities' or 'oppressed groups' than Liberals, but this is not completely consistent. Generally groups that are statistically significant, but under-represented economically are well served by this group; but again this is not always the case.
Socialist: (fiscal) Somewhat to the 'left' or larger spending side of 'Liberals'. Generally not opposed to some free-market activity but offer greater suspicion of it and greater support for redistributive economic policies. While not seen as enthusiastic supporters of deficits, they are typically more tolerant of those, as with higher rates of taxation.
**********
Now, to Toronto:
If one were to view Liberal as 'middle-ground tolerance'.....
Then Toronto is among the most liberal cities in the world.
When compared with with many cities in Europe or Asia, let alone the United States, there is both greater acceptance of new-comers, of social mobility and of people of varying backgrounds, racial, linguistic, religious, and of course of sexual orientation.
If one were to view the fiscal side of the equation.....Toronto is probably classically liberal, on average, by North American Standards, assuming one though of Quebec as the closest one might get to overall socialism within the N.A. context.
Toronto typically delivers about 45% of its votes to 'nominal' liberals, about 25% to nominal socialists, and about 30% to nominal conservatives, in Federal and provincial races.
The latter 2 numbers sometimes reverse, but they are fairly consistent.
However, as the far-left vote is concentrated in a few city-centre ridings for the most part; this is reflected in typical breakdown of 18/19 Liberal (party) and 3-4) NDP (socialist) seats in most higher-order gov't elections.
Conservative victories are are rare.
Among 'local' polticians, the break down is something very similar, except with a slightly higher vote for both the 'LEFT' and the 'RIGHT'; but over all a left-centre composition.
Now.....
In terms of values:
This gets complicated because laws, or programs and electoral views do not always mesh, in any jurisdiction.
But in general polls tend to show Torontonians in favour of more 'liberal' or tolerate laws on issues ranging from Marijuana to Prostitution.
But this is far from universal and varies widely from one area to the next.
That said, laws on these subjects are made by higher-order gov'ts with other jurisdictions to consider.
In term of programs set at the purely local level:
Toronto's library service offers total hours that are second to none on continent and growing.
Recreation Centres aren't quite as good, though there numbers are greater that what one finds in NYC.
I noted a few years ago that New York had fewer outdoor pools, fewer wading pools, fewer libraries etc. than Toronto, not in rate, but in absolute numbers.
That is not a slight on New York, and has something to do with the age of the City......
But in so far as greater public services make a jurisdiction more liberal, Toronto is pretty close to the top in North America.
However, if one looks at 'social' or 'educational' issues from post-secondary tuitions to pharmacare, then Toronto is not that far left, though, still much more so than an U.S. City.
But its unfair, irrespective of view, to judge a City by programs over which it has little control.
In the end, I would conclude that Toronto and Montreal are fairly similarly among the most Liberal cities in North America.
With Montreal being somewhat more open-minded on booze, sex and social programs; but Toronto better at accepting and integrating minorities.
No U.S. city is truly comparable, though San Fran probably comes closest.
