André Marin

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula held illegal closed meetings regarding the acquisition of an airport, committee appointments, and via an email exchange.

The Ombudsman found that the closed sessions regarding the airport fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act, and that directions given to staff during those sessions were permissible.

The Ombudsman also found no evidence of illegal closed meetings regarding committee appointments, and concluded that the email exchange did not constitute a meeting under the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Woolwich held illegal closed meetings in August 2014 and January and February 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the August 2014 meeting of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee was properly closed under the litigation exception.

However, the January and February 2015 council meetings contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as council discussed matters in camera that did not fit within the statutory exceptions, including committee application deadlines, recreation associations, and administrative matters.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that a quorum of council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands held an illegal closed meeting via email to discuss a draft code of conduct.

A councillor had circulated a draft code of conduct to four other members of the seven-member council prior to a public meeting.

The Ombudsman found that while the councillor's actions came very close to laying the groundwork for a future decision, no violation of the Municipal Act, 2001 occurred because the councillor was unsuccessful in reaching a quorum.

The Ombudsman also found no violation of the municipality's procedure by-law, as the emails were not addressed to all members of council and did not constitute an exchange.

The Ombudsman recommended that council members avoid laying the groundwork for decisions over email.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the Township of Chamberlain held illegal closed meetings between November 2013 and February 2015 to discuss staffing matters.

The Ombudsman found that the 2014 and 2015 meetings fit within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman could not confirm whether the 2013 meetings were justified due to a complete lack of meeting records.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting procedures, including amending its procedure by-law, keeping complete records, and implementing audio or video recording of closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Township of McMurrich-Monteith held illegal closed meetings on January 12, January 19, and February 9, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the subject matters discussed in the closed sessions fell within the exceptions to the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, specifically regarding solicitor-client privilege, employee matters, and personal matters about identifiable individuals.

However, the council violated the Act by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in its resolutions to proceed in camera.

The council also violated its procedure by-law by extending a meeting past curfew without a proper resolution.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Municipality of Magnetawan held an illegal closed meeting on February 28, 2015, and improperly discussed matters in camera on March 4, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the February 28 meeting violated the Municipal Act and the municipality's procedure by-law because it was held without advance public notice, effectively making it a closed meeting.

However, the March 4 closed session was found to be lawful as it involved the review of job applications, which falls under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting practices, including better notice procedures, more detailed resolutions, and comprehensive meeting records.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of London's Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on March 2, 2015.

The complainant alleged that the committee's in camera discussion of development proposals for a decommissioned hospital site should have been held in open session.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was properly closed under the exceptions for solicitor-client privilege and the acquisition or disposition of land under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The committee discussed confidential legal advice regarding the decommissioning of the lands and reviewed staff evaluations of expressions of interest from developers.

The investigation concluded that the closed meeting did not violate the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the newly-elected council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands held illegal closed meetings prior to being sworn in.

The investigation revealed that councillors-elect gathered informally and exchanged emails to discuss municipal business, including eliminating extra compensation for the Deputy Mayor.

The Ombudsman found no technical violation of the Municipal Act because the members had not yet been sworn in and lacked quorum.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the discussions laid the groundwork for future council decisions, violating the spirit of the open meeting requirements, and recommended that council avoid such informal discussions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Cochrane council held an illegal closed meeting on January 27, 2015.

The investigation found that council proceeded in camera to consider specific written legal advice from the town's solicitor regarding previous Ombudsman recommendations.

The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception under section 239(2)(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore the town did not contravene the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the City of Elliot Lake council in December 2014, January 2015, and February 2015.

The investigation found that the closed sessions on December 1, December 15, January 5, and February 9 fit within the statutory exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, and acquisition or disposition of land.

However, the closed session on December 22 regarding band fees for a street dance did not fit within any exception and violated the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that the city ensure closed sessions strictly adhere to statutory exceptions and improve its recording and notice practices.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee held an illegal closed meeting on December 10, 2014, to discuss facility space needs for the Hamilton Police Service.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was properly closed to the public under the 'acquisition or disposition of land' and 'matter under another act' exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussion involved the potential purchase price of a specific property and had been previously discussed in closed session by the Police Services Board.

The Ombudsman recommended that the City keep more detailed records of closed meetings and implement audio or video recording of closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the Town of Amherstburg council.

The investigation found that the council's in camera discussion about the appointment of a treasurer was permissible under the 'personal matters' exception of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the council's closed session discussion regarding bank signing authorities did not fall within any exception and violated the open meeting requirements.

Additionally, the council's resolution to proceed in camera failed to provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed, contrary to the Act.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Town ensure all closed session discussions fall within statutory exceptions, provide adequate descriptions in resolutions, and implement audio or video recording of closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Fort Erie council held an illegal closed meeting on December 10, 2014, to hear a presentation from the Fort Erie Economic Development and Tourism Corporation.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was legally closed under the 'education or training' exception of the Municipal Act, as the presentation was purely educational and did not materially advance council business.

However, the Ombudsman noted that the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception was improperly cited, as no imminent land transaction was discussed, and recommended that the Town ensure only applicable exceptions are referenced in future resolutions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Municipality of Central Huron held an illegal closed meeting on January 12, 2015, to discuss a former contractor.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fell within the "personal matters" exception under s. 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as council scrutinized the individual's conduct and credibility.

However, the Ombudsman found that the municipality violated its own procedure by-law by failing to audio or video record the closed session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality immediately begin recording its closed meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Bracebridge held illegal closed meetings on December 9 and 17, 2014, to discuss the composition of the Accessibility Advisory Committee.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions involved personal information about identifiable individuals, including their qualifications and past performance, and therefore fit within the 'personal matters' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that the town ensure closed meeting minutes reflect the substance of discussions and implement audio or video recording of closed meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the City of Niagara Falls council on October 8, 2013.

The closed session was held to discuss a report on developing a downtown post-secondary campus, citing the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within this exception, nor did it qualify under the 'personal matters' or 'solicitor-client privilege' exceptions.

Furthermore, the public was not given notice of the closed session.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting was illegal and made several recommendations to improve the city's procedure by-law and meeting practices.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the City of Niagara Falls held illegal closed meetings regarding Marineland to limit public protests.

The Ombudsman found that a May 29, 2012 closed session was justified under the solicitor-client privilege exception of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, several 'operational meetings' between council members, staff, and stakeholders did not constitute formal meetings under the Act because they lacked quorum and did not involve exercising council authority.

The Ombudsman concluded there were no violations of the open meeting rules but recommended updates to the city's procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the council for the Village of Casselman held illegal closed meetings.

The first complaint related to a dinner gathering of the newly elected council on November 11, 2014.

The Ombudsman found this did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussions were informal and did not lay the groundwork for council business.

The second complaint related to a written resolution signed serially by a quorum of the outgoing council on November 6, 2014, directing staff to freeze hiring.

The Ombudsman found that this serial decision-making constituted an illegal closed meeting, as it involved a quorum of council exercising its authority.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council cease serial decision-making and amend its procedure by-law to explicitly provide for public notice of meetings.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of South Huron held seven illegal closed meetings between November 2008 and December 2013 to discuss staffing issues.

The Ombudsman found that the in-camera discussions fit within the permitted exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, specifically the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, potential litigation, and solicitor-client privilege.

Although no violations of the Act were found, the Ombudsman noted procedural issues, including inadequate resolutions to proceed in camera and incomplete meeting records, and recommended improvements such as audio recording closed sessions and reporting back to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the council for the Village of Westport on October 28, 2014.

The investigation found that the municipality failed to provide adequate public notice of the special meeting, in violation of its procedure by-law.

However, the in-camera discussion, which involved receiving legal advice regarding potential litigation, properly fit within the exception under s. 239(2)(e) of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting procedures, including amending the procedure by-law to clarify notice requirements and ensuring public minutes capture resolutions to proceed in camera.