Barbara Finlay

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding eight closed meetings held by the Town of Saugeen Shores council.

The investigation found that on five occasions, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide a sufficient description of the general nature of the matters to be considered before moving into closed session.

On two other occasions, the resolutions were found to be sufficient.

Additionally, the Ombudsman determined that a closed session discussion on December 9, 2024, properly fit within the open meeting exceptions for information supplied in confidence by a third party and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Georgina council on May 29 and September 11, 2024.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fit within the open meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman determined that council contravened section 239(6) of the Act during the September 11 meeting by voting in camera to approve funding for a bridge modification project, as this was a substantive decision rather than a procedural matter or a direction to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of London held an illegal closed meeting on June 10, 2015.

Due to a disruption in the public gallery, security staff locked the doors to City Hall and removed members of the public.

Although council resumed in open session and believed the meeting was open, the doors to City Hall remained locked for a significant period.

The Ombudsman found that large portions of the meeting were effectively closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, and recommended the implementation of a formal written security protocol.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that a special meeting of the Town of Fort Erie council was improperly closed to the public because a locked security door prevented access to the meeting room.

The Acting Ombudsman found that although the council intended the meeting to be open, the locked door effectively barred the public, frustrating their right to observe municipal government.

The Ombudsman concluded the meeting was improperly closed and made recommendations to improve the town's open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the council for the Municipality of St.-Charles held closed meetings on three dates to discuss audit reports and management letters.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act by discussing the auditors' findings and recommendations in closed session, as these did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules.

However, subsequent discussions regarding individual staff performance and conduct fell within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding two closed meetings held by the Township of Russell council on August 10, 2015.

The investigation found that an afternoon closed session for strategic planning training fell within the Municipal Act's exception for education or training.

An evening closed session regarding a tax reimbursement matter properly fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

However, the council contravened the Municipal Act by discussing three other matters in closed session—a list of potential heritage properties, a business plan for water and sewage services, and a community benefit fund agreement—as these did not fit within any statutory exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council ensure future closed sessions clearly fall within statutory exceptions and amend its procedure by-law to accurately reflect the Municipal Act.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar held illegal closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that a series of emails exchanged by committee members to vote on a recommendation to council constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman determined that portions of an in camera meeting held on May 5, 2015, did not fit within the statutory exceptions to the open meeting requirements, as the committee discussed information already in the public record.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the committee's compliance with open meeting rules.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the heads of council of seven municipalities in the West Parry Sound area held illegal closed meetings, including on February 19, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the heads of council group was not established by by-law, had no delegated authority, and functioned solely for information sharing rather than advancing council business.

Consequently, the gatherings did not constitute 'meetings' of a committee or local board under the Municipal Act, 2001, and were not subject to the open meeting requirements.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Long Term Care Task Force for the Regional Municipality of Niagara held an illegally closed meeting on May 13, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the task force met the definition of a committee under both the Municipal Act and the region's procedure by-law at the time of the meeting.

Consequently, the task force was subject to open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting was illegally closed to the public, as no public notice was provided and no proper procedure was followed to close the meeting.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the City of Owen Sound council held illegal closed meetings.

The first complaint alleged council improperly discussed a faith blessing in camera.

The Ombudsman found this discussion fell within the solicitor-client privilege exception, but noted the city failed to provide accurate public notice of the meeting's location.

The second complaint alleged councillors held illegal closed meetings during social gatherings at a local restaurant after regular council meetings.

The Ombudsman concluded these gatherings were purely social in nature, did not involve council business, and therefore did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act.

The Acting Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the Township of West Lincoln held illegal closed meetings on June 15 and June 22, 2015, to discuss a site alteration by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fell within the solicitor-client privilege exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, and did not violate open meeting rules.

However, the Township failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera, and contravened its procedure by-law by adding the matter to the agenda without proper notice.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield held illegal closed meetings on May 19 and June 2, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussions fit within the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, and potential litigation under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the committee committed several procedural violations, including failing to provide sufficient detail in its resolutions to proceed in camera, failing to take adequate meeting minutes, and failing to properly delegate minute-taking responsibilities in writing.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the township's closed meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg council held closed meetings on January 10 and June 2, 2015, in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The investigation found that the January 10 meeting fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The June 2 meeting also fit within the exceptions for personal matters, solicitor-client privilege, and labour relations or employee negotiations.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council did not contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Port Colborne held illegal closed meetings on three dates.

The investigation found that discussions on March 8, 2010, and January 27, 2014, fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land, personal matters, and solicitor-client privilege.

However, on December 8, 2014, the city held an illegal closed meeting when it discussed corporate expansion projects, a non-profit organization, and the disposition of city-owned shares, as these did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman recommended the city cite proper exceptions, provide more specificity in resolutions, and avoid discussing matters in camera that do not fit within the Municipal Act exceptions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the City of Elliot Lake council held illegal closed meetings in April 2015.

The investigation found that in camera discussions regarding the conduct of committee members and the Mayor fit within the 'personal matters' exception to the open meeting rules.

A discussion regarding property fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception.

Furthermore, a private gathering of three councillors with a constituent did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001, as it lacked quorum and did not involve the exercise of council authority.

The Ombudsman concluded that the municipality did not contravene the open meeting requirements, but recommended updates to the procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Niagara Falls council held an illegal closed meeting to discuss whether to continue opening meetings with a prayer, following a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The investigation found that an informal discussion occurred among some councillors between a closed session and the regular open meeting.

The Ombudsman concluded this discussion did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the members did not come together to exercise the power or authority of council or lay the groundwork for decision-making.

The complaint was dismissed, though a recommendation was made to update the procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Brighton's council held an improper closed meeting to discuss and vote on the termination of a senior municipal employee.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion of employee performance and compensation fell within the 'personal matters' exception of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, council committed a technical violation by voting on resolutions that were not properly worded as directions to staff.

Council also violated the Act by failing to provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's open meeting practices.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Russell council held an illegal closed meeting on June 1, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that a closed session regarding a rebranding exercise did not fit within the 'education or training' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, as it materially advanced council business.

However, a closed session discussing a specific employee's performance and salary properly fell under the 'personal matters' exception.

The Ombudsman also found that the resolution to enter the closed session failed to adequately describe the general nature of the staffing matter, violating the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Town of Essex council held an illegal closed meeting by email to modify the prayer used to open council meetings.

The email exchange occurred in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding municipal prayers.

The Ombudsman found that the email exchange, which involved a quorum of council approving new wording for the opening address, constituted an exercise of council authority and therefore an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that council avoid exercising authority through serial email communications.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the councils for Armour Township and the Village of Burk's Falls held an illegally closed meeting to discuss amalgamation.

The investigation found that the councils contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws by discussing amalgamation in a closed session, as the subject did not fit within any statutory exceptions.

Burk's Falls also improperly discussed a board appointment in closed session.

Both municipalities failed to follow procedural requirements, including passing a resolution in open session before closing the meeting and properly recording minutes.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve open meeting practices.