Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the County of Haliburton held an improper closed meeting on April 27, 2023, to discuss the closure of a local hospital emergency room.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the Municipal Act exceptions for matters under another Act or information supplied in confidence by a third party.

However, a portion of the discussion regarding potential legal action fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a gathering of three council members of the Township of Morley, who also constituted a quorum of the Roads and Public Utilities Standing Committee.

The members met with the Public Works Superintendent in a municipal garage to discuss snowplowing operations and subsequently arranged for an additional snowplow operator.

The Ombudsman found that this gathering materially advanced the Township's business and decision-making, thereby meeting the definition of a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Township contravened the open meeting rules by failing to provide notice, take minutes, or observe meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee breached the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed session on February 6, 2019.

The closed session involved a discussion of a consultant's report regarding friction levels on the Red Hill Valley Parkway.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, litigation or potential litigation, and personal matters about an identifiable individual.

While no contravention was found, the Ombudsman recommended best practices for meeting agendas, resolutions, and record-keeping.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the council for the Municipality of Brockton contravened the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing a partnership proposal in a closed session.

The council had relied on the exception for information supplied in confidence under paragraph 239(2)(i).

The Ombudsman found that the information discussed was commercial in nature but was not supplied confidentially by the third party, nor was there a reasonable expectation of harm if disclosed.

Consequently, the Ombudsman concluded that the council contravened the open meeting rules and recommended that the municipality confirm confidentiality expectations with third parties before relying on this exception.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a virtual presentation by the Huronia Airport Task Force to the councils of Midland, Penetanguishene, and Tiny.

The Ombudsman found that the Task Force was a committee under the municipalities' procedure by-laws and that the presentation constituted a meeting because it materially advanced the Task Force's business.

The municipalities contravened the open meeting rules by failing to provide updated public notice of the meeting's electronic location after a planned television broadcast was cancelled, and by failing to record meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding the Township of Alberton's removal of a member of the public from a virtual council meeting.

The complainant was removed after refusing to identify themselves on Zoom, a requirement the Township implemented to prevent "Zoom bombings." The Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001.

While municipalities may take measures to preserve security, requiring the public identification of all attendees was deemed an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township amend its procedural by-law to remove the identification requirement for open meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio contravened the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001 during meetings on June 29, 2021, and March 1 and 7, 2022.

The Ombudsman found that while the substantive discussions on June 29, 2021 fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception, council contravened the Act by failing to provide a general description of the topics to be discussed in its resolutions to move in camera for all three meetings.

Additionally, the Ombudsman found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera on March 7, 2022, failed to keep adequate meeting minutes, and had a procedural by-law that did not adequately address public notice for special meetings.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Municipality of Calvin failed to provide proper public notice and means to observe electronic council meetings on May 10 and June 14, 2022.

The Ombudsman found that the Municipality contravened the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 by providing conflicting or missing links to the electronic meetings, effectively closing them to the public.

Recommendations were made to ensure future compliance with notice and access requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Commission lacked a procedure by-law and held several meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission contravened the Act by failing to have a procedure by-law, failing to pass a resolution before moving in camera, failing to provide public notice for one meeting, failing to keep adequate meeting records, and conducting an illegal vote in closed session.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Commission's compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie held improper closed meetings on September 12 and 26, 2022, to discuss a vacant municipal position.

The investigation found that the September 12 closed session discussion pertained to a regional economic development pilot project and involved confidential labour relations and financial information supplied by Bruce County.

Although the municipality incorrectly cited the 'personal matters' exception, the discussion fit within the exception for 'information supplied in confidence by a third party' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman also found that no closed session discussion on this topic occurred on September 26.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Grey Bruce Health Unit's Board of Health and Executive Committee held closed meetings in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, potential litigation, and personal matters about an identifiable individual.

However, the Board and Committee contravened the Act by failing to provide a general description of the matters to be discussed before moving in camera, and by failing to keep a complete record of the closed session discussions in the meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Emo council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law by holding a budget training session in camera without public notice.

The Ombudsman found no contravention, as the session fell within the 'education and training' exception.

Council received training on a new budget format without materially advancing its business or decision-making.

Because the gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Act, the open meeting rules and notice requirements did not apply.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall's Municipal Grants Review Committee.

The Ombudsman found that the Committee is a committee of council and must comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The investigation concluded that the Committee contravened the Act by holding closed sessions on November 9 and November 30, 2021, as the discussions did not fit within the statutory exceptions for education or training, personal matters, or plans and instructions for negotiations.

The Ombudsman also found procedural violations regarding public notice, resolutions to proceed in camera, and the adequacy of meeting minutes, and made several recommendations to improve compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Nipissing held numerous closed meetings in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussions on February 17, March 9, April 6, May 18, June 8, and August 3, 2021, were permissible under the Act's exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the Township contravened the Act on July 13, 2021, when it discussed a hiring plan in closed session, as this discussion did not fit within any exception and could have been parsed from the rest of the meeting.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the City of Sault Ste.

Marie's Cultural Vitality Committee and Tourism Board held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that both bodies failed to provide adequate public notice of how to access their virtual meetings, rendering the meetings closed to the public.

However, the Ombudsman found that the Cultural Vitality Committee's resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive and complied with the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that members of a municipal council held an illegal closed meeting when a quorum of council was present during a video call with a neighbouring municipality and a developer.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering did not contravene the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, because the discussions were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making.

However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the municipality to maximize transparency by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting and made recommendations to improve compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Brockville council on October 13 and 18, 2021.

The Ombudsman found that while the in camera discussion about an employee's performance fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, it did not fit the exception for potential litigation.

Furthermore, council contravened the Municipal Act by failing to state the general nature of the matter in its resolution to move in camera.

The Ombudsman also found that the City's procedure by-law failed to provide for public notice of special meetings, contrary to the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 during four closed meetings in 2021.

The Ombudsman found that the meetings were properly closed under exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, litigation, and solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Town contravened the Act by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera by resolution for two meetings, and by failing to keep a record of the closed sessions for two other meetings.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Town's compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The council went in camera to discuss the performance of an employee, during which municipal finances were also discussed.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion of the employee's performance fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under paragraph 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Because the financial discussion was intertwined with the performance discussion, it was not practical to parse them.

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