Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the Town of Pelham council on April 19, 2021, regarding the future management and potential development of the Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as the in camera discussion did not fit within the cited exception for plans and instructions for negotiations, nor any other statutory exceptions such as acquisition or disposition of land, third-party information, or information belonging to the municipality.

Furthermore, the council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure future closed sessions strictly adhere to statutory exceptions and provide adequate descriptions in resolutions to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission's in camera discussion regarding an Access Agreement was permissible under the Municipal Act's exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.

However, the Commission contravened the Act when it discussed the Municipal Agreement, its withdrawal clause, and 2021 financial information in closed session, as these topics did not fall within any statutory exceptions.

Furthermore, the Commission's resolution to proceed in camera failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered, contrary to subsection 239(4) of the Act.

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

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint alleging that Bruce County's Executive Committee held four improperly closed meetings between 2017 and 2019.

The Ombudsman found that the August 2, 2018 meeting fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

However, the meetings on September 21, 2017, and September 6, 2018, did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, and an improper vote was held during the 2017 meeting.

For the January 10, 2019 meeting, a brief discussion about an identifiable individual was properly held in camera, but the remainder of the discussion regarding the Nuclear Innovation Institute should have been parsed and held in open session.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two working group meetings held by the Off Road Vehicle Task Force of the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The complainant alleged the meetings violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Task Force was a committee of council and its working group meetings constituted meetings under the Act because a quorum was present and the discussions materially advanced the Task Force's business.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Task Force contravened the Act by failing to provide notice, keep minutes, and open the meetings to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands council held an improper closed meeting to discuss a broadband internet project.

The Ombudsman found that discussing the technical and financial details of a commissioned study report in camera was permissible under the exception for information belonging to the municipality.

However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing a related funding application in closed session, as it did not fit any exception.

Council further contravened the Act by holding a vote by consensus on the funding application during the closed session and by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered before moving in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding two closed meetings held by the council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith.

The June 8, 2021 meeting was found to comply with the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussions fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and plans or instructions for negotiations.

However, the July 6, 2021 meeting contravened the Act because council heard a delegation in closed session that did not fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman concluded that the delegation portion should have been parsed from the subsequent valid closed session discussion and held in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls council to discuss the process for establishing a Chief Administrative Officer recruitment sub-committee.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the labour relations exception or any other exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore should have been held in open session.

Additionally, the council failed to accurately describe the subject matter in its resolution to proceed in camera, and passed the resolution during a portion of the meeting that was effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the council for the Township of Pelee on June 22, 2021.

The complainant alleged the discussion did not fall within any prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering was not a 'meeting' under the Act because the council received information and training without materially advancing business or decision-making.

Furthermore, even if it had been a meeting, the discussion would have been permitted in camera under the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the council for the Town of Collingwood regarding a judicial inquiry into the partial sale of a municipal hydro utility.

The complainant alleged the meetings did not fall within any prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions, which involved legal advice and legal fee quotes containing suggested strategy, fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding the openness of meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman.

The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide public notice for meetings on August 5 and October 19, 2020.

The municipality also contravened the Act on June 4, 2020, by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure public notice is provided for all committee meetings and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Russell council improperly held a closed meeting on November 16, 2020, to discuss a proposed land transaction and infrastructure project.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session was permissible under the Municipal Act, 2001 exceptions for the acquisition or disposition of land and for plans and instructions for negotiations.

The presence of the Mayor, who also served as Warden of the upper-tier municipality, did not compromise the Township's bargaining position.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission failed to provide adequate public notice of electronic meetings and failed to allow the public to observe portions of meetings following closed sessions.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission, as a local board, contravened the Municipal Act by failing to pass a procedure by-law providing for public notice of meetings and by holding several meetings without adequate public notice.

The Ombudsman also found that the Commission contravened the Act by failing to adequately notify the public on how to rejoin meetings after closed sessions, effectively closing those portions to the public.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law and ensure the public can observe all open portions of its meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Baconfest Committee, Finance Working Group, and Policy Working Group of the Township of Lucan Biddulph held meetings contrary to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Baconfest Committee fell within the definition of a committee and contravened the rules by failing to provide public notice and record meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman commended the Township for proactively dissolving the two working groups prior to the investigation and recommended that all committees be formally established by by-law and comply with open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a special council meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion regarding an appeal before the Fire Safety Commission fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

However, the Township contravened the Act by failing to record minutes of the closed session and by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman recommended updates to the Township's procedure by-law and meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Lanark Highlands council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed session on September 22, 2020.

The council had cited the exceptions for 'acquisition or disposition of land' and 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' to discuss a local association involved in a potential land transaction.

The Ombudsman found that the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception did not apply, as the discussion focused on the association's governance rather than the property transaction itself.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the discussion fit within the 'personal matters' exception because it involved scrutinizing the personal conduct and temperament of identifiable individuals.

The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Township ensure its meeting minutes reflect discussions on all substantive matters and that closed sessions be audio or video recorded.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding electronic meetings held by the Township of Bonfield in May and June 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the Township violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to broadcast or otherwise make the meetings accessible to the public in real time.

The Ombudsman also found that the Township's meeting minutes were incomplete, as they failed to record substantive discussions and resolutions that did not pass.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure public access to electronic meetings, improve its minute-taking practices, and update its procedure by-law to reflect all statutory exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls on October 6, 2020.

The complainants alleged that the council improperly discussed the potential designation of the Niagara River as a protected wetland in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fell within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the council received legal advice from the City Solicitor.

However, the Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Act by failing to broadcast the resolution to go in camera, effectively passing it in a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure the public can observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Kirkland Lake council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, during a closed session on August 25, 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion, which involved scrutinizing individuals' conduct and job performance, fit within the 'personal matters' and 'labour relations' exceptions.

However, council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Grey Highlands held an improper closed meeting on October 7, 2020, to discuss a joint venture.

The Ombudsman found that the council's discussion regarding plans to proceed with negotiations and the establishment of an Economic Development Corporation fit within the closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations under section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman commended the municipality for its practice of video recording closed meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury council via electronic participation.

The complainant alleged that the council improperly discussed an entertainment district in camera and failed to pass the resolution to go into closed session in public.

The Ombudsman found that the entertainment district was not discussed and that the topics actually discussed fit within the statutory exceptions for personal matters and third-party confidential information.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the council contravened the Municipal Act by failing to broadcast the resolution to go in camera, effectively closing that portion of the meeting to the public.