Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the LGBTQ Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton held an electronic meeting that was improperly closed to the public.

During the meeting, the staff liaison's internet connection failed, causing the public livestream to go down for approximately 23 minutes.

The committee continued the meeting despite the interruption.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, and recommended that the City review its virtual meeting policies and provide additional training to staff and committee members.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Hawkesbury council held an improperly closed meeting when the Mayor held sequential discussions with three councillors regarding employee terminations.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, because a quorum was never present at any one time, meaning the discussions did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the County of Norfolk's Budget Committee held an improper closed meeting to discuss the municipal budget.

The committee had moved in camera to discuss staff restructuring and land monetization options.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions regarding staff restructuring involved identifiable individuals and labour relations impacts, fitting within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

The discussion regarding land monetization involved a proposed disposition of specific lands and setting a target price, fitting within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman concluded that the municipality did not contravene the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two virtual meetings held by the council for the Village of Westport on September 15, 2020.

Due to technical issues, the municipality was unable to live stream the meetings to the public.

Despite the technical failure, council proceeded with the meetings and conducted municipal business.

The Ombudsman found that because the public was unable to access the virtual meetings, they were improperly closed to the public contrary to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality adopt a policy ensuring council business is not conducted if technical issues prevent public attendance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Town of Plympton-Wyoming council to discuss filling a council vacancy.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing the process to fill the vacancy and voting to proceed by appointment in closed session, as these did not fit within the 'personal matters' exception.

However, the discussion regarding the specific individuals interested in the position was properly held in camera, and the vote to bring a motion in open session was a permitted direction to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Municipality of Temagami on June 13 and November 7, 2019, as well as procedural issues concerning meeting notices and minutes.

The Ombudsman found that the June 13 closed session regarding a harassment complaint did not fit within the 'personal matters' exception, as no identifiable personal information was discussed.

However, the November 7 closed session concerning Integrity Commissioner findings and legal advice fit within the exceptions for personal matters and solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman also found procedural violations, including the failure to provide sufficient detail in resolutions to proceed in camera and the failure to record the June 13 resolution in the open session minutes.

Recommendations were made to improve the Municipality's open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Board of Management for the Greater Napanee Business Improvement Area held illegal closed meetings.

The complainants alleged the board secretly decided to reinstate a BIA levy and held an improper private gathering at a local business.

The Ombudsman found no evidence that the board met in secret regarding the levy, noting the levy had never been officially deferred.

The Ombudsman also found that the June 24 gathering was purely social and did not materially advance board business, meaning it was not a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman recommended improvements to the board's meeting practices regarding public notice and minute keeping.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Johnson's committee of the whole improperly held a closed session to discuss filling a council vacancy and failed to provide notice of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the Township provided sufficient notice and that the closed session discussion about candidates' qualifications fit within the personal matters exception of the Municipal Act.

However, the Ombudsman found that the committee violated the open meeting rules by voting in closed session to recommend a candidate, as the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee held a meeting that was illegally closed to the public because it began more than 30 minutes after its scheduled start time.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, but it was not illegally closed to the public, as no members of the public were prevented from observing the proceedings.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the committee contravened the township's procedure by-law by proceeding to discuss municipal business more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time when quorum was not initially present.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Emo council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed session on June 23, 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion regarding a code of conduct matter was permissible under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

However, the council contravened the procedural requirements of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act's open meeting requirements during a closed session on July 8, 2019.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussion regarding a tolling agreement was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ombudsman determined that council contravened the Act by voting on a resolution in camera that was neither procedural nor a direction to staff, although this occurred due to confusion and inadvertence.

The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure future in camera votes comply with the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Saugeen Shores held illegal closed meetings on July 22, November 11, and November 25, 2019, to discuss a waterfront development lease, and that an informal gathering during a recess on February 24, 2020, constituted an illegal meeting.

The Ombudsman found that while the July 22 meeting did not fit the cited 'security of the property' exception, all three closed sessions were permissible under the exceptions for the acquisition or disposition of land, plans and instructions for negotiations, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, the February 24 recess gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act because it did not materially advance council business.

The Ombudsman concluded there were no contraventions of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that a quorum of municipal councillors held an improper closed meeting during an informal gathering and subsequently voted via email regarding a potential donation from a cannabis producer.

The Ombudsman found that neither the informal gathering nor the email exchange constituted a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, as a quorum was not physically present to advance council business.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the municipality acted without legal authority and contrary to law by making a decision via email rather than through a formal by-law passed at a properly constituted public council meeting.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Russell violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to include a link to the electronic broadcast of its April 2, 2020, special meeting in the meeting agenda.

The meeting was held electronically due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman found that the Township did not violate the open meeting rules, as it provided notice of the electronic meeting and posted the broadcast link on its website and social media prior to the meeting.

The Ombudsman commended the Township for its efforts to facilitate public access during the declared emergency.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated 77 complaints regarding closed meetings held by the City of Hamilton's City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee on February 9 and 23, 2019.

The complainants alleged that the meetings were improperly held outside city limits, that the public was denied access, that meeting times were changed without notice, and that public delegations were refused.

The Ombudsman found that the February 9 meeting was illegally closed to the public because members of the public were prevented from attending the open portions.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the location of the meetings was permissible, the closed sessions fit within the 'personal matters' exception, and the committee did not violate the delegation policy.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the city's compliance with open meeting rules and public notice requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Municipality of West Nipissing.

The council met in camera under the personal matters exception to discuss 'Municipal Act/Roles & Responsibilities'.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion, which was described as toxic and chaotic, did not involve personal information and therefore did not fit within the personal matters exception.

Furthermore, the discussion did not qualify for the education or training exception, as no actual education or training occurred.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council violated the Municipal Act, 2001 and made recommendations to improve compliance and decorum.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in closed session to discuss documents and recommendations about the municipality's finances.

The council relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to go in camera.

The Ombudsman determined that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as the vast majority of the discussion related to broader issues with the municipality's finances and the steps necessary to rectify errors in its accounting software.

This discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters, or any other exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Municipality of The Nation on December 17, 2018, and January 7 and 14, 2019.

The investigation found that while discussions regarding employee hiring, compensation, and ongoing litigation properly fit within the exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, discussions regarding councillor remuneration and economic development did not.

Furthermore, the resolutions to proceed in camera failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matters to be discussed.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's compliance with open meeting requirements, including providing more detailed resolutions and adopting the practice of reporting back in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two closed sessions held by the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee to discuss the city's contribution to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats' bid for the 2020 or 2021 Grey Cup.

The Ombudsman found that the first closed session fit within the open meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The second closed session did not fit within the exception for information belonging to the municipality, as the information did not have monetary value.

However, the second closed session fit within the exception for negotiations, as the committee formulated a plan and directed staff regarding ongoing negotiations with the Tiger-Cats.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that members of the City of Hamilton council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by exchanging emails about a vacant council seat, and that a committee improperly discussed and voted on the matter in camera.

The Ombudsman found no contravention.

The email exchange did not constitute a 'meeting' under the amended definition in the Act because a quorum of members was not physically present.

Furthermore, the in camera committee discussion was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and no improper vote occurred during the closed session.