Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of St. Catharines council to discuss a proposed Government Relations Adviser position.

The city claimed the discussion fell under the 'labour relations' and 'negotiations' exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not pertain to the relationship between the municipality and its employees, nor did it involve a predetermined plan or criteria for negotiations.

Consequently, the closed session was illegal.

The Ombudsman also found that the council failed to pass a proper resolution stating the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera, violating both the Act and its own procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Carleton Place's Policy Review Committee held an illegal closed meeting to discuss the sale of municipally-owned properties and the installation of water and sewer services.

The Ombudsman found that the committee's discussion focused on the impending sale of the properties and the town's future bargaining position, including a cost-sharing arrangement for the services.

The Ombudsman concluded that the closed session fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore the town did not contravene the Act or its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Village of Casselman council held illegal closed meetings when a quorum attended two information sessions on March 7, 2018.

The sessions involved updates from an engineering consultant on a development charges study and from a developer on a residential project.

The Ombudsman interpreted the new definition of 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001, which requires that discussions 'materially advance' the business or decision-making of council.

Finding that the sessions were purely informational and involved no debate or decision-making, the Ombudsman concluded they were not 'meetings' under the Act and dismissed the complaint.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Village of Casselman council held an illegal closed session on January 9, 2018, and an illegal informal meeting on January 11, 2018.

The Ombudsman found that the January 9 closed sessions fit within the personal matters exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, as they involved discussions about specific individuals and their employment.

The Ombudsman also found that the January 11 informal gathering of a quorum of councillors did not constitute a meeting under the Act, as the discussions did not materially advance council business.

However, the Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting procedures, including better record-keeping and reporting back in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding three closed meetings held by the Township of The North Shore.

The Ombudsman found that discussions during the December 13, 2017 meeting fit within the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, and solicitor-client privilege, but the resolution to proceed in camera failed to include all matters discussed.

The Ombudsman also found that the February 7, 2018 closed meeting violated the Municipal Act, 2001, as discussions about filling a council vacancy did not fit within the personal matters exception.

Finally, the Ombudsman found that adequate public notice was provided for the February 14, 2018 special meeting, though the township was recommended to formalize its notice practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg council and the Joint Police Advisory Committee held improperly closed meetings regarding a police costing request for proposals and committee composition.

The Ombudsman found that the committee violated its terms of reference and council violated the Municipal Act by closing meetings under the 'security of the property' exception to discuss the RFP, as no threat to municipal property was identified.

However, council did not violate the Act when it closed a meeting to discuss committee composition under the 'personal matters' exception, as the discussion involved scrutiny of the conduct of identifiable individuals.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula held an improper closed meeting on January 22, 2018, to discuss a notice of application for absolute title under the Land Titles Act.

The municipality cited the 'personal matters' exception.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion focused on property information and did not involve personal information about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman also found that the 'advice subject to solicitor-client privilege' exception did not apply, as legal advice was only briefly mentioned and not discussed.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting was improperly closed and made recommendations to improve compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Petrolia held improperly closed meetings on September 11, October 25, and November 14, 2017.

The Ombudsman found that a presentation by the YMCA on September 11 did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, and thus contravened the Act.

However, the subsequent discussion on September 11 and the meeting on October 25 fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.

The November 14 meeting regarding a code of conduct complaint fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Hamilton's Waste Management Advisory Committee held two meetings without providing public notice.

The Ombudsman found that the committee is a committee of council subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

Because the city failed to provide public notice of the meetings held on September 27, 2017, and January 31, 2018, the meetings were effectively closed to the public in contravention of the Act.

The Ombudsman recommended that the city ensure public notice is provided for all meetings and amend its procedure by-law to clearly provide for notice of advisory committee meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that a closed meeting and a subsequent informal gathering held by the Town of Pelham council violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions regarding an external consultant's report, legal advice, and town finances fit within the exceptions for labour relations and solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, the informal gathering at a local restaurant did not constitute a meeting under the Act, as no council business was discussed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Tehkummah held a special closed council meeting without proper public notice.

The Ombudsman found that while the in camera discussion about an employee's status fit within the 'personal matters' and 'labour relations' exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, the township failed to provide proper public notice in contravention of the Act and its own procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman also found that the township failed to keep minutes of the closed session and made several recommendations to improve meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Fort Erie council on December 4 and 6, 2017.

The council had met in camera to discuss a potential partnership with a post-secondary institution, relying on the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions did not fit within this exception, as the council was only in the early stages of considering the partnership and had not identified any specific property to purchase or lease.

Furthermore, the council violated the Act by failing to provide a general description of the matters to be discussed in its resolutions to proceed into closed session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council ensure future closed sessions strictly comply with statutory exceptions and that resolutions provide sufficient detail to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Lanark Highlands council inappropriately held a closed meeting under the 'advice subject to solicitor-client privilege' and 'personal matters' exceptions.

The Ombudsman found that while discussions regarding the treasurer's resignation and legal advice on council members' emails were permitted in closed session, discussions about financial software and the general interaction structure between council and staff did not fit within any exception.

The council also contravened its procedure by-law by discussing items not on the agenda and improperly voted in closed session on matters not permitted by the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Cornwall inappropriately held a closed meeting to discuss the Cornwall Regional Airport.

The Ombudsman found that the council's discussion regarding the performance and conduct of airport commission members fit within the 'personal matters' exception to the open meeting requirements under section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the municipality contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act and its procedure by-law by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in its resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Russell council held a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The public entrance to the Town Hall was locked during a portion of a special council meeting on July 31, 2017.

Although the meeting was intended to be open, the locked door prevented members of the public from accessing the council chambers for the first half of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was improperly closed to the public, frustrating the public's right to observe municipal government in process, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Welland held an improper vote during a closed session to appoint a new member of council.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and the city's procedure by-law when it discussed voting procedure in closed session under the 'personal matters' exception.

Furthermore, the council contravened the Act and the by-law when it voted in closed session by secret ballot to select a candidate for the vacant seat.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the city's compliance with open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Kirkland Lake's Recreation Committee held closed meetings without providing proper public notice, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman determined that the Recreation Committee met the definition of a committee of council under the Act, as it laid the groundwork for council decisions and consisted of at least fifty percent council members.

Consequently, the committee's failure to provide public notice, hold open meetings, and take formal minutes violated the Act's open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman recommended that the town reaffirm the committee's status and ensure future compliance with open meeting obligations.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place.

The committee had met in closed session to discuss a public statement made by the Mayor, citing the 'litigation or potential litigation' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the prospect of litigation was too remote to justify closing the meeting to the public.

The Ombudsman concluded that the committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and the town's procedure by-law, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance with open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Deep River council inappropriately met in closed session to discuss a police service consultation plan and that a working group formed during the meeting should have been subject to open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing the consultation plan in camera, as the discussion did not fit within any of the cited exceptions (security of municipal property, personal matters, or solicitor-client privilege).

Council also improperly voted on substantive resolutions during the closed session.

However, the Ombudsman found that the working group was not a committee of council and was therefore not required to hold open meetings.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee discussed funding for transit routes in a closed session, contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the committee technically contravened the rules when the issue was briefly raised in camera.

However, once staff realized the matter did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, the discussion was immediately discontinued.

The Ombudsman commended the city for ending the discussion but recommended greater caution when adding items to closed session agendas and strongly encouraged the city to audio or video record all closed meetings.