Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Mayor of the Municipality of Brighton held an illegal closed meeting by conducting serial phone calls with four councillors to discuss the sale of municipal land.

The Ombudsman found that the phone calls involved a quorum of council and materially advanced council business by securing support for a proposal sent to a prospective buyer.

The Ombudsman concluded that the serial phone calls constituted an illegal closed meeting in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the municipality's procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the County of Norfolk.

The council had gone into closed session to receive a deputation from the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board and to receive legal advice, citing the 'personal matters' and 'advice subject to solicitor-client privilege' exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the deputation did not qualify as personal information, as it related to the professional capacity of the Board members, and therefore did not fit within the 'personal matters' exception.

However, the portions of the closed session before and after the deputation, during which legal advice was provided, fit within the 'advice subject to solicitor-client privilege' exception.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council ensure future closed sessions strictly adhere to statutory exceptions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in camera to discuss allegations of municipal credit card abuse by employees.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussion fell within the exceptions for litigation or potential litigation, personal matters about an identifiable individual, advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and labour relations.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to reflect the open meeting provisions of the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Grimsby council held closed meetings in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. on November 11 and December 5, 2016, without providing public notice.

The Ombudsman found that the November 11 gathering was a meeting of council that contravened the Municipal Act and the town's procedure by-law because it was held in camera without public notice or a resolution to close the meeting.

However, the December 5 informal gathering was not a meeting for the purposes of the Act, as council did not exercise its authority or lay the groundwork for future decisions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet held illegal closed meetings to discuss an organizational study and improperly voted by email to approve funding for a grant application.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law by voting in a closed session to award a consulting contract, and by holding three informal working sessions without following procedural requirements.

The Ombudsman also found that council contravened the Act by approving a funding contribution via email and telephone, which constituted an illegal meeting.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Russell on December 12, 2016.

The council had gone into closed session to discuss naming rights for a new sports facility, citing the 'personal matters' and 'litigation or potential litigation' exceptions under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion pertained to fundraising, naming rights, and advertising, rather than personal matters, and that there was no reasonable prospect of litigation.

Furthermore, the council improperly reached an agreement in camera that amounted to a vote.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting was illegally closed to the public and made recommendations to improve compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Timmins council on December 19, 2016.

Council met in camera with a representative of Northern College to discuss a proposed development agreement for an Integrated Emergency Services Complex.

The Ombudsman found that the presence of the college's representative during the closed session disqualified the discussion from the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman concluded that the city contravened the Act and its procedure by-law, and made recommendations to improve compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area held an improper closed meeting.

The Ombudsman found that while the subject matter—an employee's conduct and contract—fit within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations, the board committed several procedural violations.

Specifically, the board failed to pass a resolution before going in camera, failed to record meeting minutes, and improperly voted during the closed session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the board adopt a procedure by-law and that the Town of Fort Erie provide open meeting training to all local board members.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of London held illegal closed meetings on May 17 and June 23, 2016, regarding the appointment of an integrity commissioner and a subsequent report.

The Ombudsman found that the May 17 meeting was properly closed under the personal matters and solicitor-client privilege exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001, as it involved discussing a candidate's qualifications and receiving legal advice.

The June 23 meeting was also properly closed under the solicitor-client privilege exception, as council received written and verbal legal advice regarding a potential inquiry.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Walkerton Business Improvement Area and the Municipality of Brockton held improperly closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that an informal gathering of three BIA board members on June 13, 2016, was not a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman also found that a closed session of the Brockton council on June 20, 2016, was properly closed under the 'litigation or potential litigation' exception.

However, the Ombudsman determined that a quorum of Brockton council attending a Drainage Act information session on September 27, 2016, constituted a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, and the municipality contravened the Act by failing to comply with open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Laird Fairgrounds Management Board, a committee of the Township of Laird, held an improper closed meeting on August 10, 2016.

The Ombudsman found that the board did not contravene the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 or the township's procedure by-law.

The in-camera discussion focused on the conduct of identifiable individuals involved in an incident at the horse arena, which fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Timmins held two illegal closed meetings on August 8 and 29, 2016, regarding the city's Canada Day 150 celebrations.

The Ombudsman found that the August 8 closed session contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as no legal advice was discussed, and therefore the direction given to the mayor during that session was also improper.

However, the August 29 closed session was permitted under the solicitor-client privilege exception because legal advice was conveyed and discussed, making the subsequent direction to the mayor permissible.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Timmins council to discuss the retirement of its Chief Administrative Officer and the recruitment process for a replacement.

The Ombudsman found that while discussing the CAO's retirement and salary fit within the personal matters exception, the subsequent discussion regarding the recruitment process did not.

Furthermore, the council contravened the Municipal Act by voting in closed session to form a hiring committee and by using a secret ballot to select the committee members.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Greater Sudbury council held illegal closed meetings to discuss an independent report regarding a transit ticket kiosk and to vote on writing off an uncollectible account.

The Ombudsman found that the closed meetings were permitted under the personal matters and solicitor-client privilege exceptions of the Municipal Act.

Furthermore, the evidence did not support the allegation that council voted on the uncollectible account during a closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Georgian Bay council held illegal closed meetings to discuss a shoreline structure that violated a zoning by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the council properly relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception under the Municipal Act to close the meetings, given threats of legal action.

However, the council contravened the Act by passing a substantive resolution during the closed session, rather than a procedural vote or direction to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees.

The Ombudsman found that the commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussion did not fall within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, nor any other exception.

Additionally, the commission failed to provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman recommended that the commission ensure future closed meetings comply with statutory exceptions and that resolutions to proceed in camera contain adequate information about the intended discussion.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Elliot Lake's Ad Hoc Multi-Use Committee held meetings on March 22 and May 5, 2016, without providing public notice.

The investigation found that the committee failed to post notice on the public bulletin board or the city's website, violating the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the city's procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman recommended implementing a record-keeping system for notices and incorporating the practice of online notice into the procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the Township of Hornepayne's Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee held a meeting on January 12, 2016, 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 no public notice was provided, the meeting was effectively closed to the public, contravening the Act, the township's procedure by-law, and the committee's terms of reference.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to ensure future compliance and training on open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Town of Grimsby council held an illegal closed meeting on May 2, 2016, to discuss a municipally-controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc. The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion did not fit within any of the prescribed exceptions to the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, including security of property, personal matters, litigation, acquisition of land, or labour relations.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council contravened the Act and its procedure by-law, and made recommendations to improve the town's meeting practices, including audio or video recording closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Council for the County of Norfolk held an illegal closed meeting to discuss a site-specific zoning by-law for Hastings Drive, and improperly voted to remove a zoning option during that meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting was permitted under the litigation and solicitor-client privilege exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the council received legal advice regarding potential appeals.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman determined that the council did not improperly vote, but rather gave permissible direction to staff.

The resolution to proceed in camera was also found to be sufficient.