Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Niagara Falls council violated the Municipal Act, 2001 by holding a closed meeting to discuss a proposed $10 million partnership with a post-secondary institution.

The council relied on the 'acquisition or disposition of land' and 'advice subject to solicitor-client privilege' exceptions to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion was preliminary and did not involve actual property negotiations or legal advice, meaning the exceptions did not apply.

Consequently, the council's in camera vote directing staff to proceed with the funding application was also improper.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council ensure future closed meetings strictly comply with statutory exceptions and update its procedure by-law regarding public notice.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Town of Goderich's Recreation Board of Management and its Ad Hoc Committee held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that the Recreation Board of Management is a 'local board' under the Act because it carries on the affairs of the municipality, has a direct link to the town, is subject to municipal control, and possesses an element of autonomy.

Consequently, it is subject to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman recommended that the town formally recognize the Board as a local board and that the Board adopt a procedure by-law and adhere to open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands held an illegal closed meeting by discussing a zoning by-law application over email.

The Ombudsman found that the email exchanges, which laid the groundwork for a subsequent council decision, constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The township's practice of publishing these "quorum emails" after the fact did not satisfy the open meeting requirements, including public notice, passing a resolution to close the meeting, and minute-taking.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council cease its practice of discussing council business over email or any other electronic format.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Woolwich held an illegal closed meeting between its scheduled closed and open sessions to decide whether to allow a delegation.

The investigation revealed that while some councillors informally discussed the upcoming delegation during a break, there was no evidence that a quorum of the committee discussed the matter as a group or laid the groundwork for a decision.

The Ombudsman concluded that the informal discussions did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore no violation occurred.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Sault Ste.

Marie council held an improper closed meeting on October 13, 2015, to discuss the realignment of fire and emergency medical services.

The Ombudsman found that the in-camera discussion with the Fire Chief involved human resources issues, including discussions with the firefighters' association and an upcoming arbitration award.

Although some topics like risk management and financial savings were discussed, they were inextricably entwined with the labour relations matters.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations under s. 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and did not contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Brockville's OPP Contact Adhoc Committee.

The committee met in camera with OPP representatives to receive information about the OPP costing process, relying on the 'education and training' exception under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that while receiving general information fell within the exception, the committee's subsequent discussion and vote to direct staff to approach an audit firm advanced the committee's business and violated the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman also found procedural violations regarding the resolution to proceed in camera and the city's procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Hamilton's Election Compliance Audit Committee held an illegally closed meeting on July 15, 2015, to deliberate on applications.

The city argued the committee was an administrative tribunal entitled to deliberative secrecy and not a 'local board' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman applied the four-part test for local boards and determined the committee is a local board subject to the Act's open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found the committee contravened the Act by meeting in private without providing notice or following the required procedures for closed meetings, and recommended the city formally recognize the committee as a local board.

The Ombudsman investigated four complaints alleging that the City of Oshawa council held an improper closed meeting on December 17, 2015, regarding a proposed merger between Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation (OPUC) and Veridian.

Council relied on the 'education and training' exception under the Municipal Act to go in camera.

The Ombudsman found that the presentation provided detailed information about the specific proposed merger, and the questions asked by councillors materially advanced council's business and decision-making.

Consequently, the meeting did not fall within the 'education and training' exception or any other exception, and council contravened the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman recommended that the city ensure closed sessions strictly comply with statutory exceptions and adopt the best practice of reporting back in open session.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg council held improper closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it approved accounts payable via email, as this constituted an illegal closed meeting.

Regarding an October 14, 2015 closed meeting, the discussion of a legal fee reimbursement did not fit the cited "personal matters" exception, but was permissible under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

An October 26, 2015 closed meeting on the same topic only fit the "personal matters" exception because council improperly introduced extraneous personal information into the discussion.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that Norfolk County's council-in-committee held an illegal closed meeting to discuss extending legal services contracts with two law firms.

The committee relied on the 'personal matters' exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that while a small portion of the discussion regarding the performance of specific lawyers fell within the exception, the majority of the discussion regarding fee structures and tendering did not.

The Ombudsman also found that the resolution to proceed in camera failed to adequately state the general nature of the matters to be considered, in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the council for The Nation Municipality held an illegal closed meeting when it restricted access to a council meeting to those who could fit inside the Town Hall and prohibited the use of a microphone and speakers to broadcast the proceedings outside.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not contravene the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the public was allowed to attend the open session subject only to the building's capacity restrictions.

However, the Ombudsman recommended that the municipality develop a contingency plan to relocate meetings to a larger venue when high public interest is anticipated.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Russell on December 7, 2015.

The complainant alleged that council inappropriately discussed changes to the salary structure for township employees and the remuneration of the Mayor and councillors in camera.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion regarding employee compensation fell within the closed meeting exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and labour relations or employee negotiations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the discussion regarding councillor remuneration did not fall within any exception, and therefore council contravened the Act by holding that portion of the meeting in closed session.