OMBUD 2012

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding several closed meetings held by the Town of Midland between December 2011 and March 2012.

The investigation found that the town council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act by improperly using the 'education or training' and 'identifiable individual' exceptions to discuss matters that should have been public.

The Ombudsman also found that council routinely engaged in improper voting during closed sessions and had inadequate record-keeping practices.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the town's closed meeting practices and ensure compliance with the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria held improper closed sessions on October 21 and November 4, 2011.

The closed sessions involved discussions of harassment complaints made by the municipal clerk and a code of conduct complaint against a councillor.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exceptions for 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' and 'litigation or potential litigation' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council did not contravene the Act but provided best practice recommendations to improve transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of Greater Sudbury improperly held closed meetings to discuss a peer review of the Auditor General's office.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions involved the Auditor General's personal performance and conduct, thus falling within the 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' exception under the Municipal Act.

However, the Ombudsman strongly criticized council members for their lack of co-operation with the investigation, noting that only four of fourteen individuals agreed to be interviewed without the presence of the city solicitor.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints alleging that six members of the City of London council held an improper closed meeting during a lunch gathering at a local restaurant prior to a budget vote.

The Ombudsman determined that while the gathering raised public perception concerns, it did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act because the councillors did not exercise collective legal authority or lay the groundwork for future decision-making.

The Ombudsman concluded that the open meeting requirements were not contravened but urged council members to adopt practices that instill public confidence.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg held improper closed meetings on January 9 and February 13, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that both in camera sessions were permitted under the Municipal Act's exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The January 9 meeting involved legal advice regarding a previous Ombudsman report, while the February 13 meeting involved urgent legal advice concerning a park maintenance agreement.

The Ombudsman concluded the town did not contravene open meeting requirements and commended the town for implementing procedural improvements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding three closed meetings held by the Council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe in July and August 2012.

The investigation found that the Township violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act during all three meetings.

Specifically, the July 25 meeting improperly included third parties during a discussion of legal advice, waiving solicitor-client privilege.

The August 1 meeting was held without public notice.

The August 13 meeting included an unplanned closed session that went beyond the permitted exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's closed meeting practices, including audio/video recording of in camera meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of London's Committee of the Whole improperly held a closed meeting to discuss the 'Occupy London' protest.

The investigation found that the committee went in camera to receive legal advice and discuss potential litigation regarding the protest encampment.

The Ombudsman concluded that the closed session and the voting that took place during it were permitted under the exceptions in the Municipal Act for solicitor-client privilege and potential litigation.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint that members of the City of Hamilton's NHL Proposal Sub-Committee held an improperly closed breakfast meeting with third parties.

The Ombudsman found that while municipal business was generally discussed, the gathering was primarily social and did not involve material sub-committee business or lay the groundwork for future decision-making.

Therefore, it was not a 'meeting' subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg Council held multiple closed meetings in contravention of the Municipal Act.

The investigation confirmed that the council repeatedly contravened the Act and its own procedure by-law by discussing issues in closed session that were not permitted under the statutory exceptions, including the 'education or training' and 'matter under another Act' exceptions.

The council also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors and failed to provide adequate public notice of the subjects to be considered in camera.

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