OMBUD 2014

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Amherstburg council held illegal closed meetings on July 7 and September 8, 2014, to discuss the hiring of a new Chief Administrative Officer.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the 'personal matters' and 'solicitor-client privilege' exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The directions given to staff during the in camera sessions were also permitted under section 239(6) of the Act.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint from an MPP alleging that a closed-door gathering between members of Hamilton's Government Relations Contact Team and two provincial ministers was an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Government Relations Contact Team was not functioning as a committee of council, as it did not make recommendations to inform council decision-making.

Furthermore, the gathering was not a 'meeting' subject to open meeting requirements because it was not a municipal decision-making exercise.

The Ombudsman concluded that holding the meeting behind closed doors did not violate the Act, but recommended that the city clarify the membership, role, and authority of the Team.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Baldwin council held an illegal closed meeting and took an illegal vote by secret ballot to select a municipal works foreman.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions were permissible under the labour relations and personal matters exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

However, the council violated the Municipal Act by taking a secret ballot vote during the closed session to select the successful candidate.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the City of Owen Sound council held illegal closed meetings via email and during an informal gathering at a vacant lot.

The Ombudsman found that an email updating council on property standards enforcement and a gathering of council members and citizens at the lot did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001.

In neither instance did council exercise its authority or lay the groundwork to do so.

The complaints were dismissed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Whitestone held an illegal closed meeting on February 4, 2014, to discuss filling the position of Chief Administrative Officer.

The investigation found that the in camera discussions pertained to an organizational review containing specific performance information about identified staff members and the pending retirements of two individuals.

The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the personal matters and labour relations exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore the council did not contravene the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding multiple closed meetings held by the City of Welland council between June 2012 and May 2014.

The investigation focused on four meetings and found that council held illegal closed sessions on March 18, April 15, and May 6, 2014.

The council improperly relied on exceptions such as 'security of the property' and 'education or training' to discuss matters that should have been open to the public, including a marketing plan, a logistics node proposal, and a bid for a sporting event.

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

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that three members of the City of Elliot Lake council held an improper closed meeting by attending a Sustainable Development Roundtable.

The Ombudsman found that because a quorum was not present and no council decision-making or groundwork for future decisions took place, the gathering did not constitute a meeting for the purposes of the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake held an improper closed meeting to discuss a matter pertaining to the White Mountain Academy.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under s. 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as having the discussion in open session could have harmed the city's financial interests.

The investigation concluded that the in camera meeting did not violate open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Killarney held an improper closed meeting at a local wharf on April 25, 2014, to discuss building a temporary processing facility for a local business.

The Ombudsman found that while the gathering constituted a meeting for the purpose of doing groundwork necessary to exercise council's authority, it was not closed to the public because members of the public had been invited to attend.

The Ombudsman concluded that the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 were not violated, though procedural formalities like minute-taking should have been observed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Waterfront Improvement Committee for the Township of Billings held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Committee met the definition of a committee of council under the Township's procedure by-law, making it subject to open meeting requirements.

Although the Committee was already holding open meetings, the Ombudsman encouraged the Township to formalize the Committee's terms of reference and notice procedures.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the Township of Billings council to fill a vacant council seat.

During the closed session, council members voted by secret ballot and, after a tie, tossed a coin to select the new councillor.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session did not fall within the 'personal matters' exception or any other exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, the in camera vote violated the Act, which requires votes to fill council vacancies to occur in open session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure future compliance with open meeting requirements and amend its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that 12 members of the City of London Council held an improper closed meeting during a dinner gathering in the City Hall cafeteria.

The gathering occurred between a regular council meeting and a special open session regarding a vacant council seat.

After interviewing all council members and relevant staff, the Ombudsman concluded that the gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The evidence did not support that the council members came together for the purpose of exercising their authority or laying the groundwork for the upcoming vote.