OMBUD 2015

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar held illegal closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that a series of emails exchanged by committee members to vote on a recommendation to council constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman determined that portions of an in camera meeting held on May 5, 2015, did not fit within the statutory exceptions to the open meeting requirements, as the committee discussed information already in the public record.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the committee's compliance with open meeting rules.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the heads of council of seven municipalities in the West Parry Sound area held illegal closed meetings, including on February 19, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the heads of council group was not established by by-law, had no delegated authority, and functioned solely for information sharing rather than advancing council business.

Consequently, the gatherings did not constitute 'meetings' of a committee or local board under the Municipal Act, 2001, and were not subject to the open meeting requirements.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Long Term Care Task Force for the Regional Municipality of Niagara held an illegally closed meeting on May 13, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the task force met the definition of a committee under both the Municipal Act and the region's procedure by-law at the time of the meeting.

Consequently, the task force was subject to open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman concluded that the meeting was illegally closed to the public, as no public notice was provided and no proper procedure was followed to close the meeting.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the City of Owen Sound council held illegal closed meetings.

The first complaint alleged council improperly discussed a faith blessing in camera.

The Ombudsman found this discussion fell within the solicitor-client privilege exception, but noted the city failed to provide accurate public notice of the meeting's location.

The second complaint alleged councillors held illegal closed meetings during social gatherings at a local restaurant after regular council meetings.

The Ombudsman concluded these gatherings were purely social in nature, did not involve council business, and therefore did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield held illegal closed meetings on May 19 and June 2, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussions fit within the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, and potential litigation under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the committee committed several procedural violations, including failing to provide sufficient detail in its resolutions to proceed in camera, failing to take adequate meeting minutes, and failing to properly delegate minute-taking responsibilities in writing.

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

The Acting Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the Township of West Lincoln held illegal closed meetings on June 15 and June 22, 2015, to discuss a site alteration by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fell within the solicitor-client privilege exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, and did not violate open meeting rules.

However, the Township failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera, and contravened its procedure by-law by adding the matter to the agenda without proper notice.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg council held closed meetings on January 10 and June 2, 2015, in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The investigation found that the January 10 meeting fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The June 2 meeting also fit within the exceptions for personal matters, solicitor-client privilege, and labour relations or employee negotiations.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council did not contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Port Colborne held illegal closed meetings on three dates.

The investigation found that discussions on March 8, 2010, and January 27, 2014, fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land, personal matters, and solicitor-client privilege.

However, on December 8, 2014, the city held an illegal closed meeting when it discussed corporate expansion projects, a non-profit organization, and the disposition of city-owned shares, as these did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman recommended the city cite proper exceptions, provide more specificity in resolutions, and avoid discussing matters in camera that do not fit within the Municipal Act exceptions.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Niagara Falls council held an illegal closed meeting to discuss whether to continue opening meetings with a prayer, following a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The investigation found that an informal discussion occurred among some councillors between a closed session and the regular open meeting.

The Ombudsman concluded this discussion did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the members did not come together to exercise the power or authority of council or lay the groundwork for decision-making.

The complaint was dismissed, though a recommendation was made to update the procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the City of Elliot Lake council held illegal closed meetings in April 2015.

The investigation found that in camera discussions regarding the conduct of committee members and the Mayor fit within the 'personal matters' exception to the open meeting rules.

A discussion regarding property fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception.

Furthermore, a private gathering of three councillors with a constituent did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001, as it lacked quorum and did not involve the exercise of council authority.

The Ombudsman concluded that the municipality did not contravene the open meeting requirements, but recommended updates to the procedure by-law.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Russell council held an illegal closed meeting on June 1, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that a closed session regarding a rebranding exercise did not fit within the 'education or training' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, as it materially advanced council business.

However, a closed session discussing a specific employee's performance and salary properly fell under the 'personal matters' exception.

The Ombudsman also found that the resolution to enter the closed session failed to adequately describe the general nature of the staffing matter, violating the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Brighton's council held an improper closed meeting to discuss and vote on the termination of a senior municipal employee.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion of employee performance and compensation fell within the 'personal matters' exception of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, council committed a technical violation by voting on resolutions that were not properly worded as directions to staff.

Council also violated the Act by failing to provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Town of Essex council held an illegal closed meeting by email to modify the prayer used to open council meetings.

The email exchange occurred in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding municipal prayers.

The Ombudsman found that the email exchange, which involved a quorum of council approving new wording for the opening address, constituted an exercise of council authority and therefore an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that council avoid exercising authority through serial email communications.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the councils for Armour Township and the Village of Burk's Falls held an illegally closed meeting to discuss amalgamation.

The investigation found that the councils contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws by discussing amalgamation in a closed session, as the subject did not fit within any statutory exceptions.

Burk's Falls also improperly discussed a board appointment in closed session.

Both municipalities failed to follow procedural requirements, including passing a resolution in open session before closing the meeting and properly recording minutes.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula held illegal closed meetings regarding the acquisition of an airport, committee appointments, and via an email exchange.

The Ombudsman found that the closed sessions regarding the airport fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under the Municipal Act, and that directions given to staff during those sessions were permissible.

The Ombudsman also found no evidence of illegal closed meetings regarding committee appointments, and concluded that the email exchange did not constitute a meeting under the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Woolwich held illegal closed meetings in August 2014 and January and February 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the August 2014 meeting of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee was properly closed under the litigation exception.

However, the January and February 2015 council meetings contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as council discussed matters in camera that did not fit within the statutory exceptions, including committee application deadlines, recreation associations, and administrative matters.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that a quorum of council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands held an illegal closed meeting via email to discuss a draft code of conduct.

A councillor had circulated a draft code of conduct to four other members of the seven-member council prior to a public meeting.

The Ombudsman found that while the councillor's actions came very close to laying the groundwork for a future decision, no violation of the Municipal Act, 2001 occurred because the councillor was unsuccessful in reaching a quorum.

The Ombudsman also found no violation of the municipality's procedure by-law, as the emails were not addressed to all members of council and did not constitute an exchange.

The Ombudsman recommended that council members avoid laying the groundwork for decisions over email.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the Township of Chamberlain held illegal closed meetings between November 2013 and February 2015 to discuss staffing matters.

The Ombudsman found that the 2014 and 2015 meetings fit within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman could not confirm whether the 2013 meetings were justified due to a complete lack of meeting records.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting procedures, including amending its procedure by-law, keeping complete records, and implementing audio or video recording of closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Township of McMurrich-Monteith held illegal closed meetings on January 12, January 19, and February 9, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the subject matters discussed in the closed sessions fell within the exceptions to the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, specifically regarding solicitor-client privilege, employee matters, and personal matters about identifiable individuals.

However, the council violated the Act by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in its resolutions to proceed in camera.

The council also violated its procedure by-law by extending a meeting past curfew without a proper resolution.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Municipality of Magnetawan held an illegal closed meeting on February 28, 2015, and improperly discussed matters in camera on March 4, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that the February 28 meeting violated the Municipal Act and the municipality's procedure by-law because it was held without advance public notice, effectively making it a closed meeting.

However, the March 4 closed session was found to be lawful as it involved the review of job applications, which falls under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting practices, including better notice procedures, more detailed resolutions, and comprehensive meeting records.