OMBUD 2017

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the City of Cornwall inappropriately held a closed meeting to discuss the Cornwall Regional Airport.

The Ombudsman found that the council's discussion regarding the performance and conduct of airport commission members fit within the 'personal matters' exception to the open meeting requirements under section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the municipality contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act and its procedure by-law by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in its resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Russell council held a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The public entrance to the Town Hall was locked during a portion of a special council meeting on July 31, 2017.

Although the meeting was intended to be open, the locked door prevented members of the public from accessing the council chambers for the first half of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was improperly closed to the public, frustrating the public's right to observe municipal government in process, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the City of Welland held an improper vote during a closed session to appoint a new member of council.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and the city's procedure by-law when it discussed voting procedure in closed session under the 'personal matters' exception.

Furthermore, the council contravened the Act and the by-law when it voted in closed session by secret ballot to select a candidate for the vacant seat.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the city's compliance with open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Kirkland Lake's Recreation Committee held closed meetings without providing proper public notice, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman determined that the Recreation Committee met the definition of a committee of council under the Act, as it laid the groundwork for council decisions and consisted of at least fifty percent council members.

Consequently, the committee's failure to provide public notice, hold open meetings, and take formal minutes violated the Act's open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman recommended that the town reaffirm the committee's status and ensure future compliance with open meeting obligations.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place.

The committee had met in closed session to discuss a public statement made by the Mayor, citing the 'litigation or potential litigation' exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the prospect of litigation was too remote to justify closing the meeting to the public.

The Ombudsman concluded that the committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and the town's procedure by-law, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance with open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Deep River council inappropriately met in closed session to discuss a police service consultation plan and that a working group formed during the meeting should have been subject to open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing the consultation plan in camera, as the discussion did not fit within any of the cited exceptions (security of municipal property, personal matters, or solicitor-client privilege).

Council also improperly voted on substantive resolutions during the closed session.

However, the Ombudsman found that the working group was not a committee of council and was therefore not required to hold open meetings.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee discussed funding for transit routes in a closed session, contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the committee technically contravened the rules when the issue was briefly raised in camera.

However, once staff realized the matter did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, the discussion was immediately discontinued.

The Ombudsman commended the city for ending the discussion but recommended greater caution when adding items to closed session agendas and strongly encouraged the city to audio or video record all closed meetings.

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.