OMBUD 2019

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated 77 complaints regarding closed meetings held by the City of Hamilton's City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee on February 9 and 23, 2019.

The complainants alleged that the meetings were improperly held outside city limits, that the public was denied access, that meeting times were changed without notice, and that public delegations were refused.

The Ombudsman found that the February 9 meeting was illegally closed to the public because members of the public were prevented from attending the open portions.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the location of the meetings was permissible, the closed sessions fit within the 'personal matters' exception, and the committee did not violate the delegation policy.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the city's compliance with open meeting rules and public notice requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in closed session to discuss documents and recommendations about the municipality's finances.

The council relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to go in camera.

The Ombudsman determined that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as the vast majority of the discussion related to broader issues with the municipality's finances and the steps necessary to rectify errors in its accounting software.

This discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters, or any other exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Municipality of West Nipissing.

The council met in camera under the personal matters exception to discuss 'Municipal Act/Roles & Responsibilities'.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion, which was described as toxic and chaotic, did not involve personal information and therefore did not fit within the personal matters exception.

Furthermore, the discussion did not qualify for the education or training exception, as no actual education or training occurred.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council violated the Municipal Act, 2001 and made recommendations to improve compliance and decorum.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Municipality of The Nation on December 17, 2018, and January 7 and 14, 2019.

The investigation found that while discussions regarding employee hiring, compensation, and ongoing litigation properly fit within the exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, discussions regarding councillor remuneration and economic development did not.

Furthermore, the resolutions to proceed in camera failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matters to be discussed.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's compliance with open meeting requirements, including providing more detailed resolutions and adopting the practice of reporting back in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two closed sessions held by the City of Hamilton's General Issues Committee to discuss the city's contribution to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats' bid for the 2020 or 2021 Grey Cup.

The Ombudsman found that the first closed session fit within the open meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The second closed session did not fit within the exception for information belonging to the municipality, as the information did not have monetary value.

However, the second closed session fit within the exception for negotiations, as the committee formulated a plan and directed staff regarding ongoing negotiations with the Tiger-Cats.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that members of the City of Hamilton council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by exchanging emails about a vacant council seat, and that a committee improperly discussed and voted on the matter in camera.

The Ombudsman found no contravention.

The email exchange did not constitute a 'meeting' under the amended definition in the Act because a quorum of members was not physically present.

Furthermore, the in camera committee discussion was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and no improper vote occurred during the closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of St. Catharines council to discuss a proposed Government Relations Adviser position.

The city claimed the discussion fell under the 'labour relations' and 'negotiations' exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not pertain to the relationship between the municipality and its employees, nor did it involve a predetermined plan or criteria for negotiations.

Consequently, the closed session was illegal.

The Ombudsman also found that the council failed to pass a proper resolution stating the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera, violating both the Act and its own procedure by-law.