OMBUD 2020

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee held a meeting that was illegally closed to the public because it began more than 30 minutes after its scheduled start time.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, but it was not illegally closed to the public, as no members of the public were prevented from observing the proceedings.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the committee contravened the township's procedure by-law by proceeding to discuss municipal business more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time when quorum was not initially present.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Emo council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed session on June 23, 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion regarding a code of conduct matter was permissible under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

However, the council contravened the procedural requirements of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act's open meeting requirements during a closed session on July 8, 2019.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussion regarding a tolling agreement was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Ombudsman determined that council contravened the Act by voting on a resolution in camera that was neither procedural nor a direction to staff, although this occurred due to confusion and inadvertence.

The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure future in camera votes comply with the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Saugeen Shores held illegal closed meetings on July 22, November 11, and November 25, 2019, to discuss a waterfront development lease, and that an informal gathering during a recess on February 24, 2020, constituted an illegal meeting.

The Ombudsman found that while the July 22 meeting did not fit the cited 'security of the property' exception, all three closed sessions were permissible under the exceptions for the acquisition or disposition of land, plans and instructions for negotiations, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Furthermore, the February 24 recess gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act because it did not materially advance council business.

The Ombudsman concluded there were no contraventions of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that a quorum of municipal councillors held an improper closed meeting during an informal gathering and subsequently voted via email regarding a potential donation from a cannabis producer.

The Ombudsman found that neither the informal gathering nor the email exchange constituted a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, as a quorum was not physically present to advance council business.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the municipality acted without legal authority and contrary to law by making a decision via email rather than through a formal by-law passed at a properly constituted public council meeting.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Russell violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to include a link to the electronic broadcast of its April 2, 2020, special meeting in the meeting agenda.

The meeting was held electronically due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman found that the Township did not violate the open meeting rules, as it provided notice of the electronic meeting and posted the broadcast link on its website and social media prior to the meeting.

The Ombudsman commended the Township for its efforts to facilitate public access during the declared emergency.