OMBUD 2021

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding the openness of meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman.

The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide public notice for meetings on August 5 and October 19, 2020.

The municipality also contravened the Act on June 4, 2020, by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure public notice is provided for all committee meetings and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Russell council improperly held a closed meeting on November 16, 2020, to discuss a proposed land transaction and infrastructure project.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session was permissible under the Municipal Act, 2001 exceptions for the acquisition or disposition of land and for plans and instructions for negotiations.

The presence of the Mayor, who also served as Warden of the upper-tier municipality, did not compromise the Township's bargaining position.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission failed to provide adequate public notice of electronic meetings and failed to allow the public to observe portions of meetings following closed sessions.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission, as a local board, contravened the Municipal Act by failing to pass a procedure by-law providing for public notice of meetings and by holding several meetings without adequate public notice.

The Ombudsman also found that the Commission contravened the Act by failing to adequately notify the public on how to rejoin meetings after closed sessions, effectively closing those portions to the public.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law and ensure the public can observe all open portions of its meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Baconfest Committee, Finance Working Group, and Policy Working Group of the Township of Lucan Biddulph held meetings contrary to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Baconfest Committee fell within the definition of a committee and contravened the rules by failing to provide public notice and record meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman commended the Township for proactively dissolving the two working groups prior to the investigation and recommended that all committees be formally established by by-law and comply with open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a special council meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion regarding an appeal before the Fire Safety Commission fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

However, the Township contravened the Act by failing to record minutes of the closed session and by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman recommended updates to the Township's procedure by-law and meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Lanark Highlands council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed session on September 22, 2020.

The council had cited the exceptions for 'acquisition or disposition of land' and 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' to discuss a local association involved in a potential land transaction.

The Ombudsman found that the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception did not apply, as the discussion focused on the association's governance rather than the property transaction itself.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the discussion fit within the 'personal matters' exception because it involved scrutinizing the personal conduct and temperament of identifiable individuals.

The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Township ensure its meeting minutes reflect discussions on all substantive matters and that closed sessions be audio or video recorded.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding electronic meetings held by the Township of Bonfield in May and June 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the Township violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to broadcast or otherwise make the meetings accessible to the public in real time.

The Ombudsman also found that the Township's meeting minutes were incomplete, as they failed to record substantive discussions and resolutions that did not pass.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure public access to electronic meetings, improve its minute-taking practices, and update its procedure by-law to reflect all statutory exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls on October 6, 2020.

The complainants alleged that the council improperly discussed the potential designation of the Niagara River as a protected wetland in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fell within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the council received legal advice from the City Solicitor.

However, the Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Act by failing to broadcast the resolution to go in camera, effectively passing it in a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure the public can observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Kirkland Lake council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, during a closed session on August 25, 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion, which involved scrutinizing individuals' conduct and job performance, fit within the 'personal matters' and 'labour relations' exceptions.

However, council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Grey Highlands held an improper closed meeting on October 7, 2020, to discuss a joint venture.

The Ombudsman found that the council's discussion regarding plans to proceed with negotiations and the establishment of an Economic Development Corporation fit within the closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations under section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman commended the municipality for its practice of video recording closed meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury council via electronic participation.

The complainant alleged that the council improperly discussed an entertainment district in camera and failed to pass the resolution to go into closed session in public.

The Ombudsman found that the entertainment district was not discussed and that the topics actually discussed fit within the statutory exceptions for personal matters and third-party confidential information.

However, the Ombudsman concluded that the council contravened the Municipal Act by failing to broadcast the resolution to go in camera, effectively closing that portion of the meeting to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the LGBTQ Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton held an electronic meeting that was improperly closed to the public.

During the meeting, the staff liaison's internet connection failed, causing the public livestream to go down for approximately 23 minutes.

The committee continued the meeting despite the interruption.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, and recommended that the City review its virtual meeting policies and provide additional training to staff and committee members.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Hawkesbury council held an improperly closed meeting when the Mayor held sequential discussions with three councillors regarding employee terminations.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, because a quorum was never present at any one time, meaning the discussions did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the County of Norfolk's Budget Committee held an improper closed meeting to discuss the municipal budget.

The committee had moved in camera to discuss staff restructuring and land monetization options.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions regarding staff restructuring involved identifiable individuals and labour relations impacts, fitting within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

The discussion regarding land monetization involved a proposed disposition of specific lands and setting a target price, fitting within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman concluded that the municipality did not contravene the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two virtual meetings held by the council for the Village of Westport on September 15, 2020.

Due to technical issues, the municipality was unable to live stream the meetings to the public.

Despite the technical failure, council proceeded with the meetings and conducted municipal business.

The Ombudsman found that because the public was unable to access the virtual meetings, they were improperly closed to the public contrary to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality adopt a policy ensuring council business is not conducted if technical issues prevent public attendance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Town of Plympton-Wyoming council to discuss filling a council vacancy.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing the process to fill the vacancy and voting to proceed by appointment in closed session, as these did not fit within the 'personal matters' exception.

However, the discussion regarding the specific individuals interested in the position was properly held in camera, and the vote to bring a motion in open session was a permitted direction to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Municipality of Temagami on June 13 and November 7, 2019, as well as procedural issues concerning meeting notices and minutes.

The Ombudsman found that the June 13 closed session regarding a harassment complaint did not fit within the 'personal matters' exception, as no identifiable personal information was discussed.

However, the November 7 closed session concerning Integrity Commissioner findings and legal advice fit within the exceptions for personal matters and solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman also found procedural violations, including the failure to provide sufficient detail in resolutions to proceed in camera and the failure to record the June 13 resolution in the open session minutes.

Recommendations were made to improve the Municipality's open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Board of Management for the Greater Napanee Business Improvement Area held illegal closed meetings.

The complainants alleged the board secretly decided to reinstate a BIA levy and held an improper private gathering at a local business.

The Ombudsman found no evidence that the board met in secret regarding the levy, noting the levy had never been officially deferred.

The Ombudsman also found that the June 24 gathering was purely social and did not materially advance board business, meaning it was not a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman recommended improvements to the board's meeting practices regarding public notice and minute keeping.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Johnson's committee of the whole improperly held a closed session to discuss filling a council vacancy and failed to provide notice of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the Township provided sufficient notice and that the closed session discussion about candidates' qualifications fit within the personal matters exception of the Municipal Act.

However, the Ombudsman found that the committee violated the open meeting rules by voting in closed session to recommend a candidate, as the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff.