OMBUD 2022

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting and made recommendations to improve compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that members of a municipal council held an illegal closed meeting when a quorum of council was present during a video call with a neighbouring municipality and a developer.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering did not contravene the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001, because the discussions were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making.

However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the municipality to maximize transparency by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Brockville council on October 13 and 18, 2021.

The Ombudsman found that while the in camera discussion about an employee's performance fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, it did not fit the exception for potential litigation.

Furthermore, council contravened the Municipal Act by failing to state the general nature of the matter in its resolution to move in camera.

The Ombudsman also found that the City's procedure by-law failed to provide for public notice of special meetings, contrary to the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 during four closed meetings in 2021.

The Ombudsman found that the meetings were properly closed under exceptions for personal matters, labour relations, litigation, and solicitor-client privilege.

However, the Town contravened the Act by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera by resolution for two meetings, and by failing to keep a record of the closed sessions for two other meetings.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Town's compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The council went in camera to discuss the performance of an employee, during which municipal finances were also discussed.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion of the employee's performance fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under paragraph 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Because the financial discussion was intertwined with the performance discussion, it was not practical to parse them.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the Town of Pelham council on April 19, 2021, regarding the future management and potential development of the Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, as the in camera discussion did not fit within the cited exception for plans and instructions for negotiations, nor any other statutory exceptions such as acquisition or disposition of land, third-party information, or information belonging to the municipality.

Furthermore, the 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 closed session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure future closed sessions strictly adhere to statutory exceptions and provide adequate descriptions in resolutions to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission's in camera discussion regarding an Access Agreement was permissible under the Municipal Act's exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.

However, the Commission contravened the Act when it discussed the Municipal Agreement, its withdrawal clause, and 2021 financial information in closed session, as these topics did not fall within any statutory exceptions.

Furthermore, the Commission's resolution to proceed in camera failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered, contrary to subsection 239(4) of the Act.

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

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint alleging that Bruce County's Executive Committee held four improperly closed meetings between 2017 and 2019.

The Ombudsman found that the August 2, 2018 meeting fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

However, the meetings on September 21, 2017, and September 6, 2018, did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, and an improper vote was held during the 2017 meeting.

For the January 10, 2019 meeting, a brief discussion about an identifiable individual was properly held in camera, but the remainder of the discussion regarding the Nuclear Innovation Institute should have been parsed and held in open session.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding two working group meetings held by the Off Road Vehicle Task Force of the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The complainant alleged the meetings violated the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Task Force was a committee of council and its working group meetings constituted meetings under the Act because a quorum was present and the discussions materially advanced the Task Force's business.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Task Force contravened the Act by failing to provide notice, keep minutes, and open the meetings to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands council held an improper closed meeting to discuss a broadband internet project.

The Ombudsman found that discussing the technical and financial details of a commissioned study report in camera was permissible under the exception for information belonging to the municipality.

However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing a related funding application in closed session, as it did not fit any exception.

Council further contravened the Act by holding a vote by consensus on the funding application during the closed session and by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered before moving in camera.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding two closed meetings held by the council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith.

The June 8, 2021 meeting was found to comply with the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussions fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and plans or instructions for negotiations.

However, the July 6, 2021 meeting contravened the Act because council heard a delegation in closed session that did not fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman concluded that the delegation portion should have been parsed from the subsequent valid closed session discussion and held in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls council to discuss the process for establishing a Chief Administrative Officer recruitment sub-committee.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the labour relations exception or any other exception under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore should have been held in open session.

Additionally, the council failed to accurately describe the subject matter in its resolution to proceed in camera, and passed the resolution during a portion of the meeting that was effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the council for the Township of Pelee on June 22, 2021.

The complainant alleged the discussion did not fall within any prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering was not a 'meeting' under the Act because the council received information and training without materially advancing business or decision-making.

Furthermore, even if it had been a meeting, the discussion would have been permitted in camera under the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the council for the Town of Collingwood regarding a judicial inquiry into the partial sale of a municipal hydro utility.

The complainant alleged the meetings did not fall within any prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions, which involved legal advice and legal fee quotes containing suggested strategy, fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

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