OMBUD 2025

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the London Transit Commission on February 28, 2024.

The Commission discussed receiving training from the integrity commissioner and recording future meetings, which was intertwined with discussions about the personal conduct of identifiable Commissioners.

The Ombudsman found the discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

However, the Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to include the general subject matter in its resolution to enter closed session and by failing to have a procedure by-law in place at the time of the meeting.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Township of Lake of Bays council held an improper closed meeting on September 10, 2024, to discuss a Road License Agreement program.

The Ombudsman found that a brief portion of the closed session regarding a potential Integrity Commissioner complaint and Freedom of Information requests did not fit within the exception for personal matters and should have been discussed in open session.

However, the remainder of the closed session discussion regarding the road allowance program was properly held in camera under the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Essex council on four dates in 2024.

The investigation found that the closed session discussions fit within various open meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, including those for the acquisition or disposition of land, solicitor-client privilege, and information supplied in confidence by a third party.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the Town contravened the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed prior to entering each closed session.

Recommendations were made to improve the Town's compliance and record-keeping practices.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Ramara held illegal closed meetings via email on October 23 and 24, 2024.

The Ombudsman found that the October 23 email, which contained information that directly resulted in the removal of a food waste program from the budget, materially advanced municipal business and constituted an illegal closed meeting.

The October 24 email, which merely requested a topic be added to a future agenda, was procedural in nature and did not constitute a meeting.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Township of Frontenac Islands held an illegal closed meeting via email.

The investigation found that a quorum of council participated in two email threads on August 15 and 16, 2024, discussing a delegation letter to the Minister of Health.

The Ombudsman concluded that these email exchanges materially advanced council business and decision-making, thereby constituting a meeting that contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of Kitchener council on August 14, 2023, to discuss a centralized model for arts and entertainment facilities.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session was permitted under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the discussion involved information supplied in confidence by a third party, labour relations, and plans for negotiations.

Although some parts of the discussion did not fit within the exceptions, they could not realistically be parsed from the protected information.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding several closed meetings held by the council for the Township of Russell in 2023 and 2024.

The complaints alleged that council improperly discussed matters in camera, including a costing update for a recreation complex, a verbal update on a sports dome, and land transactions, and failed to livestream the open portions of meetings following closed sessions.

The Ombudsman found that all the in camera discussions fit within the open meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, specifically the exceptions for plans and instructions for negotiations, and the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman also found no contravention regarding the livestreaming practice, as the meetings remained open to the public in person, though he recommended clarifying the livestreaming policy on the Township's website.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that five council members for the City of Greater Sudbury held an illegal closed meeting when they attended a meeting of the Flour Mill Community Action Network.

The Ombudsman found that while the five members constituted a quorum of the City's Operations Committee, they did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the committee.

Therefore, the gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and no violation of the open meeting rules occurred.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Township of The North Shore held illegal closed meetings following a regular council meeting and via group text messages.

The investigation found that while a quorum of council was present during an in-person discussion and in the group text messages, these interactions did not constitute 'meetings' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The discussions did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council, as no concrete actions were taken and the Mayor had unilateral authority under the procedure by-law to cancel the meetings in question.

The Ombudsman concluded that the open meeting rules were not contravened.