OMBUD 2026

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding eight closed meetings held by the Town of Saugeen Shores council.

The investigation found that on five occasions, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide a sufficient description of the general nature of the matters to be considered before moving into closed session.

On two other occasions, the resolutions were found to be sufficient.

Additionally, the Ombudsman determined that a closed session discussion on December 9, 2024, properly fit within the open meeting exceptions for information supplied in confidence by a third party and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Georgina council on May 29 and September 11, 2024.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fit within the open meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman determined that council contravened section 239(6) of the Act during the September 11 meeting by voting in camera to approve funding for a bridge modification project, as this was a substantive decision rather than a procedural matter or a direction to staff.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Municipality of Calvin on August 12, November 25, and December 16, 2025.

The Ombudsman found that the council contravened section 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to include a description of the general nature of the matters to be discussed in its resolutions to proceed into closed session.

Furthermore, the council contravened its own procedure by-law by failing to report back to the public the general nature of the matters discussed upon returning to open session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council ensure future resolutions and reports back include sufficient descriptions of the items discussed.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding five closed meetings held by the Township of Douro-Dummer.

The Ombudsman found that the Township provided adequate public notice for an emergency meeting and properly discussed a matter under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

However, the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera at four meetings.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure resolutions provide a general description of issues to be discussed and encouraged the keeping of comprehensive minutes and audio/video recordings of closed sessions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Region of Waterloo's council and committees.

The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion on December 13, 2023 regarding the potential acquisition of land fit within the open meeting exception for the acquisition or disposition of land, as it involved an actual proposed transaction and financial arrangements that could affect the municipality's bargaining position.

However, the Ombudsman determined that two resolutions to move into closed session contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 because they only cited the exception for solicitor-client privilege and failed to provide a description of the general nature of the matters to be discussed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding an emergency meeting held by the Township of Coleman council on July 15, 2025.

The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not qualify as an emergency under the Township's procedure by-law, meaning public notice should have been provided.

Furthermore, the Township's procedure by-law failed to provide for public notice of special meetings, contravening the Municipal Act, 2001.

Regarding the closed session, the Ombudsman determined that the discussion did not fit the cited exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, as no legal advice was received or discussed.

However, the discussion did fit the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, as council scrutinized the performance of specific lawyers.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding three meetings held by the council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers.

The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion on February 28, 2024, regarding a private dispute between residents, fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters.

An informal gathering of four council members prior to a January 8, 2025 meeting was found not to constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Finally, a closed session discussion on February 26, 2025, concerning a dispute between two council members, fit within the personal matters exception, but the council contravened section 239(4) of the Act by failing to include this topic in its resolution to proceed into closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Elliot Lake council on May 1 and May 15, 2023, and December 2, 2024.

The Ombudsman found that the May 2023 meetings, closed under the education or training exception to discuss the City's strategic plan, contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because the discussions materially advanced council business.

Council also failed to state the general subject matter in its resolutions and failed to keep complete minutes for those meetings.

However, the December 2024 closed meeting did not contravene the Act, as the discussions fit within the exceptions for education or training, personal matters about an identifiable individual, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Town of Hawkesbury to receive a presentation from consultants on the Town's new strategic plan.

The council relied on the education or training exception under section 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the exception did not apply because the council discussed particular issues affecting the municipality in a way that materially advanced its business or decision-making.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council contravened the Act and made recommendations to improve compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Cobalt's 2025 Budget Advisory Group.

The investigation determined that the advisory group met the definition of a committee under the Municipal Act, 2001, as at least 50% of its members were council members.

Consequently, the group was required to comply with open meeting rules, including providing public notice and conducting business in open session.

The Ombudsman found that the meetings held on March 6, March 27, and April 23, 2025, were improperly closed to the public and made recommendations to ensure future compliance.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Strong council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by discussing a council member's conduct in a closed session.

The Ombudsman found that portions of the discussion involved unsubstantiated allegations and were personal in nature, fitting the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under section 239(2)(b).

Although other portions concerned professional conduct that did not fit the exception, the Ombudsman concluded that parsing the intertwined topics would have detracted from free and uninterrupted discussion.

Therefore, the entire closed session was permitted and no contravention occurred.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding meetings held by the Township of Bonfield's council and committees.

The Ombudsman found that an email and sequential one-on-one phone calls between council members prior to a meeting did not constitute an illegal closed meeting, as they did not materially advance council business.

A closed session of the Corporate Services Committee was found to be permitted under the solicitor-client privilege exception, as the committee received confidential legal advice regarding a draft by-law.

However, the Ombudsman found that the Township violated the open meeting rules by failing to provide public notice for three meetings in accordance with its procedural by-law, attributing the failure to administrative oversight.