Other Tribunals - OMBUD

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 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.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Town of Cochrane council.

The council discussed the resignation of its integrity commissioner and the process for hiring a replacement in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion regarding the integrity commissioner's performance and resignation fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the subsequent discussion about the hiring process did not fit within any exception and should have been parsed and held in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.

The Committee discussed an update on a fundraising campaign for a municipally owned long-term care facility in closed session, citing the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within this exception, nor did it fit within the labour relations exception.

However, a portion of the discussion regarding internal communications processes that involved specific individual donors and their wishes fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

Because this portion could not be parsed from the rest of the internal communications discussion, that specific part did not contravene the Act.

The procedural discussion and the discussion about changes to the fundraising policy did contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the Board of Directors for Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) held a meeting on May 26, 2023, that was improperly closed to the public.

The Ombudsman determined that SMART is a joint local board of its 10 member municipalities and is therefore subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that SMART failed to provide public notice of the meeting and improperly closed it to the public.

The Ombudsman recommended that SMART adopt a procedure by-law and comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Township of Jocelyn on five dates in 2023.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land, advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and personal matters about an identifiable individual under the Municipal Act, 2001.

No illegal voting occurred during the first four meetings.

However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Act at its October 10, 2023 meeting by failing to pass a resolution to enter into closed session, failing to take closed meeting minutes, and improperly locking the doors to council chambers at the start of the meeting.

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

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023, to discuss the potential disposal of municipally owned property.

The Ombudsman found that the council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The discussions fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Municipality of Temagami.

The complainant alleged that three topics discussed in camera did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions regarding previously owned property, a request to sell property, and issues related to a local long-term care home fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, acquisition or disposition of land, and litigation or potential litigation, respectively.

The Ombudsman also found that adequate public notice was provided, but recommended as a best practice that meeting minutes and agendas be made publicly available.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Calvin's Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group held meetings without providing public notice, publishing agendas, or recording minutes.

The Ombudsman found that both groups were established by council resolution, met the 50% membership threshold, and exercised delegated authority, making them committees of council subject to open meeting rules.

The Municipality contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law by failing to provide notice and record minutes, but did not violate the rules regarding agendas, as there is no requirement to publish them.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a secret call held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman following a regular council meeting.

The investigation found that a quorum of council was present and materially advanced council business on six distinct matters during the call.

The Ombudsman concluded that the call constituted an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance with open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding the Township of Alberton's removal of a member of the public from a virtual council meeting.

The complainant was removed after refusing to identify themselves on Zoom, a requirement the Township implemented to prevent "Zoom bombings." The Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001.

While municipalities may take measures to preserve security, requiring the public identification of all attendees was deemed an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township amend its procedural by-law to remove the identification requirement for open meetings.

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 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 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 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 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 regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Municipality of The Nation on December 17, 2018, and January 7 and 14, 2019.

The investigation found that while discussions regarding employee hiring, compensation, and ongoing litigation properly fit within the exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, discussions regarding councillor remuneration and economic development did not.

Furthermore, the resolutions to proceed in camera failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matters to be discussed.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's compliance with open meeting requirements, including providing more detailed resolutions and adopting the practice of reporting back in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the City of St. Catharines council to discuss a proposed Government Relations Adviser position.

The city claimed the discussion fell under the 'labour relations' and 'negotiations' exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not pertain to the relationship between the municipality and its employees, nor did it involve a predetermined plan or criteria for negotiations.

Consequently, the closed session was illegal.

The Ombudsman also found that the council failed to pass a proper resolution stating the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera, violating both the Act and its own procedure by-law.