Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the City of Owen Sound council held illegal closed meetings via email and during an informal gathering at a vacant lot.

The Ombudsman found that an email updating council on property standards enforcement and a gathering of council members and citizens at the lot did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001.

In neither instance did council exercise its authority or lay the groundwork to do so.

The complaints were dismissed.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Whitestone held an illegal closed meeting on February 4, 2014, to discuss filling the position of Chief Administrative Officer.

The investigation found that the in camera discussions pertained to an organizational review containing specific performance information about identified staff members and the pending retirements of two individuals.

The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the personal matters and labour relations exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, and therefore the council did not contravene the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding multiple closed meetings held by the City of Welland council between June 2012 and May 2014.

The investigation focused on four meetings and found that council held illegal closed sessions on March 18, April 15, and May 6, 2014.

The council improperly relied on exceptions such as 'security of the property' and 'education or training' to discuss matters that should have been open to the public, including a marketing plan, a logistics node proposal, and a bid for a sporting event.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the city's closed meeting practices and ensure compliance with the Municipal Act.

The Ontario Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that three members of the City of Elliot Lake council held an improper closed meeting by attending a Sustainable Development Roundtable.

The Ombudsman found that because a quorum was not present and no council decision-making or groundwork for future decisions took place, the gathering did not constitute a meeting for the purposes of the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake held an improper closed meeting to discuss a matter pertaining to the White Mountain Academy.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the 'acquisition or disposition of land' exception under s. 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as having the discussion in open session could have harmed the city's financial interests.

The investigation concluded that the in camera meeting did not violate open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Waterfront Improvement Committee for the Township of Billings held closed meetings in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Committee met the definition of a committee of council under the Township's procedure by-law, making it subject to open meeting requirements.

Although the Committee was already holding open meetings, the Ombudsman encouraged the Township to formalize the Committee's terms of reference and notice procedures.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the council for the Municipality of Killarney held an improper closed meeting at a local wharf on April 25, 2014, to discuss building a temporary processing facility for a local business.

The Ombudsman found that while the gathering constituted a meeting for the purpose of doing groundwork necessary to exercise council's authority, it was not closed to the public because members of the public had been invited to attend.

The Ombudsman concluded that the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 were not violated, though procedural formalities like minute-taking should have been observed.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint regarding a closed session held by the Township of Billings council to fill a vacant council seat.

During the closed session, council members voted by secret ballot and, after a tie, tossed a coin to select the new councillor.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session did not fall within the 'personal matters' exception or any other exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, the in camera vote violated the Act, which requires votes to fill council vacancies to occur in open session.

The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure future compliance with open meeting requirements and amend its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that 12 members of the City of London Council held an improper closed meeting during a dinner gathering in the City Hall cafeteria.

The gathering occurred between a regular council meeting and a special open session regarding a vacant council seat.

After interviewing all council members and relevant staff, the Ombudsman concluded that the gathering did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The evidence did not support that the council members came together for the purpose of exercising their authority or laying the groundwork for the upcoming vote.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that members of the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands council held illegal closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that a November 2012 gathering of a majority of council to decorate a float evolved into an illegal closed meeting where senior staff compensation was discussed.

The Ombudsman also found that a February 2013 Personnel Committee meeting was appropriately closed to discuss employee negotiations, but violated the Municipal Act because no public notice was given.

The Ombudsman recommended the Township adopt a written policy on open meetings, refrain from conducting business at social gatherings, and record all in camera meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated 60 complaints alleging that seven members of the City of London council held an improper closed meeting at a restaurant five days before a key budget vote.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering was purposeful and planned, and that discussions occurred regarding city business, including a Trillium Foundation grant.

The Ombudsman concluded that the gathering constituted an illegal closed meeting in violation of the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, and recommended that the city adopt a clear policy to discourage such conduct.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council of the Municipality of Central Huron in May, June, and July 2012.

The investigation found that the council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act during the May and July meetings by discussing matters that did not fit within the statutory exceptions, such as a councillor's appointment and a letter from a solar energy company.

However, the closed meeting in June regarding an employee's salary was justified under the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the municipality's closed meeting practices, including audio/video recording of in camera sessions and better adherence to procedural by-laws.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Niagara District Airport Commission on May 3 and May 17, 2012.

The investigation found that the Commission contravened the Municipal Act by holding improper in camera discussions under the exceptions for 'personal matters' and 'legal/financial matters', which did not apply to the subjects discussed.

The Commission also improperly voted during these closed sessions.

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

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding several closed meetings held by the Town of Midland between December 2011 and March 2012.

The investigation found that the town council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act by improperly using the 'education or training' and 'identifiable individual' exceptions to discuss matters that should have been public.

The Ombudsman also found that council routinely engaged in improper voting during closed sessions and had inadequate record-keeping practices.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the town's closed meeting practices and ensure compliance with the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that the Council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria held improper closed sessions on October 21 and November 4, 2011.

The closed sessions involved discussions of harassment complaints made by the municipal clerk and a code of conduct complaint against a councillor.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exceptions for 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' and 'litigation or potential litigation' under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman concluded that the council did not contravene the Act but provided best practice recommendations to improve transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of Greater Sudbury improperly held closed meetings to discuss a peer review of the Auditor General's office.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions involved the Auditor General's personal performance and conduct, thus falling within the 'personal matters about an identifiable individual' exception under the Municipal Act.

However, the Ombudsman strongly criticized council members for their lack of co-operation with the investigation, noting that only four of fourteen individuals agreed to be interviewed without the presence of the city solicitor.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints alleging that six members of the City of London council held an improper closed meeting during a lunch gathering at a local restaurant prior to a budget vote.

The Ombudsman determined that while the gathering raised public perception concerns, it did not constitute a 'meeting' under the Municipal Act because the councillors did not exercise collective legal authority or lay the groundwork for future decision-making.

The Ombudsman concluded that the open meeting requirements were not contravened but urged council members to adopt practices that instill public confidence.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the Town of Amherstburg held improper closed meetings on January 9 and February 13, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that both in camera sessions were permitted under the Municipal Act's exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The January 9 meeting involved legal advice regarding a previous Ombudsman report, while the February 13 meeting involved urgent legal advice concerning a park maintenance agreement.

The Ombudsman concluded the town did not contravene open meeting requirements and commended the town for implementing procedural improvements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding three closed meetings held by the Council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe in July and August 2012.

The investigation found that the Township violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act during all three meetings.

Specifically, the July 25 meeting improperly included third parties during a discussion of legal advice, waiving solicitor-client privilege.

The August 1 meeting was held without public notice.

The August 13 meeting included an unplanned closed session that went beyond the permitted exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's closed meeting practices, including audio/video recording of in camera meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of London's Committee of the Whole improperly held a closed meeting to discuss the 'Occupy London' protest.

The investigation found that the committee went in camera to receive legal advice and discuss potential litigation regarding the protest encampment.

The Ombudsman concluded that the closed session and the voting that took place during it were permitted under the exceptions in the Municipal Act for solicitor-client privilege and potential litigation.