September 13, 202413 September 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Iroquois Falls failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matter to be considered in its resolution to move into closed session to discuss a letter from a resident during its meeting on November 28, 2022.
September 06, 202406 September 2024
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council for the Township of Jocelyn did not vote on or pass a resolution in its open session to move in camera at its October 10, 2023 meeting, contrary to section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
September 03, 202403 September 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Whitestone at two separate meetings did not provide sufficient information in its resolutions to close the meeting to the public. The resolutions indicated that human resources matters would be discussed, however they did not indicate that the discussion would involve multiple separate items related to human resources. A member of the public reading the resolutions would not be able to discern that more than one matter related to human resources was discussed in camera. The Ombudsman’s review concluded that including that information in the resolution would not undermine the reason for discussing the matters in closed session.
August 16, 202416 August 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Halton Hills did not include a general description of a discussion regarding provincial policy announcements about municipalities in its resolution to proceed into closed session, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.
August 07, 202407 August 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Callander contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 12, 2023 and January 9, 2024, by failing to provide sufficient information about the general topic of discussion for a specific agenda item in its resolution to proceed into closed session at each meeting.
August 06, 202406 August 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Lanark Highlands did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 when it passed a resolution to move in camera to discuss “Draft Financial Statement Management Letter.” The Ombudsman explained that the sufficiency of the subject matter disclosed to the public in the resolution to move in camera is a balancing act. Given the sensitive nature of the subject matter discussed, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the information included in the resolution was sufficient.
May 21, 202421 May 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands’ resolutions to proceed into closed session to discuss the Glenayr Kitten Mill provided general information about the matters to be discussed and cited the exceptions from the Municipal Act, 2001 being relied upon.
April 29, 202429 April 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, 2022, February 13, 2023, and March 27, 2023, by failing to provide sufficient information about some general topics of discussion in its resolutions to proceed into closed session.
April 02, 202402 April 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group of the Municipality of Calvin were established through council resolution and were committees of council.
November 21, 202321 November 2023
The Ombudsman received a complaint about the General Issues Committee of the City of Hamilton’s in camera discussion of item 14.4 of the agenda, which was identified as a “Roads Infrastructure Litigation and Review Assessment” with an associated staff report.
The resolution passed by the Committee to go into closed session cited the three agenda item numbers to be discussed and the closed meeting exceptions the Committee was relying on to exclude the public from its discussion of the three items. However, it did not specify which exceptions related to which agenda items. The Ombudsman encouraged the Committee to ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera indicate which closed meeting exception(s) are being relied upon in relation to each matter to be discussed.
In addition, insofar as the resolution to go into closed session referred only to the agenda item number, the Ombudsman found that the Committee did not breach the open meeting rules because the agenda provided some information about the nature of the subject matter to be considered under item 14.4. However, going forward, he encouraged the Committee to ensure that both the meeting agenda and the resolution to proceed behind closed doors include a description of the topic(s) to be discussed.
November 16, 202316 November 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on July 26 and August 9, 2023, by failing to provide sufficient information about the general topic of discussion in its resolution to proceed into closed session.
July 07, 202307 July 2023
The Ombudsman found that, in several cases in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, resolutions to close meetings to the public did not include a general description of the topic to be discussed
in camera. The Ombudsman also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move
in camera.
May 15, 202315 May 2023
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee contravened the
Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it failed to provide sufficiently meaningful information to the public regarding the topic of its in camera discussion in its resolution to proceed into closed session.
May 10, 202310 May 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Douro-Dummer did not include a general description of the matters to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to proceed in camera.
February 08, 202308 February 2023
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The resolutions passed by the Committee to proceed in camera cited the closed meeting exceptions it relied on to exclude the public, but failed to provide any further detail regarding the intended discussion. The Ombudsman found that the Committee contravened subsection 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 at both meetings when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera.
January 23, 202323 January 2023
The Ombudsman found that resolutions passed by council for the Municipality of Casselman to move in camera complied with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.
January 03, 202303 January 2023
The Ombudsman found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie Cultural Vitality Committee’s resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public.
December 13, 202213 December 2022
The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed into closed session passed by council for Norfolk County at meetings held on March 8, April 12, and May 10, 2022 provided general descriptions of the topics to be discussed in closed session, and therefore met the requirements of s. 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
August 31, 202231 August 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on January 10, 2022. The resolution passed by council to proceed in camera cited the closed meeting exceptions it relied on to exclude the public, but failed to provide any further detail regarding the intended discussion. The Ombudsman noted that the agenda and minutes provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in closed session, however this information was not also included in the resolution itself.
August 19, 202219 August 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that 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.
August 15, 202215 August 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(b), personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). Generally, stating only the exception does not satisfy the requirements of the open meeting rules.
July 29, 202229 July 2022
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, September 13, November 8, and November 16, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Town contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act on September 13 and November 16, as the resolutions to go in camera did not provide general descriptions of the topics of discussion; instead, the resolutions merely cited the exceptions that council relied upon to move in camera. Conversely, for the November 8 meeting of council, the Ombudsman found that the resolution to move in camera provided more substantive details about the nature of the closed session discussions. The Ombudsman also found that although the resolution to move in camera on August 8 only cited the applicable exceptions in the Act, no further information could have been provided by council without undermining the reason for which the public was excluded from the discussion.
July 14, 202214 July 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022. The Ombudsman found that the Committee passed a resolution to proceed in camera that included a general description of the matter to be considered in closed session, in accordance with s.239(4) of the Act.
July 06, 202206 July 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received an update about negotiations with a commercial partner during a closed session. The Ombudsman found that the matter was permitted to be discussed in closed session under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. However, the Ombudsman reminded the committee that it should have included a description of the general nature of the verbal update in its resolution to move in camera.
June 15, 202215 June 2022
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited an exception to the open meeting rules, however the Ombudsman found that council nonetheless contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state in the resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
June 09, 202209 June 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that, by merely citing the applicable open meeting exception in its resolution to close the meeting, the Commission failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the intended discussion.
April 05, 202205 April 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on August 11, 2020. Council’s in camera discussion pertained to a study report and a funding application, both related to an internet broadband project. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the study report was permissible under the exception at s. 239(2)(j), information belonging to the municipality. However, council contravened the Act by discussing the funding application in closed session and by holding a vote by consensus on this matter. Furthermore, prior to moving in camera, council failed to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered as required by s. 239(4).
March 15, 202215 March 2022
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on November 17, 2020 to discuss the process for establishing a Chief Administrative Officer recruitment sub-committee.
The Ombudsman found that council failed to describe the subject to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to proceed in camera. Council further contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it passed a resolution to go in camera during a portion of the meeting that was effectively closed to the public, as the public was unable to attend in person or observe a live broadcast.
The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure the description of the issue(s) to be discussed in closed session be provided in an accurate manner that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for its exclusion. The Ombudsman also recommended that council ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera are passed during open session, recorded in the meeting minutes, and captured by the live broadcast.
December 01, 202101 December 2021
The Ombudsman found that the resolution passed by council during a meeting on March 8, 2021 adequately provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in camera. However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to ensure the public could observe the passage of the resolution to proceed in camera during its meetings on March 8, 2021 and March 25, 2021. Whenever the public is excluded from in-person attendance, it is imperative that the alternative electronic format selected enables the public to observe all portions of the meeting except the duly constituted and permitted closed portions. This includes the resolution to go in camera and any business or report back that occurs after council has reconvened in open session. Publishing a recording of a meeting after it has already taken place is not a substitute for enabling the public to observe a meeting while it is happening.
July 08, 202108 July 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls. Council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting. Council’s resolution stating the general nature of the subjects to be discussed in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera.
May 12, 202112 May 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed an electronic meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury. Council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting. Council’s resolution stating the general nature of the subjects to be discussed in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera.
March 31, 202131 March 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed several electronic meetings held by the City of Richmond Hill where council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera and any business conducted after rising from closed session. This recommendation includes meetings where the only item on the agenda is an in camera matter. The Ombudsman also recommended that the City ensure that information on how to access the live broadcast of an electronic meeting is provided in all meeting notices.
November 05, 202005 November 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee closed session to discuss events that may take place in the city in 2022 or 2023. The resolution to go into closed session stated “that Committee move into Closed Session respecting Items 13.2 to 13.4”. Item 13.2 of the meeting minutes is titled “Potential for Major Events in 2022 and 2023 (PED20071) (City Wide)”. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public.
October 13, 202013 October 2020
The Ombudsman found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on June 23, 2020, council for the Township of Emo failed to state the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings. The description of the subjects to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda. The Ombudsman found that the Township of Emo contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
September 23, 202023 September 2020
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on August 10, 2020. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera failed to specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item. The Ombudsman suggested that the municipality adopt the best practice of having its resolution specify which closed meeting exception is being relied on for each closed session discussion topic.
August 10, 202010 August 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that several closed meeting discussions held by council fro the Town of Saugeen Shores expanded beyond the scope of the descriptions of the matters that were provided in the resolutions to enter each closed session. The Ombusdman found no evidence that council’s discussions went beyond those subjects described in the resolutions to enter closed session.
April 14, 202014 April 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss information supplied in confidence by another level of government. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. Instead, this information was provided in the notice of special meeting. The Ombudsman encouraged the City to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
January 23, 202023 January 2020
The Ombudsman found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on September 17, 2019, council for the City of Welland failed to state the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings. The description of the subjects to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda. The Ombudsman encouraged the municipality to ensure that resolutions to go into closed session contain a general description of the topics to be discussed, to the extent possible without undermining the reason for closing the meeting.
October 29, 201929 October 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for Norfolk County on March 26 and April 2, 2019, and found that while Norfolk County’s meeting agendas on those dates provided detailed information about the matters to be discussed in closed session, the resolutions passed by council during the meetings did not include a description of the matters to be discussed.
October 03, 201903 October 2019
The Ombudsman determined the Municipality of West Nipissing contravened the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera within their resolutions to go into closed session.
October 03, 201903 October 2019
The resolutions for three meetings held by council for the Township of Carling on July 27, October 10, and November 13, 2018 did not describe the general nature of the subject matter to be considered in camera. Council only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meetings. The Ombudsman shared best practice suggestions with the municipality regarding including the general nature of the matter to be discussed in camera.
August 15, 201915 August 2019
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of The Nation failed to state in its resolutions to close meetings on December 17, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 14, 2019 the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings.
May 24, 201924 May 2019
Council for Wollaston Township failed to state in its resolutions to close meetings on December 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019 the general nature of the subject to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meetings.
February 14, 201914 February 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines. The Ombudsman found that while council made an oral resolution to move into closed session, the open session minutes failed to record the resolution and the oral resolution did not include a general description of the matters to be discussed in camera or the exceptions that applied to the in camera discussions.
July 18, 201818 July 2018
The Ombudsman investigated the closed sessions of a meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara on December 7, 2017. The resolution passed by council to proceed in camera failed to provide a general description of the matter to be considered in closed session. While the minutes indicated that resolution was passed to close the meeting to discuss matters subject to solicitor-client privilege, the video recording of the meeting showed that no reference was made in the resolution to either the general nature of the subject to be discussed, or even to the exception relied upon. The Region’s argument that the subject to be discussed was apparent based on discussions preceding the closure does not satisfy the legal requirement in the Municipal Act, 2001 to include the subject in the resolution itself.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. The resolution to proceed into closed session listed “fighter’s honourarium” as the sole topic. Once in closed session, council also discussed a communications protocol between the fire department and staff. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality’s procedure by-law requires that only business dealing directly with the agenda be transacted at a closed meeting. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera should have included more information about the subject matter to be discussed during the closed session.
June 07, 201807 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. The Ombudsman noted that the resolution to proceed into closed session referenced the general subject matter to be discussed, but that greater detail could be provided where appropriate and where further information will not undermine the reason for closing the meeting.
May 25, 201825 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. A member of the public made a motion for council to move into closed session. The Ombudsman noted that the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by council. The Ombudsman also noted that there is nothing in the Township’s procedure by-law that permits a non-council member to move or second a motion during a meeting of council.
May 25, 201825 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. The resolution to proceed into closed session did not provide sufficient information about council’s intended discussion. The Ombudsman noted that resolutions to proceed in camera should provide a general description of the issue to be discussed.
May 22, 201822 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of Petrolia. The municipality passed resolutions to close three meetings, each one referring only to the exception relied on and an internal file number. The municipality’s resolutions failed to provide meaningful information to the public about the matters to be discussed in camera.
May 09, 201809 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a development proposal and various fire service issues. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item. Instead, this information was provided in the agenda. The Ombudsman suggested that the municipality adopt the best practice of having its resolution specify which closed meeting exception is being relied on for each closed session discussion topic.
April 18, 201818 April 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss matters under the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. While the resolution identified the exception, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the matter to be discussed during the meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the Town ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.
June 16, 201716 June 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed five closed meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah. The Ombudsman noted that the resolutions to proceed in camera did not clearly state the subject matter to be discussed in closed session, which is contrary to the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. Simply citing the closed meeting exception is not sufficient. The Ombudsman noted that to ensure that the resolution to proceed in camera maximizes the information available to the public, the municipality should include in its resolutions a brief description of the topic to be discussed. Doing so provides meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed in camera and inspires confidence that the meeting has been properly closed for a legitimate purpose.
May 10, 201710 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to discuss matters under the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and personal matters about an identifiable individual. While the resolution identified the exceptions, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed during the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the township ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of Timmins. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for both meetings failed to provide meaningful information to the public about the issues that were to be discussed in camera, and also that the resolutions failed to specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item on the closed meeting agenda. The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss the recruitment process to replace the retiring Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to proceed in camera did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issue that was to be discussed. The Ombudsman also found that the resolution failed to specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item on the closed meeting agenda.
January 20, 201720 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury. The Ombudsman found that council failed at these meetings to provide any information in the resolution to proceed in camera about the discussions that were to take place, other than citing the exceptions authorizing the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman recommended that council’s resolution to proceed in camera provide a brief description of the subject matter to be considered in closed session, as well as the citing the exception(s) being relied upon.
December 29, 201629 December 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees. The Ombudsman found that the commission failed in its resolution to proceed in camera to cite the exception it was relying upon. The resolution was also not read out loud and members of the commission did not have a draft resolution prior to voting to proceed in camera. Additionally, although the general nature of the matter to be discussed was provided orally at the meeting, the formal written resolution failed to include that information. The Ombudsman recommended reading out the formal resolution prior to proceeding into closed session and that the formal resolution include information about the intended in camera discussion.
November 07, 201607 November 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law, relying on the solicitor-client advice exception. During the closed session, council received legal advice on the matter from the municipality’s solicitor. The Ombudsman considered the decision in Farber v. Kingston, which found that a description that only stated “legal matters” without more specifics was inadequate. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the resolution was sufficient as it contained a general description, which included the matter to be considered and the type of discussion that would ensue.
November 03, 201603 November 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss whether the municipality should partner with a post-secondary institution to apply for development funding. The Ombudsman noted although reporting back is not a requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001, council passed a resolution in open session that provided the public with information about the discussion held in camera.
August 05, 201605 August 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Association (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. The Ombudsman encouraged the BIA to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
July 19, 201619 July 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public, and did not provide the public with additional information about what the committee intended to discuss once in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee pass resolutions that clearly set out that it is moving into closed session, and the general nature of the matters to be discussed.
May 10, 201610 May 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council-in-committee for Norfolk County to discuss the extension of a legal services contract. The resolution to proceed in camera referred to a “contractual matter” along with a list of other items to be discussed and the exceptions relied upon. The Ombudsman found that while the description of the discussion did provide the public with some idea about the committee’s intended discussion, the resolution could have included additional information without undermining the confidentiality of the matter. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to proceed in camera clearly specify which exception is being relied upon to discuss each matter.
January 29, 201629 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. After completing an investigation, the Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for a number of closed session meetings did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the resolutions failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed during the meetings. During the course of the Ombudsman review, council for the Village of Casselman changed its practice for passing resolutions to go into closed session.
January 29, 201629 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that in one instance council did not report back on a closed session until the next council meeting. However, for the majority of the meetings investigated, the Ombudsman found that council passed a resolution in open session following each closed session that reflected its in camera discussions and functioned as a report back.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield. The meeting was closed under the personal matters and labour relations exceptions. During the meeting, the committee provided directions to staff. The committee did not hold a formal vote but rather came to an agreement by verbal consensus. The Ombudsman recommended that directions to staff be made using formal resolutions passed by a vote of the committee.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee of the Township of Bonfield. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to enter closed session only included the exceptions that the committee relied upon to go in camera -- a practice which did not comply with the Act or the town’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee’s resolutions to move in camera provide greater information to the public on the general nature of the matter to be discussed.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exceptions relied upon to close the meeting to the public but did not provide further information about the subject of the discussions. The Ombudsman also found that there was an opportunity to add more information about the in camera discussion to the resolution based on a resolution passed in open session that was related to the in camera discussion.
November 19, 201519 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the City of Port Colborne. The Ombudsman found that one resolution to proceed in camera failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session. The Ombudsman found that council provided incomplete information regarding the subjects to be discussed in closed session. It failed to describe the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed in a way that maximized the information available to the public.
November 02, 201502 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brighton to discuss the performance and compensation of various municipal employees. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session in the resolution to proceed in camera. The Ombudsman found that council’s resolution did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed because it merely cited the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public.
November 02, 201502 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. During the meeting, council received a presentation on township rebranding. The resolution to proceed in camera only provided the title of a confidential staff report and no additional information regarding the subject matter of the report. The Ombudsman found that the resolution provided limited information about the matter to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to enter closed session contain a general description of the issue to be discussed, including when referencing confidential reports or materials.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
August 10, 201510 August 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to cite in its resolution the closed meeting exception relied upon to proceed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure that the resolution discloses all exceptions authorizing the closed meeting discussion, and that the resolution includes both the fact of holding the closed meeting and the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed.
July 08, 201508 July 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of Chamberlain. The Ombudsman found a number of procedural issues with the meeting, including that the resolutions to move in camera did not comply with the Municipal Act’s requirements or the municipality’s procedure by-law. One resolution did not cite an exception authorizing the discussion, or provide any other information. Other resolutions did not provide a general description of the subject matter to be considered. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a description of the issue to be discussed, as well as the exception authorizing the discussion.
July 06, 201506 July 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich-Monteith. The Ombudsman found that during one meeting, the resolution to proceed in camera did not indicate that the exception applied to the subject matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman found that at another meeting, the resolution to move into closed session failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed.
June 24, 201524 June 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Magnetawan. After conducting an investigation, the Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not state the exception that was relied upon. The Ombudsman noted that it was not required to cite the specific exception authorizing the closed session, but that it was recommended as a best practice fostering transparency.
April 13, 201513 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss municipal bank signing authorities. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not contain any information about the subject matter to be discussed. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that all resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
March 02, 201502 March 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of South Huron held between 2008 and 2013. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera at most of the meetings only stated that council would meet in closed session at a given time. The resolutions failed to include the subject matter to be considered in closed session or the specific exception(s) relied upon to go into closed session.
February 13, 201513 February 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Westport. The resolution to proceed in camera only cited the exception relied upon to go in session and described the matter to be discussed as a “legal matter.” The Ombudsman found that in order to meet the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, the municipality must provide a description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
January 12, 201512 January 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane. The resolution to proceed in camera stated that the matter to be discussed was “property and personnel matters.” The Ombudsman noted that the investigation into the meeting was unable to clarify the specific nature of the topic discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that in order to fulfill its obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001 and its own procedure by-law, the municipality must provide in the resolution a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
December 09, 201409 December 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Baldwin discuss the qualifications of candidates for the municipal works foreman position. The resolution to proceed in camera only contained the wording of the exception council relied upon to go into closed session and did not provide any meaningful information for the matter that would be considered in the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to proceed in camera include as much information as possible, and at the very least provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
January 11, 201111 January 2011
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Mattawa. As part of the Ombudsman’s findings, it was noted that during two meetings, the municipality passed a resolution prior to moving into closed session, as required by the Municipal Act, 2001. However, in each case the resolution only cited the exception council was relying on to close the meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that council pass a resolution in open session that generally describes the subject matter to be considered, so as to maximize the information available to the public without undermining the reason for proceeding in camera.
May 23, 200923 May 2009
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera failed to meet the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The resolution did not provide a general description of the nature of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session and did not cite a proper closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman noted that publicly identifying what issues will be discussed in a closed session is of fundamental importance to the transparency of local democracy. It is a significant accountability measure to ensure that council only engages in discussions of permitted subjects when in closed session. Failure to comply with the requirements for council resolutions and for closed meeting discussions can result in a loss of public confidence in municipal government.