Section 239(2)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows a municipality to hold a closed session to discuss “a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act.” This exception is rarely relied upon to justify a closed session discussion; very few pieces of legislation contain exceptions that allow a municipality to hold closed meetings.
In London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. [2007] SCJ No 29, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether this exception applied to closure of a meeting under the Planning Act to consider an interim control by-law. The court concluded that the city’s obligation to give notice and hold a public meeting under the Municipal Act was distinct from the provision in the Planning Act permitting interim control by-laws to be passed without a hearing or public participation, and that the meeting should have been conducted openly. The court did offer an example to illustrate when this exception might be applied, observing that under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, certain municipal meetings are required to be closed for security reasons.
Currently, the Ombudsman is only aware of two pieces of legislation – the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and the Police Services Act – that could justify a closed session discussion under section 239(2)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
December 06, 202306 December 2023
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the County of Haliburton to discuss the closure of a local hospital emergency room. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. The County was unable to identify legislation that permitted council to discuss the matter in closed session. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that when relying on this exception, the resolution to move into closed session include a clear reference to the legislation and provision that permits the meeting to be closed.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the Joint Police Advisory Committee and council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss draft request for proposals for police services. Although not cited at the time, the Clerk told the Ombudsman that the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act would have applied because the meetings could have been closed under the Police Services Act. The Police Services Act lists two exceptions allowing closed meetings of the police services board. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the committee considered whether the Police Services Act would apply to its discussions, and no evidence provided that the local police services board discussed the request for proposals in closed session under the Police Services Act. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that this exception did not apply to the committee and council meetings.
May 17, 201717 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby held meetings in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. The municipality suggested the Business Corporations Act permitted the meetings to be held in camera. The Ombudsman found that the Business Corporations Act sets out requirements for shareholders’ meetings, including with respect to notice and minute-taking. However, nothing in the Act explicitly permits these meetings to be closed to the public. Accordingly, the meetings did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.
February 13, 201713 February 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of a quorum of council for the Municipality of Brockton at an information session held under the Drainage Act. The purpose of the meeting was to provide affected residents information about matters related to an ongoing drainage petition. The Ombudsman found that the Drainage Act does not contain any provisions allowing council to hold a closed meeting while attending an information session. The municipality’s compliance with the procedural requirements for the Drainage Act does not relieve it from also complying with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield to discuss the tender process for small equipment. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. The municipality believed that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act permitted the discussion to take place in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not contain provisions which permit tender discussions to occur in closed session. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.
April 22, 201522 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton to discuss a confidential appendix to a report that included information about a parcel of land the municipality was considering purchasing. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. The committee relied on the exception because the local police services board had previously discussed the matter in closed session under the Police Services Act. The police service board relied on the “intimate personal/financial matters” exception in the Police Services Act to hold the discussion in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.
January 06, 201206 January 2012
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council to discuss appointments to the local library board and police services board. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. Council believed that the Public Libraries Act and the Police Services Act permit appointments to be made in closed session. The Ombudsman found that neither act contains provisions which permit appointments in closed session. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.