The Ombudsman reviewed an email sent by the Mayor for the City of London to all of council on January 23, 2025 requesting that members of the Community and Protective Services Committee wait to receive an update from staff at an upcoming meeting before bringing any motions related to extreme cold weather alerts. The email was sent to all of council, and accordingly, a quorum of council and of the committee received it. However, the Ombudsman found that the Mayor’s email was not a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was a procedural request and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council or of the committee.
The Ombudsman reviewed an informal gathering of several members of the City of London’s Planning and Environment Committee and a Member of Parliament on March 11, 2025. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was focused on the impact of new trade tariffs and potential counter-tariffs at the local level. It involved the sharing of information on a topic that was not within the committee’s mandate. Accordingly, the discussion did not materially advance the committee’s business or decision-making and the informal gathering was not a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Ramara contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by holding two meetings over email on October 23 and October 24, 2024. In both cases, a member of the Committee sent an email to all other members, such that a quorum was present on the emails. In the case of the October 23 email, the Ombudsman found that it constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it materially advanced the business or decision-making of the Committee. Specifically, the email contained a proposed course of action – the removal of a proposed food waste management program from the Township budget – which the Committee later adopted. In the case of the October 24 email, the Ombudsman found that, although a quorum of the Committee was present, the email did not materially advance Township business or decision-making and therefore was not a meeting under the Act.
The Ombudsman reviewed a discussion held by members of council for the Township of Frontenac Islands over email in which they weighed in on whether to approve and send a delegation letter requesting a meeting with the Minister of Health. The Ombudsman found that the email discussion materially advanced council business or decision-making.
Four members of council for the Township of Russell held one-on-one phone conversations about the mayoral vacancy ahead of a regular council meeting. The Ombudsman noted that sequential discussions are not strictly captured under the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001, but may be contrary to the principles of openness, transparency, and accountability when they materially advance council business and decision-making. However, in this case, the Ombudsman found that the discussions did not constitute a meeting as defined in the open meeting rules; a quorum of councillors was not present and council business and decision-making was not materially advanced.
The Ombudsman found that an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 did not occur when five council members for the City of Greater Sudbury attended a meeting held by the Flour Mill Community Action Network on April 8, 2024. Although the five council members represented a quorum of the City’s Operations Committee, they did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Operations Committee when they attended the meeting.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Wollaston’s Communication Team is a committee of council, and that any meetings it may have held since its inception should have been subject to the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. In the course of the investigation, our Office learned of a phone call between two of the three members of the Communication Team. The Ombudsman determined that:
- The Communication Team is a committee of council;
- Although quorum was reached on this phone call, the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Communication Team;
- The Communication Team did not otherwise conduct any meetings as of the date of the investigation.
The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Communication Team take care to avoid discussions that may advance its business or decision-making during informal gatherings, including by electronic means (such as a phone call), since quorum is easily reached because of its small committee size.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of The North Shore did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when a quorum of its members engaged in an informal discussion immediately following a council meeting on March 20, 2024, and also over group text message between March 24 and March 25, 2024. Although these discussions involved a quorum of council, they were not “meetings” subject to the open meeting rules because members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of members of the Town of Amherstburg’s Accessibility Advisory Committee on September 8, 2022 did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when the members visited a public transit facility and observed a demonstration of the features of an accessible bus. Since the gathering did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced six distinct matters that constituted council business during a secret call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that that the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 14, 2022, by failing to treat a gathering of a quorum of members of council (and a quorum of a committee) as a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. The members of council discussed snowplowing operations with a member of staff in a way that materially advanced the Township’s business and decision-making, such that the gathering was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law, and that the Task Force’s April 19, 2022 presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that a training session for council for the Township of Emo on its new budget format fit within the exception for education and training since council received training and did not materially advance its business or decision-making. As council did not materially advance its business or decision-making, the training session was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Township’s procedure by-law. As such, the Township was not required to provide notice of the training session.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complainant alleged that the City turned off the camera that was broadcasting the council meeting after staff requested a brief break in order to prepare a response to a question asked by the Mayor. The complainant expressed concern that council may have held a closed meeting during this break while the camera was turned off. The Ombudsman found that the City did not contravene the open meeting requirements on April 12, 2022 when council took a break during the meeting in order for staff to caucus. The Ombudsman’s review indicated that nothing during the 25-minute break moved council business forward or materially advanced the City’s business or decision-making. Accordingly, the gathering of council during the break did not constitute a closed meeting in contravention of the Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Wasaga Beach improperly held a closed meeting during a ground-breaking ceremony that was not open to all members of the public on September 22, 2021. While there was a quorum of council members, the Ombudsman found that municipal business was not materially advanced as there was no discussion between council members during the ceremony and no decisions were made by council. The gathering did not meet the definition of a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 and is therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that a quorum of council for the Town of Espanola held an illegal closed meeting on January 31, 2019 after the regular council meeting had concluded, contrary to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that although a quorum of council was present, the gathering was not a “meeting” under the Act because the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting held by the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee. The township’s procedure by-law provided for the adjournment of any meeting where quorum was not achieved within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time. The committee achieved quorum more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time, and proceeded to discuss fire services in a manner that materially advanced the business of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that while the township contravened its procedure by-law, the meeting was not illegally closed to the public. The Ombudsman recommended that the township ensure all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules and its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that that during an open meeting on February 24, 2020, council for the Town of Saugeen Shores held an illegal meeting by discussing council business during a recess. The Ombudsman found that while a quorum of council was present at the recess, no members of council had any discussions that materially advanced council business and council did not make any decisions. Rather, the Clerk relayed potential next steps to the Mayor, who then relayed this information to council. Council returned to open session to exercise its decision-making authority. As council business was not materially advanced and no decisions were made by council during the recess, these discussions were not a meeting and therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a quorum of councillors for the Town of Pelham informally met to discuss a possible donation from a cannabis producer on January 9, 2020, contrary to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the informal discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements as the discussion did not materially advance council business as required by the Municipal Act. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal discussion. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that councillors for the Town of Pelham voted via email on whether they would be in favour of accepting a possible donation. The Ombudsman found that the email exchange did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements, which typically apply to “meetings” were a quorum of councillors is physically present. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal email exchange. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the attendance of three councillors at an April 30, 2019 public proceeding of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The complaint alleged that the councillors’ attendance amounted to a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was therefore subject to the Act’s open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the three council members did not discuss the subject matter of the proceeding with any of the councillors, municipal staff, or other parties in attendance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman determined that the councillors did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements because they did not do anything that materially advanced the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman reviewed two information sessions relating to the business of the municipality attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that the council members did not materially advance the business of the municipality during these information sessions. The council members only received information about ongoing projects in the municipality. There was no discussion among the council members present and no decisions were made. Even though the Ombudsman found that these information sessions did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001, in the interests of openness and transparency he encouraged council to receive information and updates of this nature during public meetings.