December 10, 202410 December 2024
The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023. At its meeting on November 20, 2023, council discussed a recent banquet for volunteer firefighters. At its meeting on December 11, 2023, council discussed a proposal to sell two fire trucks, a proposal to consolidate the Municipality’s fire and public works departments, and a recently completed integrity commissioner report. The Ombudsman determined that the discussions fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual because each was anchored either by personal information or scrutiny of identifiable individuals.
November 29, 202429 November 2024
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion regarding the integrity commissioner’s role, including discussion of their performance and suitability for the position, fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the hiring process it would follow to find a new integrity commissioner did not fit within the exception, could have been parsed from the first part of the discussion, and should have been held in open session.
November 29, 202429 November 2024
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024. Council relied on the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss the integrity commissioner’s role with the Town. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the cited exception because it went beyond the integrity commissioner’s professional role and included information related to their performance and suitability for the position. The Ombudsman also found that the integrity commissioner’s resignation letter constituted personal information. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the hiring process it would follow to find a new integrity commissioner did not fall under the exception for personal matters because it covered only the procedural steps of hiring; council did not discuss the personal information of any potential candidates.
November 27, 202427 November 2024
The Ombudsman found that only a portion of the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding a fundraising update fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman determined that information about individual (but not corporate) donors and their wishes constituted personal matters about identifiable individuals, and that the portion of the discussion regarding internal communications that included individual donor information could not have been parsed further. Accordingly, this portion of the closed session discussion fit within the exception for personal matters. However, other portions of the Committee’s closed session discussion, in particular whether or not to discuss the fundraising update in closed session and changes to the public fundraising policy, only contained passing references to identifiable individuals and could have been held in open session. Accordingly, those portions did not fit within this exception or any other exception, and the Ombudsman concluded that the Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
November 22, 202422 November 2024
The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on January 16, 2024 did not fall under the cited open meeting exception for personal matters, as the salary grids reviewed during the session were not personal information that identified any individuals. However, the discussion was permitted under the exception for labour relations, as it related to a staff reorganization plan.
November 22, 202422 November 2024
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Selection Committee’s discussion about which applicants to appoint to a particular committee fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters because it revealed personal information about identifiable individuals.
November 22, 202422 November 2024
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Selection Committee’s discussion did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because its discussion about changing the terms of reference for a particular committee could not have been parsed from the general discussion about the applicants for that committee.
November 12, 202412 November 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McGarry’s closed session discussion of the former mayor’s resignation, and discussions about specific potential appointees to fill the resulting vacancies on September 1, 2023, fit within the exception for personal matters. While the Ombudsman determined that the interspersed discussions about whether to fill the vacancies by appointment or through a by-election did not fit within any open meeting exceptions, parsing those parts of the meeting would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion. Accordingly, council’s entire closed session discussion was permitted under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also noted that council may wish to consider how to structure similar conversations in the future to increase the openness and transparency of its decision-making.
November 12, 202412 November 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McGarry’s closed session discussion about the former mayor’s resignation on September 1, 2023, fit within the exceptions for personal matters and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
September 18, 202418 September 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. As the Committee did not discuss personal information about identifiable individuals, the discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
September 13, 202413 September 2024
The Ombudsman found that a discussion held by council for the Town of Iroquois Falls fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the discussion, council discussed a letter from a resident and scrutinized an identifiable individual’s conduct.
September 06, 202406 September 2024
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Jocelyn on April 4, 2023. Council relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss an expression of interest by a private landowner to dispose of land in an effort to assist the Township in resolving a property issue. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the exception because the expression of interest constituted personal information in the circumstances.
September 03, 202403 September 2024
The Ombudsman found that a confidential staff report, which included a list of new staff positions, was appropriate for closed session consideration because the report included personal information about identifiable staff members currently employed by the municipality.
May 31, 202431 May 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Springwater’s discussions regarding a rainbow crosswalk project and an employment matter related to the local public library fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. A discussion concerning a completed hiring process for a staff position did not fit within the exception for labour relations and employee negotiations, but a portion did fit within the exception for personal matters. Since the remainder of that discussion could not be parsed, the Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 at its special council meeting.
May 21, 202421 May 2024
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed the Glenayr Kitten Mill in closed session. The Ombudsman found that these in camera discussions fit within the Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
May 09, 202409 May 2024
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami on June 20, 2023. Council relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss funds being held by the municipality in relation to property it had sold. The Ombudsman found that part of this discussion fit within the exception, as council discussed tax information about an identifiable individual in relation to the sale of this property. The Ombudsman also found that although the first part of the discussion did not include personal information, it would not have been reasonable for council to have parsed its discussion.
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.
February 20, 202420 February 2024
Council for the City of Elliot Lake relied on the “personal matters” exception to discuss the municipality’s organizational structure in closed session. The discussion took place in two parts. During the first part, council reviewed an organizational chart which included the names and roles of employees. During the second part, council discussed potential reorganization and received information about identifiable employees, including about leaves of absence, performance, and working relationships. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the discussion did not fit within the “personal matters” exception because it did not include personal information about identifiable individuals. The Ombudsman found that the second part of the discussion fit within the exception.
November 29, 202329 November 2023
The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the closed meeting, council discussed and scrutinized the conduct of a particular individual, as well as discussed various options for how it should respond to that conduct.
November 21, 202321 November 2023
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about a closed meeting of the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee held on February 6, 2019.
Throughout the closed meeting, the Committee discussed an individual staff member, who was identified by name, and the discussion involved scrutiny of their conduct. Accordingly, the Committee’s discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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.
October 19, 202319 October 2023
Council for the Town of Deep River relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to hold a closed session discussion about the Town’s organizational structure. The discussion included information about a change in position for two identifiable employees. Council discussed changes in the employees’ salaries and general responsibilities, as well as the impact of the changes on the Town’s organizational structure. The Ombudsman found that this information qualified as personal information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
May 10, 202310 May 2023
Council for the Township of Douro-Dummer relied on the exception for personal matters to hold a closed session discussion about matters raised previously during a delegation by a resident. The Ombudsman found that the discussion included personal information about identifiable individuals and that the exception for personal matters applied to the closed session.
March 28, 202328 March 2023
Council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie relied on the exception for personal matters to hold a closed session discussion that could have included information about an identifiable individual who was previously employed by the municipality. However, the Ombudsman found that the “personal matters” exception did not apply because the discussion did not involve any personal information about any identifiable individuals.
March 28, 202328 March 2023
Council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie relied on the exception for personal matters to hold a closed session discussion about a vacant staff position. The discussion included information about the salary and general responsibilities of the role. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not involve an identifiable individual, the position was vacant, and the discussion only pertained to the position itself. Accordingly, the “personal matters” exception did not apply.
March 20, 202320 March 2023
The Ombudsman investigated a special closed meeting held by the Grey Bruce Health Unit’s Board of Health on May 12, 2021, as well as a closed meeting held by the Board’s Executive Committee on May 10, 2021. With respect to the Board of Health’s meeting on May 12, 2021, the Ombudsman found that the Board discussed a particular Health Unit employee’s experience, competence, and salary (including detailed information about compensation structure). Accordingly, although not cited by the Board of Health to close the meeting, the Ombudsman found that the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual applied to this part of the Board’s discussion.
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 Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussions on November 9, 2021 did not include personal matters about identifiable individuals and did not fit within this open meeting exception. The Ombudsman found that portions of the discussion on November 30, 2021 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, these portions of the discussion only fell within the exception because of the extraneous comments made about an identifiable individual, which the Committee was not required to discuss in closed session.
January 30, 202330 January 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Nipissing did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during in camera meetings on February 17, March 9, April 6, and May 18, 2021. The Ombudsman found that these in camera discussions were permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
January 03, 202303 January 2023
The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince that relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman determined that the Township did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed matters in camera on March 15, 2022. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about a human resources matter fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
December 09, 202209 December 2022
The Ombudsman found that a committee’s in camera discussion on July 21, 2022 was permissible under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, given that personal information about an identifiable individual was discussed and that it was intertwined with discussions relating to the redevelopment of Town-owned property.
September 26, 202226 September 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed the applicability of the exception for personal matters to a portion of a closed meeting held by Council for the Township of Minden Hills on November 25, 2021. The Ombudsman found that Council reviewed and discussed specific personal information about individual applicants for a working group, including the suitability of the applicants. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that Council’s discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for discussions about personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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 for personal matters about an identifiable individual at paragraph 239(2)(b), as a discussion about an employee’s performance and opinions about that employee’s conduct fit the exception.
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, 2021. During the in camera discussion on August 8, council discussed the job performance and workplace conduct of three individuals who were identified by name. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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 November 8, 2021. During the in camera discussion on November 8, council discussed a report analyzing the possible uses of Centennial Park land. Council discussed the identity of the person who hired a consultant to draft the report, and discussed this person’s authority to commission the report. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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 received detailed information about an identifiable individual’s job performance and behaviour while in closed session. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for discussions about personal matters about an identifiable individual.
June 20, 202220 June 2022
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands on December 7, 2021. Council proceeded in camera to discuss the performance of an individual in the context of their employment with the Township. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 since the meeting fit under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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 the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual did not apply to discussions about financial information.
May 20, 202220 May 2022
Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for personal matters when it proceeded in camera on September 21, 2017, however, the Ombudsman found no indication that personal matters of an identifiable individual were discussed during this meeting. The Ombudsman also considered the applicability of the exception for personal matters with respect to a January 10, 2019 meeting. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s in camera discussion relating to a new position for a specified individual fit within the exception. However, this matter could have been parsed from the rest of the Committee’s discussion, which did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.
May 12, 202212 May 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint about three closed meetings held by council for the Township of Huron-Kinloss. It was alleged that the discussions closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual at each of these meetings were held in violation of the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council discussed personal information about specific municipal employees such as their salaries, job performance, and upcoming retirement. There was therefore no contravention of the open meeting rules in closing these discussions to the public.
March 28, 202228 March 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Hawkesbury on November 8, 2021. The meeting was closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman concluded that council met in camera to discuss the conduct and performance of an identifiable individual. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
November 19, 202119 November 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Township of South Algonquin on September 8, 2021. The meeting was closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman concluded that council met in camera to discuss the qualifications and suitability of candidates for a vacant council position. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
September 09, 202109 September 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing to discuss the payment of legal fees. Council cited the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman’s review found that council’s discussion about payment of legal fees, which identified why legal advice had been sought and previous instances in which the municipality had incurred legal fees, revealed personal information about identifiable individuals as a matter of necessity. Although all exceptions to the open meeting requirements should be interpreted narrowly and applied prudently, in this case the closed session discussion fit within the parameters of the exception for personal matters.
September 04, 202104 September 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements during a meeting on September 22, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The investigation determined that there was some discussion of the personal conduct and temperament of identified individuals. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
July 08, 202108 July 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed session held by council for the Town of Kirkland Lake on August 25, 2020. The Ombudsman found that parts of the discussion involved scrutinizing individuals’ conduct and job performance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that these parts of the discussion fit within the “personal matters” exception to the open meeting rules.
May 12, 202112 May 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed session meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury where council discussed the conduct of an identifiable individual employed by the City. While information about an individual in their professional capacity will not generally fit within the personal matters exception, the discussion will fit within the exception if it relates to scrutiny of an individual’s conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the subject fit within the exception.
April 14, 202114 April 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting council discussed the professional services provided to the municipality by the integrity commissioner. The discussion included scrutiny of the integrity commissioner’s performance and council offered their opinions on the integrity commissioner in a way that went beyond his professional capacity. The Ombudsman found that the discussion qualified as personal information and fit within the “personal matters” exception.
March 17, 202117 March 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Norfolk County to discuss reducing service levels in the municipality by eliminating staff positions and consolidating municipal facilities under the “personal matters” exception. The Ombudsman found that during the discussion, employees were identified by name or by position, and the discussion involved departments with a small number of employees. Had the committee’s discussions happened in public, these employees would have been easily identifiable. The discussion fit within the “personal matters” exception.
February 23, 202123 February 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020. The complainant alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review found that council was briefed about a zoning dispute and discussed detailed information related to the history of staff’s interaction with identified property owners, including their opinion regarding the owners’ conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters of identifiable individuals.
February 10, 202110 February 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council discussed the employment history and qualifications of two individuals interested in filling a council vacancy. Accordingly, this part of the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. Council also discussed the method to be used to fill the vacancy either a by-election or appointment. The Ombudsman found that this part of the discussion did not concern personal matters of identifiable individuals. According, this part of the discussion was not permitted to be closed to the public.
February 10, 202110 February 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council made the decision to fill a council vacancy by appointment rather than by holding a by-election. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about whether to call a by-election or proceed by appointment did not fit within the “personal matters” exception. Accordingly, this vote of council was contrary to the open meeting rules.
February 03, 202103 February 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss a harassment complaint. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council was informed that a harassment complaint was received and would be referred to an external investigator. No details about the nature of the complaint or the identity of the complainant was discussed. Some council members knew the identity of the complainant. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed did not include any personal information of identifiable individuals and it was not reasonable to expect that the individuals involved in the complaint would be identifiable if council’s discussion, in the manner it was conducted, had been held in public. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
February 03, 202103 February 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception applied to part of the discussion because it included information related to the conduct of members of the public and municipal employees who were the subject of the investigation. This information was personal information. The part of the discussion that related to the conduct of council members in their professional capacity did not reveal anything inherently personal about them and did not fit within the personal matters exception.
February 03, 202103 February 2021
The Ombudsman found that a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss a harassment complaint did not fit within the personal matters exception. The Municipality’s Mayor commented that the Municipality’s harassment policies require that details about harassment complaints be kept confidential and that the open meeting rules are incompatible with the Municipality’s obligations under its policies. The Ombudsman noted that the open meeting exceptions are paramount to municipal by-laws and policies. The exceptions do not extend to sensitive information or to information that might lead the public to speculate about otherwise confidential information.
January 13, 202113 January 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by the committee of the whole for the Township of Johnson. The committee used the personal matters exception to go into closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was about individual candidates’ employment history and qualifications to fill a council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
October 13, 202013 October 2020
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Emo contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on June 23, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion relating to a “Council Code of Conduct” matter did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The investigation determined that council’s discussion related to one councillor’s concern about emails that other named councillors had received from citizens of the municipality, and allegedly responded to. The names of the citizens who sent these emails and the content of the correspondence was also disclosed. The councillor discussed feelings, concerns, and opinions about identified councillors’ conduct in relation to the emails. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
September 25, 202025 September 2020
Council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers was permitted to discuss a bidder on a Request for Proposals in camera, because the discussion went beyond professional information to include the individual’s personal suitability and conduct. Council was also permitted to discuss a grant application to hire an intern in camera, as the discussion included information about an individual’s job performance.
January 23, 202023 January 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the City of Welland held on September 17, 2019. He found that an in camera discussion about appointing candidates to two city committees fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. He also noted that the municipality did not comply with the open meeting rules when it failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera within the resolution to go into closed session.
October 29, 201929 October 2019
The Ombudsman determined that council for Norfolk County did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on March 26 and April 2, to discuss the hiring of an interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The meetings relied partly on the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual. This exception generally does not apply to information that pertains to an individual in their professional capacity, however, it does apply if such information reveals something personal or relates to scrutiny of an individual’s conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussions about the hiring of a candidate for the interim CAO position, and the performance of identifiable staff members fit within the exception for personal matters for an identifiable individual.
October 29, 201929 October 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County on March 26, at which a potential candidate for the vacant interim CAO position attended. Some council members described the closed session as a “very informal interview” with the candidate. The Ombudsman found the discussion of personal information about the candidate, and the candidate’s suitability for the position fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
October 04, 201904 October 2019
The Ombudsman found that the City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee for the City of Hamilton did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 on February 9 and 23, 2019, when it met in camera under the personal matters exception to conduct interviews for the city manager position and to discuss the suitability of individual candidates for the position.
October 03, 201903 October 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council chose to close this discussion under the personal matters exception because they anticipated discussions about the broader financial issues would lead to discussions about the conduct of identified employees, and believed council would not be able to separate the two discussions. The Ombudsman found discussions of individual staff fell within the personal matters exception, however, discussions of broader financial issues did not. The Ombudsman found the council could have separated the two discussions and proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.
October 03, 201903 October 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council chose to close this discussion under the personal matters exception because they anticipated discussions about the broader financial issues would lead to discussions about identifiable individuals, and believed council would not be able to separate the two discussions. The Ombudsman found discussions of individual staff fell within the personal matters exception, however, discussions of broader financial issues did not. The Ombudsman found that it would have been possible for council to parse the two discussions. Council could have proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.
October 03, 201903 October 2019
The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found discussions about relationships between staff and council, even if they had taken place, would not have fit within the personal matters exception. Information pertaining to the professional capacity of an individual is not personal in nature even if discussions of relationships involve sensitive information the municipality would prefer to not discuss publicly.
August 15, 201915 August 2019
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of The Nation contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed in closed session the subject of changes to councillor remuneration. The Ombudsman found this discussion did not fall within the exception for personal matters that was cited for closing the meeting.
August 15, 201915 August 2019
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of The Nation violated the Municipal Act, 2001 on January 14, 2019, when it discussed in closed session the subject of economic development activities, as this discussion did not fall within the “personal matters” exception that was cited for closing the meeting.
July 12, 201912 July 2019
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed meeting held on April 29, 2019. Council for the Township of Springwater closed the meeting to the public to discuss a legal letter. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion during that closed session did not fit within the closed meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation found in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Office’s review determined that council considered litigation or potential litigation against a named individual during the closed session. The review also determined that council discussed personal matters about an identifiable individual, another exception in the Act.
May 24, 201924 May 2019
When council for Wollaston Township discussed in camera the job performance of an individual employee, it fit within the exception for personal matters, as well as the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations. The same was true of council’s discussion about the past job performance of a prospective consultant.
October 02, 201802 October 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area to discuss its proposed response to an open letter regarding the board’s meeting practices, relying on the personal matters exception. While in closed session, the members of the board did discuss some personal opinions about the author of the open letter, however the Ombudsman found that this wasn’t the focus of the discussion. Rather, the board primarily discussed how it should respond to the issues raised in the open letter. The Ombudsman found that this discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
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 Ombudsman found that there was discussion about the personal circumstances of a councillor who was the subject of an Integrity Commissioner’s report. Generally, the discussion of an Integrity Commissioner’s report on its own would not fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual because it relates to a councillor in his or her capacity as an elected official. However, the Ombudsman found that information relating to the councillor’s personal circumstances was discussed, which fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
July 03, 201803 July 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. During the closed session, council agreed to proceed with an offer of a contract of employment. The minutes did not record this as an in camera direction to staff or as an open session resolution. The Ombudsman recommended that closed session votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001 and that council clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the meeting minutes.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the personal matters exception to discuss the conduct of various identifiable individuals. The discussion included allegations that these individuals acted improperly. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss payment of remuneration for volunteer firefighters. During the closed session, council identified specific firefighters by name and discussed whether they had satisfied their employment conditions. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss a communications protocol between municipal staff and the fire department. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include any personal information. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit into the personal matters exception.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss a vacant council seat. During the closed session, council discussed whether to fill the vacancy by appointment or by by-election, and at least one identifiable individual who could fill the vacancy. The discussion about the identifiable individual involved personal information regarding qualifications and experience. The Ombudsman found that this portion of the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about how to fill the council vacancy (whether by appointment or by-election) did not include any personal information about an identifiable individual. Accordingly, this portion of the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
May 28, 201828 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an application made under the Land Titles Act for a property located within the municipality. During the meeting, council reviewed a cover letter for the application which included the property identification number, and a draft plan of reference showing the property’s location, dimensions and boundaries. The information did not include the property owner’s name. The Ombudsman found that this type of information is not inherently personal and does not constitute personal information about the property owner. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
May 22, 201822 May 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of Petrolia. The Ombudsman found that the municipality was permitted to discuss unproven allegations regarding the conduct of a member of council in camera pursuant to the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
April 18, 201818 April 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Tehkummah, relying on the personal matters exception to discuss an ongoing third-party workplace investigation relating to an employee. During the discussion, council deliberated about whether the best course of action would be to suspend the staff member pending the completion of the workplace investigation. The Ombudsman found that a discussion to change employment status or job performance of an individual staff member constitutes personal information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exceptions.
January 09, 201809 January 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of North Huron to discuss fire department personnel issues. While in closed session, council discussed a legal opinion related to the fire department personnel. After council discussed this legal advice, approximately 40 firefighters entered the closed session and, through two representatives, spoke with council about various shared concerns. These concerns included comments about identified individuals and the department’s work conditions. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception because the conduct discussed went beyond the employees’ professional role.
January 04, 201804 January 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands to discuss involvement of a council member in the financial administration of the township. The meeting was closed using the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that generally, discussions of a council member’s actions in the course of their duties are considered to be of a professional nature. However, the in camera discussion about the council member touched upon information that was speculative and also involved scrutiny of the councillor’s conduct that went beyond their official capacity as a member of council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
December 05, 201705 December 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Cornwall that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the Cornwall Regional Airport. During the discussion, council reviewed the performance and conduct of commission members and another individual. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion went beyond the individuals’ professional roles, and if that information were to be disclosed, it would reveal something of a personal nature about the individuals. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
November 24, 201724 November 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the personal matters exception to appoint a new member of council. The in camera discussion did not include any personal information about the candidates, rather the discussion focused on the voting procedure for selecting a candidate. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
November 23, 201723 November 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Georgina to discuss an organizational review of certain departments within the municipality’s administration as part of a larger service delivery review. The meeting was closed using the personal matters exception. While in camera, council discussed the performance of particular employees in relation to the restructuring options contained in a staff report. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
October 03, 201703 October 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The municipality relied on this exception because a section of a former police chief’s employment contract was discussed and police service employees would be identifiable in the community even if they were not named. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not involve any named individuals, and employees were not discussed in a personal capacity. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
August 09, 201709 August 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss a motion to rescind a previous resolution regarding the recruitment of a chief administrative officer (CAO). The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session council discussed several individuals in the context of their employment, however, the discussion also included information about these employees that went beyond their professional roles. Council also discussed the desired qualities of a CAO. The Ombudsman found that while normally, general discussion of the qualities of a CAO would not fall within the personal matters exception, in this case it would not be reasonable for council to parse its discussion. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
July 05, 201705 July 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the County of Norfolk to receive a deputation from representatives of the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The deputation related to the board’s operations and included a request that the county release an installment of a monetary grant. The municipality highlighted that the deputation contained information that could affect the personal lives of individual members of the board. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the board was composed of volunteers, however, the deputation contained information that was professional in nature and related to the business of the board. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
June 30, 201730 June 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss allegations of credit card abuse by municipal employees. The meeting was closed citing the personal matters exception. During the discussion, the committee discussed several individuals in the context of their employment or professional relationship to the municipality. However, the discussion also included details of the conduct of individuals that went beyond their professional roles, which if disclosed would reveal something of a personal nature about them. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. During the investigation, it was alleged that the credit card abuse allegations should not be discussed in private because information about the allegations had previously been made public at a council meeting. The Ombudsman noted that the majority of the closed meeting exceptions are discretionary and in the interest of openness and transparency, municipalities should carefully consider whether the public might be better served by discussing the matter openly. However, in this case, the committee discussed information that had not been previously discussed in public and is not the type of information that would typically be debated in open session.
May 10, 201710 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under, among other exceptions, the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council added an item to the in camera agenda with respect to a consulting firm’s bid to conduct an organizational study of the municipality. The individuals working at the firm and their qualifications were identified in the proposal documents. However, the Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception did not apply in the circumstances because the discussion was in the context of a proposed professional relationship with the township.
May 09, 201709 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss an open procurement project. During the meeting, council discussed publicly available information about the proprietors of one of the bidding companies, including their business history, and expressed opinions on whether or not the company was suitable for the project based on that history. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was limited to information that was publicly available and did not reveal any personal information. Although it was not cited by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
May 03, 201703 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss the naming rights for a new sports facility. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. While the municipality believed that the information discussed related to personality conflicts involving members of the community, the discussion mainly pertained to fundraising, naming rights and advertising for the sports facility. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include personal information and noted that a municipal council cannot automatically shield itself from open discussion on a full report merely because the report contains relatively minor references to bona fide personal matters. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exception.
April 03, 201703 April 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area in the Town of Fort Erie. The board met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the board. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the personal matters exception, the discussion fit within that exception.
February 17, 201717 February 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner. Council relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council discussed the education, employment history and qualifications of a potential appointee for the integrity commissioner position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
February 09, 201709 February 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss an allegation that the mayor had contravened the municipality’s code of conduct. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council considered whether enough information had been received to proceed with a code of conduct complaint against the mayor. The Ombudsman found that it was not clear whether the mayor was acting in a professional or personal capacity during the incident that gave rise to the code of conduct complaint, and council was considering an unproven allegation against the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
January 24, 201724 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Laird Fairgrounds Management Board to discuss an incident at a horse arena that involved township employees, members of the board, and members of the public. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The board’s discussion identified individuals by name and referred to allegations about conduct outside the scope of the individuals’ official roles. The Ombudsman found that the board referenced information in camera that had been discussed during the open portion of the meeting, but this was incidental to the main discussion, which focused on personal information.
January 24, 201724 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Laird Fairgrounds Management Board for the Township of Laird to discuss an incident at a horse arena that involved township employees, members of the board and members of the public. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The board’s discussion identified individuals by name and referred to allegations about conduct outside the scope of the individuals’ official roles. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception since it related to personal information about identifiable individuals.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the upcoming retirement of the chief administrative officer (CAO). Council discussed the CAO’s salary and the recruitment process to hire a new CAO. There were no candidates identified or discussed during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that general consideration of a hiring process is not personal information and does not fit within the personal matters exception unless the discussion is incidental or brief. Therefore, council’s discussion about the recruitment process did not fit within the personal matters exception.
January 20, 201720 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury to discuss an investigation regarding a contract between the city and a transit ticket kiosk. The closed meetings relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council received a third party investigation report which included information about employee conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s scrutiny of employee conduct was personal in nature. Therefore, the discussions fit within the personal matters exception.
September 08, 201608 September 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands to discuss the assignment of the Chief Administrative Officer’s (CAO) duties. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The discussion focused on the specific skills and work experience of identified employees who were being considered for the interim CAO role. There was a brief mention of the CAO hiring process which was incidental to the main discussion. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the personal matters exception because council discussed the qualification of identifiable individuals. The Ombudsman found that general consideration of the CAO hiring process would not have fit within this exception, however any such discussions were brief and incidental to the main discussion.
May 10, 201610 May 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council-in-committee for the County of Norfolk to discuss the extension of legal services contracts. The meeting was closed using the personal matters exception. The discussion included scrutiny of the performance, responsiveness and expertise of individual lawyers. However, the majority of the discussion related to the fee structure proposed by each firm. The Ombudsman found that the portion of the committee’s discussion that related to personal information about the lawyers fit within the personal matters exception.
April 19, 201619 April 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the closed matters exception to discuss councillor remuneration and staff remuneration. Council’s discussion about employee compensation involved a discussion about systematic changes to the municipality’s salary grid and changes to the salary of identified employees. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about employee compensation involved personal information about identifiable individuals and therefore, this portion of council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that discussion of councillor remuneration did not fit within the personal matters exception.
February 04, 201604 February 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss audit reports and individual staff performance. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the audit reports contained municipal financial information and its findings did not reveal personal information about staff members. The fact that the municipality has a small staff and personal information about individual employees could be inferred from the auditor’s findings does not bring the discussion within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about individual employee conduct and performance did fit within the personal matters exception because staff members were identified by name. The Ombudsman found that council could have been parsed and the audit report could have been considered in open session, separate from the employee performance matters, because the two topics were distinct.
January 29, 201629 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman to discuss a municipal organizational chart, individual staff positions, and staff restructuring. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about salary ranges for management positions on its own did not fit within the exception; however, in this case the discussion of salary ranges was related to the broader discussion of individual staff positions. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
January 05, 201605 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed list of heritage designation properties in closed session, which relied on the personal matters exception. The report contained details about each property including the name of the building, its street address, the year the building was built, a description of the building’s heritage attributes, and a picture. For a subset of the properties, the report also contained details regarding former owners. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion was general in nature and did not include personal information like the identity of current property owners.
January 05, 201605 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a property tax reimbursement for a resident. Council reviewed a staff report that included the name of the property owner, the property tax roll number, and the amount of property tax refund. The report also included information about the circumstances that led to the property tax refund. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
January 05, 201605 January 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed business plan for installing services in a local commercial and industrial area in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council reviewed a staff report that included information about local businesses in the area including company name and legal identity, the proprietor, address, the size of the lot, and the cost of the services improvement for the property. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion and the report did not reveal personal information about individual property owners and any individuals identified by name used the land for a business purpose. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
December 04, 201504 December 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss comments about the committee made by two councillors and two members of the public. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The committee’s discussion focused on the conduct and comments of the councillors, the two members of the public, and ways the committee could respond to that conduct.
The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the conduct of the two members of the public fit within the personal matters exception. Normally, the discussion about the conduct of the two councillors would not fit within the exception, as it related to the individuals’ conduct in their official roles as councillors. However, the Ombudsman found that it is unrealistic to expect the committee to have parsed the discussion about the members of the public from that of the councillors when the two discussion topics were directly related.
December 04, 201504 December 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss the appointment of a member of the public to the committee. The meeting was closed citing the personal matters exception. The committee discussed the conduct of the member of the public. The committee also discussed the implications, both negative and positive, of accepting the application. The Ombudsman found that by discussing the individual’s conduct, the committee revealed inherently personal information about the individual.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln to discuss by-law enforcement. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, the committee identified properties where fill was being dumped contrary to a site alteration by-law. The discussion did not identify any individuals by name. The Ombudsman found that the municipal locations and estimated market values of certain properties did not constitute personal information about an individual property owner.
November 20, 201520 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss details of complaints by named municipal staff against other staff members. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The complaints included allegations of harassment and health and safety concerns. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed went beyond the staff members’ professional duties and included personal concerns about their work environment. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
November 20, 201520 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss an external investigator’s report into health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council discussed the conduct of a staff member and how to address the issues raised in the report. During the discussion, the external investigator provided general information about health and safety requirements, interspersed with comments about specific individual employees. The Ombudsman found that it was unrealistic to expect council to parse this portion of the discussion to exclude references to related or background information. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
November 19, 201519 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an update on the municipality’s insurance program. The discussion included specific ongoing claims against the municipality in an illustrative matter without personal identifiers. This did not form a substantial part of the discussion. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
November 09, 201509 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss committee members’ roles and behaviour. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about the volunteer committee members’ conduct were personal in nature and therefore fit within the personal matters exception.
November 09, 201509 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss the mayor’s conduct and the roles and responsibilities of the mayor. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that a discussion of a committee or council member may qualify as personal where it involves the evaluation of a person’s conduct or performance. The Ombudsman found that although parts of council’s discussion qualified as personal information, council’s discussion about the mayor’s official conduct was not covered by the personal matters exception. However, the Ombudsman found that parsing the closed meeting discussion would not be realistic, given the connection between the parts of the discussion that did not fall within the exception and those that did.
November 02, 201502 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a staff member who was a candidate for the position of deputy clerk. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. When council resumed the open session, it appointed the individual to the position of deputy clerk. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception since it identified the candidate by name and covered the individual’s employment history, job performance, and salary information.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of items including possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. The names of business owners considering developments in the area were discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about individual business owners was strictly in a professional context, which did not reveal anything of a personal nature. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of items including possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. The names of business owners considering developments in the area were discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about individual business owners was strictly in a professional context, which did not reveal anything of a personal nature. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s falls to discuss an appointment to a shared social services board. Council decided to appoint a councillor from Armour Township to the position. The municipality discussed the appointment under the personal matters exception and considered the candidate’s résumé. In many instances, where a council is considering appointments, personal information about individual applicants is discussed. The discussion did not include personal information about the councillor since his qualifications were public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s falls to discuss an appointment to a shared social services board. Council decided to appoint a councillor from Armour Township to the position. The municipality discussed the appointment under the personal matters exception and considered the candidate’s résumé. In many instances, where a council is considering appointments, personal information about individual applicants is discussed. The discussion did not include personal information about the councillor since his qualifications were public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
October 06, 201506 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the performance and conduct of a staff member. Typically, the personal matters exception applies to discussions about an individual in his or her personal capacity, rather than his or her professional, business, or official capacity. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion related to the individual’s conduct and therefore fit within the personal matters exception.
August 10, 201510 August 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss volunteer recreation associations. Council discussed entering into affiliation service agreements with each recreation association that operated parks and facilities on behalf of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion pertained to the associations in general, rather than individual volunteers. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
August 10, 201510 August 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss appointments to two committees. The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved personal information about past members of the committees as well as current applicants. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
April 24, 201524 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a request from a property owner for an extension to complete construction. If the owner failed to finish construction within the allotted time, the municipality could repurchase the property at 80% of the purchase price. The Ombudsman found that council’s decision would have a significant effect on an identifiable individual, and therefore, council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
April 24, 201524 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the City of Elliot Lake, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). The discussions involved changes to the current CAO’s contract and extending the service of the current CAO. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed by council during the meetings related to specific terms of an identified employee’s contract, including salary. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
April 24, 201524 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). During the closed meeting, council discussed an identifiable individual who had submitted an application for the CAO position. The discussion involved the contents of the application, and included expressing opinions about the individual’s qualifications. The discussion also involved third-party information that was included in the application. The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved personal information about the applicant and third-party information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
April 13, 201513 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the appointment of an individual as treasurer. The discussion involved a review of a résumé, employment history, and qualifications of an identifiable individual who was a candidate for the position. Councillors also expressed opinions about the individual’s suitability for the position. The Ombudsman found that the discussions were personal in nature and fit within the personal matters exception.
April 13, 201513 April 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss bank-signing authorities for the municipality. The municipality suggested that the general tone of the meeting was one of distrust of municipal staff and, accordingly, it rendered the discussion personal in nature. The Ombudsman found that the general tone or concern that a discussion might be sensitive in nature is not sufficient to bring the discussion within the personal matters exception. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
March 18, 201518 March 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Committee for the Town of Bracebridge that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss committee appointments. The committee reviewed applications, including resumes, for the committee positions. While information about an individual in their professional capacity will usually not be considered personal information, the Ombudsman noted that in this case the applications included personal information, beyond just the candidate’s work history and education. The General Committee members also provided their opinions on each applicant’s suitability for the positions while in camera. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
March 05, 201505 March 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss staff conduct related to a future university campus located in the downtown area of the municipality. The discussion also included questions about whether the mayor and certain staff members had complied with their professional obligations. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not include topics that were inherently personal in nature. Rather, questions about staff conduct were general in nature or about individuals in their professional capacities. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
March 02, 201502 March 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of South Huron that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of staffing issues. The discussion included issues of staff performance reviews, reorganization, staff conduct, discipline, and the salaries of specific employees. The Ombudsman found that these matters are considered personal information for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 and therefore they fit within the personal matters exception.
January 12, 201512 January 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a contract with a specific member of the public. In addition to professional information, council’s discussion included information about the individual’s credibility and conduct. Although the exception does not apply to professional or business information about an individual, information will be considered personal information where an individual’s conduct is scrutinized. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
December 15, 201415 December 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg, which relied on the closed meeting exception for personal matters to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Council discussed the qualifications of an identifiable candidate and expressed opinions about the individual. Council also discussed the conduct of a member of the public who had emailed council expressing opinions about a candidate for the CAO position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
December 09, 201409 December 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin to discuss candidates for the job of municipal works foreman. Council discussed the applications, résumés, work histories, and the possibility of extending an offer to one of the candidates. Individual councillors expressed opinions on which candidate would be best suited for the job and on the candidates’ qualifications. Although the municipality did not rely upon it, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
November 18, 201418 November 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Whitestone to discuss an organizational review. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. Council’s discussion included specific information about the performance of identifiable individual employees and the retirement of two employees. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception because it related to the performance of identifiable individual employees.
October 08, 201408 October 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Billings to discuss candidates to fill a vacant council position. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council chose a candidate to fill the vacancy but did not discuss any personal information relating to the candidates. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
September 08, 201408 September 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss unproven allegations against a member of council. The Ombudsman noted that information about an individual in their professional capacity takes on a more personal nature if it relates to scrutiny of that person’s conduct. In this case, council was considering unproven allegations against a council member that had not been investigated or made public at the time. This portion of the discussions fit within the personal matters exception.
August 18, 201418 August 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan to discuss a former employee. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. Council members expressed personal opinions about the individual’s behaviour and discussed actions the municipality should take to address a particular issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
August 08, 201408 August 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss municipal infrastructure projects. Council referred to contractors in their professional capacity during its discussion. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion did not address anything of an inherently personal nature.
June 27, 201427 June 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss comments a councillor made about employee performance. The discussion included concerns expressed by identified staff members about the effect of the councillor’s comments. The Ombudsman found that general discussion about tensions between council and staff would not be appropriate for closed session discussions, however, since council discussed personal information about identifiable individuals who were members of the public and specific staff members, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
June 05, 201405 June 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss withdrawing a funding pledge to a local hospital for the purchase of an MRI machine. During the discussion, the mayor mentioned meeting with an identified individual from local health services. The Ombudsman found that a passing reference or general remark made about a meeting between a member of council and a member of the public in his or her professional capacity does not bring a discussion within the parameters of the personal matters exception.
February 04, 201404 February 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland to discuss a council member’s request for indemnification for legal fees incurred as a police services board member. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion related to the council member in his official capacity and much of the information was already known to the public.
November 14, 201314 November 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to consider a complaint against a resident with respect to a zoning by-law infraction. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the closed meeting, council received delegations from the complainant and a resident. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception because information was presented to council that involved an investigation or assessment of the performance or alleged improper conduct of the property owner.
May 09, 201309 May 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an alleged breach of the municipality’s code of conduct by the mayor. Council’s discussion related to public comments made by the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the mayor’s comments were made in the course of his official duties and in relation to municipal business. Council’s discussions did not pertain to the mayor in his personal capacity, but rather involved the mayor’s professional capacity. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
February 14, 201314 February 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury, which relied on the personal matters exception, to discuss the contract and appointment of the auditor general. The Ombudsman found that information about the employment contract of an identified member of staff is personal information. Therefore, council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
February 14, 201314 February 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss comments about the commission made by a local mayor. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, the commission considered how to respond to the mayor’s official comments. The Ombudsman found that the discussion of the mayor’s professional relationship with the commission does not qualify as personal information. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
February 06, 201306 February 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Powassan. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a staff report concerning the development of a local rental property by a resident. The name of the resident and the details of the rental property were included in the staff report. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not reveal any personal information about the individual that was not already public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
January 28, 201328 January 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores to discuss the performance of an identifiable member of staff. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The discussion included an examination of the employee’s job performance, as well as personal views and opinions expressed about this individual. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed qualified as personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
December 08, 201208 December 2012
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Hearst. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception to discuss applications for a vacant council seat. The discussion involved reviewing multiple candidates’ résumés, and their work and education history. The Ombudsman found that an individual’s employment and educational history is considered personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
April 18, 201218 April 2012
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands, which relied on the closed meeting exception to discuss a salary increase for council members. The Ombudsman found that the setting of the remuneration and expense policy for members of council is information about council members in their professional capacity, not personal information. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
December 28, 201128 December 2011
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton to discuss the dissolution of the board of directors of a corporation. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The committee’s discussions were general in nature and related to the board of directors as a whole. There was no information provided about the board members in their personal capacity. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
January 11, 201111 January 2011
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Mattawa, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the salary of a staff member. The Ombudsman found that an individual’s salary, as opposed to a salary range for a position, may qualify as personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception.