The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Essex on April 15, 2024. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about litigation surrounding improvements to a local drain fit within the open meeting exception for solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions did not fit within the exception for education or training as the discussions were not general in nature but directly impacted the business or decision-making of the municipality. While not cited by council in its resolution to proceed into closed session, the Ombudsman found that the exception for litigation or potential litigation also applied to the in camera discussion as the threats of litigation received by the Town were at the core of the entire closed session discussion. Lastly, the Ombudsman determined that the Town contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 in failing to state by resolution the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed in its closed session.
The exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege covers discussions that include communications between the municipality and its solicitor in seeking or receiving legal advice intended to be confidential. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that municipal officials can speak freely about legal advice without fear of disclosure.
The Supreme Court of Canada has found that solicitor-client privilege extends when three pre-conditions are met:
- There is a communication between a lawyer and a client;
- Which entails the seeking or giving of legal advice; and
- Which is considered to be confidential by the parties.[1]
Solicitor-client privilege also protects materials that are directly related to the seeking, formulating or giving of legal advice.[2] For example, a lawyer’s working papers or a staff report conveying legal advice may be covered by the solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman has found that the exception for solicitor-client privilege can only be used where legal advice or related communications actually exists.[3] It is not necessary that the municipality’s lawyer be present for the exception to apply. For example, a written legal opinion may be considered in closed session under the exception, or staff may convey legal advice from a lawyer to council during a closed session.[4]
The Ombudsman has found that simply having a lawyer present in the room, but not providing any advice, does not bring a closed meeting within the exception.[5] Legal advice must actually be discussed during the closed meeting.
The exception does not cover situations where the privileged communication is disclosed to a third party or where the discussion does not directly refer to legal advice.
[1] Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821
[2] Susan Hosiery Ltd. v. Canada, [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 27.
[3] City of Timmins, January 23, 2017
[4] City of Greater Sudbury, January 20, 2017
[5] City of Niagara Falls, November 3, 2016
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Sarnia did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on March 31 and May 26, 2025 when it held closed meetings to receive information regarding an ongoing zoning compliance matter. The Ombudsman was satisfied that council’s discussions during both meetings fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, as council received legal advice from its solicitor.
The Ombudsman found that the General Committee for the council of the City of Mississauga did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on October 23, 2024 when it held a closed meeting to receive a verbal update on proposed bike lane legislation. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the City Solicitor’s verbal update to council and the subsequent discussion were subject to solicitor-client privilege.
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.
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of London did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on April 2, 2024 with respect to the general description of an item in its resolution to proceed into closed session. The item was described as “Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice.” The Ombudsman was satisfied with the City’s explanation of the circumstances for why council could not have provided further information in its resolution.
The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of Jocelyn on January 10 and 13, February 7, April 4, and October 10, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting discussions on January 10 and 13, and April 4 did not fit within the open meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege because no legal advice was received or discussed. However, those discussions fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. The Ombudsman also found that council’s discussion on October 10 fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, as council received legal advice on several issues from its solicitor at the meeting.
The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023. Council relied on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege to discuss a disposal of property at its closed meeting on September 5. The Ombudsman found that the first portion of the discussion fit within the exception, as council read and discussed written advice from its solicitor, but that the second portion did not fit because council was no longer discussing legal advice.
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 advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(c) Acquisition or disposition of land|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(3.1) Education or training|information already public prior to meeting|Resolution|resolution (general description)
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.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the City of Elliot Lake to discuss a court decision involving the municipality. During the meeting, council received legal advice and provided instructions to its solicitor. The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the County of Haliburton to discuss the closure of a local hospital emergency room. The Ombudsman considered whether the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege would apply to the discussion. During the meeting, a council member shared legal advice he obtained from a lawyer. The councillor contacted the lawyer in his capacity as a member of council, although he was not directed by council to do so. The Ombudsman recognized that solicitor client privilege attaches to communications as soon as the potential client takes the first step, even before a formal retainer is established. The Ombudsman found that portions of the closed session discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
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. During one part of the in camera discussion, the Chief Administrative Officer conveyed to council legal advice received from the Town’s lawyers. As a result, the Ombudsman found that this part of the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about a closed meeting of the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee held on February 6, 2019. The discussion in closed session related to a consultant’s report from November 20, 2013 that found that there were low levels of friction on the Red Hill Valley Parkway. There was a confidential in camera PowerPoint presentation consisting of four parts.
Legal counsel delivered one part of the presentation, while City staff delivered the other three parts. The Ombudsman found that all four parts of the PowerPoint presentation were necessary to provide context to the Committee in order for it to receive a report and associated legal advice from the City Solicitor.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting of the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee held on February 6, 2019. The resolution to go into closed session referred to item 14.4 of the agenda, which was identified on the agenda as a “Roads Infrastructure Litigation and Review Assessment” with an associated staff report. Because the agenda provided some information about the nature of the subject matter to be considered, the Ombudsman found that the Committee did not breach the open meeting rules. However, going forward, he encouraged the Committee to ensure that not only the meeting agenda but also the resolution to proceed behind closed doors include a description of the topic(s) to be discussed.
The Ombudsman found that discussions of council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio held in closed session with solicitors about a development project and a specific agreement fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 29, 2021 and March 1 and 7, 2022 by failing to provide sufficient information about the general topics of discussion in the resolutions to proceed into closed session. The Ombudsman also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera.
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 Township’s lawyer was present during the closed session and provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
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. At both meetings, legal advice was received from solicitors about a letter the Health Unit had received from a lawyer threatening litigation. The confidential legal advice received was about the appropriate steps to be taken in response to the letter, as well as litigation strategy. A third-party consultant was also present at both meetings. However, the Ombudsman found that the third-party consultant provided insights that supplemented, and were informed by, the legal advice given by the solicitors. The presence of the third-party consultant therefore did not constitute waiver of solicitor-client privilege. Accordingly, the discussions of the Board of Health and the Executive Committee fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Greater Sudbury’s closed session discussion of a proposed municipal project on July 12, 2022 fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege as council sought and received legal advice regarding the project from the City Solicitor and Clerk and the Deputy City Solicitor.
The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege. 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 solicitor-client privilege.
239(2)(c) Acquisition or disposition of land|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed into closed session passed by council for Norfolk County at meetings held on March 8, April 12, and May 10, 2022 provided general descriptions of the topics to be discussed in closed session, and therefore met the requirements of s. 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that a committee’s in camera discussion on July 21, 2022 was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege because the committee received legal advice from lawyers with respect to the redevelopment of Town-owned property.
The Ombudsman reviewed the applicability of the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege to the portions of four closed meetings held by Council for the Township of Minden Hills on October 14, November 11, and December 9, 2021 and January 27, 2022. At these meetings, Council for Minden Hills discussed legal advice obtained from the Township’s solicitors. The Ombudsman found that these discussions fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman received two complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted in closed session on April 28, 2022, contrary to the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that during the in camera discussion, council discussed legal advice related to a court decision and discussed how to proceed. Accordingly, this discussion properly fit within the open meeting exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on January 10, 2022. The Ombudsman found that council received legal advice while in closed session relating to matters affecting the City and subject to ongoing litigation. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on January 10, 2022. The resolution passed by council to proceed in camera cited the closed meeting exceptions it relied on to exclude the public, but failed to provide any further detail regarding the intended discussion. The Ombudsman noted that the agenda and minutes provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in closed session, however this information was not also included in the resolution itself.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by Dufferin County’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services Standing Committee on April 28, 2022. The Ombudsman found that the Committee received new information during the open session and the Committee could therefore seek further legal advice about an agenda item in closed session. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 13, 2021. During the in camera discussion on September 13, a report and legal correspondence were presented to council relating to the Town’s options under a contractual agreement with a specific entity. A solicitor was present and answered council’s questions about its options. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for communications subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, September 13, November 8, and November 16, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Town contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act on September 13 and November 16, as the resolutions to go in camera did not provide general descriptions of the topics of discussion; instead, the resolutions merely cited the exceptions that council relied upon to move in camera. Conversely, for the November 8 meeting of council, the Ombudsman found that the resolution to move in camera provided more substantive details about the nature of the closed session discussions. The Ombudsman also found that although the resolution to move in camera on August 8 only cited the applicable exceptions in the Act, no further information could have been provided by council without undermining the reason for which the public was excluded from the discussion.
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 there was no evidence that advice subject to solicitor-client privilege was discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that, by merely citing the applicable open meeting exception in its resolution to close the meeting, the Commission failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the intended discussion.
The Ombudsman investigated two closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on June 8 and July 6, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held a closed meeting on June 8, 2021 since part of the discussion fit under the exception for solicitor-client privilege and the rest of the discussion fit under the exception for plans or instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the delegation to council during the closed meeting on July 6, 2021 did not fit under any closed meeting exceptions while council’s subsequent discussion fit under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because it would have been possible for council to parse the delegation portion of the meeting from its subsequent discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the Town of Collingwood on February 6 and June 11, 2018. The Ombudsman found that quotes for legal fees containing specific information, such as suggested strategy, constituted advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 since both meetings fit under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found the discussion by council for the Municipality of Temagami on March 8, 2021 fit within the cited exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. During the meeting on March 8, 2021, council received confidential advice from external legal counsel about the Au Château Home for the Aged.
The Ombudsman found that the resolution passed by council during a meeting on March 8, 2021 adequately provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in camera. However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to ensure the public could observe the passage of the resolution to proceed in camera during its meetings on March 8, 2021 and March 25, 2021. Whenever the public is excluded from in-person attendance, it is imperative that the alternative electronic format selected enables the public to observe all portions of the meeting except the duly constituted and permitted closed portions. This includes the resolution to go in camera and any business or report back that occurs after council has reconvened in open session. Publishing a recording of a meeting after it has already taken place is not a substitute for enabling the public to observe a meeting while it is happening.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of South Frontenac on July 13, 2021 and found it was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for solicitor-client privilege. The objective of the meeting was to advise council of the Township’s legal obligations pertaining to the Johnston Point Development. During the meeting, the Township’s solicitor actively participated in the discussion, providing confidential legal advice and responding to questions posed by council.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls where council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting to discuss the potential designation of the Niagara River as a protected wetland. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. The municipality’s solicitor was not present during the meeting. However, council received and discussed written legal advice from the solicitor. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council on the application of the open meeting rules and a contract between the municipality and the integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the “solicitor-client privilege” exception.
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 Township staff verbally conveyed legal advice related to the zoning issue and potential litigation during the closed session. Accordingly, council’s discussion also fit within the “advice subject to solicitor client privilege” exception, although council did not rely on this exception in its resolution to proceed in camera.
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 meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting a lawyer was present and provided confidential legal advice related to the investigations throughout the meeting. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
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 meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting the integrity commissioner and an investigator presented their findings to council. The Ombudsman found that this information was not provided by a lawyer and does not qualify as legal advice. However, the information supplied by the investigator and integrity commissioner was received in relation to council seeking legal guidance on how to respond to the investigations’ findings and was necessary to discuss the issues meaningfully. It would not be reasonable for council to parse its discussion. Therefore, the discussion fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee closed session to discuss events that may take place in the city in 2022 or 2023. The resolution to go into closed session stated “that Committee move into Closed Session respecting Items 13.2 to 13.4.” Item 13.2 of the meeting minutes is titled “Potential for Major Events in 2022 and 2023 (PED20071) (City Wide).” The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 8, 2019 when it went in camera to discuss a draft legal agreement with a wind energy provider. A lawyer was present and provided legal advice related to the agreement during the closed session. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in s. 239(2)(f).
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Saugeen Shores where council discussed ongoing lease negotiations for municipal property. At this meeting, a lawyer was present to provide council with legal advice related to a draft lease agreement. In each case, council provided staff with direction on how to proceed with the ongoing lease negotiations. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. A third-party consultant, who also served as the township’s Integrity Commissioner, attended the meeting. The Ombudsman found that council was entitled to rely on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege despite the presence of the consultant, but noted that a lack of consensus as to the consultant’s role at the meeting contributed to the impression that the meeting was improperly closed. The Ombudsman suggested, as a best practice, that meeting documents more clearly identify the capacity in which attendees participate in meetings if those attendees hold multiple positions within the township.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the November 25, 2019 closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exceptions. During the meeting, council discussed written legal advice from its solicitor regarding a by-law enforcement matter where litigation had been specifically threatened. Staff also provided a report to council summarizing the matter and providing additional information about several identified individuals. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
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 Ombudsman found that council’s receipt of legal advice from the county solicitor regarding ongoing contractual negotiations with a candidate for the interim CAO position, fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for Norfolk County on March 26 and April 2, 2019, and found that while Norfolk County’s meeting agendas on those dates provided detailed information about the matters to be discussed in closed session, the resolutions passed by council during the meetings did not include a description of the matters to be discussed.
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee met in closed session to receive legal advice regarding the appropriateness of a topic for in camera consideration. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception because the committee received legal advice from the city solicitor and discussed the legal advice.
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee met in closed session to discuss the municipality’s contribution to the local Canadian Football League team’s bid for the Grey Cup championship game. The committee cited the solicitor-client privilege exception, however the Ombudsman found that legal advice was not discussed during the closed session. The discussion did not fit within the exception.
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee received legal advice regarding a council vacancy during the closed meeting. The city did not contravene the open meeting rules when it discussed advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in camera as the discussion fit within the exception. The committee did not vote regarding the vacancy while in camera. As there was no vote or informal consensus reached, the city did not contravene the voting provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001.
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 council received and discussed legal advice while in closed session. Accordingly, these discussions fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. When council went back into closed session briefly to obtain clarification on the legal advice it received, this discussion also fit within the same exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore to discuss payment of remuneration for volunteer firefighters. During the closed session, council discussed legal advice previously obtained from the municipality’s solicitor. Accordingly, although not cited by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. The resolution to proceed into closed session listed “fighter’s honourarium” as the sole topic. Once in closed session, council also discussed a communications protocol between the fire department and staff. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality’s procedure by-law requires that only business dealing directly with the agenda be transacted at a closed meeting. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera should have included more information about the subject matter to be discussed during the closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula to discuss an application made under the Land Titles Act for a property located within the municipality. During the Ombudsman’s review, the municipality raised the solicitor-client advice exception as applicable to the closed meeting. During the meeting, staff briefly referenced legal advice that the municipality had previously received. The Ombudsman found that the legal advice was only briefly mentioned and not discussed further by council. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of Petrolia under the solicitor-client privilege exception. The municipality had received legal advice about a third party proposal respecting operation of the municipality’s community recreation centre. However, during the meeting, the legal advice was not discussed. The discussion did not fit in the exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of Petrolia. The municipality passed resolutions to close three meetings, each one referring only to the exception relied on and an internal file number. The municipality’s resolutions failed to provide meaningful information to the public about the matters to be discussed in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham to discuss an external consultant’s report to council regarding municipal financial information. The consultant was retained by the municipality’s lawyers to review and interpret the financial information provided by the town. The Ombudsman found that the consultant acted as a translator, interpreting the financial information and explaining it to the lawyers to allow them to formulate legal advice. While in closed session, the town’s treasurer also presented information about the municipality’s financial status. In most cases, information provided to council by staff about a municipality’s finances would not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules and should be discussed in open session. However, the Ombudsman found this part of the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception because the information provided by the treasurer was provided to allow the lawyers to understand the financial information, in order to provide legal advice to the town. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands which relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the municipality’s staff-council communication structure. During the closed session, council discussed written legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor that touched upon several matters. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion generally focused on the legal opinion, however several times council’s discussion went beyond the written legal advice and into other matters. The Ombudsman found that the portion of council’s discussion beyond the written legal advice did not fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss financial software on a municipal-wide basis. During the closed session, council received written legal advice on several topics. There was no legal advice received on the financial software. The municipality suggested that the discussion about the software was merely incidental to its consideration of legal advice received on another topic. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the financial software was neither brief or incidental to its discussion about the legal advice. Therefore, that portion of council’s discussion did not fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a police services consultation plan. Council had previously received written advice from its solicitors related to a former police chief’s contract, however that advice was not discussed during the in camera meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was limited to whether and how information about the contract should be disclosed to the public. There was no solicitor or related communication. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County to receive a deputation from representatives of the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board. The meeting was closed using the exception for solicitor-client privilege. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that these portions of the closed meeting fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
Council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet participated in working sessions with a consultant with respect to a proposed organizational study. The Ombudsman reviewed the working sessions. A council member described these sessions as being confidential, akin to solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman found that the Municipal Act, 2001 does not contain any exceptions to protect confidential discussions with consultants who are not solicitors representing a municipality. As council did not receive advice from a solicitor during the working sessions, the solicitor-client privilege exception could not apply.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Corporate Services Committee for the City of London to discuss the hiring policy for senior staff, relying on the solicitor-client privilege exception. The municipality informed the Ombudsman that municipal solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice, and that nothing else was addressed. The Ombudsman noted that some municipalities choose to waive solicitor-client privilege and provide privileged information during an investigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London which relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner and a recent integrity commissioner report. Legal counsel was present during both meetings to answer questions and provide legal advice. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss correspondence from identifiable individuals. During the meeting, the clerk provided council with an overview of a conversation with legal counsel, including preliminary comments and legal advice related to the correspondence. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of Timmins. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for both meetings failed to provide meaningful information to the public about the issues that were to be discussed in camera, and also that the resolutions failed to specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item on the closed meeting agenda. The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure that its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss potential performers at an upcoming festival. Although staff had contacted the municipality’s solicitor for legal advice about the festival, that advice was not conveyed to council during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury. The Ombudsman found that council failed at these meetings to provide any information in the resolution to proceed in camera about the discussions that were to take place, other than citing the exceptions authorizing the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman recommended that council’s resolution to proceed in camera provide a brief description of the subject matter to be considered in closed session, as well as the citing the exception(s) being relied upon.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss transit tickets in the municipality. During the discussion, council received a third-party investigation report that included information about employee negligence and conduct. Council also received written legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor about the report. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss ongoing airport fee negotiations and related airport upgrades. The Ombudsman found that the commission did not discuss any legal advice during the meeting. There was no solicitor or related communication. The Ombudsman noted that the fact that airport fees may be incorporated by a lawyer into a future contract does not mean the discussion was subject to solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the commission’s discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(j) Information belonging to the municipality|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|airport|airport commission|local board|minutes (best practices)|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees. The Ombudsman found that the commission failed in its resolution to proceed in camera to cite the exception it was relying upon. The resolution was also not read out loud and members of the commission did not have a draft resolution prior to voting to proceed in camera. Additionally, although the general nature of the matter to be discussed was provided orally at the meeting, the formal written resolution failed to include that information. The Ombudsman recommended reading out the formal resolution prior to proceeding into closed session and that the formal resolution include information about the intended in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law, relying on the solicitor-client advice exception. During the closed session, council received legal advice on the matter from the municipality’s solicitor. The Ombudsman considered the decision in Farber v. Kingston, which found that a description that only stated “legal matters” without more specifics was inadequate. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the resolution was sufficient as it contained a general description, which included the matter to be considered and the type of discussion that would ensue.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the development of a site specific zoning by-law. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided advice to council pertaining the different options for the zoning by-law and possible appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pending council’s decision. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a proposal to develop a university campus in the municipality’s downtown area. Council’s discussion focused on a development funding partnership with a post-secondary institution. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the closed session; however, the Ombudsman found that he did not provide any legal advice or participate in the discussion. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Association (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. The Ombudsman encouraged the BIA to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss a request for legal fee reimbursement by an identified individual. Council was provided with a confidential staff report on the matter including a copy of written legal advice obtained from external counsel. While council did not rely on the solicitor-client privilege exception, the Ombudsman considered whether it applied to the discussion. The Ombudsman found that council was provided with written legal advice from external counsel as well as legal advice conveyed by staff from the external counsel. Therefore, the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a request for proposals for a construction contract in the municipality. During the closed session, staff conveyed legal advice received regarding the vendors that had bid on the contract. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council-in-committee for Norfolk County to discuss the extension of a legal services contract. The resolution to proceed in camera referred to a “contractual matter” along with a list of other items to be discussed and the exceptions relied upon. The Ombudsman found that while the description of the discussion did provide the public with some idea about the committee’s intended discussion, the resolution could have included additional information without undermining the confidentiality of the matter. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to proceed in camera clearly specify which exception is being relied upon to discuss each matter.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County to discuss the extension of legal services contracts with two law firms. The committee discussed the hourly rate proposed by each firm. While the municipality did not rely on the exception for solicitor-client privilege, the Ombudsman considered whether it would apply to the discussion. The Ombudsman found that it was unclear from existing jurisprudence whether the hourly rate of a lawyer (as opposed to the total amount of legal fees paid under a retainer) is presumptively sheltered under solicitor-client privilege. However, any presumption would be rebutted because the committee did not directly or indirectly reveal any communication protected by privilege by disclosing the lawyers’ hourly rate. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the committee’s discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada about prayer during council meetings. The municipality had a practice of beginning each meeting with a faith blessing. During the meeting, council discussed the contents of communications between staff and the municipality’s solicitor which provided legal advice related to council’s faith blessing. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exceptions relied upon to close the meeting to the public but did not provide further information about the subject of the discussions. The Ombudsman also found that there was an opportunity to add more information about the in camera discussion to the resolution based on a resolution passed in open session that was related to the in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss enforcement of a site alteration by-law. The municipality’s solicitor was not present during the meeting, nor was new legal advice considered during the meeting. The committee had received numerous legal opinions at prior closed meetings regarding the site alteration by-law and incorporated the advice into its discussion during the closed meeting under review. The Ombudsman found that it was not necessary for the committee to discuss new legal advice during the closed meeting. The discussion fit within the solicitor-client exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The municipality’s solicitor was present throughout the closed session and provided legal advice to council on the matters discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
239(2)(a) Security of the property|239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(c) Acquisition or disposition of land|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(3.1) Education or training|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the City of Port Colborne. The Ombudsman found that one resolution to proceed in camera failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session. The Ombudsman found that council provided incomplete information regarding the subjects to be discussed in closed session. It failed to describe the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed in a way that maximized the information available to the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne to discuss the conditions of a purchase and sale agreement for a proposed residential development that had lapsed. The meeting was closed under the exception for solicitor-client privilege. Council had received a written memorandum from the municipality’s solicitor that provided legal advice on the matter to be discussed. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege because the discussion involved consideration of written legal advice from the municipality’s legal advisor.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a municipally controlled corporation. The municipality had received legal advice on the company in the past. The municipality’s legal counsel was not present during the discussion and there was no evidence to suggest that legal advice was discussed. The Ombudsman found that the fact that legal advice has been previously received on a subject does not mean that all future discussions of that subject will fall within the exception for solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to cite in its resolution the closed meeting exception relied upon to proceed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that council ensure that the resolution discloses all exceptions authorizing the closed meeting discussion, and that the resolution includes both the fact of holding the closed meeting and the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich-Monteith. The Ombudsman found that during one meeting, the resolution to proceed in camera did not indicate that the exception applied to the subject matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman found that at another meeting, the resolution to move into closed session failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the decommissioning of the old Victoria Hospital lands. The committee discussed legal advice conveyed by staff that was received from the municipality’s solicitor with respect to the process to decommission the site. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the Ombudsman’s recommendations made in a previous report. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a lease proposal from Marineland for municipal property. During the meeting, council discussed legal advice received from the municipality’s solicitor with respect to the lease. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of South Huron to discuss an identified employee’s disagreement with the application of the municipality’s personnel policy. During the discussion, council received a legal opinion on the matter. Although not relied upon by council, the Ombudsman found that the portion of the discussion related to the solicitor’s advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Westport. The resolution to proceed in camera only cited the exception relied upon to go in session and described the matter to be discussed as a “legal matter.” The Ombudsman found that in order to meet the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, the municipality must provide a description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Council discussed the qualifications of an identifiable individual who applied for the position and expressed opinions about the individual. Throughout the discussion, the municipality’s solicitor provided advice. The Ombudsman found that the parts of the discussion related to the solicitor’s advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the fact that a municipal staff member had written a cheque without council approval. The municipality’s solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice regarding how councillors should respond to public concerns about the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss potential litigation against a party pertaining to the Flatwater Centre. The municipality’s solicitors were present and provided advice on the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Joly that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the performance of a specific municipal staff member. The municipality’s solicitor participated in the meeting via telephone to provide advice with respect to the employment matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a civilian appointment to the police service board. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor was present, provided advice, and received instructions from council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the municipality’s budget. During the meeting, the committee discussed an industrial land strategy and particular land areas the municipality was interested in purchasing. The municipality’s solicitor was present and provided legal advice on the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Town of Ajax that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a report on a property encroachment issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception because the report contained no legal advice or privileged information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a council member’s request for indemnification of legal fees incurred as a police service board member. The Ombudsman found that the substance of the legal advice provided to the council member was not discussed. The focus of the discussion was on whether the legal bill qualified for reimbursement under the municipality’s policy. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit with within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss litigation filed against the municipality regarding a development/permit dispute. Council met with the municipality’s solicitor and received legal advice about the litigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss an agreement of purchase and sale for the Crystal Beach Gateway Project. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and responded to questions posed by council on the matter. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Bluewater that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a by-law related to building fees for wind turbines. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor was present and provided legal advice to council about the resolution of a dispute with various wind turbine companies, and the steps the municipality needed to take to avoid a lawsuit. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Ryerson to discuss a rezoning application for a quarry. The meeting was closed under the exception for solicitor-client privilege. The applicant was present during the closed session and reviewed with council the details related to a proposed haul route and site plan. The municipality’s solicitor wrote the cover letter that accompanied the site plan documents. The letter set out the solicitor’s position on the draft terms. The Ombudsman found that the presence of the applicant during the meeting constitutes a waiver of any solicitor-client privilege that might have applied to the discussion. Further, the solicitor’s letter contained comments directed at the third party, not legal advice to the municipality. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of North Dumfries to discuss matters before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Council received an update on the matters from the municipality’s solicitor. Although not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Hamilton to receive legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor regarding altering a contract with a consultant. The meeting was closed under the exception for solicitor-client privilege. The solicitor identified options for council with respect to the contract and risks associated with those options. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a by-law with the municipality’s solicitor. When council returned to the open session, it passed a resolution to waive solicitor-client privilege and release two legal opinions on the matter. The Ombudsman found that despite the fact that council decided to waive privilege in open session, at the time of the closed session discussion council had sought legal advice that was intended to be confidential. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss an environmental protection by-law. During the closed session, the municipality’s legal counsel provided information and answered council’s questions about the by-law. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Central Huron that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss matters involving a shared services provider. The municipality’s solicitor was not present during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that council did not discuss a specific piece of legal advice during the meeting. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a request for proposals process. The Ombudsman found that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss legal advice; rather, the commission discussed the status of draft lease agreements. The commission’s solicitor was not present during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Tiny to discuss possible amendments to the zoning by-law. Council received legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor regarding the possibility of future litigation as a result of the proposed amendments. Although not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich to discuss a proposed aggregate pit. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor provided an update to council on the status of mediation before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) concerning the aggregate pit, and council reviewed draft minutes of settlement. While not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Ryerson to discuss a zoning application for a proposed quarry. Towards the end of the meeting, council received and reviewed a written memo from the municipality’s solicitor containing legal advice related to the application. While the municipality did not rely on the exception for solicitor-client privilege, the Ombudsman found that the portion of council’s discussion that considered the legal advice contained in the memorandum fit within that exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss a report issued by the Ombudsman, relying on the exception for solicitor-client privilege. Council considered written legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor who was also present during the closed session. The written legal advice had been publicly posted on the municipality’s website in error. The Ombudsman found that in many cases, public disclosure of confidential information is a factor weighing in favour of discussing the information in the open. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the information posted to the municipality’s website was done so in error and was intended to remain confidential. Council did not waive its solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a site plan agreement and cost-sharing proposal from a local developer. The developer’s representatives were present during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that solicitor-client privilege applies to communications between a lawyer and client that entails the seeking or giving of legal advice and is intended to be confidential by the parties. In order to qualify for the exception, the privilege must not be waived by the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the presence of third parties at the closed session constituted a waiver of the solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the City of London that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the Occupy London protest. The Ombudsman found that the committee received legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor during the meeting including advice pertaining to potential litigation relating to the protest. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.