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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
February 20, 202420 February 2024
Council for the City of Elliot Lake held a closed session discussion about the municipality’s organizational structure and potential reorganization. The closed session discussion took place in two parts. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the discussion, involving the municipality’s organizational chart, could have been parsed from the second part of the discussion about reorganization, and should have been held in open 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 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.
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.
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.
April 14, 202114 April 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting, council discussed personal information about the municipality’s integrity commissioner. Council also discussed the contract between the integrity commissioner and the municipality as part of its broader discussion. The Ombudsman found that the information about the contract could not have been parsed from the in camera discussion.
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.