The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023. At both meetings, council failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be discussed, contrary to section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that at its special meeting on January 9, 2024, council for Norfolk County did not provide sufficient detail about the general nature of the matter to be discussed in its resolution to proceed in camera, as it only cited the open meeting exception from the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that during a special meeting of council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to describe the general nature of all items to be discussed in the resolution to go into closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that in future, should council wish to add items to a closed meeting agenda at the time of the meeting itself, it should pass a public resolution before holding the closed session discussion, in accordance with the Act.
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 found that council for the Township of Wollaston failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matter to be considered in its resolution to move into closed session during its meeting on December 11, 2023. The Ombudsman suggested that, for the benefit of the public, council could have provided a general description of the topic to be discussed in closed session, such as “human resources matter” or “an employment-related matter,” without undermining the reason for excluding the public from the discussion.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Iroquois Falls failed to provide sufficient information about the general nature of the matter to be considered in its resolution to move into closed session to discuss a letter from a resident during its meeting on November 28, 2022.
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Whitestone at two separate meetings did not provide sufficient information in its resolutions to close the meeting to the public. The resolutions indicated that human resources matters would be discussed, however they did not indicate that the discussion would involve multiple separate items related to human resources. A member of the public reading the resolutions would not be able to discern that more than one matter related to human resources was discussed in camera. The Ombudsman’s review concluded that including that information in the resolution would not undermine the reason for discussing the matters in closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Callander contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 12, 2023 and January 9, 2024, by failing to provide sufficient information about the general topic of discussion for a specific agenda item in its resolution to proceed into closed session at each meeting.
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Lanark Highlands did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 when it passed a resolution to move in camera to discuss “Draft Financial Statement Management Letter.” The Ombudsman explained that the sufficiency of the subject matter disclosed to the public in the resolution to move in camera is a balancing act. Given the sensitive nature of the subject matter discussed, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the information included in the resolution was sufficient.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands’ resolutions to proceed into closed session to discuss the Glenayr Kitten Mill provided general information about the matters to be discussed and cited the exceptions from the Municipal Act, 2001 being relied upon.
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 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 the in camera discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and solicitor-client privilege. However, council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to include a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to move in camera.
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 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.
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it failed to provide sufficiently meaningful information to the public regarding the topic of its in camera discussion in its resolution to proceed into closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Douro-Dummer did not include a general description of the matters to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to proceed in camera.
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. While the Ombudsman found that the topics discussed at both meetings fit within exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, he found that the Board of Health and the Executive Committee contravened the Act by passing resolutions to proceed in camera without providing a general description of the matters to be discussed.
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 resolutions passed by the Committee 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 found that the Committee contravened subsection 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 at both meetings when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera.
The Ombudsman found that resolutions passed by council for the Municipality of Casselman to move in camera complied with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie Cultural Vitality Committee’s resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public.
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 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 received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera. The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting.
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 at paragraph 239(2)(b), personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). Generally, stating only the exception does not satisfy the requirements of the open meeting rules.
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 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 passed a resolution to proceed in camera that included a general description of the matter to be considered in closed session, in accordance with s.239(4) of the Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received an update about negotiations with a commercial partner during a closed session. The Ombudsman found that the matter was permitted to be discussed in closed session under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. However, the Ombudsman reminded the committee that it should have included a description of the general nature of the verbal update in its resolution to move in camera.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited an exception to the open meeting rules, however the Ombudsman found that council nonetheless contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state in the resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
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 reviewed meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman. The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the open meeting rules when it did not provide public notice of Investigation Committee meetings and when council did not state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure it provides public notice for all committee meetings, and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan. The Ombudsman found that the Township's procedure by-law did not reflect the current procedural requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township make several amendments to its procedure by-law, including that public notice be provided for all regular and special council and committee meetings; that council pass a resolution about the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera before going into closed session; and that council prohibit voting in camera except for procedural matters or for giving directions to staff.
The Ombudsman found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on August 25, 2020, council for the Town of Kirkland Lake failed to state the general nature of the subject to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act, 2001, exception relied upon to close the meeting. The description of the subject to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda and minutes. The Ombudsman found that the Town of Kirkland Lake contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be discussed in camera.
The Ombudsman found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on June 23, 2020, council for the Township of Emo failed to state the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings. The description of the subjects to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda. The Ombudsman found that the Township of Emo contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss information supplied in confidence by another level of government. 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. Instead, this information was provided in the notice of special meeting. The Ombudsman encouraged the City 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 found that, in a resolution to close a meeting on September 17, 2019, council for the City of Welland failed to state the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings. The description of the subjects to be discussed was included in the meeting’s agenda. The Ombudsman encouraged the municipality to ensure that resolutions to go into closed session contain a general description of the topics to be discussed, to the extent possible without undermining the reason for closing the meeting.
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 resolutions for three meetings held by council for the Township of Carling on July 27, October 10, and November 13, 2018 did not describe the general nature of the subject matter to be considered in camera. Council only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meetings. The Ombudsman shared best practice suggestions with the municipality regarding including the general nature of the matter to be discussed in camera.
The Ombudsman determined the Municipality of West Nipissing contravened the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera within their resolutions to go into closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of The Nation failed to state in its resolutions to close meetings on December 17, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 14, 2019 the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings.
Council for Wollaston Township failed to state in its resolutions to close meetings on December 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019 the general nature of the subject to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines. The Ombudsman found that while council made an oral resolution to move into closed session, the open session minutes failed to record the resolution and the oral resolution did not include a general description of the matters to be discussed in camera or the exceptions that applied to the in camera discussions.
The Ombudsman investigated the closed sessions of a meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara on December 7, 2017. The resolution passed by council to proceed in camera failed to provide a general description of the matter to be considered in closed session. While the minutes indicated that resolution was passed to close the meeting to discuss matters subject to solicitor-client privilege, the video recording of the meeting showed that no reference was made in the resolution to either the general nature of the subject to be discussed, or even to the exception relied upon. The Region’s argument that the subject to be discussed was apparent based on discussions preceding the closure does not satisfy the legal requirement in the Municipal Act, 2001 to include the subject in the resolution itself.
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 held by council for the Township of Russell. The Ombudsman noted that the resolution to proceed into closed session referenced the general subject matter to be discussed, but that greater detail could be provided where appropriate and where further information will not undermine the reason for closing the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. The resolution to proceed into closed session did not provide sufficient information about council’s intended discussion. The Ombudsman noted that resolutions to proceed in camera should provide a general description of the issue to be discussed.
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 several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss matters under the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. While the resolution identified the exception, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the matter to be discussed during the meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the Town 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 five closed meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah. The Ombudsman noted that the resolutions to proceed in camera did not clearly state the subject matter to be discussed in closed session, which is contrary to the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. Simply citing the closed meeting exception is not sufficient. The Ombudsman noted that to ensure that the resolution to proceed in camera maximizes the information available to the public, the municipality should include in its resolutions a brief description of the topic to be discussed. Doing so provides meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed in camera and inspires confidence that the meeting has been properly closed for a legitimate purpose.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to discuss matters under the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and personal matters about an identifiable individual. While the resolution identified the exceptions, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed during the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the township 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 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 to discuss the recruitment process to replace the retiring Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to proceed in camera did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issue that was to be discussed. The Ombudsman also found that the resolution failed to specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item on the closed meeting agenda.
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 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 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 the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public, and did not provide the public with additional information about what the committee intended to discuss once in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee pass resolutions that clearly set out that it is moving into closed session, and the general nature of the matters to be discussed.
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 several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. After completing an investigation, the Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for a number of closed session meetings did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the resolutions failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed during the meetings. During the course of the Ombudsman review, council for the Village of Casselman changed its practice for passing resolutions to go into closed session.
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 two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee of the Township of Bonfield. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to enter closed session only included the exceptions that the committee relied upon to go in camera -- a practice which did not comply with the Act or the town’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee’s resolutions to move in camera provide greater information to the public on the general nature of the matter to be discussed.
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 meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brighton to discuss the performance and compensation of various municipal employees. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session in the resolution to proceed in camera. The Ombudsman found that council’s resolution did not provide meaningful information to the public about the issues to be discussed because it merely cited the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. During the meeting, council received a presentation on township rebranding. The resolution to proceed in camera only provided the title of a confidential staff report and no additional information regarding the subject matter of the report. The Ombudsman found that the resolution provided limited information about the matter to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to enter closed session contain a general description of the issue to be discussed, including when referencing confidential reports or materials.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of Chamberlain. The Ombudsman found a number of procedural issues with the meeting, including that the resolutions to move in camera did not comply with the Municipal Act’s requirements or the municipality’s procedure by-law. One resolution did not cite an exception authorizing the discussion, or provide any other information. Other resolutions did not provide a general description of the subject matter to be considered. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure its resolutions to proceed in camera provide a description of the issue to be discussed, as well as the exception authorizing the discussion.
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 council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss municipal bank signing authorities. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not contain any information about the subject matter to be discussed. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that all resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of South Huron held between 2008 and 2013. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera at most of the meetings only stated that council would meet in closed session at a given time. The resolutions failed to include the subject matter to be considered in closed session or the specific exception(s) relied upon to go into closed session.
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 Cochrane. The resolution to proceed in camera stated that the matter to be discussed was “property and personnel matters.” The Ombudsman noted that the investigation into the meeting was unable to clarify the specific nature of the topic discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that in order to fulfill its obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001 and its own procedure by-law, the municipality must provide in the resolution a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Baldwin discuss the qualifications of candidates for the municipal works foreman position. The resolution to proceed in camera only contained the wording of the exception council relied upon to go into closed session and did not provide any meaningful information for the matter that would be considered in the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to proceed in camera include as much information as possible, and at the very least provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Mattawa. As part of the Ombudsman’s findings, it was noted that during two meetings, the municipality passed a resolution prior to moving into closed session, as required by the Municipal Act, 2001. However, in each case the resolution only cited the exception council was relying on to close the meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that council pass a resolution in open session that generally describes the subject matter to be considered, so as to maximize the information available to the public without undermining the reason for proceeding in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera failed to meet the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The resolution did not provide a general description of the nature of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session and did not cite a proper closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman noted that publicly identifying what issues will be discussed in a closed session is of fundamental importance to the transparency of local democracy. It is a significant accountability measure to ensure that council only engages in discussions of permitted subjects when in closed session. Failure to comply with the requirements for council resolutions and for closed meeting discussions can result in a loss of public confidence in municipal government.