London, City of

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 a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering.

The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day.

The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.

The Ombudsman found that the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee contravened the open meeting rules when the doors to London City Hall were inadvertently locked for a short period of time during the January 23, 2023 meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint suggesting members of council for the City of London met outside of a formal council or committee meeting to discuss filling a vacant council seat with a specific individual since members of the public knew to provide letters of support to council on that subject ahead of the City’s Corporate Services Committee meeting on October 12, 2021. The vacancy had been announced publicly in September 2021 and had also been reported in the media around the same time. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Committee or council met privately to discuss the vacancy in advance of the Committee meeting on October 12, 2021.

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 two closed meetings held by council for the City of London to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner. Council relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council discussed the education, employment history and qualifications of a potential appointee for the integrity commissioner position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of London that was disrupted by protesters. Members of the public were removed from the meeting and security staff locked the building doors. However, the doors were not unlocked once the council meeting resumed. The Ombudsman found that the doors were locked during parts of an open meeting and therefore, the meeting was improperly closed to the public.

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 the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss development proposals for a decommissioned hospital site owned by the municipality. The committee considered legal advice and heard from staff about expressions of interest from members of the public interested in purchasing the land. The Ombudsman found that, if made public, the committee’s discussion about the expressions of interest might have affected the municipality’s bargaining position in negotiations related to the land sale. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

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 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London to discuss the municipality’s fire services budget. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. The Committee’s discussion focused on confidential labour relations and other employment-related matters with respect to the fire services department. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the municipality’s land development. The committee received a report from staff that referenced lands the municipality was interested in purchasing or for which it had initiated negotiations to purchase. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

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.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the City of London to discuss the Occupy London protest. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the committee discussed potential litigation relating to the protest. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.