McKellar, Township of

The Ombudsman was satisfied that council proceedings were audible to the public during the April 12, 2022 meeting of council, such that council for the Township of McKellar did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by posting contradictory public notices about the location of the meeting on April 12, 2022.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by posting contradictory public notices about the time and location of the electronic meeting on September 9, 2021.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 31, 2021 when council returned to open session from an in camera discussion and did not provide a livestream for the public to observe that open portion of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when audio and connectivity issues impeded the public’s ability to observe portions of the electronic meeting of council held on August 24, 2021.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of McKellar improperly voted on a pool and wellness centre, and whether to enter into a related joint local services board, during its June 24, 2021 closed session.  The Ombudsman found that the only vote taken in camera related to the pool and wellness centre was for giving direction to staff. The Ombudsman found no evidence that council voted on whether to enter into a joint local services board. Accordingly, there was no improper vote.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of McKellar improperly met in closed session on June 24, 2021, to discuss the West Parry Sound Pool and Wellness Centre contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council discussed its position regarding ongoing negotiations with six municipalities and two first nation communities relating to a joint pool and wellness centre. Accordingly, this discussion was permissible under section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act.

Section 238(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires a quorum of councillors to be physically present and that the matter(s) discussed “materially” or “significantly” advances council’s business or decision-making. The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that three councillors for the Township of McKellar improperly met with the incoming CAO/Clerk on March 3, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements as the gathering did not come within the definition of “meeting” under the Act. While a quorum of councillors had gathered with the incoming CAO/Clerk to welcome him to the municipality, the discussion did not materially advance council’s business or decision-making.

The Ombudsman reviewed emails sent by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar about a matter that needed to be determined before the committee’s next meeting. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted an illegal closed meeting and the vote that took place over email was improper.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss the appointment of a member of the public to the committee. The meeting was closed citing the personal matters exception. The committee discussed the conduct of the member of the public. The committee also discussed the implications, both negative and positive, of accepting the application. The Ombudsman found that by discussing the individual’s conduct, the committee revealed inherently personal information about the individual. 

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss comments about the committee made by two councillors and two members of the public. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The committee’s discussion focused on the conduct and comments of the councillors, the two members of the public, and ways the committee could respond to that conduct.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the conduct of the two members of the public fit within the personal matters exception. Normally, the discussion about the conduct of the two councillors would not fit within the exception, as it related to the individuals’ conduct in their official roles as councillors. However, the Ombudsman found that it is unrealistic to expect the committee to have parsed the discussion about the members of the public from that of the councillors when the two discussion topics were directly related.