Port Colborne, City of

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 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 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 various ongoing land sales and an ongoing lease negotiation for municipally-owned property. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception as the land involved was municipally owned and a lease constitutes a property interest in land.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a local business that wished to lease land from the municipality. Council discussed ongoing negotiations with the business and whether or not to lease the land. The Ombudsman found that the acquisition or disposition of land exception applies to the disposition of land through a lease. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss plans for a non-profit organization to acquire a house from a private individual. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because the municipality was not involved in either acquiring or disposing of land.

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 that had lapsed. The meeting was closed under the acquisition and disposition of land exception. Council’s discussion focused on whether to enter into a new agreement with the developer to further the project. The Ombudsman found that since the original agreement of purchase and sale had lapsed and council was discussing negotiations with the developer for a new agreement, disclosure of council’s discussions could have harmed the municipality’s bargaining positon. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an update on the municipality’s insurance program. The discussion included specific ongoing claims against the municipality in an illustrative matter without personal identifiers. This did not form a substantial part of the discussion. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne to discuss disposing of its shares in a shared services provider. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because the municipality’s bargaining position might have been affected if details of the discussion were made public. The security of the property exception is narrowly construed. The Ombudsman found that the fact that any discussion in open session may have decreased the value of the shares was insufficient to bring the matter within the security of the property exception.