St.-Charles, Municipality of

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Environmental Services Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles held a closed session on August 17, 2021, when the two members sitting on the Committee attended a gathering with residents relating to garbage collection issues. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the gathering did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the gathering were merely informational and did not materially advance council or committee business or decision-making.

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The Ombudsman found that information provided to council by staff about a municipality’s finances generally does not fit within any of the exceptions to open meeting rules. Therefore, the discussions at this meeting did not fit within the exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The Ombudsman found the exception does not apply to discussions of the finances of the municipality, therefore, the discussions at this meeting did not fit within the exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council discussed a document containing a watermark indicating that it was “supplied in confidence” to the municipality by a consultant. The Ombudsman found the document summarized and analyzed information about the municipality, and was marked “in confidence” because it was created by a third party and given to the municipality. Section 239(2)(i) is intended to protect confidential information about a third party. Therefore, the discussion of this report marked “in confidence” did not fit within the information supplied in confidence exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council chose to close this discussion under the personal matters exception because they anticipated discussions about the broader financial issues would lead to discussions about identifiable individuals, and believed council would not be able to separate the two discussions. The Ombudsman found discussions of individual staff fell within the personal matters exception, however, discussions of broader financial issues did not. The Ombudsman found that it would have been possible for council to parse the two discussions. Council could have proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council chose to close this discussion under the personal matters exception because they anticipated discussions about the broader financial issues would lead to discussions about the conduct of identified employees, and believed council would not be able to separate the two discussions. The Ombudsman found discussions of individual staff fell within the personal matters exception, however, discussions of broader financial issues did not. The Ombudsman found the council could have separated the two discussions and proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles. The Ombudsman found a number of deficiencies with the municipality’s procedure by-law. For example, despite reference to the closed meeting exceptions being listed in Schedule C, this schedule did not actually contain the Municipal Act’s exceptions. The Ombudsman recommended that council for the municipality update its procedure by-law to reflect the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss allegations regarding credit card abuse. The Ombudsman found that the municipality’s procedure by-law failed to reflect the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, despite a previous recommendation from the Ombudsman to the municipality to update its procedure by-law in this respect. The Ombudsman reiterated the recommendation.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss allegations regarding employee municipal credit card abuse. During the meeting, the municipality reviewed written legal advice. The discussion included information about ongoing legal proceedings against the municipality and how the municipality’s response to the credit card abuse allegations could affect those proceedings. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss allegations of credit card abuse by municipal employees. The meeting was closed citing the personal matters exception. During the discussion, the committee discussed several individuals in the context of their employment or professional relationship to the municipality. However, the discussion also included details of the conduct of individuals that went beyond their professional roles, which if disclosed would reveal something of a personal nature about them. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. During the investigation, it was alleged that the credit card abuse allegations should not be discussed in private because information about the allegations had previously been made public at a council meeting. The Ombudsman noted that the majority of the closed meeting exceptions are discretionary and in the interest of openness and transparency, municipalities should carefully consider whether the public might be better served by discussing the matter openly. However, in this case, the committee discussed information that had not been previously discussed in public and is not the type of information that would typically be debated in open session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss a draft financial report from its auditors, relying on the labour relations and employee negotiations exception. The auditors gave a presentation to council that included information about the performance of various departments. Council also discussed the job performance of particular employees and options council could pursue to address those issues. The Ombudsman found that the auditor’s presentation did not fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations as it pertained to general information about how various departments had performed, rather than relations or negotiations with staff. The Ombudsman found that the portion of the discussion about job performance of particular employees fit within the cited exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss audit reports and individual staff performance. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the audit reports contained municipal financial information and its findings did not reveal personal information about staff members. The fact that the municipality has a small staff and personal information about individual employees could be inferred from the auditor’s findings does not bring the discussion within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about individual employee conduct and performance did fit within the personal matters exception because staff members were identified by name. The Ombudsman found that council could have been parsed and the audit report could have been considered in open session, separate from the employee performance matters, because the two topics were distinct.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss a draft financial report from its auditors. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The auditors gave a presentation to council about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman found that there may be circumstances when a discussion about a municipality’s finances fits within the security of the property exception. For example, cases of fraud or theft of municipal property, or threats. However, the auditor’s presentation contained information about the municipality’s finances, but did not include a discussion of any potential loss or damage to that property. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.