Timmins, City of

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins, which relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss an open procurement project. The municipality held the meeting in closed session due to concerns that an unsuccessful bidder might initiate legal proceedings against the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the litigation or potential litigation exception applies in the context of anticipated litigation where there is more than a remote possibility litigation may commence, although the litigation need not be a certainty. While it is not unusual for litigation initiated by unsuccessful bidders to occur at the conclusion of the procurement process, in this case, the municipality’s concern that litigation could occur was speculative. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss an open procurement project. During the meeting, council discussed publicly available information about the proprietors of one of the bidding companies, including their business history, and expressed opinions on whether or not the company was suitable for the project based on that history. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was limited to information that was publicly available and did not reveal any personal information. Although it was not cited by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss a proposed land transaction with a local post-secondary institution. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the meeting, a representative from the post-secondary institution was present and provided information to council about the proposed land transaction.

The Ombudsman noted that if the other party to the transaction is present during the in camera discussion, the protection offered by the exception is eliminated. The Ombudsman also found that the portion of the closed meeting during which the representative was present could have been parsed from the remainder of the discussion. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss potential performers at an upcoming festival. Although staff had contacted the municipality’s solicitor for legal advice about the festival, that advice was not conveyed to council during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

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 two closed meetings held by council for the City of Timmins discuss the municipality’s Canada Day 150 Celebrations. The Ombudsman noted that the minutes for the closed session did not clearly record the item discussed, the vote that took place, and the outcome of the closed session vote. The Ombudsman recommended the municipality ensure that its in camera votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001, including being properly recorded.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to provide a direction to the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not permissible since the surrounding discussion did not fall within the cited exception.  

The Ombudsman reviewed a subsequent closed meeting held by council to discuss the same matter under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to direct the mayor. The Ombudsman found that this vote was permissible. The Ombudsman recommended that when voting in closed session, council should clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the closed session meeting minutes.

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 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 the closed session minutes did not clearly record the item discussed, the vote that took place, or the outcome of the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that council for the city ensure that its in camera votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001, including being properly recorded.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss the recruitment process for replacing a staff member. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council used a secret ballot process to elect committee members to a hiring committee. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exception. Accordingly, the voting was not permissible. Further, the Municipal Act, 2001 prohibits voting by way of secret ballot.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the upcoming retirement of the chief administrative officer (CAO). Council discussed the CAO’s salary and the recruitment process to hire a new CAO. There were no candidates identified or discussed during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that general consideration of a hiring process is not personal information and does not fit within the personal matters exception unless the discussion is incidental or brief. Therefore, council’s discussion about the recruitment process did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins that relied on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception to discuss the annual wage increase for council and non-union staff. It was the municipality’s long-standing practice to link council salaries to non-union staff salary rates. The discussion did not specifically address council remuneration separate from consideration of the general wage increase to apply to non-union staff. The Ombudsman found that the labour relations or employee negotiations exception applies to relations and conditions of work beyond those of collective bargaining, including remuneration outside of a traditional employment arrangement. The Ombudsman found that council’s consideration of a wage increase for non-unionized staff fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. The Ombudsman found that the exception may only apply to council remuneration where it is linked to non-union staff remuneration and there is no separate consideration of council salaries.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant. Council received an update from staff relating to the upgrade and, based on this information, considered taking legal action against a specific party connected with the project. The Ombudsman found that communications prepared by a prospective litigant, even in the absence of a lawyer, may fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit with in the cited exception because council was not merely speculating about the possibility of future litigation, but contemplated legal action against specific parties.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to consider a complaint against a resident with respect to a zoning by-law infraction. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the closed meeting, council received delegations from the complainant and a resident. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception because information was presented to council that involved an investigation or assessment of the performance or alleged improper conduct of the property owner.