West Nipissing, Municipality of

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing to discuss the payment of legal fees. Council cited the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman’s review found that council’s discussion about payment of legal fees, which identified why legal advice had been sought and previous instances in which the municipality had incurred legal fees, revealed personal information about identifiable individuals as a matter of necessity. Although all exceptions to the open meeting requirements should be interpreted narrowly and applied prudently, in this case the closed session discussion fit within the parameters of the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two closed meetings of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing. The complaint alleged that the April 20, 2019 special meeting held by teleconference, and the May 26, 2019 in camera council meetings were not audio or video recorded, contrary to requirements in the municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman’s review found that the April 20, 2019 meeting was the first closed council meeting held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that due to inadvertence, no audio or video recording was taken of these meetings as no one participated from council chambers where the recording equipment was located. The Ombudsman also found that all closed meetings after May 26, 2019 have been recorded in accordance with the procedure by-law, and that the municipality has apologized for the recording oversight at a recent council meeting.

The Ombudsman determined the Municipality of West Nipissing contravened the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera within their resolutions to go into closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing, in which council intended to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. Prior to the Ombudsman releasing his report, the municipality implemented a process to start video recording council’s closed meetings. The Ombudsman commended the municipality for adopting the practice of video recording its council meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing, in which council intended to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion, although intended to educate and train council members on their roles and responsibilities, did not actually involve any education or training. The discussion instead involved opinions regarding council’s divisions, members’ behaviour and interpersonal disputes. This discussion did not fit within the narrowly construed exception for education and training.

The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found an overall “clearing the air” tone of a meeting, the involvement of shouting, pointing and accusations, and the fact that council did not want to discuss the information publicly, was not sufficient to close the discussion under the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found discussions about relationships between staff and council, even if they had taken place, would not have fit within the personal matters exception. Information pertaining to the professional capacity of an individual is not personal in nature even if discussions of relationships involve sensitive information the municipality would prefer to not discuss publicly.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing. Notice of the meeting was provided on the same day of the meeting. The procedure by-law did not address notice of special meetings. The general practice of the municipality was to post notice of a special meeting on a bulletin board and on the municipal website. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality include provisions for providing public notice of special meetings in its procedure by-law.