Casselman, Municipality of

January 03, 202403 January 2024

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret call on January 26, 2021. During the call, straw votes were taken to approve specific courses of action. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

January 03, 202403 January 2024

An audio recording of a secret call held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman on January 26, 2021 was inadvertently published on the Municipality’s website and the complainants were concerned that the discussion during the call advanced council business and constituted an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during the call. The call on January 26, 2021 constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

January 03, 202403 January 2024

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced six distinct matters that constituted council business during a secret call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

January 03, 202403 January 2024

Given the legislative amendments made to the open meeting rules as a result of the pandemic, members may be “present” when they come together electronically to discuss and advance business. Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret audio-visual call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

January 03, 202403 January 2024
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman indicated that the decision of members of council to participate in this secret call reflects extremely poorly on their respect for the principles of openness, accountability, and transparency underlying the open meeting provisions.

January 03, 202403 January 2024
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret call following an official virtual council meeting on January 26, 2021. During the call, members of council took steps to ensure that no member of the public would be present to observe the decision-making process for important local matters. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

January 23, 202323 January 2023

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Casselman was not authorized to vote to approve an offer to purchase a property in closed session because the resolution’s wording did not reflect a direction to staff.

January 23, 202323 January 2023

The Ombudsman found that resolutions passed by council for the Municipality of Casselman to move in camera complied with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

January 23, 202323 January 2023

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Casselman’s discussions were permitted to be closed to the public under the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.

August 19, 202219 August 2022

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera. The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting.

August 19, 202219 August 2022

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.

August 21, 201821 August 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed two information sessions relating to the business of the municipality attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that the council members did not materially advance the business of the municipality during these information sessions. The council members only received information about ongoing projects in the municipality. There was no discussion among the council members present and no decisions were made. Even though the Ombudsman found that these information sessions did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001, in the interests of openness and transparency he encouraged council to receive information and updates of this nature during public meetings.

July 03, 201803 July 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. During the closed session, council agreed to proceed with an offer of a contract of employment. The minutes did not record this as an in camera direction to staff or as an open session resolution. The Ombudsman recommended that closed session votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001 and that council clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the meeting minutes.

July 03, 201803 July 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman noted that council failed to report back after the closed session, as required by the municipality’s procedure by-law. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found the municipality to be in violation of its own procedure by-law and recommended that council report back in open session following its in camera meetings.

July 03, 201803 July 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality’s procedure by-law did not reflect the mandatory closed meeting provisions in sections 239(3)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001. Moreover, the procedure by-law did not reflect the Village’s current meeting practices. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law accordingly.

January 29, 201629 January 2016

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that in one instance council did not report back on a closed session until the next council meeting. However, for the majority of the meetings investigated, the Ombudsman found that council passed a resolution in open session following each closed session that reflected its in camera discussions and functioned as a report back.

January 29, 201629 January 2016

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. After completing an investigation, the Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for a number of closed session meetings did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the resolutions failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed during the meetings. During the course of the Ombudsman review, council for the Village of Casselman changed its practice for passing resolutions to go into closed session.

January 29, 201629 January 2016

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman to discuss a municipal organizational chart, individual staff positions, and staff restructuring. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about salary ranges for management positions on its own did not fit within the exception; however, in this case the discussion of salary ranges was related to the broader discussion of individual staff positions. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.

January 29, 201629 January 2016

The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman recommended that the Village of Casselman include provisions for providing public notice of special meetings in its procedure by-law.

April 16, 201516 April 2015

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman with local developers at a roundtable to discuss development within the municipality. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The discussion was not general in nature and related to council business. The scope of the education or training exception extends to meetings that are closed to allow council members to receive information that may assist them in better understanding the business of the municipality and/or to acquire skills, rather than exchange information on an issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.