Oshawa, City of

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the public notice for a meeting of the Corporate and Finance Services Committee of the City of Oshawa was temporarily unavailable on the City’s website. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that the City remain vigilant to promptly identify any technological issue affecting the posting of its public notices.

The Ombudsman found that the Corporate and Finance Services Committee of the City of Oshawa did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during its meeting on March 4, 2024 when audio issues impeded the public’s ability to observe the webcast.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa to discuss a proposed merger between a municipally controlled corporation and another corporation. The council did not report back in open session following the closed meeting. The Ombudsman found that by not reporting back after the closed session, the municipality failed to provide members of the public who may have been present with a general idea of the closed session discussion. The Ombudsman recommended that council adopt the best practice of reporting back in open session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa with representatives from the Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation (OPUC) to receive information related to a potential merger of OPUC with Veridian Corporation, a shared services provider. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The majority of the presentation was intended to inform council about a particular course of action that would likely come before council for a future vote. The municipality believed that the non-disclosure agreement between OPUC and Veridian meant the discussion should be held in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the purpose of the education or training exception is not to protect disclosure of sensitive business information. The Ombudsman found that the information presented and the questions asked materially advanced council’s business and decision-making. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to discuss the acquisition of property for a consolidated operations centre. Council received information from the president of a local union about the conditions in the existing public works building. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The Ombudsman noted that the delegation about the condition of the public works building would not on its own fit within the exception, however, the purpose of the delegation was directly related to the potential acquisition of the property and if the delegation was made in open session the municipality’s bargaining position could have been affected.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa to discuss a matter involving the disposition of municipally owned lands. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Council discussed a staff report that provided information on the property and correspondence from the lawyer of an interested buyer. Council also discussed how to proceed with respect to the disposition of the lands. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Development Services Committee for the City of Oshawa to receive information from a local composting operation related to odour complaints. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the meeting, representatives from the composting operation discussed the rezoning of lands in the vicinity of the facility and the repercussions for the facility’s future plans. The Ombudsman found that while the committee did not deal with council business, the discussion went beyond the scope of education and into the realm of lobbying. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.