Fort Erie, Town of

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Fort Erie contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 26, 2021 when it met in closed session to discuss the disposition of a fire station. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. This exception covers discussions relating to an actual land transaction that is either pending or proposed. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that the municipality’s bargaining position is protected with respect to a specific property. Our review revealed that, had the discussion on July 26, 2021 been made public, it would have adversely affected the municipality’s bargaining position in negotiations related to the land sale.

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss matters under the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. While the resolution identified the exception, it did not provide meaningful information to the public about the matter to be discussed during the meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the Town 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 several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss a potential partnership with a post-secondary institution. The meetings were closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the discussions, staff presented information on the basic concept of the partnership, and council discussed the need for the town to rent, lease, or purchase property to house the project, including properties that may be of interest if the partnership moved forward. The Ombudsman found that at the time of the meetings, council was in the early stages of decision-making, had not turned its mind to protecting its bargaining position in property negotiations, and had not taken any practical steps to acquiring land. Therefore, council’s discussions did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. No minutes were recorded for the meeting until weeks later by a member of the board. The Ombudsman recommended that to ensure an accurate record of proceedings, minutes should be recorded during the closed meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. During the meeting, the board agreed by consensus to take certain steps with respect to the employee. The Ombudsman found that the decision was improper as it was neither procedural nor a direction to staff.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie, which met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The discussion was about an individual employee in the context of their employment relationship to the BIA and included the employee’s job performance. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the labour relations exception, the discussion fit within that exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie. During the investigation, the Ombudsman became aware that the members of the board had never been provided with training on the open meeting rules or the board’s obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality provide all members of its local boards and committees with training on the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area in the Town of Fort Erie. The board met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the board. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the personal matters exception, the discussion fit within that exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie where it was alleged that a locked door prevented the public from accessing the meeting. The Ombudsman found that council thought the meeting was open. However, a locked door effectively prevented the public from accessing the meeting. As a result, the meeting was improperly closed to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to hear a presentation of the Fort Erie Economic Development and Tourism Corporation. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the meeting, council may have briefly discussed a purely speculative disposition of land. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because the discussion was purely speculative and did not involve an imminent purchase or sale of land. Accordingly, there was no bargaining position to protect.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to receive a presentation from the local Economic Development and Tourism Corporation (EDTC). The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the presentation, EDTC staff provided general information to council about the EDTC. This information was intended to inform council decision-making.  In previous open meetings, council had met with the EDTC to discuss aligning councillor priorities with the municipality’s strategic plan. The Ombudsman found that there was no indication that discussions of that nature took place during the closed session. Therefore, the general discussion of the EDTC’s role fit within the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss a proposal for the municipality to purchase vacant industrial land. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Council also discussed a grant for a local racetrack to continue to operate. The grant and the proposed purchase of the vacant industrial land were related as the land deal could not proceed if the racetrack was not operational. Representatives from the racetrack were present during the closed session to address questions from council. The grant is not a matter that would normally fit within the cited exception. However, the Ombudsman found that the discussion about the proposed acquisition of land was directly related to the grant for the racetrack and it would not have been feasible to parse the discussion. Therefore the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss an agreement of purchase and sale for the Crystal Beach Gateway Project. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and responded to questions posed by council on the matter. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss an agreement of purchase and sale for the Crystal Beach Gateway Project. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting. At the time of the meeting, there was a pending appeal before the Land Registry Tribunal with respect to absolute title on the property. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an alleged breach of the municipality’s code of conduct by the mayor. Council’s discussion related to public comments made by the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the mayor’s comments were made in the course of his official duties and in relation to municipal business. Council’s discussions did not pertain to the mayor in his personal capacity, but rather involved the mayor’s professional capacity. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception. 

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie at an off-site location to participate in a program aimed at improving communication and team-building skills. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. Any council business was only discussed in a minor way to illustrate points being discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the education or training exception.