2024

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a strategic planning session that was held as a closed special meeting by council for the City of Cornwall on November 4, 2023. The complaint raised concerns that some discussions during this meeting did not fit into any of the open meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because the discussions did not come within any of the open meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of West Elgin held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to livestream to the public all or part of its council meetings on September 14, September 22, September 28, October 12, and October 16, 2023. The Ombudsman found no evidence to substantiate the allegation that part of the council meeting on September 14, 2023 was not livestreamed to the public. In addition, the Ombudsman found the notice for the meeting on October 12, 2023 provided accurate information regarding public access. However, the Municipality of West Elgin did not provide meaningful notice of its council meeting on September 22, September 28, and October 16, 2023, resulting in the meetings being effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023. At its meeting on November 20, 2023, council discussed a recent banquet for volunteer firefighters. At its meeting on December 11, 2023, council discussed a proposal to sell two fire trucks, a proposal to consolidate the Municipality’s fire and public works departments, and a recently completed integrity commissioner report. The Ombudsman determined that the discussions fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman also determined that council failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session at both meetings, contrary to section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Town of Cochrane on October 10 and October 16, 2023, where council discussed a proposed plan to encourage local development and growth by selling municipally owned land lots at a nominal fee and with a property tax rebate. The Ombudsman determined that the discussion at both meetings did not fit within the cited open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land because the transactions were too speculative, but that they did fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024 about the resignation of its integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the integrity commissioner’s role with the municipality fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the process it would follow to replace the integrity commissioner did not fit within any open meeting exceptions in the Act, could have been parsed from the first part of the discussion, and should have been discussed in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville on July 5, 2023, to discuss an update on the Counties’ fundraising campaign for a municipally owned long-term care facility under the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman determined that the procedural discussion to determine whether or not to consider the update in closed session, and the closed session discussion about changes to the public fundraising policy, contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because both discussions did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. However, a portion of the Committee’s discussion regarding internal communications processes related to donations and naming rights, including mention of particular donors and their wishes, fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. Because this portion of the closed session discussion could not have been further parsed, this portion of the Committee of the Whole’s closed session discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a closed special meeting of council for Norfolk County on January 9, 2024, as well as closed meetings held by council-in-committee on February 14, 2023, November 15, 2023, and January 16, 2024. The Ombudsman found that at its January 9, 2024 meeting, council did not provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera and discussed a matter in camera that did not fit within the open meeting exception cited in its resolution. The Ombudsman also found that council-in-committee did not contravene the Act during its February 14, 2023 closed meeting, but did contravene the Act during its meetings on November 15, 2023 and January 16, 2024 by discussing some issues in camera that did not come within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on the selection of a new City Manager.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that alleged council for the Township of McGarry contravened the open meeting rules during an emergency meeting of council on September 1, 2023. The Ombudsman found that portions of council’s closed session discussion concerning the former Mayor’s resignation and potential appointees to fill the resulting vacancies fit within the open meeting exceptions. Although the remaining portions of the discussion about what method council would use to fill the vacancies did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, requiring council to have parsed those parts of the discussion would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion. The Ombudsman further determined that the Township provided notice for the emergency meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law and did not hold votes contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a special meeting held by council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024 and about alleged gatherings of a quorum of councillors held prior to that meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by council for the City of London on April 2, 2024.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Board of Directors for Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) does not hold meetings that are open to the public. The Ombudsman found that SMART is a shared local board of 10 member municipalities that is subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.
 

The Ombudsman received complaints that a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln did not adhere to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for education or training. However, small-group discussions that occurred during the second part of the closed session did not fit within any of the exceptions.

 

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake on December 18, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion about procurement practices did not fall within any of the prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion did not fit within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting of the City of Oshawa’s Corporate and Finance Services Committee which raised concerns about the public notice – which was temporarily unavailable on the City’s website due to a technical issue – and about the failure of the audio during the meeting webcast.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the Town of Iroquois Falls on November 28, 2022.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of Jocelyn on January 10 and 13, February 7, April 4, and October 10, 2023 and found that the discussions at each of these meetings fit within various closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that the Township contravened the Act at its October 10 meeting by failing to pass a resolution to enter into closed session, failing to take closed meeting minutes, and by improperly closing the beginning of the meeting to the public. Although no illegal votes occurred at the meetings, the Ombudsman nevertheless recommended as a best practice that council clearly identify any specific directions given in closed session, formally vote on them, and record that vote in the closed meeting minutes.
 

The Ombudsman received complaints that meetings held by council for the Municipality of Whitestone did not adhere to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman also received a complaint about a meeting held by the Municipality’s Wah Wash Kesh Landings Task Force and its open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a meeting of council for the Town of Halton Hills held on August 28, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion of recent provincial policy announcements about municipalities did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complaint also alleged that council did not pass a resolution stating that this matter would be discussed in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, and that council failed to include a general description of this topic in its resolution to proceed into closed session. Council accordingly contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 28, 2023. The Ombudsman also noted that council’s minutes incorrectly suggested that council had included this topic of discussion in its resolution when it had not.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Callander on December 12, 2023 and January 9, 2024.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Lanark Highlands contravened the open meeting rules on June 27, 2023 when it discussed a management letter regarding draft financial statements with an auditor during a closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the management letter fit within the exception for security of the property of the municipality because the information discussed related to an ongoing threat to the security of the municipality’s property. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 239(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 by failing to keep an adequate record of what was discussed in camera. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Township make audio or video recordings of its closed sessions.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the meeting practices of the Township of Tiny Administrative Centre Committee.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding a special meeting held by council for the Township of Springwater on May 3, 2023. The complaints collectively alleged that council’s discussions in closed session did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that that discussions regarding a rainbow crosswalk project and an employment matter related to the local public library fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. While a discussion about the completed hiring process for a specific position did not fit within the cited exception for labour relations and employee negotiations, a portion of that discussion came within the personal matters exception, and the remainder of that discussion could not be parsed. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 at its special meeting on May 3, 2023.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023, during which Council discussed a potential disposal of municipally owned property. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The first portion of the closed meeting discussion on September 5 discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and the second portion fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land. The closed meeting discussion on September 14 fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about meetings held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami on June 20, 2023, during which council discussed previously owned property, a request to sell property, and issues related to a local long-term care home.

The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 as these discussions fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, acquisition or disposition of land, and litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman also reviewed whether public notice was provided for the June 20, 2023 meeting, and found that the municipality had provided notice several days prior. The Ombudsman noted as a best practice that meeting minutes should be made available publicly available to improve accountability and transparency.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding several meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg in 2022 and 2023. The complaint alleged that council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide sufficient information about the topics of discussion in resolutions to proceed into closed session on August 8, 2022, February 13, 2023, and March 27, 2023. The complaint also alleged that council held meetings on November 29 and 30, 2022, which were not livestreamed and were not open to the public, and that council failed to provide public notice of its February 14, 2023 training session.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide sufficient information about some of the topics of discussion in its resolutions to proceed into closed session. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 29 and 30, 2022, as he determined that the public could have attended the meetings in person, although he was unable to determine whether they were livestreamed. Likewise, council did not contravene the open meeting rules regarding notice of the February 14, 2023 meeting, as its training session did not come within the definition of meeting, and was therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.

The complaint also alleged that a gathering of members of the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee at a transit facility, where committee members were shown a demonstration of an accessible bus, in September 2022 was a meeting that was subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the Town did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 8, 2022, as the gathering at the transit facility did not materially advance the committee’s business or decision-making, and was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about meetings held by the Municipality of Calvin’s Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group. The complaint alleged that these two bodies were committees of council, and that they did not provide the public with notice of their meetings, publish meeting agendas, or have someone clerk or record minutes of their meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipality’s procedural by-law. The complaint also raised procedural concerns that these bodies were not properly established by resolution or by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group were established through council resolution and were committees of council. The Municipality contravened both the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law in not providing notice of these groups’ meetings and in not having someone clerk or record minutes of their meetings. However, the Municipality did not violate either the Act or the Municipality’s procedural by-law by not providing members of the public with these groups’ meeting agendas.

The Ombudsman received complaints that two closed meetings of council for the City of Elliot Lake did not fit into the closed meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the meetings fit within the closed meeting exceptions except for a portion of one of the closed session discussions, which did not fit within the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the City of Kawartha Lakes’ Short Term Rental Licensing Program Task Force may have held illegal meetings between April and June 2023, during the development of a by-law to licence, regulate, and govern short-term rental accommodation.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a gathering held by members of the Community and Protective Services Committee of the City of London on March 21, 2023. The complaint alleged that a quorum of the committee held a tour with the Executive Director of a local non-profit organization and expressed concern that, a few hours later, the committee held a formal meeting, during which it voted to recommend approving conditional funding for the non-profit.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by committee members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.

The Ombudsman received complaints about a secret call held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman on January 26, 2021. An audio recording of the call 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, that it constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001, and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.