Generally, voting in a closed meeting is not permitted by subsection 239(5) of the Municipal Act, 2001. However, subsection 239(6) provides two exceptions to the general rule: a vote is permitted in a closed meeting if the following two conditions are met:
-
The meeting is allowed to be closed based on one of the exceptions in the Act and
-
The vote is for a procedural matter or for giving direction or instructions to officers, employees or agents of the municipality, local board or committee of either of them or persons retained by or under a contract with the municipality or local board.
Therefore, voting in a closed meeting is permitted if the closed meeting is otherwise authorized and the vote is for a procedural matter or for giving direction or instructions to officers, employees, agents of the municipality or persons under contract.
The Ombudsman has found that informal voting through a straw poll or show of hands is not permissible.[1] A poll of council for their preferences on a matter via a series of emails or phone calls can constitute an illegal closed meeting vote if quorum is reached and the subject matter is council business.[2]
When voting in closed session, council should clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the closed session meeting minutes.
[1] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into the Municipality of Brighton's alleged violation of the
Municipal Act, 2001 on May 28, 2015 (October 2015), online
[2] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a complaint about closed meetings held in 2016 by Council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet (May 2017), online
July 07, 202307 July 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, failed to formally vote on a resolution to move
in camera.
May 15, 202315 May 2023
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee did not contravene the
Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it voted to direct staff in closed session.
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.
September 13, 202213 September 2022
The Ombudsman received two complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted in closed session on April 28, 2022, contrary to the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. Specifically, the complainants alleged that council voted in closed session not to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ombudsman’s review determined that while in closed session, council voted to direct staff not to proceed with any further appeal of the court decision. The Ombudsman found that this vote did not contravene the Act, as the vote occurred during a properly closed session and was a direction to staff.
May 24, 202224 May 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Owen Sound violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on March 14, 2022. At the time, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, council chambers – where council and committee meetings are held by the City – were closed to members of the public; the public was, instead, given the option to watch the proceedings via livestream. The complaint alleged that the council meeting held on this date was improperly closed to the public because the public could not see who was present or how each council member voted, as that information was not displayed on the screen. The Ombudsman found that there was no contravention of the Act or the City’s procedural by-law; there is no requirement that the public be able to see who is present in council chambers, and the public was able to see the results of each vote during the meeting.
May 20, 202220 May 2022
The Ombudsman found that Bruce County’s Executive Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 21, 2017, when it voted to approve the County’s 2018 business plan in closed session, as the matter did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.
April 05, 202205 April 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on August 11, 2020. Council’s in camera discussion pertained to a study report and a funding application, both related to an internet broadband project. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the study report was permissible under the exception at s. 239(2)(j), information belonging to the municipality. However, council contravened the Act by discussing the funding application in camera and by holding a vote by consensus on this matter. Furthermore, prior to moving in camera, council failed to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered as required by s. 239(4).
August 04, 202104 August 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of McKellar improperly voted on a pool and wellness centre, and whether to enter into a related joint local services board, during its June 24, 2021 closed session. The Ombudsman found that the only vote taken in camera related to the pool and wellness centre was for giving direction to staff. The Ombudsman found no evidence that council voted on whether to enter into a joint local services board. Accordingly, there was no improper vote.
March 02, 202102 March 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Sault Ste. Marie. The complainant alleged that council decided to purchase land while in closed session contrary to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review found that council’s discussion related to the purchase of land. Accordingly, council’s discussion was permissible under the open meeting exception for the acquisition or disposition of land (s.239(2)(c)).
March 02, 202102 March 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Sault Ste. Marie. During the meeting, council voted to direct the Mayor to continue negotiations related to the acquisition of land. The Ombudsman found that the vote was permissible as it was a direction to an officer of the municipality related to council’s in camera discussion.
February 10, 202110 February 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council made the decision that a motion should be brought in open session to appoint an individual to a council vacancy. The minutes did not record the vote as a direction, however, the Ombudsman found that the decision was intended to be a direction to staff. Accordingly, this vote of council was permitted in camera.
February 10, 202110 February 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council made the decision to fill a council vacancy by appointment rather than by holding a by-election. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about whether to call a by-election or proceed by appointment did not fit within the “personal matters” exception. Accordingly, this vote of council was contrary to the open meeting rules.
January 13, 202113 January 2021
The Ombudsman investigated a special council meeting wherein the committee of the whole for the Township of Johnson met in closed session to discuss appointing an individual to a vacant council position. The Ombudsman found that the committee came to a consensus by show of hands to recommend a candidate for the council vacancy. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the committee voted in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the vote did not concern a procedural matter or direction to staff and was therefore contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.
September 25, 202025 September 2020
The Ombudsman recommended that the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers ensure that votes in camera are restricted to directions to staff or procedural matters.
September 09, 202009 September 2020
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s closed meeting voting rules on July 8, 2019. The Ombudsman found that due to confusion and inadvertence, council’s in camera vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff contrary to the Act’s voting requirements.
April 14, 202014 April 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. During the meeting, council voted to direct staff and officers of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the vote was permissible as it was a direction to staff and officers related to council’s in camera discussion.
July 04, 201904 July 2019
A vote by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee with regard to an appointment to its police service board was permitted in camera because it was a direction to staff to bring the recommendation forward at a future council meeting.
February 22, 201922 February 2019
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee received legal advice regarding a council vacancy during the closed meeting. The city did not contravene the open meeting rules when it discussed advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in camera as the discussion fit within the exception. The committee did not vote regarding the vacancy while in camera. As there was no vote or informal consensus reached, the city did not contravene the voting provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001.
August 15, 201815 August 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River. During the meeting, council voted to direct staff. The Ombudsman found that the vote was permissible as it was a direction to staff related to council’s in camera discussion.
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.
June 29, 201829 June 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss a vacant council seat. During the closed session, council decided by consensus to fill the vacancy by way of appointment and to direct the mayor to approach a specific individual to determine their interest in the position. Council did not formally vote on these matters. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about whether to proceed by way of appointment should not have been held in closed session, and consequently, this vote should have been in open session. The Ombudsman found that council’s decision to direct the mayor to approach a specific individual, was permissible under s.239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
November 24, 201724 November 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to appoint a new member of council. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council voted by way of secret ballot to select a candidate to fill the council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the vote was improper as it was not taken during a properly closed meeting and was not for a procedural matter or to provide direction to staff. The Ombudsman also found that ballot voting is prohibited by the Municipal Act, 2001, with limited exceptions, and such votes are of no effect.
October 03, 201703 October 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police service consultation plan. During the closed session, council voted to pass five resolutions. The Ombudsman found that three resolutions involved substantive decisions being taken by council. While some of the resolutions could perhaps have been worded as a direction to the staff, they were not phrased as such. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the votes were impermissible.
May 12, 201712 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss in camera the sale of property. During the meeting, council did not vote on whether to sell the land under consideration, but rather voted to have the matter put to council for consideration in open session, which is a procedural matter. The Ombudsman noted that council should take care to avoid language that suggests council in open session is ratifying or confirming decisions already made in camera, when instead council is making a decision in open session related to a matter discussed in camera.
May 12, 201712 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land and the solicitor-client privilege exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exceptions. During the closed session, council voted to direct staff to consider the matter further when council returned to open session. The Ombudsman found that the vote was procedural in nature and was permissible.
May 10, 201710 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under two exceptions: acquisition or disposition of land, and personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the meeting, a vote was taken that was neither procedural nor a direction to staff. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exceptions. Therefore, the vote was not permissible.
May 10, 201710 May 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a series of emails sent by council members for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to each other. Individual members of council provided their approval over email to proceed with a contribution in support of a grant application. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted a meeting of council and the indications of support from council constituted a vote. Since this email chain constituted an illegal closed meeting of council, and the vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff, the vote was improper.
April 03, 201703 April 2017
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.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to provide a direction to the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not permissible since the surrounding discussion did not fall within the cited exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a subsequent closed meeting held by council to discuss the same matter under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to direct the mayor. The Ombudsman found that this vote was permissible. The Ombudsman recommended that when voting in closed session, council should clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the closed session meeting minutes.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss the recruitment process for replacing a staff member. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council used a secret ballot process to elect committee members to a hiring committee. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exception. Accordingly, the voting was not permissible. Further, the Municipal Act, 2001 prohibits voting by way of secret ballot.
January 23, 201723 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss the recruitment process to replace the retiring Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The Ombudsman found that the closed session minutes did not clearly record the item discussed, the vote that took place, or the outcome of the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that council for the city ensure that its in camera votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001, including being properly recorded.
January 19, 201719 January 2017
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Georgian Bay to discuss a shoreline structure that did not meet the requirements of the township’s zoning by-law. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the meeting, council voted to pass a resolution regarding the shoreline structure. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff, and was therefore improper.
November 07, 201607 November 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation and solicitor-client privilege exceptions. During the closed meeting, council voted to provide direction to staff regarding the preparation of a draft by-law. The Ombudsman found that since the closed meeting fit within the cited exception and the vote was for a direction to staff, the vote was therefore permissible.
November 03, 201603 November 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land and solicitor-client privilege exceptions. During the meeting a vote took place directing staff to take action regarding a funding application. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting did not fall under the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the vote, although it was a direction to staff, was improper because the closed meeting was not authorized.
July 19, 201619 July 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville with representatives from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to receive information about the OPP’s costing process to provide municipal policing services. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The information received by the committee was general in nature. The committee did not receive specific information about the OPP’s forthcoming costing proposal or discuss if the municipality should contract with the OPP for municipal policing services. The Ombudsman found that this portion of council’s discussion fit within the education or training exception. However, in addition to receiving general education during the closed session, the committee discussed engaging a local audit firm and directed staff to determine if the firm could assess the OPP costing proposal. The Ombudsman found that when a meeting is closed under the education or training exception, no votes can be taken that advance business or decision-making.
July 19, 201619 July 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the meeting, the committee voted to direct staff to contact an audit firm. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. Therefore, the vote was improper.
June 03, 201603 June 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the meeting, council voted to provide direction to staff to bring a resolution into the open session. The Ombudsman found that the subject matter did not fit within the cited exception. Accordingly, the vote was improper.
December 04, 201504 December 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed emails sent by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar about a matter that needed to be determined before the committee’s next meeting. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted an illegal closed meeting and the vote that took place over email was improper.
November 23, 201523 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield. The meeting was closed under the personal matters and labour relations exceptions. During the meeting, the committee provided directions to staff. The committee did not hold a formal vote but rather came to an agreement by verbal consensus. The Ombudsman recommended that directions to staff be made using formal resolutions passed by a vote of the committee.
November 02, 201502 November 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brighton. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council voted by a show of hands to terminate an employee and alter the compensation of several other employees. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions were intended to provide direction to staff but were not properly worded to reflect that intention. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the votes were improper.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township together to discuss amalgamation. During the closed meeting, both councils made several decisions through consensus and provided direction to staff. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions. Therefore, the voting that took place during the closed meeting was not permissible. The Ombudsman further found that some of the votes were not for procedural matters or directions to staff.
October 28, 201528 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township together to discuss amalgamation. During the closed meeting, both councils made several decisions through consensus and provided direction to staff. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions. Therefore, the voting that took place during the closed meeting was not permissible. The Ombudsman further found that some of the votes were not for procedural matters or directions to staff.
October 06, 201506 October 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The meetings were closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Voting took place at these meetings. The Ombudsman found that the meetings fit within the cited exceptions and the votes that took place were directions to staff. Therefore, the votes were permissible.
March 02, 201502 March 2015
The Ombudsman reviewed seven closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of South Huron to discuss staffing issues. In some of these meetings, council voted to provide directions to staff. The Ombudsman found that all of the meetings which were closed for discussions fell within the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the voting that took place during these meetings was permissible.
December 09, 201409 December 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. During the meeting, council voted to select a candidate for the position of municipal works foreman using a secret ballot. Council then directed staff to offer the position to the candidate who received the most votes through the secret ballot process. The Ombudsman found that while voting on a direction to staff is permitted in a closed meeting, this direction came from a secret ballot vote which is a violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.
June 05, 201405 June 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound. The meeting was closed under the personal matters and litigation or potential litigation exceptions. During the meeting, council voted on funding for an MRI machine. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not for a procedural matter or to provide direction to staff. Therefore, the vote was not permissible.
September 12, 201312 September 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg. During these meetings, a number of votes took place. The Ombudsman found that on one occasion council voted to hire a consultant to carry out work for the municipality. The Ombudsman found that this vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff and was therefore improper.
February 22, 201322 February 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Niagara District Airport Commission. The commission conducted informal voting during both meetings. The Ombudsman found that even straw polls, or “shows of hands” constitute voting and must comply with the procedural requirements.
January 28, 201328 January 2013
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. While in camera, council conducted six votes. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exception. However, the Ombudsman also found that the votes were not for procedural matters or for directions to staff and were therefore improper.
April 18, 201218 April 2012
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands to discuss council member remuneration. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council members voted on their own remuneration. The Ombudsman found that this vote was neither procedural in nature nor a direction to staff and was therefore improper. The Ombudsman also found that the meeting itself was improperly closed.
March 17, 201117 March 2011
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that a vote taken during the closed session was neither procedural in nature nor a direction staff. Therefore, the vote was improper.
May 23, 200923 May 2009
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. During the meeting, council voted on an open tender using a show of hands. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting did not fit within any of the open meeting exceptions. Further, the vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff. Therefore, the vote was improper.