The Ombudsman investigated two 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 the discussion at both meetings was too speculative to fit within the cited open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land because any transaction discussed was hypothetical, and no specific land was identified for sale.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. The Ombudsman concluded that the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply since council’s discussion about potential development was speculative and the Town did not have a bargaining position to protect. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for acquisition or disposition of land when it proceeded in camera on September 6, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion regarding the development of a County hub did not fit within the exception, as the County owned the land in question and was not seeking to sell it. Even if the Committee had discussed this option, the discussion would have been purely speculative and the County did not have a bargaining position to protect. The Executive Committee’s discussion about acquiring land for another project was also speculative and the County did not have a bargaining position to protect at the time. Accordingly, the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply.
The Ombudsman also considered the applicability of the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to the Committee’s in camera discussion at a meeting on January 10, 2019. While the closed meeting minutes identify various possible locations for the Nuclear Innovation Institute, the Ombudsman found that no land transaction was pending or had been proposed, and no practical steps had been taken to acquire a property or begin negotiations. Accordingly, the County did not yet have a bargaining position to protect and the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Norfolk County to discuss raising capital by selling municipal land under the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception. Although there was no pending land transaction, during the discussion disposition of specific lands was proposed and a target price per acre was set. The Ombudsman found that the municipality had a bargaining position to protect and the discussion fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the policy review committee for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to discuss the sale of two municipally owned properties. The properties were located in the municipality’s industrial park. Although the properties had not been listed for sale, the municipality had a long-term strategic project to sell its property within the industrial park. Council’s discussion focused on the impending sale of the properties, including declaring the lands surplus and setting a price per acre. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River relying on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a development proposal that involved disposition of municipal property. During the meeting, council was provided with the developer’s detailed business plan that identified the financial strategy the developer intended to pursue to ensure the project’s success. At the time of council’s discussion, negotiations with the developer were ongoing. The Ombudsman found that council was entitled to discuss this matter in closed session under the acquisition or disposition of land closed meeting exception.
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 council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss obtaining a business valuation of Niagara Power Inc., a municipally controlled corporation. Council also discussed the sensitive nature of obtaining a valuation. Although it did not rely on the acquisition or disposition of land exception, the municipality suggested it might apply to council’s discussion. The Ombudsman found that the acquisition or disposition of land exception would not apply to the discussion since there were no pending or proposed land deals discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss a proposal to develop a university campus in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the discussion, staff provided information on the potential effect of the development on municipally-owned properties, and the possibility of expropriation. The Ombudsman found that at the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress and council was not taking practical steps to dispose of its properties. Rather, council was primarily concerned about the sensitive nature of the business information discussed. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. At the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress nor was either municipality contemplating purchasing or selling any land. Any discussions about land transactions were speculative. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. At the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress nor was either municipality contemplating purchasing or selling any land. Any discussions about land transactions were speculative. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the Wiarton Keppel International Airport. Council discussed in closed session the potential purchase or sale of the airport, the airport management board, and a contract for airport fuel tank removal. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the airport management board and the airport fuel tank removal contract was directly related to the proposed purchase of the airport and the municipality’s negotiating strategy. Therefore, council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich to discuss whether council was willing to sell a particular property to a local school board for a new school. Although the municipality did not rely on the acquisition or disposition of land exception, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about a potential land disposition fits within this exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss development proposals for a decommissioned hospital site owned by the municipality. The committee considered legal advice and heard from staff about expressions of interest from members of the public interested in purchasing the land. The Ombudsman found that, if made public, the committee’s discussion about the expressions of interest might have affected the municipality’s bargaining position in negotiations related to the land sale. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss a request from a property owner to extend the time required to finish the exterior of buildings located in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The property was originally owned by the municipality. If the owner failed to finish the exterior within the allotted time, the municipality could repurchase the property at 80% of the purchase price. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion involved the reacquisition of a property by a municipality. Therefore, council’s 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 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 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 the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the municipality’s land development. The committee received a report from staff that referenced lands the municipality was interested in purchasing or for which it had initiated negotiations to purchase. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Town of Ajax to discuss an encroachment on a municipal road allowance. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The committee discussed the disposition of a road allowance and the potential risks or repercussions of selling or leasing the land. The fact that the committee discussed the same matter in open session at an earlier meeting does not mean that the closed session was prohibited. The purpose of the closed meeting was to establish a position on how to dispose of the property in question. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren to discuss a proposed land acquisition for a new municipal garage. The meeting was closed using the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Council’s discussion focused on identifying an acceptable purchase price. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Tiny that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss an appraisal of property that the township was considering purchasing. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Morris-Turnberry to discuss a confidential report about fire services. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The report included information about a potential land acquisition, including the proposed offer price for the land. The report also included information about an overall cost analysis and comparison of fire service options. The Ombudsman found that normally that type of information would not fit within the exception, however the information was presented as background to inform council’s decision on the land acquisition. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Hamilton that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to hear a presentation by McMaster University about a proposal to acquire lands owned by the local school board for a campus. The Ombudsman found that the presentation and council’s discussion did not fit within the exception because it was not the municipality or a local board that would be acquiring or disposing of the land. A school board is not a local board for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Enniskillen to discuss a proposal from local property owners to subdivide farmland located in the municipality. During the meeting, council considered advice from the municipality’s solicitor regarding the proposal and potential conditions that might be applied to it. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.