The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss the sale of municipal land located in a local business park. The complaint alleged that the sale was already complete by the time the meeting took place. Generally, discussions involving completed land transactions would not fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land, as a municipality would no longer have a bargaining position to protect. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the land transaction discussed by council was ongoing and the closed meeting discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
Section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows a municipality or local board to discuss “the security of property of the municipality or local board” in closed session. The Act does not define “security” for the purposes of this exception. The Ombudsman has found that in order for the exception to apply, the property must be owned by the municipality and council must discuss measures to prevent loss or damage to that property.
This interpretation is consistent with the findings of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC has found that “security of the property of the municipality” should be given its plain meaning, in that it applies to protecting property from physical loss or damage (like vandalism or theft), and the protection of public safety in relation to that property. Property includes both “corporeal” (physical) and “incorporeal” (non-physical) property, as long as it is owned by the municipality and the discussion is about preventing its loss or damage.
The Ombudsman has found that the exception does not apply to discussions regarding the financial interests of the municipality.
The Ombudsman found that at its special meeting on January 9, 2024, council for Norfolk County did not provide sufficient detail about the general nature of the matter to be discussed in its resolution to proceed in camera, as it only cited the open meeting exception from the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that in camera sessions held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on February 14, 2023 and November 15, 2023 to discuss cyber security insurance fit within the open meeting exception for security of the property.
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’s investigation did not identify any instances where the Committee discussed protecting the municipality’s property from physical loss or damage. As such, the discussion did not fit within the exception for the security of the property of the municipality.
The Ombudsman found that a discussion with an auditor relating to a management letter regarding draft financial statements 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.
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Lanark Highlands did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 when it passed a resolution to move in camera to discuss “Draft Financial Statement Management Letter.” The Ombudsman explained that the sufficiency of the subject matter disclosed to the public in the resolution to move in camera is a balancing act. Given the sensitive nature of the subject matter discussed, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the information included in the resolution was sufficient.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands’ resolutions to proceed into closed session to discuss the Glenayr Kitten Mill provided general information about the matters to be discussed and cited the exceptions from the Municipal Act, 2001 being relied upon.
The Ombudsman found that a committee’s in camera discussion on July 21, 2022 was not permissible under the exception for security of the property of the municipality, as there was no indication that any threat to municipal property was discussed.
The Bruce County Executive Committee cited the exception for security of the property when it proceeded into closed session during a meeting on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that there was no indication that the Committee discussed any potential threats, loss, or damage to municipal property during this meeting. Accordingly, the Committee’s discussion did not fit this exception to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Saugeen Shores contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 22, November 11 and November 25, 2019. He also received a complaint that council held an informal private gathering that amounted to an illegal closed meeting on February 24, 2020. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no contraventions of the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The Ombudsman found the exception does not apply to discussions of the finances of the municipality, therefore, the discussions at this meeting did not fit within the exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the security of the property exception to discuss policing levels in the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include potential threats, or loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the Joint Police Advisory Committee for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the security of the property exception to discuss draft request for proposals for police services and the viability of a proposal. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include potential threats, or loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The municipality believed that the discussion about police services implicated safety and security throughout the town. The Ombudsman found that the security of the property exception applies to protecting municipal property from physical loss or damage, and the protection of public safety in relation to that property. In this case, the in camera discussion did not deal with potential threats, loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss a municipally controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc. The meeting was closed under the exception for security of the property. Council discussed whether to obtain a valuation of a municipally owned corporation. The Ombudsman found that the exception applies to discussions about protecting municipally owned corporeal and incorporeal property from loss or damage. The discussion about valuation did not fit within the exception for the security of the property of the municipality since there was no apparent threat to the municipally controlled corporation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss a draft financial report from its auditors. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The auditors gave a presentation to council about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman found that there may be circumstances when a discussion about a municipality’s finances fits within the security of the property exception. For example, cases of fraud or theft of municipal property, or threats. However, the auditor’s presentation contained information about the municipality’s finances, but did not include a discussion of any potential loss or damage to that property. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exceptions relied upon to close the meeting to the public but did not provide further information about the subject of the discussions. The Ombudsman also found that there was an opportunity to add more information about the in camera discussion to the resolution based on a resolution passed in open session that was related to the in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne to discuss disposing of its shares in a shared services provider. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because the municipality’s bargaining position might have been affected if details of the discussion were made public. The security of the property exception is narrowly construed. The Ombudsman found that the fact that any discussion in open session may have decreased the value of the shares was insufficient to bring the matter within the security of the property exception.
239(2)(a) Security of the property|239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(c) Acquisition or disposition of land|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(3.1) Education or training|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the City of Port Colborne. The Ombudsman found that one resolution to proceed in camera failed to state the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session. The Ombudsman found that council provided incomplete information regarding the subjects to be discussed in closed session. It failed to describe the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed in a way that maximized the information available to the public.
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. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss whether the municipality should support a bid by a local corporation to host the 2016 Pan American canoe sprint championships. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because it believed the chance of a successful bid would be diminished if detailed information about the bid was made public. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because council did not discuss preventing loss or damage to the bid. Although council had a desire to maintain confidentiality to protect the interests of the city, section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to a matter that is only considered sensitive or confidential, or against the municipality’s interests to discuss publicly.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss a marketing plan prepared by an economic development consultant. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because it wanted to protect its competitive advantage over neighbouring municipalities in attracting new business. The Ombudsman found that while the municipality has a property interest in its marketing plan, the subject matter of the closed session discussion was not protecting the marketing plan from loss or damage. Rather, the discussion involved sharing the marketing plan itself with council. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss financial interests, municipal growth, future planning, and negotiation strategy. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions did not come within section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as the discussion did not relate to preventing the loss or damage of municipal property or to the protection of public safety relating to municipal property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Morris-Turnberry. Council for the township met in closed session to discuss firefighting options for the municipality. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman noted that the security of the property exception is narrowly construed. Council’s discussion did not relate to any specific concerns about the security of municipal property. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. Council met in closed session to discuss security concerns related to a member of the public. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The municipality’s solicitor was also present during the discussion. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception since council’s discussion did not involve security of the municipality’s property. The Ombudsman noted that a more appropriate exception would have been “personal matters about an identifiable individual” or “advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.”