The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of Essex on February 20 and April 29, 2024. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on February 20, 2024 about a plan to purchase a property and lease it to a third party fit within the open meeting exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land, and plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman also found that council’s closed meeting on April 29, 2024 fit within the open meeting exceptions for the acquisition or disposition of land, and information supplied in confidence by a third party, as council discussed details of a potential land transaction including confidential technical and commercial information. Lastly, the Ombudsman determined that the Town contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 in failing to state by resolution the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed in its closed sessions.
This includes discussions:
- About a position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction;
- Where the information is intended to be applied to negotiations carried on by the municipality or local board; and
- The negotiations are ongoing or will be carried out in the future.
This does not include discussions:
- In the absence of related negotiations; or
- Where negotiations are concluded.
This exception was introduced on January 1, 2018, through changes to the Municipal Act, 2001.
239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|background information|bargaining position|commercial information|financial information|harm (established)|labour relations information|negotiation|negotiation (significant interference with)|negotiation (to be carried on)|Parse discussion|third-party information
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the City of Kitchener to discuss the implementation of a centralized model for operations related to certain arts and entertainment facilities. The Ombudsman found that parts of the closed session discussion fit within the exceptions for:
- Information supplied in confidence by a third party at section 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act, 2001;
- Labour relations and employee negotiations at section 239(2)(d) of the Act; and
- Plans and instructions for negotiations at section 239(2)(k) of the Act.
As the discussion could not have realistically been parsed, the entire discussion fit within those exceptions.
The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion held by council for the Township of Russell on November 2, 2023 about a costing update for a new recreation complex fit the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations, since the discussions revealed how much the Township was willing to spend on the project. The Ombudsman further found that a separate closed session discussion held by council on December 11, 2023 about a verbal update relating to an existing multisport centre also fit the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
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 that the discussion at both meetings did not fit within the cited open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land, but did fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations, as the Town was debating possible courses of action in ongoing negotiations with a third party relevant to the proposed plan.
The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding a fundraising update did not fit within the cited exception for plans and instructions for negotiations because the Committee did not discuss a specific course of action to be applied to particular negotiations. The Ombudsman concluded that portions of the Committee’s discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion held by an airport commission fit within the “negotiations” exception. The airport commission was in negotiations with a third party about future business development. During the discussion, the airport commission assessed whether to accept a financial agreement as proposed and determined a course of action with respect to the ongoing negotiations.
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it failed to provide sufficiently meaningful information to the public regarding the topic of its in camera discussion in its resolution to proceed into closed session.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. At the time of the review, the Committee did not have a practice of returning to open session and reporting back. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s practice of not returning to open session to adjourn the meeting was not in accordance with the City’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended reporting back as a best practice to increase transparency of the closed meeting process.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The resolutions passed by the Committee to proceed in camera cited the closed meeting exceptions it relied on to exclude the public, but failed to provide any further detail regarding the intended discussion. The Ombudsman found that the Committee contravened subsection 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 at both meetings when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The Committee’s closed session discussions at these meetings were not related to any current or future negotiations being carried out by the Committee or on its behalf. Accordingly, the in camera discussions at both meetings did not fit within the closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
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(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed into closed session passed by council for Norfolk County at meetings held on March 8, April 12, and May 10, 2022 provided general descriptions of the topics to be discussed in closed session, and therefore met the requirements of s. 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that a committee’s in camera discussion on July 21, 2022 was permissible under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The committee strategized about potential courses of action, in the context of a request that required the Town’s consent.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received an update about negotiations with a commercial partner during a closed session. The Ombudsman found that the matter was permitted to be discussed in closed session under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. However, the Ombudsman reminded the committee that it should have included a description of the general nature of the verbal update in its resolution to move in camera.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received an update about negotiations with a commercial partner during a closed session. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the negotiations were ongoing at the time of the meeting and found that the matter was permitted to be discussed in closed session under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited an exception to the open meeting rules, however the Ombudsman found that council nonetheless contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state in the resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
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. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman concluded that the in camera discussion did not relate to ongoing or future negotiations and, accordingly, did not meet the requirements of the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s discussion about an agreement with a client was permissible under paragraph 239(2)(k). However, the Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the same exception applied to its discussions about an agreement with municipalities and financial information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that, by merely citing the applicable open meeting exception in its resolution to close the meeting, the Commission failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the intended discussion.
The Ombudsman considered the applicability of the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations to Bruce County Executive Committee’s in camera discussion on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that staff presented a report to the Committee providing details about possible locations, potential next steps in the decision-making process, and recommendations from Bruce Power relating to the Nuclear Innovation Institute. However, based on the documentary evidence and interviews conducted, the Ombudsman found on a balance of probabilities that the Committee did not discuss plans and instructions for negotiations during the closed session.
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 closed session 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).
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 closed session and by holding a vote by consensus on this matter. The discussion about the funding application was not related to negotiations or future negotiations, as required by s. 239(2)(k). 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).
The Ombudsman investigated two closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on June 8 and July 6, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held a closed meeting on June 8, 2021 since part of the discussion fit under the exception for solicitor-client privilege and the rest of the discussion fit under the exception for plans or instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the delegation to council during the closed meeting on July 6, 2021 did not fit under any closed meeting exceptions while council’s subsequent discussion fit under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because it would have been possible for council to parse the delegation portion of the meeting from its subsequent discussion.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Russell contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it proceeded in camera on November 16, 2020 to discuss an infrastructure project. The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Mayor’s presence at the in camera meeting did not compromise the bargaining position of the Township, despite the fact that the Mayor was also an elected official on the upper-tier council that was carrying out negotiations with the Township for this project.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of McKellar improperly met in closed session on June 24, 2021, to discuss the West Parry Sound Pool and Wellness Centre contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council discussed its position regarding ongoing negotiations with six municipalities and two first nation communities relating to a joint pool and wellness centre. Accordingly, this discussion was permissible under section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed session held by council for the Municipality of Grey Highlands on October 7, 2020. Council discussed plans to proceed with negotiations to enter into a joint venture with a third party and provided staff with directions on a series of matters related to the negotiation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee closed session to discuss events that may take place in the city in 2022 or 2023. The resolution to go into closed session stated “that Committee move into Closed Session respecting Items 13.2 to 13.4.” Item 13.2 of the meeting minutes is titled “Potential for Major Events in 2022 and 2023 (PED20071) (City Wide).” The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public.
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee met in closed session to discuss events that may take place in the city in 2022 or 2023. The committee cited the negotiations exception when it moved in camera. During the discussion the committee reviewed a confidential staff report and staff confirmed that negotiations between the city and other parties were ongoing. The committee also provided staff with direction on how to proceed in negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the four-part test for the exception for negotiations was satisfied because while in camera, the committee formulated a plan and directed staff with respect to the municipality’s ongoing negotiations regarding potential events that may take place in 2022 or 2023.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on August 10, 2020. Our review found that staff provided an update about ongoing negotiations with the province, the Region of Durham and the Town of Ajax related to the Durham Live development and the potential issuance of a Ministerial Zoning Order. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was permissible under section 239(2)(k) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Saugeen Shores where council discuss ongoing lease negotiations for municipal property. In each case, council provided staff with direction on how to proceed with the ongoing lease negotiations. The Ombudsman found that these discussions fit within the closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of The Nation failed to state in its resolutions to close meetings on December 17, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 14, 2019 the general nature of the subjects to be discussed. Instead, council only referenced the Municipal Act exceptions relied upon to close the meetings.
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee met in closed session to discussion the municipality’s contribution to the local Canadian Football League (CFL) team’s bid for the Grey Cup championship game. The committee cited the negotiations exception when it moved in camera. During the discussion the committee reviewed staff’s negotiations with the CFL team up to that point, and discussed whether or not to approve a recommended financial contribution. The committee also provided staff with specific steps on how to proceed in negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the four-part test for the exception for negotiations was satisfied because while in camera, the committee formulated a plan and directed staff with respect to the municipality’s ongoing negotiations with the CFL team.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines. The Ombudsman found that while council made an oral resolution to move into closed session, the open session minutes failed to record the resolution and the oral resolution did not include a general description of the matters to be discussed in camera or the exceptions that applied to the in camera discussions.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines to discuss a proposed staff position, government relations adviser. The meeting was closed under the negotiations exception. During the discussion, there were passing references to municipal projects involving the provincial government that could potentially become part of the new position’s portfolio of responsibilities. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the negotiations exception because it focused on determining the role and nature of a new staff position, including employment details, rather than specifically formulating a detailed course of action with respect to current or future negotiations involving municipal-provincial projects. In addition, the discussion did not involve any information that could undermine the city’s bargaining position in future negotiations.
239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(j) Information belonging to the municipality|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|airport|airport commission|local board|minutes (best practices)|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees. The Ombudsman found that the commission failed in its resolution to proceed in camera to cite the exception it was relying upon. The resolution was also not read out loud and members of the commission did not have a draft resolution prior to voting to proceed in camera. Additionally, although the general nature of the matter to be discussed was provided orally at the meeting, the formal written resolution failed to include that information. The Ombudsman recommended reading out the formal resolution prior to proceeding into closed session and that the formal resolution include information about the intended in camera discussion.