The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Ramara contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by holding two meetings over email on October 23 and October 24, 2024. In both cases, a member of the Committee sent an email to all other members, such that a quorum was present on the emails. In the case of the October 23 email, the Ombudsman found that it constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it materially advanced the business or decision-making of the Committee. Specifically, the email contained a proposed course of action – the removal of a proposed food waste management program from the Township budget – which the Committee later adopted. In the case of the October 24 email, the Ombudsman found that, although a quorum of the Committee was present, the email did not materially advance Township business or decision-making and therefore was not a meeting under the Act.
The Ombudsman reviewed a discussion held by members of council for the Township of Frontenac Islands over email about a delegation letter to the Minister of Health. The Ombudsman found the discussion was a meeting in contravention of the open meeting rules because a quorum of council participated in the discussions over email, and the discussions materially advanced council business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that four members of council for the Township of Russell held one-on-one phone conversations about the mayoral vacancy ahead of a regular council meeting, but that these individual discussions were not a meeting because a quorum of council was not present and council business and decision-making was not materially advanced.
The Ombudsman found that an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 did not occur when five council members for the City of Greater Sudbury attended a meeting held by the Flour Mill Community Action Network on April 8, 2024. Although the five council members represented a quorum of the City’s Operations Committee, they did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Operations Committee when they attended the meeting.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Wollaston’s Communication Team is a committee of council, and that any meetings it may have held since its inception should have been subject to the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. In the course of the investigation, our Office learned of a phone call between two of the three members of the Communication Team. The Ombudsman determined that:
- The Communication Team is a committee of council;
- Although quorum was reached on this phone call, the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Communication Team;
- The Communication Team did not otherwise conduct any meetings as of the date of the investigation.
The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Communication Team take care to avoid discussions that may advance its business or decision-making during informal gatherings, including by electronic means (such as a phone call), since quorum is easily reached because of its small committee size.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of The North Shore did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when a quorum of its members engaged in an informal discussion immediately following a council meeting on March 20, 2024, and also over group text message between March 24 and March 25, 2024. Although these discussions involved a quorum of council, they were not “meetings” subject to the open meeting rules because members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a local board whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a committee of council whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging a quorum of councillors for the Township of Black River-Matheson held informal meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, in the days prior to a special meeting on February 20, 2024. The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate the allegation that a quorum of councillors held informal meetings ahead of the special council meeting on February 20, 2024.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg did not contravene the open meeting rules by not providing notice of a training session on municipal infrastructure asset management on February 14, 2023 that council held in closed session. Since the training session did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. However, the Ombudsman commended the Town for taking steps to go beyond the Act’s requirements to improve transparency with respect to the training session, and suggested that the Town formalize the practice of treating training sessions as meetings.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of members of the Town of Amherstburg’s Accessibility Advisory Committee on September 8, 2022 did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when the members visited a public transit facility and observed a demonstration of the features of an accessible bus. Since the gathering did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility 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 the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day.
Given the legislative amendments made to the open meeting rules as a result of the pandemic, members may be “present” when they come together electronically to discuss and advance business. Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret audio-visual call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that that the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 14, 2022, by failing to treat a gathering of a quorum of members of council (and a quorum of a committee) as a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. The members of council discussed snowplowing operations with a member of staff in a way that materially advanced the Township’s business and decision-making, such that the gathering was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law, and that the Task Force’s April 19, 2022 presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg held an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022 in between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting. The Ombudsman’s review did not find any evidence that a quorum of Amherstburg’s council advanced council business or decision-making outside of any of the scheduled meetings. Accordingly, there was no “meeting” over dinner within the meaning of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that a training session for council for the Township of Emo on its new budget format fit within the exception for education and training since council received training and did not materially advance its business or decision-making. As council did not materially advance its business or decision-making, the training session was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Township’s procedure by-law. As such, the Township was not required to provide notice of the training session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when members of the newly elected council attended educational workshops on November 15, 24, and 29, 2022. At the time of these gatherings, four of the seven council members had not yet taken office. As such, a quorum of council was not present, and the gatherings therefore did not meet the definition of a meeting in the Act. As the gatherings were not meetings as defined in the Act, the Act’s open meeting rules did not apply.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complainant alleged that the City turned off the camera that was broadcasting the council meeting after staff requested a brief break in order to prepare a response to a question asked by the Mayor. The complainant expressed concern that council may have held a closed meeting during this break while the camera was turned off. The Ombudsman found that the City did not contravene the open meeting requirements on April 12, 2022 when council took a break during the meeting in order for staff to caucus. The Ombudsman’s review indicated that nothing during the 25-minute break moved council business forward or materially advanced the City’s business or decision-making. Accordingly, the gathering of council during the break did not constitute a closed meeting in contravention of the Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about working group meetings held by the Off Road Vehicle Task Force of the City of Kawartha Lakes on February 19 and March 4, 2021. The complainant alleged that the meetings were closed to the public in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Task Force was a committee of council and was therefore required to hold open meetings. It was determined that there was quorum and the business of the Task Force was materially advanced at both meetings. In closing these meetings to the public, the Task Force violated the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Environmental Services Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles held a closed session on August 17, 2021, when the two members sitting on the Committee attended a gathering with residents relating to garbage collection issues. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the gathering did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the gathering were merely informational and did not materially advance council or committee business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed session held by council for the Township of Pelee on June 22, 2021. The Ombudsman found that since council did not discuss a matter in a way that materially advanced business or decision-making, the gathering was not a meeting subject to open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that even if the gathering had been a meeting, it was permissible to have the discussion in camera under the exception for education or training.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Wasaga Beach improperly held a closed meeting during a ground-breaking ceremony that was not open to all members of the public on September 22, 2021. While there was a quorum of council members, the Ombudsman found that municipal business was not materially advanced as there was no discussion between council members during the ceremony and no decisions were made by council. The gathering did not meet the definition of a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 and is therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that a quorum of council for the Town of Espanola held an illegal closed meeting on January 31, 2019 after the regular council meeting had concluded, contrary to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that although a quorum of council was present, the gathering was not a “meeting” under the Act because the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a series of individual phone calls between members of council of Loyalist Township concerning a grant policy that would be discussed before the Committee of the Whole. Communication between members of council of an informational nature that does not lead to specific outcomes or persuades decision-makers is usually not a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it does not materially advance business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Township of South Algonquin improperly held a closed meeting during a recess during an otherwise open meeting on September 8, 2021. The Ombudsman found there was no meeting of council under the Municipal Act, 2001 since council members did not have any discussion amongst themselves during the recess.
Section 238(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires a quorum of councillors to be physically present and that the matter(s) discussed “materially” or “significantly” advances council’s business or decision-making. The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that three councillors for the Township of McKellar improperly met with the incoming CAO/Clerk on March 3, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements as the gathering did not come within the definition of “meeting” under the Act. While a quorum of councillors had gathered with the incoming CAO/Clerk to welcome him to the municipality, the discussion did not materially advance council’s business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that on June 15, 2020, a quorum of councillors for the Town of Hawkesbury discussed council business that they intended to introduce and vote on at a council meeting scheduled for the next day. The complaint alleged that this discussion amounted to a “meeting” and was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Mayor individually spoke with three councillors regarding employee terminations in separate discussions. The Ombudsman found that these serial discussions were not a meeting because a quorum of councillors was never present, as required by the definition of “meeting” in the Act.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that a quorum of board members for the Greater Napanee BIA met in a private local business on June 24, 2020, contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the board members’ discussions related to social matters and how each business owner was coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, this gathering did not materially advance the BIA’s business or decision-making and was not a “meeting” contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman received complaints regarding meetings held by the Township of Stone Mills between August 10, 2020 and October 27, 2020. Specifically, the complainants disagreed with the municipality’s decision to hold in-person council meetings without providing members of the public with a way to watch the meeting remotely, such as through video or phone conferencing technology. The Ombudsman’s review determined that council initially chose to satisfy the Act’s requirement to hold open meetings by broadcasting virtual Zoom meetings on YouTube. As of August 2020, the Township changed its approach and decided to satisfy the Act’s open meeting requirement by holding in-person council meetings in consultation with the local public health unit. The Ombudsman’s review confirmed that the municipality provided public notice of its meetings from August 10 to October 27, 2020, and that members of the public were able to attend these meetings and see municipal decision-making in progress. The Ombudsman did not find any violations of the Act’s open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting held by the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee. The township’s procedure by-law provided for the adjournment of any meeting where quorum was not achieved within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time. The committee achieved quorum more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time, and proceeded to discuss fire services in a manner that materially advanced the business of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that while the township contravened its procedure by-law, the meeting was not illegally closed to the public. The Ombudsman recommended that the township ensure all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules and its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that that during an open meeting on February 24, 2020, council for the Town of Saugeen Shores held an illegal meeting by discussing council business during a recess. The Ombudsman found that while a quorum of council was present at the recess, no members of council had any discussions that materially advanced council business and council did not make any decisions. Rather, the Clerk relayed potential next steps to the Mayor, who then relayed this information to council. Council returned to open session to exercise its decision-making authority. As council business was not materially advanced and no decisions were made by council during the recess, these discussions were not a meeting and therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a series of emails exchanged by members of council that refers to an informal interaction between members of council on a prior date. Based on the information gathered during interviews, the Ombudsman was satisfied that no informal meeting took place.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that councillors for the Town of Pelham voted via email on whether they would be in favour of accepting a possible donation. The Ombudsman found that the email exchange did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements, which typically apply to “meetings” were a quorum of councillors is physically present. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal email exchange. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a quorum of councillors for the Town of Pelham informally met to discuss a possible donation from a cannabis producer on January 9, 2020, contrary to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the informal discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements as the discussion did not materially advance council business as required by the Municipal Act. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal discussion. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a gathering that two council members attended on April 14, 2019. Council for Lambton Shores is composed of nine council members. The new definition of "meeting" in the Municipal Act, 2001 requires that a quorum of members be physically present in order for a gathering to be subject to open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the attendance of three councillors at an April 30, 2019 public proceeding of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The complaint alleged that the councillors’ attendance amounted to a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was therefore subject to the Act’s open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the three council members did not discuss the subject matter of the proceeding with any of the councillors, municipal staff, or other parties in attendance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman determined that the councillors did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements because they did not do anything that materially advanced the business or decision-making of council.
Members of council for the City of Hamilton did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they exchanged emails regarding a vacant council seat in June 2018. The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed two information sessions relating to the business of the municipality attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that the council members did not materially advance the business of the municipality during these information sessions. The council members only received information about ongoing projects in the municipality. There was no discussion among the council members present and no decisions were made. Even though the Ombudsman found that these information sessions did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001, in the interests of openness and transparency he encouraged council to receive information and updates of this nature during public meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed an informal gathering of three council members after a regular council meeting for the Township of Front of Yonge. The Ombudsman found that the three council members may have remained in council chambers after the regular meeting had finished, however, they did not discuss council business. Accordingly, an improper meeting did not occur.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of a quorum of council for the Municipality of Brockton at an information session held under the Drainage Act. The purpose of the meeting was to provide affected residents information about matters related to an ongoing drainage petition. The Ombudsman found that the Drainage Act does not contain any provisions allowing council to hold a closed meeting while attending an information session. The municipality’s compliance with the procedural requirements for the Drainage Act does not relieve it from also complying with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that two informal gatherings of newly elected councillors for the Town of Kearney did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001, as the councillors had not yet been sworn in and there was therefore no quorum of the current council present. However, these gatherings involved discussions of future council business and were therefore inconsistent with the principles of transparency and openness underlying the open meeting requirements.