municipally-owned property

FILTER BY:

Town of Carleton Place

November 22, 201822 November 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the policy review committee for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception 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 acquisition or disposition of land exception.

Town of Carleton Place

November 22, 201822 November 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the policy review committee for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the installation of water and sewer servicing adjacent to municipally-owned properties that were for sale. The discussion included financial information related to the installation of services that would impact the municipality’s bargaining position, including pricing strategy, for the municipally-owned properties. The Ombudsman found that the discussion regarding the installation of servicing was inextricably linked to the sale of the municipally owned properties. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.

Township of Russell

June 07, 201807 June 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell relying on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the disposition of a municipal road allowance. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the closure and sale of a road allowance fit within the exceptions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001.

Village of Burk's Falls

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 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.

Armour Township and Village of Burk's Falls

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 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.

Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh

April 10, 201410 April 2014

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh to discuss a third party’s discharge of water onto a municipal road allowance. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The discharge of water caused damage to municipal property. The purpose of the closed session was to discuss the possibility of litigation to address the damage. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was more than a suspicion or mere speculation that litigation would occur.