police service board

FILTER BY:

City of Hamilton

July 04, 201904 July 2019

A vote by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee with regard to an appointment to its police service board was permitted in camera because it was a direction to staff to bring the recommendation forward at a future council meeting.

Town of Amherstburg

June 29, 201829 June 2018

The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the Joint Police Advisory Committee and council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss draft request for proposals for police services. Although not cited at the time, the clerk told the Ombudsman that the “permissible under another act” exception would have applied because the meetings could have been closed under the Police Services Act.  The Police Services Act lists two exceptions allowing closed meetings of the police services board. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the committee considered whether the Police Services Act would apply to its discussions, and no evidence provided that the local police services board discussed the request for proposals in closed session under the Police Services Act. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that this exception did not apply to the committee and council meetings.

City of Hamilton

April 22, 201522 April 2015

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton to discuss a confidential appendix to a report that included information about a parcel of land the municipality was considering purchasing. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. The committee relied on the exception because the local police services board had previously discussed the matter in closed session under the Police Services Act. The police service board relied on the “intimate personal/financial matters” exception in the Police Services Act to hold the discussion in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.

Town of Midland

June 23, 201423 June 2014
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a civilian appointment to the police service board. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor was present, provided advice, and received instructions from council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

Town of Midland

February 04, 201404 February 2014

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a council member’s request for indemnification of legal fees incurred as a police service board member. The Ombudsman found that the substance of the legal advice provided to the council member was not discussed. The focus of the discussion was on whether the legal bill qualified for reimbursement under the municipality’s policy. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit with within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

Town of Midland

February 04, 201404 February 2014

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland to discuss a council member’s request for indemnification for legal fees incurred as a police services board member. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion related to the council member in his official capacity and much of the information was already known to the public. 

Town of Amherstburg

January 06, 201206 January 2012

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council to discuss appointments to the local library board and police services board. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. Council believed that the Public Libraries Act and the Police Services Act permit appointments to be made in closed session. The Ombudsman found that neither act contains provisions which permit appointments in closed session. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.