The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024. Council relied on the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss the integrity commissioner’s role with the Town. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the cited exception because it went beyond the integrity commissioner’s professional role and included information related to their performance and suitability for the position. The Ombudsman also found that the integrity commissioner’s resignation letter constituted personal information. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the hiring process it would follow to find a new integrity commissioner did not fall under the exception for personal matters because it covered only the procedural steps of hiring; council did not discuss the personal information of any potential candidates.
Council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie relied on the exception for personal matters to hold a closed session discussion about a vacant staff position. The discussion included information about the salary and general responsibilities of the role. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not involve an identifiable individual, the position was vacant, and the discussion only pertained to the position itself. Accordingly, the “personal matters” exception did not apply.
The Ombudsman reviewed the applicability of the exception for personal matters to a portion of a closed meeting held by Council for the Township of Minden Hills on November 25, 2021. The Ombudsman found that Council reviewed and discussed specific personal information about individual applicants for a working group, including the suitability of the applicants. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that Council’s discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for discussions about personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about three closed meetings held by council for the Township of Huron-Kinloss. It was alleged that the discussions closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual at each of these meetings were held in violation of the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council discussed personal information about specific municipal employees such as their salaries, job performance, and upcoming retirement. There was therefore no contravention of the open meeting rules in closing these discussions to the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting council discussed the professional services provided to the municipality by the integrity commissioner. The discussion included scrutiny of the integrity commissioner’s performance and council offered their opinions on the integrity commissioner in a way that went beyond his professional capacity. The Ombudsman found that the discussion qualified as personal information and fit within the “personal matters” exception.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Emo contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on June 23, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion relating to a “Council Code of Conduct” matter did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The investigation determined that council’s discussion related to one councillor’s concern about emails that other named councillors had received from citizens of the municipality, and allegedly responded to. The names of the citizens who sent these emails and the content of the correspondence was also disclosed. The councillor discussed feelings, concerns, and opinions about identified councillors’ conduct in relation to the emails. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
Council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers was permitted to discuss a bidder on a Request for Proposals in camera, because the discussion went beyond professional information to include the individual’s personal suitability and conduct. Council was also permitted to discuss a grant application to hire an intern in camera, as the discussion included information about an individual’s job performance.
The Ombudsman determined that council for Norfolk County did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on March 26 and April 2, to discuss the hiring of an interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The meetings relied partly on the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual. This exception generally does not apply to information that pertains to an individual in their professional capacity, however, it does apply if such information reveals something personal or relates to scrutiny of an individual’s conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussions about the hiring of a candidate for the interim CAO position, and the performance of identifiable staff members fit within the exception for personal matters for an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found discussions about relationships between staff and council, even if they had taken place, would not have fit within the personal matters exception. Information pertaining to the professional capacity of an individual is not personal in nature even if discussions of relationships involve sensitive information the municipality would prefer to not discuss publicly.
The Ombudsman investigated the closed sessions of a meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara on December 7, 2017. The Ombudsman found that there was discussion about the personal circumstances of a councillor who was the subject of an Integrity Commissioner’s report. Generally, the discussion of an Integrity Commissioner’s report on its own would not fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual because it relates to a councillor in his or her capacity as an elected official. However, the Ombudsman found that information relating to the councillor’s personal circumstances was discussed, which fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands to discuss involvement of a council member in the financial administration of the township. The meeting was closed using the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that generally, discussions of a council member’s actions in the course of their duties are considered to be of a professional nature. However, the in camera discussion about the council member touched upon information that was speculative and also involved scrutiny of the councillor’s conduct that went beyond their official capacity as a member of council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Cornwall that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the Cornwall Regional Airport. During the discussion, council reviewed the performance and conduct of commission members and another individual. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion went beyond the individuals’ professional roles, and if that information were to be disclosed, it would reveal something of a personal nature about the individuals. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters 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 personal matters exception. The municipality relied on this exception because a section of a former police chief’s employment contract was discussed and police service employees would be identifiable in the community even if they were not named. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not involve any named individuals, and employees were not discussed in a personal capacity. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the County of Norfolk to receive a deputation from representatives of the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The deputation related to the board’s operations and included a request that the county release an installment of a monetary grant. The municipality highlighted that the deputation contained information that could affect the personal lives of individual members of the board. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the board was composed of volunteers, however, the deputation contained information that was professional in nature and related to the business of the board. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under, among other exceptions, the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council added an item to the in camera agenda with respect to a consulting firm’s bid to conduct an organizational study of the municipality. The individuals working at the firm and their qualifications were identified in the proposal documents. However, the Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception did not apply in the circumstances because the discussion was in the context of a proposed professional relationship with the township.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss an allegation that the mayor had contravened the municipality’s code of conduct. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council considered whether enough information had been received to proceed with a code of conduct complaint against the mayor. The Ombudsman found that it was not clear whether the mayor was acting in a professional or personal capacity during the incident that gave rise to the code of conduct complaint, and council was considering an unproven allegation against the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed business plan for installing services in a local commercial and industrial area in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council reviewed a staff report that included information about local businesses in the area including company name and legal identity, the proprietor, address, the size of the lot, and the cost of the services improvement for the property. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion and the report did not reveal personal information about individual property owners and any individuals identified by name used the land for a business purpose. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss comments about the committee made by two councillors and two members of the public. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The committee’s discussion focused on the conduct and comments of the councillors, the two members of the public, and ways the committee could respond to that conduct.
The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the conduct of the two members of the public fit within the personal matters exception. Normally, the discussion about the conduct of the two councillors would not fit within the exception, as it related to the individuals’ conduct in their official roles as councillors. However, the Ombudsman found that it is unrealistic to expect the committee to have parsed the discussion about the members of the public from that of the councillors when the two discussion topics were directly related.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of items including possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. The names of business owners considering developments in the area were discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about individual business owners was strictly in a professional context, which did not reveal anything of a personal nature. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of items including possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. The names of business owners considering developments in the area were discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about individual business owners was strictly in a professional context, which did not reveal anything of a personal nature. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss volunteer recreation associations. Council discussed entering into affiliation service agreements with each recreation association that operated parks and facilities on behalf of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion pertained to the associations in general, rather than individual volunteers. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss staff conduct related to a future university campus located in the downtown area of the municipality. The discussion also included questions about whether the mayor and certain staff members had complied with their professional obligations. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not include topics that were inherently personal in nature. Rather, questions about staff conduct were general in nature or about individuals in their professional capacities. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a contract with a specific member of the public. In addition to professional information, council’s discussion included information about the individual’s credibility and conduct. Although the exception does not apply to professional or business information about an individual, information will be considered personal information where an individual’s conduct is scrutinized. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss unproven allegations against a member of council. The Ombudsman noted that information about an individual in their professional capacity takes on a more personal nature if it relates to scrutiny of that person’s conduct. In this case, council was considering unproven allegations against a council member that had not been investigated or made public at the time. This portion of the discussions fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss municipal infrastructure projects. Council referred to contractors in their professional capacity during its discussion. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion did not address anything of an inherently personal nature.
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.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to consider a complaint against a resident with respect to a zoning by-law infraction. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the closed meeting, council received delegations from the complainant and a resident. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception because information was presented to council that involved an investigation or assessment of the performance or alleged improper conduct of the property owner.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an alleged breach of the municipality’s code of conduct by the mayor. Council’s discussion related to public comments made by the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the mayor’s comments were made in the course of his official duties and in relation to municipal business. Council’s discussions did not pertain to the mayor in his personal capacity, but rather involved the mayor’s professional capacity. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss comments about the commission made by a local mayor. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, the commission considered how to respond to the mayor’s official comments. The Ombudsman found that the discussion of the mayor’s professional relationship with the commission does not qualify as personal information. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.