Casselman, Municipality of

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Casselman was not authorized to vote to approve an offer to purchase a property in closed session because the resolution’s wording did not reflect a direction to staff.

The Ombudsman found that resolutions passed by council for the Municipality of Casselman to move in camera complied with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Casselman’s discussions were permitted to be closed to the public under the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera. The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting.

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 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 a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. During the closed session, council agreed to proceed with an offer of a contract of employment. The minutes did not record this as an in camera direction to staff or as an open session resolution. The Ombudsman recommended that closed session votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001 and that council clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman noted that council failed to report back after the closed session, as required by the municipality’s procedure by-law. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found the municipality to be in violation of its own procedure by-law and recommended that council report back in open session following its in camera meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality’s procedure by-law did not reflect the mandatory closed meeting provisions in sections 239(3)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001. Moreover, the procedure by-law did not reflect the Village’s current meeting practices. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law accordingly.

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that in one instance council did not report back on a closed session until the next council meeting. However, for the majority of the meetings investigated, the Ombudsman found that council passed a resolution in open session following each closed session that reflected its in camera discussions and functioned as a report back.

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. After completing an investigation, the Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed in camera for a number of closed session meetings did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the resolutions failed to provide information about the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed during the meetings. During the course of the Ombudsman review, council for the Village of Casselman changed its practice for passing resolutions to go into closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman to discuss a municipal organizational chart, individual staff positions, and staff restructuring. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about salary ranges for management positions on its own did not fit within the exception; however, in this case the discussion of salary ranges was related to the broader discussion of individual staff positions. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman recommended that the Village of Casselman include provisions for providing public notice of special meetings in its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman with local developers at a roundtable to discuss development within the municipality. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The discussion was not general in nature and related to council business. The scope of the education or training exception extends to meetings that are closed to allow council members to receive information that may assist them in better understanding the business of the municipality and/or to acquire skills, rather than exchange information on an issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.