Temagami, Municipality of

The Ombudsman found that the resolution passed by council during a meeting on March 8, 2021 adequately provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in camera. However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to ensure the public could observe the passage of the resolution to proceed in camera during its meetings on March 8, 2021 and March 25, 2021. Whenever the public is excluded from in-person attendance, it is imperative that the alternative electronic format selected enables the public to observe all portions of the meeting except the duly constituted and permitted closed portions. This includes the resolution to go in camera and any business or report back that occurs after council has reconvened in open session. Publishing a recording of a meeting after it has already taken place is not a substitute for enabling the public to observe a meeting while it is happening.

The Ombudsman found the discussion by council for the Municipality of Temagami on March 8, 2021 fit within the cited exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. During the meeting on March 8, 2021, council received confidential advice from external legal counsel about the Au Château Home for the Aged.

The Ombudsman found that a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss a harassment complaint did not fit within the personal matters exception. The Municipality’s Mayor commented that the Municipality’s harassment policies require that details about harassment complaints be kept confidential and that the open meeting rules are incompatible with the Municipality’s obligations under its policies. The Ombudsman noted that the open meeting exceptions are paramount to municipal by-laws and policies. The exceptions do not extend to sensitive information or to information that might lead the public to speculate about otherwise confidential information.

The Ombudsman reviewed the audio recording practices of the Municipality of Temagami. He noted that the municipality records its closed meetings but does not begin the recording until after council has commenced in closed session, despite holding a brief open session before proceeding in camera. As a result, council’s resolution to proceed in camera is not captured by the audio recording. As a best practice, the municipality should amend its audio recording practices to capture council’s open session resolution to move into closed session.  

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting the integrity commissioner and an investigator presented their findings to council. The Ombudsman found that this information was not provided by a lawyer and does not qualify as legal advice. However, the information supplied by the investigator and integrity commissioner was received in relation to council seeking legal guidance on how to respond to the investigations’ findings and was necessary to discuss the issues meaningfully. It would not be reasonable for council to parse its discussion. Therefore, the discussion fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.  

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting a lawyer was present and provided confidential legal advice related to the investigations throughout the meeting. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception applied to part of the discussion because it included information related to the conduct of members of the public and  municipal employees who were the subject of the investigation. This information was personal information. The part of the discussion that related to the conduct of council members in their professional capacity did not reveal anything inherently personal about them and did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss a harassment complaint. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council was informed that a harassment complaint was received and would be referred to an external investigator. No details about the nature of the complaint or the identity of the complainant was discussed. Some council members knew the identity of the complainant. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed did not include any personal information of identifiable individuals and it was not reasonable to expect that the individuals involved in the complaint would be identifiable if council’s discussion, in the manner it was conducted, had been held in public. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council failed to immediately report back regarding its closed session discussion on January 10, 2019. Instead, council reported back about its closed session discussion during the next regular council meeting. The Ombudsman did not identify any concerns with this practice and said that it accomplishes the goal of ensuring greater accountability and transparency regarding closed session discussions.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Temagami did not provide notice of its January 10 and March 28, 2019 meetings. The complaint alleged that no notice was provided for the January 10 meeting and that conflicting and inaccurate notice was provided for the March 28 meeting. The Ombudsman’s review identified administrative issues with the meeting notice provided for the closed meetings on January 10 and March 28, 2019. The municipality acknowledged these errors and said that it had already taken steps to improve its processes.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that councillors had informally discussed a matter in private prior to the council meeting on January 10, 2019, contrary to the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman did not find any evidence that council contravened the Municipal Act’s meeting provisions when the Mayor spoke with a small number of councillors-elect at two gatherings before new councillors were sworn in. However, the Ombudsman cautioned that municipalities should be careful about having councillors-elect meet privately in this manner due to concerns about openness and transparency.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss correspondence from identifiable individuals. During the meeting, the clerk provided council with an overview of a conversation with legal counsel, including preliminary comments and legal advice related to the correspondence. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.

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.