Grimsby, Town of

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and solicitor-client privilege. However, council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to include a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to move in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and solicitor-client privilege. However, council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to include a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to move in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. During one part of the in camera discussion, the Chief Administrative Officer conveyed to council legal advice received from the Town’s lawyers. As a result, the Ombudsman found that this part of the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. Council’s in camera discussion was about the conduct of a particular individual and how council should respond. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation. There was no ongoing litigation against the individual in question, nor was there a reasonable prospect of litigation, as council only briefly discussed the possibility of seeking legal advice about commencing litigation. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within other exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the closed meeting, council discussed and scrutinized the conduct of a particular individual, as well as discussed  various options for how it should respond to that conduct.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council on the application of the open meeting rules and a contract between the municipality and the integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the “solicitor-client privilege” exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting, council discussed personal information about the municipality’s integrity commissioner. Council also discussed the contract between the integrity commissioner and the municipality as part of its broader discussion. The Ombudsman found that the information about the contract could not have been parsed from the in camera discussion.

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 reviewed a meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby held meetings in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. The municipality suggested the Business Corporations Act permitted the meetings to be held in camera. The Ombudsman found that the Business Corporations Act sets out requirements for shareholders’ meetings, including with respect to notice and minute-taking. However, nothing in the Act explicitly permits these meetings to be closed to the public. Accordingly, the meetings did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by council for the Town of Grimsby in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. that occurred without notice to the public. The municipality suggested council was entitled to meet in its capacity as shareholder of the corporation under the Business Corporations Act, and that the meetings were not subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the municipality is the majority shareholder of Niagara Power Inc., but that individual members of council are not shareholders. When the company holds a shareholders’ meeting, council is invited to attend in its capacity as the representative of the town. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the municipality must provide public notice of the meetings in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also provided best practice examples for conducting shareholder meetings for municipally controlled corporations from other municipalities.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss a municipally controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc. During the closed session, council discussed a proposal to obtain a business valuation of the corporation. Although it did not rely on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception, the municipality suggested it may apply to the discussion. Council did not discuss any specific information about employees or labour negotiations. The Ombudsman found that a discussion about the potential impact a valuation may have on the corporation’s employees does not fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss a municipally controlled corporation, relying on the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the closed session, council discussed a proposal to obtain a business valuation of the corporation. The municipality believed that the business valuation of the corporation was sensitive business information that should remain confidential. The discussion referenced an ongoing arbitration process involving the municipality, however the arbitration was not the focus of the discussion. The Ombudsman found that binding arbitration may be akin to litigation. However, the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was no evidence that the discussion involved current or pending litigation.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss obtaining a business valuation of Niagara Power Inc., a municipally controlled corporation. Council also discussed the sensitive nature of obtaining a valuation. Although it did not rely on the acquisition or disposition of land exception, the municipality suggested it might apply to council’s discussion. The Ombudsman found that the acquisition or disposition of land exception would not apply to the discussion since there were no pending or proposed land deals discussed.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss a municipally controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc. The meeting was closed under the exception for security of the property. Council discussed whether to obtain a valuation of a municipally owned corporation. The Ombudsman found that the exception applies to discussions about protecting municipally owned corporeal and incorporeal property from loss or damage. The discussion about valuation did not fit within the exception for the security of the property of the municipality since there was no apparent threat to the municipally controlled corporation.