An airport commission, which is a joint local board of four municipalities, did not have a procedure by-law. The Municipal Act requires that every local board pass a procedure by-law, and the Ombudsman found that failing to adopt a procedure by-law is a contravention of the Act.
An airport commission held several closed meetings where it neglected to keep minutes or the minutes did not contain accurate and complete details about the discussion. The Ombudsman noted that minutes do not need to record a verbatim transcript of the discussion, but should capture the substance of all matters considered. The Ombudsman also recommends audio or video recording all open and closed sessions, for a complete record.
An airport commission indicated on its website that meetings were to take place on the second Thursday of each month, September through June, which the Ombudsman found is sufficient to provide the public with notice of meetings that occur on a regular schedule. However, a meeting in April 2021 took place on a Friday, and the Ombudsman found that the commission could not provide evidence to show its website had been updated to advise the public of this change.
The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion held by an airport commission fit within the “negotiations” exception. The airport commission was in negotiations with a third party about future business development. During the discussion, the airport commission assessed whether to accept a financial agreement as proposed and determined a course of action with respect to the ongoing negotiations.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that an airport commission voted improperly during a closed meeting. During the closed session, the commission reached a consensus to accept and approve a financial agreement. Reaching a consensus is considered to be a vote for the purposes of the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was properly closed under the exceptions to the open meeting rules, however, the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff. Accordingly, the vote was not permitted.
A member of the public complained that they were not admitted to a virtual meeting of the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission on June 20, 2022, which was held over Zoom. The Ombudsman was satisfied the Commission followed its procedure by posting public notice in advance with the date, time, and Zoom link to observe the meeting. The Ombudsman found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Commission did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman suggested, as a best practice, that the Commission may want to highlight any changes to access instructions – such as changes to a link – when publishing meeting notices.
A member of the public complained that they were not admitted to a virtual meeting of the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission on June 20, 2022, which was held over Zoom. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Commission followed its procedure by posting public notice in advance with the date, time, and Zoom link to observe the meeting. The Ombudsman found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Commission did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman suggested the Commission consider including in its public meeting notices a phone number for assistance if a member of the public has technical difficulties accessing or observing a meeting.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman concluded that the in camera discussion did not relate to ongoing or future negotiations and, accordingly, did not meet the requirements of the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. The Ombudsman concluded that the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply since council’s discussion about potential development was speculative and the Town did not have a bargaining position to protect. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. The Ombudsman concluded that the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party did not apply to council’s discussion since there was no evidence that information disclosed during the meeting could have been expected to cause significant harm to a third party. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. The Ombudsman concluded that the exception for information belonging to the municipality did not apply to council’s discussion because none of the information discussed in camera could have met the test for this exception. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on April 19, 2021.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021. In its resolution to proceed in camera, council cited an exception to the open meeting rules, however the Ombudsman found that council nonetheless contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state in the resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s discussion about an agreement with a client was permissible under paragraph 239(2)(k). However, the Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the same exception applied to its discussions about an agreement with municipalities and financial information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that advice subject to solicitor-client privilege was discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual did not apply to discussions about financial information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that a discussion about negotiations with a client could be parsed from discussions about an agreement with municipalities and financial information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that, by merely citing the applicable open meeting exception in its resolution to close the meeting, the Commission failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the intended discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed electronic meetings held by the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission. The Ombudsman found that the Commission is a local board subject to the open meeting rules. The Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to pass a procedure by-law governing its meetings and failing to provide adequate notice of its meetings. The Ombudsman further found that the Commission did not adequately notify members of the public about how to request readmission to the portion of an open meeting following a closed session. The Ombudsman commended the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency through changes to its public notice process and adoption of a formal procedure to ensure that observers are adequately informed about how to observe portions of a meeting occurring after a closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law providing for public notice of all meetings and that the Commission ensure the public is able to observe all open portions of meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss ongoing airport fee negotiations and related airport upgrades. The Ombudsman found that the commission did not discuss any legal advice during the meeting. There was no solicitor or related communication. The Ombudsman noted that the fact that airport fees may be incorporated by a lawyer into a future contract does not mean the discussion was subject to solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the commission’s discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees. The Ombudsman found that the commission failed in its resolution to proceed in camera to cite the exception it was relying upon. The resolution was also not read out loud and members of the commission did not have a draft resolution prior to voting to proceed in camera. Additionally, although the general nature of the matter to be discussed was provided orally at the meeting, the formal written resolution failed to include that information. The Ombudsman recommended reading out the formal resolution prior to proceeding into closed session and that the formal resolution include information about the intended in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fee negotiations and related airport upgrades. The Ombudsman found that the commission’s procedure by-law failed to reflect amendments to the open meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001 and included reasons for meeting in camera that are not consistent with the exceptions found in the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the commission update its procedure by-law to accurately reflect the closed meeting exceptions found in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to discuss a contract related to the Wiarton Keppel International Airport. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. Council discussed the potential sale of the airport and a contract for airport fuel tank removal. The Ombudsman found that council did not discuss any litigation in progress or even contemplated litigation with respect to the contract. The prospect of litigation was mere speculation. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Niagara Central Airport Commission. The Ombudsman found that the Niagara Central Airport Commission is a local board subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission enact a procedure by-law governing meetings in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a request for proposals process. The Ombudsman found that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss legal advice; rather, the commission discussed the status of draft lease agreements. The commission’s solicitor was not present during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Niagara District Airport Commission. The commission conducted informal voting during both meetings. The Ombudsman found that even straw polls, or “shows of hands” constitute voting and must comply with the procedural requirements.
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.