The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln that was closed under the exception for education or training. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session, which consisted of a presentation about municipal amalgamations and a regional governance review process, fit within the exception because it was an exchange of information and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the municipal councils. The Ombudsman found the second part of the closed session, which involved small-group discussions about potential changes to local government structures, did not fit within the exception because the discussions were intended to form the basis of imminent decisions by the municipal councils and materially advanced their business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman investigated a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, the discussion may have touched on the termination of municipal staff. The Ombudsman found that termination of staff was not the main focus of the discussion and was only briefly mentioned. A brief or passing reference to information that would fit into one of the open meeting exceptions (such as the exception for labour relations) is not sufficient to bring an entire discussion into an exception.
The Ombudsman investigated a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, the discussion may have touched on the termination of municipal staff. The Ombudsman found that termination of staff was not the main focus of the discussion and was only briefly mentioned. A brief or passing reference to information that would fit into one of the open meeting exceptions (such as the exception for labour relations) is not sufficient to bring an entire discussion into an exception.
The Ombudsman investigated a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, the discussion may have touched on the termination of municipal staff. The Ombudsman found that termination of staff was not the main focus of the discussion and was only briefly mentioned. A brief or passing reference to information that would fit into one of the open meeting exceptions (such as the exception for labour relations) is not sufficient to bring an entire discussion into an exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk's Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk's Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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 joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. At the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress nor was either municipality contemplating purchasing or selling any land. Any discussions about land transactions were speculative. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. At the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress nor was either municipality contemplating purchasing or selling any land. Any discussions about land transactions were speculative. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. While not cited by either municipality, the Ombudsman found that a portion of the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiation exception because the councils were discussing position changes for identified employees.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. While not cited by either municipality, the Ombudsman found that a portion of the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiation exception because the councils were discussing position changes for identified employees.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.