The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Selection Committee’s discussion about which applicants to appoint to a particular committee fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters because it revealed personal information about identifiable individuals.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McGarry’s closed session discussion of the former mayor’s resignation, and discussions about specific potential appointees to fill the resulting vacancies on September 1, 2023, fit within the exception for personal matters. While the Ombudsman determined that the interspersed discussions about whether to fill the vacancies by appointment or through a by-election did not fit within any open meeting exceptions, parsing those parts of the meeting would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion. Accordingly, council’s entire closed session discussion was permitted under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also noted that council may wish to consider how to structure similar conversations in the future to increase the openness and transparency of its decision-making.
The Ombudsman received a complaint suggesting members of council for the City of London met outside of a formal council or committee meeting to discuss filling a vacant council seat with a specific individual since members of the public knew to provide letters of support to council on that subject ahead of the City’s Corporate Services Committee meeting on October 12, 2021. The vacancy had been announced publicly in September 2021 and had also been reported in the media around the same time. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Committee or council met privately to discuss the vacancy in advance of the Committee meeting on October 12, 2021.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Township of South Algonquin on September 8, 2021. The meeting was closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman concluded that council met in camera to discuss the qualifications and suitability of candidates for a vacant council position. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council discussed the employment history and qualifications of two individuals interested in filling a council vacancy. Accordingly, this part of the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. Council also discussed the method to be used to fill the vacancy either a by-election or appointment. The Ombudsman found that this part of the discussion did not concern personal matters of identifiable individuals. According, this part of the discussion was not permitted to be closed to the public.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed session held by council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the employment history and qualifications of two individuals interested in filling a council vacancy fit within the “personal matters” exception to the open meeting rules. However, council’s discussions about whether to fill the vacancy by holding a by-election or by appointment did not fit within the “personal matters” exception. The Ombudsman found that it would have been possible for council to parse the two discussions. Council could have discussed the method to fill the council vacancy in open session then proceed to closed session to discuss personal matters relating to the individuals interested in filling the council vacancy.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss a vacant council seat. During the closed session, council discussed whether to fill the vacancy by appointment or by by-election, and at least one identifiable individual who could fill the vacancy. The discussion about the identifiable individual involved personal information regarding qualifications and experience. The Ombudsman found that this portion of the discussion fit within the personal matters exception. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about how to fill the council vacancy (whether by appointment or by-election) did not include any personal information about an identifiable individual. Accordingly, this portion of the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the personal matters exception to appoint a new member of council. The in camera discussion did not include any personal information about the candidates, rather the discussion focused on the voting procedure for selecting a candidate. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner. Council relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council discussed the education, employment history and qualifications of a potential appointee for the integrity commissioner position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London which relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner and a recent integrity commissioner report. Legal counsel was present during both meetings to answer questions and provide legal advice. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar to discuss the appointment of a member of the public to the committee. The meeting was closed citing the personal matters exception. The committee discussed the conduct of the member of the public. The committee also discussed the implications, both negative and positive, of accepting the application. The Ombudsman found that by discussing the individual’s conduct, the committee revealed inherently personal information about the individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a staff member who was a candidate for the position of deputy clerk. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. When council resumed the open session, it appointed the individual to the position of deputy clerk. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception since it identified the candidate by name and covered the individual’s employment history, job performance, and salary information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s falls to discuss an appointment to a shared social services board. Council decided to appoint a councillor from Armour Township to the position. The municipality discussed the appointment under the personal matters exception and considered the candidate’s résumé. In many instances, where a council is considering appointments, personal information about individual applicants is discussed. The discussion did not include personal information about the councillor since his qualifications were public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s falls to discuss an appointment to a shared social services board. Council decided to appoint a councillor from Armour Township to the position. The municipality discussed the appointment under the personal matters exception and considered the candidate’s résumé. In many instances, where a council is considering appointments, personal information about individual applicants is discussed. The discussion did not include personal information about the councillor since his qualifications were public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Woolwich that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss appointments to two committees. The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved personal information about past members of the committees as well as current applicants. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the appointment of an individual as treasurer. The discussion involved a review of a résumé, employment history, and qualifications of an identifiable individual who was a candidate for the position. Councillors also expressed opinions about the individual’s suitability for the position. The Ombudsman found that the discussions were personal in nature and fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Committee for the Town of Bracebridge that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss committee appointments. The committee reviewed applications, including resumes, for the committee positions. While information about an individual in their professional capacity will usually not be considered personal information, the Ombudsman noted that in this case the applications included personal information, beyond just the candidate’s work history and education. The General Committee members also provided their opinions on each applicant’s suitability for the positions while in camera. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin to discuss candidates for the job of municipal works foreman. Council discussed the applications, résumés, work histories, and the possibility of extending an offer to one of the candidates. Individual councillors expressed opinions on which candidate would be best suited for the job and on the candidates’ qualifications. Although the municipality did not rely upon it, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a civilian appointment to the police service board. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor was present, provided advice, and received instructions from council. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury, which relied on the personal matters exception, to discuss the contract and appointment of the auditor general. The Ombudsman found that information about the employment contract of an identified member of staff is personal information. Therefore, council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Hearst. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception to discuss applications for a vacant council seat. The discussion involved reviewing multiple candidates’ résumés, and their work and education history. The Ombudsman found that an individual’s employment and educational history is considered personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.