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 received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 8, 2019 when it went in camera to discuss a draft legal agreement with a wind energy provider. A lawyer was present and provided legal advice related to the agreement during the closed session. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in s. 239(2)(f).
The Ombudsman determined that council for Norfolk County did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on March 26 and April 2, to discuss the hiring of an interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The Ombudsman found that council’s receipt of legal advice from the county solicitor regarding ongoing contractual negotiations with a candidate for the interim CAO position, fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. During the closed session, council agreed to proceed with an offer of a contract of employment. The minutes did not record this as an in camera direction to staff or as an open session resolution. The Ombudsman recommended that closed session votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001 and that council clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the meeting minutes.
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 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 closed meetings held by council for the City of Elliot Lake, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). The discussions involved changes to the current CAO’s contract and extending the service of the current CAO. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed by council during the meetings related to specific terms of an identified employee’s contract, including salary. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). During the closed meeting, council discussed an identifiable individual who had submitted an application for the CAO position. The discussion involved the contents of the application, and included expressing opinions about the individual’s qualifications. The discussion also involved third-party information that was included in the application. The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved personal information about the applicant and third-party information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). The discussions involved changes to the current CAO’s contract and extending the service of the current CAO. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed by council during the meetings related to specific terms of an identified employee’s contract, including salary. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a contract with a specific member of the public. In addition to professional information, council’s discussion included information about the individual’s credibility and conduct. Although the exception does not apply to professional or business information about an individual, information will be considered personal information where an individual’s conduct is scrutinized. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Hamilton to receive legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor regarding altering a contract with a consultant. The meeting was closed under the exception for solicitor-client privilege. The solicitor identified options for council with respect to the contract and risks associated with those options. The Ombudsman found that council’s 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.