The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024. Council relied on the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss the integrity commissioner’s role with the Town. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the cited exception because it went beyond the integrity commissioner’s professional role and included information related to their performance and suitability for the position. The Ombudsman also found that the integrity commissioner’s resignation letter constituted personal information. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the hiring process it would follow to find a new integrity commissioner did not fall under the exception for personal matters because it covered only the procedural steps of hiring; council did not discuss the personal information of any potential candidates.
The Ombudsman determined that the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding changes to the public fundraising policy, which included the creation of a new staff position, did not fit within the exception for labour relations and employee negotiations because the discussion was not about the Counties’ relationship with any current or future employees and reference to an existing staff role was made only in passing. The Ombudsman concluded that this portion of the Committee’s closed session discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
Council for the City of Elliot Lake relied on the “personal matters” exception to discuss the municipality’s organizational structure in closed session. The discussion took place in two parts. During the first part, council reviewed an organizational chart which included the names and roles of employees. During the second part, council discussed potential reorganization and received information about identifiable employees, including about leaves of absence, performance, and working relationships. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the discussion did not fit within the “personal matters” exception because it did not include personal information about identifiable individuals. The Ombudsman found that the second part of the discussion fit within the exception.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about a closed meeting of the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee held on February 6, 2019.
Throughout the closed meeting, the Committee discussed an individual staff member, who was identified by name, and the discussion involved scrutiny of their conduct. Accordingly, the Committee’s discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
Council for the Town of Deep River relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to hold a closed session discussion about the Town’s organizational structure. The discussion included information about a change in position for two identifiable employees. Council discussed changes in the employees’ salaries and general responsibilities, as well as the impact of the changes on the Town’s organizational structure. The Ombudsman found that this information qualified as personal information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman investigated a special closed meeting held by the Grey Bruce Health Unit’s Board of Health on May 12, 2021, as well as a closed meeting held by the Board’s Executive Committee on May 10, 2021. With respect to the Board of Health’s meeting on May 12, 2021, the Ombudsman found that the Board discussed a particular Health Unit employee’s experience, competence, and salary (including detailed information about compensation structure). Accordingly, although not cited by the Board of Health to close the meeting, the Ombudsman found that the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual applied to this part of the Board’s discussion.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Nipissing did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during an in camera meeting on August 3, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion regarding identifiable employees’ job performance was permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(b), personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). Generally, stating only the exception does not satisfy the requirements of the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was not permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(e), litigation or potential litigation. There was no ongoing litigation at the time of the October 13, 2021 meeting and any concern about litigation was speculative.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual at paragraph 239(2)(b), as a discussion about an employee’s performance and opinions about that employee’s conduct fit the exception.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, 2021. During the in camera discussion on August 8, council discussed the job performance and workplace conduct of three individuals who were identified by name. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed session meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury where council discussed the conduct of an identifiable individual employed by the City. While information about an individual in their professional capacity will not generally fit within the personal matters exception, the discussion will fit within the exception if it relates to scrutiny of an individual’s conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the subject fit within the exception.
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 meetings relied partly on the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual. This exception generally does not apply to information that pertains to an individual in their professional capacity, however, it does apply if such information reveals something personal or relates to scrutiny of an individual’s conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussions about the hiring of a candidate for the interim CAO position, and the performance of identifiable staff members fit within the exception for personal matters for an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found an overall “clearing the air” tone of a meeting, the involvement of shouting, pointing and accusations, and the fact that council did not want to discuss the information publicly, was not sufficient to close the discussion under the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed an in camera session of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing during which council was to discuss the relationship between staff and council. The discussion instead involved shouting, pointing and arguments between council members. The Ombudsman found discussions about relationships between staff and council, even if they had taken place, would not have fit within the personal matters exception. Information pertaining to the professional capacity of an individual is not personal in nature even if discussions of relationships involve sensitive information the municipality would prefer to not discuss publicly.
The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council chose to close this discussion under the personal matters exception because they anticipated discussions about the broader financial issues would lead to discussions about the conduct of identified employees, and believed council would not be able to separate the two discussions. The Ombudsman found discussions of individual staff fell within the personal matters exception, however, discussions of broader financial issues did not. The Ombudsman found the council could have separated the two discussions and proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines to discuss a proposed staff position, government relations adviser. The meeting was closed under the negotiations exception. During the discussion, there were passing references to municipal projects involving the provincial government that could potentially become part of the new position’s portfolio of responsibilities. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the negotiations exception because it focused on determining the role and nature of a new staff position, including employment details, rather than specifically formulating a detailed course of action with respect to current or future negotiations involving municipal-provincial projects. In addition, the discussion did not involve any information that could undermine the city’s bargaining position in future negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore to discuss a communication protocol between municipal staff and the fire department. During the discussion, council considered the appointment of an individual firefighter as communications officer without council approval. The Ombudsman found that the information related to the employment duties of a firefighter and the reporting relationship amongst municipal staff. Accordingly, although not cited by the municipality, the discussion fit within labour relations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss payment of remuneration for volunteer firefighters. During the closed session, council identified specific firefighters by name and discussed whether they had satisfied their employment conditions. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
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 communications protocol between municipal staff and the fire department. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include any personal information. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit into the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of The North Shore to discuss payment of remuneration for volunteer firefighters and conditions of employment for firefighters. The discussion related to the relationship between the municipality and its firefighters. Although not cited by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Tehkummah, relying on the personal matters exception to discuss an ongoing third-party workplace investigation relating to an employee. During the discussion, council deliberated about whether the best course of action would be to suspend the staff member pending the completion of the workplace investigation. The Ombudsman found that a discussion to change employment status or job performance of an individual staff member constitutes personal information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exceptions.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Tehkummah, relying on the personal matters exception to discuss an ongoing third-party workplace investigation relating to an employee. Council’s discussion centered on the employment status of an identifiable staff member. While not cited by the township, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labor relations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of North Huron to discuss fire department personnel issues. While in closed session, council discussed a legal opinion related to the fire department personnel. After council discussed this legal advice, approximately 40 firefighters entered the closed session and, through two representatives, spoke with council about various shared concerns. These concerns included comments about identified individuals and the department’s work conditions. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception because the conduct discussed went beyond the employees’ professional role.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Georgina to discuss an organizational review of certain departments within the municipality’s administration as part of a larger service delivery review. While in camera, council discussed the performance of particular employees in relation to the restructuring options contained in a staff report. While not cited by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Georgina to discuss an organizational review of certain departments within the municipality’s administration as part of a larger service delivery review. The meeting was closed using the personal matters exception. While in camera, council discussed the performance of particular employees in relation to the restructuring options contained in a staff report. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss a motion to rescind a previous resolution regarding the recruitment of a chief administrative officer (CAO). The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session council discussed several individuals in the context of their employment, however, the discussion also included information about these employees that went beyond their professional roles. Council also discussed the desired qualities of a CAO. The Ombudsman found that while normally, general discussion of the qualities of a CAO would not fall within the personal matters exception, in this case it would not be reasonable for council to parse its discussion. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie, which met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The discussion was about an individual employee in the context of their employment relationship to the BIA and included the employee’s job performance. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the labour relations exception, the discussion fit within that exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area in the Town of Fort Erie. The board met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the board. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the personal matters exception, the discussion fit within that exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss transit tickets in the municipality. During the discussion, council received a third-party investigation report that included information about employee negligence and conduct. Council also received written legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor about the report. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The municipality retained a labour consultant to provide advice on the complaints. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception because council discussed the conditions of work for specific employees, as well as the general work environment for all employees in a specific department, and directed staff to terminate the employment of two employees.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss details of complaints by named municipal staff against other staff members. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The complaints included allegations of harassment and health and safety concerns. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed went beyond the staff members’ professional duties and included personal concerns about their work environment. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss an external investigator’s report into health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council discussed the conduct of a staff member and how to address the issues raised in the report. During the discussion, the external investigator provided general information about health and safety requirements, interspersed with comments about specific individual employees. The Ombudsman found that it was unrealistic to expect council to parse this portion of the discussion to exclude references to related or background information. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
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 Town of South Bruce Peninsula, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the performance and conduct of a staff member. Typically, the personal matters exception applies to discussions about an individual in his or her personal capacity, rather than his or her professional, business, or official capacity. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion related to the individual’s conduct and therefore fit within the personal matters 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 City of Niagara Falls to discuss staff conduct related to a future university campus located in the downtown area of the municipality. The discussion also included questions about whether the mayor and certain staff members had complied with their professional obligations. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not include topics that were inherently personal in nature. Rather, questions about staff conduct were general in nature or about individuals in their professional capacities. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of South Huron to discuss an identified employee’s disagreement with the application of the municipality’s personnel policy. During the discussion, council received a legal opinion on the matter. Although not relied upon by council, the Ombudsman found that the portion of the discussion related to the solicitor’s advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of South Huron that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of staffing issues. The discussion included issues of staff performance reviews, reorganization, staff conduct, discipline, and the salaries of specific employees. The Ombudsman found that these matters are considered personal information for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 and therefore they fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Council discussed the qualifications of an identifiable individual who applied for the position and expressed opinions about the individual. Throughout the discussion, the municipality’s solicitor provided advice. The Ombudsman found that the parts of the discussion related to the solicitor’s advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Whitestone to discuss an organizational review. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. Council’s discussion included specific information about the performance of identifiable individual employees and the retirement of two employees. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception because it related to the performance of identifiable individual employees.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan to discuss a former employee. The closed meeting relied on the personal matters exception. Council members expressed personal opinions about the individual’s behaviour and discussed actions the municipality should take to address a particular issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores to discuss the performance of an identifiable member of staff. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The discussion included an examination of the employee’s job performance, as well as personal views and opinions expressed about this individual. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed qualified as personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Mattawa, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the salary of a staff member. The Ombudsman found that an individual’s salary, as opposed to a salary range for a position, may qualify as personal information. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception.