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.
Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Commission - May 19, 2023
Municipality of Arran-Elderslie - March 28, 2023
Council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie held a closed session to discuss a pilot project with an upper-tier municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party. The discussion involved financial and labour relations information supplied in confidence by the upper-tier municipality to the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie. The Ombudsman found that the information had been implicitly supplied in confidence and disclosure of the information could have significantly interfered with ongoing negotiations between the upper-tier municipality and other municipalities.
City of Greater Sudbury - March 3, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Greater Sudbury’s closed session discussion of third-party commercial and financial information on July 12, 2022 fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party. The Ombudsman found that the third-party information, which related to bids for a proposed municipal project, was supplied in confidence and that the public disclosure of the information could prejudice significantly the bidders' competitive positions in the bidding process or interfere with their contractual or other negotiations.
City of Cornwall - February 8, 2023
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The Ombudsman concluded that the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party did not apply to the Committee’s in camera discussions at either meeting since there was no evidence that information disclosed during the meetings could have been expected to cause significant harm to a third party.
Township of Lanark Highlands - June 20, 2022
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands on December 7, 2021. Council proceeded in camera to discuss the performance of an individual in the context of their employment with the Township. Council also discussed the Township’s finances, which would typically occur in open session. However, the Ombudsman found that it would have been impractical for council to parse its discussion of the Township’s finances from its discussion about the performance of an employee. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.
Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission - June 9, 2022
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.
Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission - June 9, 2022
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.
Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission - June 9, 2022
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.
Bruce County - May 20, 2022
The Ombudsman considered the applicability of the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party to Bruce County Executive Committee’s in camera discussion on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within this exception to the open meeting rules because none of the information discussed fell into the categories listed in s. 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act, 2001 such as financial or commercial information.
Town of South Bruce Peninsula - October 14, 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula improperly met in closed session to receive a delegation on March 16, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that council received and discussed detailed information from a third party company regarding that company’s development plans, expected profits, and intended use of proprietary technology. We were told that the third party specifically wished to discuss this commercial information in private because it did not want to prejudice a pending land transaction or alert competitors to the proprietary technology it intended to rely on to create a profitable business in a specific area. The Ombudsman found this closed session discussion was permissible under section 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act as council discussed information supplied in confidence by a third party that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the business and significantly interfere with an ongoing land transaction.
Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019
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.
Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019
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 identifiable individuals, 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 that it would have been possible for council to parse the two discussions. Council could have proceeded from open into close as soon as broad discussions of the financial documents concluded and discussions of identifiable staff commenced.
Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019
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 discussed a document containing a watermark indicating that it was “supplied in confidence” to the municipality by a consultant. The Ombudsman found the document summarized and analyzed information about the municipality, and was marked “in confidence” because it was created by a third party and given to the municipality. Section 239(2)(i) is intended to protect confidential information about a third party. Therefore, the discussion of this report marked “in confidence” did not fit within the information supplied in confidence exception.
Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019
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 Ombudsman found the exception does not apply to discussions of the finances of the municipality, therefore, the discussions at this meeting did not fit within the exception.
Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019
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 Ombudsman found that information provided to council by staff about a municipality’s finances generally does not fit within any of the exceptions to open meeting rules. Therefore, the discussions at this meeting did not fit within the exception.
City of Hamilton - June 21, 2019
The City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee met in closed session to discuss the municipality’s contribution to the local Canadian Football League team’s bid for the Grey Cup championship game. The committee cited the exception for information belonging to the municipality when it moved in camera. The city claimed that the information discussed was a trade secret because it included details about how the city allocates funding to large-scale events generally. The city also claimed that the information had monetary value because if the amount of the city’s contribution was disclosed, it would negatively affect the city’s competitive position for the Grey Cup bid and other large-scale events in the future. The Ombudsman found that the information was not a trade secret but qualified as financial information. The Ombudsman also found that the information belonged to the municipality. However, the Ombudsman found that the while the city may suffer economic loss if the information were disclosed, there was no indication that the information itself had any monetary value. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for information belonging to the municipality.
Town of Pelham - April 19, 2018
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham to discuss an external consultant’s report to council regarding municipal financial information and the conduct and performance of a previous employee. While in closed session the treasurer presented information to council about the municipality’s financial status. In most cases, this type of information would not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules and should be discussed in open session. However, in this case the Ombudsman found that the information provided by the treasurer was sufficiently necessary to fully explore the issues covered by the legal advice and therefore, appropriately discussed in closed session under the solicitor-client privilege exception.
Municipality of St.-Charles - February 4, 2016
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of St.-Charles to discuss a draft financial report from its auditors. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The auditors gave a presentation to council about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman found that there may be circumstances when a discussion about a municipality’s finances fits within the security of the property exception. For example, cases of fraud or theft of municipal property, or threats. However, the auditor’s presentation contained information about the municipality’s finances, but did not include a discussion of any potential loss or damage to that property. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.