The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion regarding the integrity commissioner’s role, including discussion of their performance and suitability for the position, fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. 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 fit within the exception, could have been parsed from the first part of the discussion, and should have been held in open session.
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.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a committee of council whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a local board whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Nipissing contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on July 13, 2021 when it discussed the Township’s hiring plan in camera. This discussion did not fall within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions, and could have been parsed from the rest of council’s in camera discussion. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during an in camera meeting on August 3, 2021. Although part of council’s discussion did not fit within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions, the Ombudsman found that an attempt to parse these discussions would have stifled free, open and uninterrupted discussion.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 8, 2021. During the in camera discussion on November 8, council discussed a report analyzing the possible uses of Centennial Park land. Council discussed the identity of the person who hired a consultant to draft the report, and discussed this person’s authority to commission the report. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
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.
Council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers was permitted to discuss a bidder on a Request for Proposals in camera, because the discussion went beyond professional information to include the individual’s personal suitability and conduct. Council was also permitted to discuss a grant application to hire an intern in camera, as the discussion included information about an individual’s job performance.
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 a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County on March 26, at which a potential candidate for the vacant interim CAO position attended. Some council members described the closed session as a “very informal interview” with the candidate. The Ombudsman found the discussion of personal information about the candidate, and the candidate’s suitability for the position fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman found that the City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee for the City of Hamilton did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 on February 9 and 23, 2019, when it met in camera under the personal matters exception to conduct interviews for the city manager position and to discuss the suitability of individual candidates for the position.
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 that was held by council for the City of St. Catharines to discuss a proposed staff position, government relations adviser, under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. Council’s discussion focused on the role and nature of the proposed staff position, including the position’s general responsibilities and duties, salary, and contract length. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception because the discussion did not pertain to the relationship between the municipality and its employees or reference specific individuals who might be hired.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Corporate Services Committee for the City of London to discuss the hiring policy for senior staff, relying on the solicitor-client privilege exception. The municipality informed the Ombudsman that municipal solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice, and that nothing else was addressed. The Ombudsman noted that some municipalities choose to waive solicitor-client privilege and provide privileged information during an investigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the upcoming retirement of the chief administrative officer (CAO). Council discussed the CAO’s salary and the recruitment process to hire a new CAO. There were no candidates identified or discussed during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that general consideration of a hiring process is not personal information and does not fit within the personal matters exception unless the discussion is incidental or brief. Therefore, council’s discussion about the recruitment process did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).Council discussed the résumé and qualifications of an identifiable individual who applied for the position, expressed opinions about the individual, and considered sending the candidate an offer of employment. The Ombudsman found that the labour relations or employee negotiations exception could apply to council’s discussion.
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 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 Township of Baldwin to discuss the qualification of candidates for a staff position. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. Council discussed the applications and the possibility of extending an offer to a potential future employee. The Ombudsman found that the labour relations or employee negotiations exception refers to the collective relationship between an employer and its employees. Therefore, the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.