Council for the City of Peterborough held a closed session to receive and discuss legal advice from the City Solicitor. The City’s Police Chief was also invited into the closed session and provided additional information to council which was relevant to the legal advice under consideration. The Ombudsman noted that information provided by non-lawyers may still fall within the open meeting exception for solicitor-client privilege if the information is needed to meaningfully understand and discuss the legal advice being sought. Accordingly, the closed session fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McGarry’s closed session discussion about the former mayor’s resignation on September 1, 2023, fit within the exceptions for personal matters and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
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. At both meetings, legal advice was received from solicitors about a letter the Health Unit had received from a lawyer threatening litigation. The confidential legal advice received was about the appropriate steps to be taken in response to the letter, as well as litigation strategy. A third-party consultant was also present at both meetings. However, the Ombudsman found that the third-party consultant provided insights that supplemented, and were informed by, the legal advice given by the solicitors. The presence of the third-party consultant therefore did not constitute waiver of solicitor-client privilege. Accordingly, the discussions of the Board of Health and the Executive Committee fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Greater Sudbury’s closed session discussion of a proposed municipal project on July 12, 2022 fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege as council sought and received legal advice regarding the project from the City Solicitor and Clerk and the Deputy City Solicitor.
The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman determined that the Township did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed matters in camera on March 15, 2022. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about a human resources matter fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that a committee’s in camera discussion on July 21, 2022 was permissible under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege because the committee received legal advice from lawyers with respect to the redevelopment of Town-owned property.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 13, 2021. During the in camera discussion on September 13, a report and legal correspondence were presented to council relating to the Town’s options under a contractual agreement with a specific entity. A solicitor was present and answered council’s questions about its options. The Ombudsman found that this discussion was properly closed under the exception for communications subject to solicitor-client privilege.
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 16, 2021. During the in camera discussion on November 16, council discussed the Town’s vaccination policy and specific Town employees who had not provided proof of vaccination. A solicitor was present and provided advice regarding possible courses of action the Town could take with respect to these employees. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about how the Town’s vaccination policy applied to specific individuals was properly closed under the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.
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 16, 2021. During the in camera discussion on November 16, council discussed the Town’s ongoing litigation with a former staff member. A solicitor provided updates to council with respect to the ongoing litigation, as well as advice regarding next steps in the litigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the ongoing litigation matter was properly closed under the exception for litigation or potential litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the meeting and provided legal advice to council on the application of the open meeting rules and a contract between the municipality and the integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the “solicitor-client privilege” exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting a lawyer was present and provided confidential legal advice related to the investigations throughout the meeting. The Ombudsman found that this advice fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
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 reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege to discuss a draft by-law prepared by the township’s external solicitor. A third-party consultant, who also served as the township’s Integrity Commissioner, attended the meeting and provided comments on the draft by-law. The Ombudsman found that the presence of the consultant did not constitute a waiver of privilege and that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. A third-party consultant, who also served as the township’s Integrity Commissioner, attended the meeting. The Ombudsman found that council was entitled to rely on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege despite the presence of the consultant, but noted that a lack of consensus as to the consultant’s role at the meeting contributed to the impression that the meeting was improperly closed. The Ombudsman suggested, as a best practice, that meeting documents more clearly identify the capacity in which attendees participate in meetings if those attendees hold multiple positions within the township.
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 Norfolk County to receive a deputation from representatives of the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board. The meeting was closed using the exception for solicitor-client privilege. During the meeting, the municipality’s solicitor provided legal advice to council. The Ombudsman found that these portions of the closed meeting fit within the solicitor-client privilege 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 council for the City of Niagara Falls that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a proposal to develop a university campus in the municipality’s downtown area. Council’s discussion focused on a development funding partnership with a post-secondary institution. The municipality’s solicitor was present during the closed session; however, the Ombudsman found that he did not provide any legal advice or participate in the discussion. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.