The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion held by the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee on September 28, 2022 regarding a proposal to lease a portion of a municipally owned recreational complex fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman found that a closed session discussion held by the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee on September 28, 2022 regarding a proposal to lease a portion of a municipally owned recreational complex fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Saugeen Shores where council discuss ongoing lease negotiations for municipal property. The Ombudsman found that these discussions fit within the closed meeting exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Saugeen Shores where council discuss ongoing lease negotiations for municipal property. In each case, council provided staff with direction on how to proceed with the ongoing lease negotiations. The Ombudsman found that these discussions fit within the closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Saugeen Shores where council discussed ongoing lease negotiations for municipal property. At this meeting, a lawyer was present to provide council with legal advice related to a draft lease agreement. In each case, council provided staff with direction on how to proceed with the ongoing lease negotiations. The Ombudsman found that this discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a local business that wished to lease land from the municipality. Council discussed ongoing negotiations with the business and whether or not to lease the land. The Ombudsman found that the acquisition or disposition of land exception applies to the disposition of land through a lease. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne to discuss various ongoing land sales and an ongoing lease negotiation for municipally-owned property. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception as the land involved was municipally owned and a lease constitutes a property interest in land.
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 lease proposal from Marineland for municipal property. During the meeting, council discussed legal advice received from the municipality’s solicitor with respect to the lease. 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 Township of Russell to discuss a lease proposal related to the municipality’s fire hall. Although not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception since a lease is a form of property right.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Town of Ajax to discuss an encroachment on a municipal road allowance. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The committee discussed the disposition of a road allowance and the potential risks or repercussions of selling or leasing the land. The fact that the committee discussed the same matter in open session at an earlier meeting does not mean that the closed session was prohibited. The purpose of the closed meeting was to establish a position on how to dispose of the property in question. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Orangeville that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the terms of a lease agreement. The owner of the property was present during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the presence of the owner of the property that the municipality was seeking to acquire disqualified the discussion from fitting within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The primary purpose of the exception is to protect the municipality’s bargaining position in property negotiations. The presence of the property owner during the discussion defeats this purpose.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Orangeville that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the terms of a lease agreement. The owner of the property was present during the meeting. There was a very real likelihood of litigation if the lease negotiations failed. However, the Ombudsman found that the presence of the owner of the property that the municipality was seeking to acquire disqualified the discussion from fitting within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board for the Acton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss leasing new office space. Although not relied on by the BIA, the Ombudsman found that since the discussion was about a pending lease and the terms of the lease that were open for negotiation, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a request for proposals process. The Ombudsman found that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss legal advice; rather, the commission discussed the status of draft lease agreements. The commission’s solicitor was not present during the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.