The Ombudsman found that an in camera session held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on November 15, 2023 to discuss a staff report on local development charges did not fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation, as the possibility of litigation was speculative. Similarly, the Ombudsman also found that council’s in camera discussion on January 9, 2024 about a sign purchase did not fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation, as the risk of litigation was speculative.
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, the discussion concerned potential litigation following the Health Unit’s receipt of a letter from a lawyer threatening litigation. The potential litigation was more than remote or speculative. At both meetings, litigation strategy was discussed. Accordingly, although not cited by either the Board of Health or the Executive Committee to close the May 10 and 12, 2021 meetings, the Ombudsman found that both discussions fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed the applicability of the exception for potential litigation to portions of two closed meetings held by Council for the Township of Minden Hills on January 27, 2022 and March 10, 2022. At the January 27, 2022 meeting, staff communicated legal advice to council pertaining to a matter that was to be before a tribunal. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation. With respect to the March 10, 2022 meeting, Council received staff advice that litigation would be required to resolve a planning application dispute. Council’s in camera discussion fit within this exception because the prospect of litigation was more than merely speculative.
The Ombudsman received two complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted in closed session on April 28, 2022, contrary to the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that during the in camera discussion on April 28, 2022, council discussed whether to appeal a court decision. Accordingly, this discussion properly fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place to discuss a statement made by the mayor. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The municipality believed the mayor’s statement opened up the municipality to possible litigation from an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman considered the broader circumstances of the meeting in determining whether there was a reasonable prospect of litigation at the time of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the mayor’s statement was contentious but did not justify the municipality’s suspicion that the statement opened up the municipality to liability. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell which relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the naming rights for a new sports facility. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence to indicate that council was considering ongoing litigation or had realistically contemplated a legal proceeding. It was mere speculation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss a matter related to the legality of the Walkerton Business Improvement Area’s (BIA) practices and structure. During the meeting, council considered a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner raising concerns about the BIA and formally requesting that the BIA take corrective action. The Ombudsman found that litigation was a realistic possibility. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion which responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. The Ombudsman found that the Walkerton BIA is subject to the open meeting rules as a local board. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Georgian Bay to discuss a shoreline structure that did not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The municipality had received verbal threats of legal action from neighbouring land owners if the municipality did not enforce the zoning by-law. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception since legal action was a reasonable prospect.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby to discuss a municipally controlled corporation, relying on the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the closed session, council discussed a proposal to obtain a business valuation of the corporation. The municipality believed that the business valuation of the corporation was sensitive business information that should remain confidential. The discussion referenced an ongoing arbitration process involving the municipality, however the arbitration was not the focus of the discussion. The Ombudsman found that binding arbitration may be akin to litigation. However, the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was no evidence that the discussion involved current or pending litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the County of Norfolk that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality was aware that identifiable individuals planned to file an appeal of the enacted site-specific zoning by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was a reasonable prospect of litigation with respect to the site-specific zoning by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion that responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland to discuss options related to a site plan agreement for a subdivision located in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The site plan agreement had been the subject of complaints by residents. At the time of the meeting there was no specific threat of litigation or pending litigation with respect to the site plan agreement. Council’s discussion focused on matters that theoretically could lead to litigation depending on how council proceeded. The nature of the matter and the tone of communications between the municipality, residents and the developer was contentious. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because litigation or other legal action did not rise above mere speculation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield that relied on on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the tender process for small equipment. During the discussion the committee considered various courses of action related to the municipality’s tender process in order to mitigate the potential for litigation from an identified source. The Ombudsman found that although there was no litigation ongoing at the time of the meeting, it was a reasonable prospect under consideration and not mere speculation. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to discuss a contract related to the Wiarton Keppel International Airport. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. Council discussed the potential sale of the airport and a contract for airport fuel tank removal. The Ombudsman found that council did not discuss any litigation in progress or even contemplated litigation with respect to the contract. The prospect of litigation was mere speculation. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee for the Township of Woolwich to discuss an opinion received from legal counsel that outlined steps that should be taken prior to pursuing civil action on a particular matter. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that although there was no litigation ongoing at the time of the meeting, there was a reasonable prospect of litigation. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss potential litigation against a party pertaining to the Flatwater Centre, located in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that council was genuinely contemplating litigation during the closed session. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss potential litigation against a party pertaining to the Flatwater Centre. The municipality’s solicitors were present and provided advice on the matter. 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 Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh to discuss a third party’s discharge of water onto a municipal road allowance. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The discharge of water caused damage to municipal property. The purpose of the closed session was to discuss the possibility of litigation to address the damage. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was more than a suspicion or mere speculation that litigation would occur.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant. Council received an update from staff relating to the upgrade and, based on this information, considered taking legal action against a specific party connected with the project. The Ombudsman found that communications prepared by a prospective litigant, even in the absence of a lawyer, may fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit with in the cited exception because council was not merely speculating about the possibility of future litigation, but contemplated legal action against specific parties.
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 council for the Township of Ryerson that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss a rezoning application. Council had not yet reached a decision on the rezoning application. The Ombudsman found that since no decision had been reached on the application, and there was no pending litigation or notice of an intent to take specific legal action, there was no reasonable prospect of litigation, and therefore the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Planning and Development Committee for the Town of Midland that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss a zoning dispute. The committee was considering a lawyer’s letter that identified specific legal action that would be taken if the zoning matter was not resolved. The Ombudsman found that the committee perceived that there was a real possibility of litigation based on the letter and was considering how to respond to the potential for legal action. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Tiny that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss possible amendments to the zoning by-law. Council’s discussion mentioned the possibility that litigation could arise in the future as a result of the proposed amendments. There was no litigation ongoing or threatened at the time of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception, and instead involved mere speculation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Tiny to discuss possible amendments to the zoning by-law. Council received legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor regarding the possibility of future litigation as a result of the proposed amendments. Although not relied upon by the municipality, 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 United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria to discuss a harassment complaint filed by the clerk. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because council discussed whether to initiate legal proceedings related to the harassment complaint.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria to discuss a code of conduct complaint made by a member of the public against a member of council. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence of any current or future legal proceeding related to the code of conduct complaint. Mere speculation that litigation may arise is not sufficient to bring the matter within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the City of London to discuss the Occupy London protest. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the committee discussed potential litigation relating to the protest. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the naming of a recreation complex located in the municipality. The municipality believed that the naming rights for the complex was a matter that could result in future legal action. However, at the time of the meeting, there was no actual evidence of any current or future legal proceedings related to the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was no reasonable prospect of litigation and any discussion relating to potential litigation was mere speculation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special closed meeting held by council for the Town of Kearney that relied on the “litigation or potential litigation” exception to discuss a rezoning application. As with any rezoning matter, there was a possibility that council’s decision would be appealed. However, the possibility of appeal is not sufficient to bring a matter within the realm of potential litigation. The Ombudsman found that council lacked the degree of certainty necessary to make the potential for litigation a reasonable prospect. Therefore, the matter did not fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.