Township of Wollaston - February 10, 2025
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Wollaston’s Communication Team is a committee of council, and that any meetings it may have held since its inception should have been subject to the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. In the course of the investigation, our Office learned of a phone call between two of the three members of the Communication Team. The Ombudsman determined that:
- The Communication Team is a committee of council;
- Although quorum was reached on this phone call, the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Communication Team;
- The Communication Team did not otherwise conduct any meetings as of the date of the investigation.
The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Communication Team take care to avoid discussions that may advance its business or decision-making during informal gatherings, including by electronic means (such as a phone call), since quorum is easily reached because of its small committee size.
Township of The North Shore - February 3, 2025
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of The North Shore did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when a quorum of its members engaged in an informal discussion immediately following a council meeting on March 20, 2024, and also over group text message between March 24 and March 25, 2024. Although these discussions involved a quorum of council, they were not “meetings” subject to the open meeting rules because members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
Municipality of West Elgin - December 13, 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of West Elgin’s emergency council meeting held on September 22, 2023 did not meet the criteria under the municipality’s procedural by-law for an emergency meeting and therefore public notice was required. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the municipality did not provide meaningful notice, as the meeting was advertised as electronic but no link was provided for the public to access a livestream of the meeting. This resulted in the meeting being effectively closed to the public contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.
Municipality of West Elgin - December 13, 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of West Elgin did not provide meaningful notice of its council meetings on September 22, September 28, and October 16, 2023, as the meetings were advertised as hybrid or electronic only, but no link was provided for the public to access the livestream of the meetings. This resulted in the meetings being effectively closed to the public contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.
Municipality of Whitestone - September 3, 2024
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Whitestone failed to provide adequate notice of several electronic meetings. The Municipality did not provide any information about how the public could observe some of these meetings. The Municipality also did not take adequate steps to inform the public about how it could observe some of these meetings when the Municipality’s website was down for maintenance and the information was not visible.
Municipality of Casselman - January 3, 2024
Given the legislative amendments made to the open meeting rules as a result of the pandemic, members may be “present” when they come together electronically to discuss and advance business. Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret audio-visual call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.
City of Hamilton - November 16, 2023
The Ombudsman was unable to conclude whether an electronic meeting of the City of Hamilton’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee was livestreamed to the public.
Huronia Airport Task Force - October 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location for a meeting of the Huronia Airport Task Force on April 19, 2022, and also failed to record minutes of that meeting.
Huronia Airport Task Force - October 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location for a meeting of the Huronia Airport Task Force on April 19, 2022, and also failed to record minutes of that meeting.
Huronia Airport Task Force - October 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location for a meeting of the Huronia Airport Task Force on April 19, 2022, and also failed to record minutes of that meeting.
Municipality of Callander - September 20, 2023
The Ombudsman found that while broadcasting in-person meetings increases the accountability and transparency of municipal decision-making, the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements are satisfied if the public can attend meetings in person.
Municipality of West Elgin - September 7, 2023
The Ombudsman found that a council meeting was improperly closed when members of the public could not access the live broadcast after council returned to open session from a closed session. Members of the public could attend the meeting both in person and electronically, though only individuals attending the meeting in person were able to observe the second open portion of the meeting.
Township of Alberton - July 12, 2023
Our Office received a complaint from a person who was removed from the Township of Alberton’s May 11, 2022 hybrid council meeting because they refused to identify themselves on Zoom. The Township has a requirement that all attendees of council meetings, whether in person or virtual, must identify themselves. The purpose of this requirement in the context of virtual council meetings is to prevent “Zoom bombings,” in which uninvited individuals join a meeting and act in a disruptive manner. The Ombudsman found that by removing the complainant from the meeting on May 11, 2022, the Township illegally closed the meeting to the public. Municipalities have an obligation to ensure that members of the public can freely access and observe open meetings and must be careful about placing conditions on their ability to do so. While not all such conditions will necessarily be a violation of the open meeting rules, in this case, requiring the public identification of all attendees was an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective of preventing “Zoom bombings.” Technological options exist that would permit the public to access and observe the Township’s meetings virtually without being able to interrupt.
Municipality of Calvin - June 1, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Calvin contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide the public with proper notice of and information about how to access its June 14, 2022 electronic council meeting. Although the Municipality posted a link to the electronic meeting partway through the meeting, the public was unable to observe the entire meeting in real time, and the meeting was therefore effectively closed to the public contrary to the Act.
Municipality of Calvin - June 1, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Calvin contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it provided inconsistent information on its website about how the public could access its May 10, 2022 electronic council meeting.
Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission - February 9, 2023
A member of the public complained that they were not admitted to a virtual meeting of the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission on June 20, 2022, which was held over Zoom. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Commission followed its procedure by posting public notice in advance with the date, time, and Zoom link to observe the meeting. The Ombudsman found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Commission did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman suggested the Commission consider including in its public meeting notices a phone number for assistance if a member of the public has technical difficulties accessing or observing a meeting.
Township of McKellar - January 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 31, 2021 when council returned to open session from an in camera discussion and did not provide a livestream for the public to observe that open portion of the meeting.
Township of McKellar - January 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by posting contradictory public notices about the time and location of the electronic meeting on September 9, 2021.
Township of McKellar - January 30, 2023
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when audio and connectivity issues impeded the public’s ability to observe portions of the electronic meeting of council held on August 24, 2021.
City of Niagara Falls - November 11, 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complainant alleged that the City turned off the camera that was broadcasting the council meeting after staff requested a brief break in order to prepare a response to a question asked by the Mayor. The complainant expressed concern that council may have held a closed meeting during this break while the camera was turned off. The Ombudsman found that the City did not contravene the open meeting requirements on April 12, 2022 when council took a break during the meeting in order for staff to caucus. The Ombudsman’s review indicated that nothing during the 25-minute break moved council business forward or materially advanced the City’s business or decision-making. Accordingly, the gathering of council during the break did not constitute a closed meeting in contravention of the Act.
City of Hamilton - September 7, 2022
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that two meetings, one held by the Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee and the Agriculture and the other by the Rural Affairs Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton, were improperly closed to the public because of livestream issues. The Ombudsman found that one meeting experienced a technical glitch causing the livestream to go down for a brief period of time, and was unable to determine the quality or availability of the livestream for the other meeting.
Municipality of Casselman - August 19, 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.
City of Hamilton - February 2, 2022
The Ombudsman received a complaint about an electronic meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Board of Health on August 11, 2021. The complaint alleged that during the meeting, the votes of individual Board members were not visible in real time. The Ombudsman found that there was no contravention of the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 at this meeting. All meeting proceedings were streamed live online. The results of each vote were also announced verbally. A technical malfunction prevented the streaming software from displaying the breakdown of votes on-screen in real time.
Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission - December 9, 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed electronic meetings held by the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission. The Ombudsman found that the Commission is a local board subject to the open meeting rules. The Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to pass a procedure by-law governing its meetings and failing to provide adequate notice of its meetings. The Ombudsman further found that the Commission did not adequately notify members of the public about how to request readmission to the portion of an open meeting following a closed session. The Ombudsman commended the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency through changes to its public notice process and adoption of a formal procedure to ensure that observers are adequately informed about how to observe portions of a meeting occurring after a closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law providing for public notice of all meetings and that the Commission ensure the public is able to observe all open portions of meetings.
Municipality of Temagami - December 1, 2021
The Ombudsman found that the resolution passed by council during a meeting on March 8, 2021 adequately provided a general description of the matter to be discussed in camera. However, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to ensure the public could observe the passage of the resolution to proceed in camera during its meetings on March 8, 2021 and March 25, 2021. Whenever the public is excluded from in-person attendance, it is imperative that the alternative electronic format selected enables the public to observe all portions of the meeting except the duly constituted and permitted closed portions. This includes the resolution to go in camera and any business or report back that occurs after council has reconvened in open session. Publishing a recording of a meeting after it has already taken place is not a substitute for enabling the public to observe a meeting while it is happening.
Township of Bonfield - July 14, 2021
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Bonfield violated the open meeting rules when it held meetings in May and June 2020 over Zoom, without broadcasting or otherwise making the meetings accessible to the public. The Ombudsman recognized that these were the first meetings held by the Township during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that the pandemic did not alter the open meeting requirements.
City of Niagara Falls - July 8, 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the City of Niagara Falls. Council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting. Council’s resolution stating the general nature of the subjects to be discussed in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera.
City of Hamilton - June 23, 2021
The Ombudsman received complaints about vote results displayed to the public during electronic meetings held by the City of Hamilton. The complainants alleged that the results of a vote held by the City’s Board of Health during an electronic meeting on February 19, 2021, were not entirely visible to the public, contrary to the open meeting rules outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City agreed to continue monitoring its electronic meeting software and to take appropriate measures to ensure that the vote results of electronic meetings are displayed in their entirety.
City of Greater Sudbury - May 12, 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed an electronic meeting held by the City of Greater Sudbury. Council met in closed session prior to the regular meeting. Council’s resolution stating the general nature of the subjects to be discussed in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera.
City of Hamilton - April 22, 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed an electronic meeting held by the LGBTQ advisory committee for the City of Hamilton. The Ombudsman found that during the open portion of the meeting, the public livestream was unavailable due to technical issues. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that while the livestream was down, the public was excluded from the meeting and the meeting was illegally closed.
City of Richmond Hill - March 31, 2021
The Ombudsman reviewed several electronic meetings held by the City of Richmond Hill where council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman found that this contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings including the resolution to go in camera and any business conducted after rising from closed session. This recommendation includes meetings where the only item on the agenda is an in camera matter. The Ombudsman also recommended that the City ensure that information on how to access the live broadcast of an electronic meeting is provided in all meeting notices.
Village of Westport - March 12, 2021
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two meetings held by council for the Village of Westport on September 15, 2020. The complaint alleged that due to a technical issue, council did not livestream the virtual committee of the whole or special council meeting for the public. The complaint alleged that, as a result, these meetings were closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman confirmed that the public was excluded from these meetings due to technical issues and that as a result, they were improperly closed to the public.
Town of Greater Napanee - January 28, 2021
The Ombudsman investigated the meeting practices of the Greater Napanee BIA, who had been holding electronic meetings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no evidence that the BIA had amended its procedure by-law to allow electronic participants to count for quorum. The Ombudsman urged the Greater Napanee BIA to ensure that its meetings are in compliance with the Municipal Act’s quorum requirements.
Township of Russell - April 17, 2020
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Russell via electronic participation. Members were permitted to participate electronically and be counted toward quorum as a state of emergency had been declared pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The Ombudsman commended the Township for taking steps to ensure members of the public were advised of how to observe the live broadcast of the meeting and urged all municipalities to ensure electronic meetings are accessible to the public.
