The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023 to discuss a potential disposal of municipally owned property. The Ombudsman found that although the second portion of the closed meeting discussion on September 5 did not fit within the cited exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, it did fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land, because council had a bargaining position to protect with respect to disposal of the property. The Ombudsman also found that the September 14 closed meeting discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposal of land as council was protecting its bargaining position with respect to a discussion of how to dispose of the property.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the City of Elliot Lake to discuss a proposed sale of municipal land. Council discussed proposals to purchase the property and financial information about a geotechnical study of the land. The Ombudsman found that the information, if made public, could impact the municipality’s bargaining position, so the meeting was appropriately closed under the exception for 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 the acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Norfolk County to discuss raising capital by selling municipal land under the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception. Although there was no pending land transaction, during the discussion disposition of specific lands was proposed and a target price per acre was set. The Ombudsman found that the municipality had a bargaining position to protect and the discussion fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the policy review committee for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to discuss the sale of two municipally owned properties. The properties were located in the municipality’s industrial park. Although the properties had not been listed for sale, the municipality had a long-term strategic project to sell its property within the industrial park. Council’s discussion focused on the impending sale of the properties, including declaring the lands surplus and setting a price per acre. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the policy review committee for the Town of Carleton Place that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to discuss the installation of water and sewer servicing adjacent to municipally owned properties that were for sale. The discussion included financial information related to the installation of services that would impact the municipality’s bargaining position, including pricing strategy, for the municipally owned properties. The Ombudsman found that the discussion regarding the installation of servicing was inextricably linked to the sale of the municipally owned properties. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell relying on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the disposition of a municipal road allowance. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the closure and sale of a road allowance fit within the exceptions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk's Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk's Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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.