The Ombudsman found that only a portion of the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding a fundraising update fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman determined that information about individual (but not corporate) donors and their wishes constituted personal matters about identifiable individuals, and that the portion of the discussion regarding internal communications that included individual donor information could not have been parsed further. Accordingly, this portion of the closed session discussion fit within the exception for personal matters. However, other portions of the Committee’s closed session discussion, in particular whether or not to discuss the fundraising update in closed session and changes to the public fundraising policy, only contained passing references to identifiable individuals and could have been held in open session. Accordingly, those portions did not fit within this exception or any other exception, and the Ombudsman concluded that the Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss the naming rights for a new sports facility. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. While the municipality believed that the information discussed related to personality conflicts involving members of the community, the discussion mainly pertained to fundraising, naming rights and advertising for the sports facility. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include personal information and noted that a municipal council cannot automatically shield itself from open discussion on a full report merely because the report contains relatively minor references to bona fide personal matters. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the closed meeting 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 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.