Notice

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.

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.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of McGarry provided adequate notice for an emergency meeting of council on September 1, 2023 regarding the resignation of the former mayor, in accordance with its procedure by-law.

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.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a June 20, 2023 meeting in the Municipality of Temagami, alleging the Municipality had failed to provide public notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found the Municipality did indeed provide public notice of the meeting several days prior.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg did not contravene the open meeting rules by not providing notice of a training session on municipal infrastructure asset management on February 14, 2023 that council held in closed session. Since the training session did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. However, the Ombudsman commended the Town for taking steps to go beyond the Act’s requirements to improve transparency with respect to the training session, and suggested that the Town formalize the practice of treating training sessions as meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Calvin contravened both the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law in not providing notice of meetings held by the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on July 26 and August 9, 2023, when the Township did not list the closed sessions on the agendas. The Ombudsman noted that the closed sessions were not initially planned, and the Act does not require municipalities to provide advance notice of the matters to be discussed in closed session.    

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.

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.

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.

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.

An airport commission indicated on its website that meetings were to take place on the second Thursday of each month, September through June, which the Ombudsman found is sufficient to provide the public with notice of meetings that occur on a regular schedule. However, a meeting in April 2021 took place on a Friday, and the Ombudsman found that the commission could not provide evidence to show its website had been updated to advise the public of this change.

The Ombudsman found that a training session for council for the Township of Emo on its new budget format fit within the exception for education and training since council received training and did not materially advance its business or decision-making. As council did not materially advance its business or decision-making, the training session was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Township’s procedure by-law. As such, the Township was not required to provide notice of the training session.

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 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, as a best practice, that the Commission may want to highlight any changes to access instructions – such as changes to a link – when publishing meeting notices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The Ombudsman’s review found that while council’s procedure by-law describes how notice shall be given for all council meetings, the by-law does not describe the type of notice required for committee meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the City amend its by-law to set out how notice will be provided for committee meetings.

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.

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 location of the meeting on April 12, 2022.

The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince. The Ombudsman determined that the Township contravened its procedural by-law and the Act’s open meeting requirements when it failed to make a reasonable effort to provide public notice of the meeting.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie’s Cultural Vitality Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 17, 2021, by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not open to the public, as the Committee did not provide the public with information about how to attend the virtual meeting. The Ombudsman also found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie’s Tourism Board contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 25, 2021 by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The meeting was not open to the public, as the Board did not provide the public with information on how to attend the virtual meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that Dufferin County’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services Standing Committee failed to provide notice to the public that the Committee would be closing a portion of the April 28, 2022 meeting. The Ombudsman found that the Committee provided notice for the meeting as a whole and it was entitled to proceed in camera because there are no specific notice requirements outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001 for in camera meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that raised concerns relating to public notice for meetings held by council for the City of Brockville on October 13 and October 18, 2021. Although public notice for the meetings was posted on the City’s website, the Ombudsman found that council did not comply with subsection 238(2.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 on October 13 and October 18, 2021 because its procedure by-law fails to provide for public notice about the calling, place and proceedings of special meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area failed to indicate in its January 12, 2022 meeting agenda that it would proceed in camera. The Ombudsman found that the Committee was entitled to proceed in camera because there are no specific notice requirements outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001 or in the BIA’s by-laws for in camera meetings or discussion items.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging the Board of Directors of the City of Hamilton Farmers’ Market failed to provide notice to the public of meetings on September 28, 2020 and March 23, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. Under its operating agreement with the City of Hamilton and procedure by-law, the Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors’ meetings are to be open to the public, except where otherwise permitted under the Act. However, these rules are silent on providing notice of meetings to the public. As a best practice, the Ombudsman suggested  the Board amend its rules to require that adequate notice of meetings be provided to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman. The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the open meeting rules when it did not provide public notice of Investigation Committee meetings and when council did not state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure it provides public notice for all committee meetings, and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.

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.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Baconfest Committee for the Township of Lucan Biddulph. The Ombudsman found that the Baconfest Committee is a committee of council subject to the open meeting rules, since it was formally established as one in the Township’s appointments by-law. The municipality failed to post notice of, or record meeting minutes for, its Baconfest Committee meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township formally establish all committees by by-law, and ensure that all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan. The Ombudsman found that the Township's procedure by-law did not reflect the current procedural requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township make several amendments to its procedure by-law, including that public notice be provided for all regular and special council and committee meetings; that council pass a resolution about the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera before going into closed session; and that council prohibit voting in camera except for procedural matters or for giving directions to staff.

The Ombudsman investigated the meeting practices of the Greater Napanee BIA and found that the Greater Napanee BIA provides notice of its board meetings via an email distribution list. The Greater Napanee BIA does not post notice of its board meetings on the BIA’s or the municipality’s website, or in any other public fashion. Going forward, the Ombudsman recommended that the Greater Napanee BIA should ensure that it provides notice to the general public for each of its board meetings, as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Township of Johnson failed to provide public notice of its October 29, 2019, special council meeting. The Township’s procedure by-law requires at least 24 hours’ notice of special council meetings. The Ombudsman determined that the Township posted the special meeting agenda on its website four days prior to the special council meeting. The Ombudsman found that the Township complied with the notice requirements in its procedure by-law.  

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. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special meeting held by the Municipality of Lambton Shores on April 15, 2019. The complaint alleged the public did not receive notice for the special meeting held by council at 12:00 p.m. The municipality posted the public notice for the special meeting on April 14 at 6:40 p.m. on the municipality’s website, in accordance with its procedure by-law. The municipality’s procedure by-law allowed for public notice of special meetings to be provided “as soon as practical.” The Ombudsman provided best practice suggestions related to the procedure by-law and requiring a public notice period for special meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Temagami did not provide notice of its January 10 and March 28, 2019 meetings. The complaint alleged that no notice was provided for the January 10 meeting and that conflicting and inaccurate notice was provided for the March 28 meeting. The Ombudsman’s review identified administrative issues with the meeting notice provided for the closed meetings on January 10 and March 28, 2019. The municipality acknowledged these errors and said that it had already taken steps to improve its processes.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting of the committee of the whole for the Municipality of Callander. The municipality was unable to provide evidence that the notice of the meeting was provided to the public in accordance with the municipality’s procedure by-law which required that notice be posted at least 48 hours before the meeting online and in the municipal offices. The Ombudsman found that notice was posted less than 36 hours before the meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed four meetings of the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area. The Ombudsman noted that notice of the meetings was provided 72 hours before each meeting, although the meetings were not held on their originally scheduled dates as noted on the website. The Ombudsman determined that the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area complied with the notice requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law, although its website had provided inaccurate information about the board's meeting schedule.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore. Notice of the meeting was posted on bulletin boards located within the municipality but not on the municipality’s website. The Ombudsman noted that the municipality’s procedure by-law was silent on public notice for special meetings. The Ombudsman found that the posted notice on the bulletin board was sufficient. However, the Ombudsman recommended that the township amend its procedure by-law to formalize its general practice of posting notice on the bulletin boards and online.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Tehkummah. Through inadvertence, the municipality failed to post notice of a special meeting in accordance with the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman wrote to remind the municipality of its obligations under the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Waste Management Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton. The committee is a committee of council subject to the open meeting rules, as at least 50% of its members are members of council. The municipality failed to post notice of two meetings of the committee in contravention of the Act. While the municipality posted a regular meeting time for the committee on its website, it did not indicate a location. The two meetings in question also took place at a time different from that posted. The Ombudsman recommended the municipality ensure it always provide notice before meetings of the committee, and that the municipality amend its procedure by-law to provide for notice of advisory committee meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Township of Tehkummah. Notice of the meeting was provided one day prior and stated that it was an emergency meeting. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide proper notice of the meeting since the procedure by-law required notice be posted at the municipal office two days prior to a meeting. The Ombudsman also found that the procedure by-law was silent on the calling of emergency meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings of the Recreation Committee for the Town of Kirkland Lake which occurred without public notice. The Ombudsman determined that the committee was a committee of council, and therefore subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide public notice of its meetings, and therefore, the meetings were not open to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by council for the Town of Grimsby in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. that occurred without notice to the public. The municipality suggested council was entitled to meet in its capacity as shareholder of the corporation under the Business Corporations Act, and that the meetings were not subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the municipality is the majority shareholder of Niagara Power Inc., but that individual members of council are not shareholders. When the company holds a shareholders’ meeting, council is invited to attend in its capacity as the representative of the town. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the municipality must provide public notice of the meetings in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also provided best practice examples for conducting shareholder meetings for municipally controlled corporations from other municipalities.

The Ombudsman reviewed two meetings of the Ad Hoc Multi-Use Complex Committee for the City of Elliot Lake. The committee’s procedure by-law requires public notice be posted on a bulletin board. As a general practice, the municipality also posts notice of its meetings on the municipal website, however, this was not done for the two committee meetings under review. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice of the two meetings on either the bulletin board or the website.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by the Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee for the Township of Hornepayne. The committee’s terms of reference require that notice of special meetings be posted on the committee’s website prior to the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide notice on the website prior to the special meeting in accordance with the terms of reference. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to provide notice of committee meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the council for the City of Niagara Falls. Council went into closed session before a regularly scheduled meeting. While notice of the regular meeting was provided to the public, there was no notice of the closed session that would be held before the regular meeting. The Ombudsman found that some media outlets had received information about the closed meeting, although the public had not. As a result, the public was denied notice of the closed meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing. Notice of the meeting was provided on the same day of the meeting. The procedure by-law did not address notice of special meetings. The general practice of the municipality was to post notice of a special meeting on a bulletin board and on the municipal website. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality include provisions for providing public notice of special meetings in its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County. The municipality’s procedure by-law requires that notice of meetings be posted on the municipal website and that the notice include a copy of the meeting agenda. The Ombudsman found that the county met the notice requirements of the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman also noted that there is no provision in the Municipal Act, 2001 requiring municipalities to provide advance notice of the matters to be discussed in closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman recommended that the Village of Casselman include provisions for providing public notice of special meetings in its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Long Term Case Task Force for the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Notice of the meeting was not provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that the Long Term Case Task Force had to comply with the open meeting requirements when meeting, including providing notice as required by the Municipal Act, 2001 and by the municipality’s procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound that took place in a basement boardroom before an open session in council chambers. The municipality’s procedure by-law stipulates that matters on the closed meeting agenda will be discussed at a time and place set out in the public meeting agenda. For the meeting in question, notice of the open session was provided in accordance with the procedure by-law. However, the public agenda failed to include the location of the closed meeting that took place prior to the open session. The Ombudsman found that while the public were properly informed of the date and time of the closed meeting, the municipality failed to provide notice of the correct location for it.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee of the Township of West Lincoln which included a closed session. Notice of the meeting was posted on the municipal website and on the paper meeting calendar in the township administration building in accordance with the procedure by-law. There was a concern that the notice did not provide information about the content of the closed session discussion. The Ombudsman found that advance notice of the individual matters to be discussed in closed session is not required and therefore, there was no violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Notice was provided 24 hours before the meeting took place. The Ombudsman found that the procedure by-law requires public notice be provided 48 hours prior to a meeting except in the case of emergency meetings. The Ombudsman found that the meeting qualified as an emergency meeting, therefore the municipality provided notice in accordance with the procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a number of closed meetings held by council for the Township of Woolwich. There was no notice about the location of these meetings provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that even when a meeting is closed, the public has the right to attend the open session when the resolution is passed to go in camera.

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of Chamberlain. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to reflect council’s current meeting schedule, provide for public notice, and reflect the actual wording of all open meeting exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith. The Ombudsman found that the municipality violated its procedure by-law by extending a closed meeting past its 11 p.m. curfew. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to provide for public notice of all meetings, including special meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake. Notice of the meeting was initially provided via the municipal website and posted on a bulletin board, but was removed and reposted the next day. The procedure by-law requires notice of a special meeting be provided as soon as reasonably possible. The Ombudsman found that in this case, notice was provided in accordance with the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to reflect council’s practice of providing notice to the public of special meetings through posting meeting agendas on the website and in the municipal office, as well as by alerting the media.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by Council for the Municipality of Central Huron that included a closed session. There was no prior notice provided about the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the municipality’s procedure by-law does not require that advance notice be provided in order for council to move into closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting that was held before a regular open meeting by council for the City of Niagara Falls. Public notice was provided for the open meeting in accordance with the municipality’s procedure by-law, but there was no formal notice of the closed meeting because council relied on the media to publicize it. The Ombudsman found that the municipality did not meet the notice requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because it relied on the media to publicize the closed session and no direct notice was provided to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Black River-Matheson. The meeting agenda did not include the fact that the meeting included a closed session or the location of the meeting. The meeting was not held in council chambers, but rather in an arena to accommodate a higher public turnout. The municipality’s general practice was to post notice on a bulletin board and on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide sufficient notice of the meeting because it failed to include the location of the meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality’s procedure by-law should explicitly provide for notice to the public of regular or special meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the Municipality of Killarney. During the meeting, council left chambers to conduct a site visit. While members of the public were invited to accompany council on the site visit, the Ombudsman found that if meetings or portions of meetings occur anywhere other than council chambers, notice should be provided of the change of venue so that members of the public can attend if they wish.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Town of Moosonee. Notice was provided on a bulletin board. The procedure by-law requires that notice of all meetings be provided on the bulletin board as well as a local community TV channel. The Ombudsman found that notice of the special meeting was not provided on the community TV channel because of a lack of time. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice in accordance with the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the procedure by-law address notice requirements for special meetings specifically. The Ombudsman also recommended that short-notice meetings be called only in the case of a genuine emergency in order to maximize public knowledge of and attendance at the meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe. Public notice of the meeting was not provided. The procedure by-law states that in the case of an emergency meeting, the clerk shall determine how notice is provided. The Ombudsman found that the subject matter of the meeting should not have constituted an emergency and that notice should have been provided.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound to discuss funding for an MRI machine. The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the municipality’s closed meeting practices and procedures. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to provide notice of special meetings and to create a process for adding items to the meeting agenda.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Personnel Committee of Council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands. Public notice of the meeting was not provided. The municipality’s procedure by-law did not apply to committees, however the Ombudsman found that committees must also comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss the municipality’s negotiations with the Serpent River First Nation with respect to acquisition of crown land for a local development project. The meeting was closed using the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the meeting, council received information about the status of confidential negotiations with the Serpent River First Nation. Council discussed the municipality’s negotiation strategy and next steps. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. However, as the meeting notice incorrectly stated the meeting start time, the Ombudsman reminded Council of the importance to ensure accuracy in all future meeting notices.

The Ombudsman reviewed an emergency meeting held by council of for the City of Elliot Lake. It was impossible to provide notice of the meeting on the municipal website because the matter under discussion arose after business hours. The municipality tried to inform the local newspaper and radio station. The Ombudsman found that the procedure by-law requires notice of special meetings be provided as soon as reasonably possible. The Ombudsman found that in this case there were reasonable steps taken to provide public notice.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Planning Committee for the Town of Larder Lake. The Ombudsman recommended that the town amend its procedure by-law to address the open meeting practices of committees and to require public notice of all meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed the practice of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, which did not post the agendas for the meetings of its committees on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that although the municipal website provided an annual calendar of committee meetings, the procedure by-law requires public notice of all committee meetings by posting the agenda, time and date of each meeting as well. The Ombudsman found that the municipality did not provide notice of committee meetings as required and defined by its by-law, because it did not include meeting agendas alongside the meeting dates on the municipal website’s annual calendar of committee meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed an emergency meeting held by council for the Town of Larder Lake. Notice of the meeting was provided to council and to an individual involved in the emergency matter but it was not provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that the procedure by-law did not require notice of emergency meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that even for urgent matters, notice of the public should be provided as soon as possible.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Minor Variance Committee for the Township of Russell. Notice was provided in accordance with the Planning Act. The Ombudsman found that the committee is a local board for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 and must comply with the open meeting requirements, including notice.  Although, public notice was provided under the Planning Act, the Ombudsman recommended that a procedure by-law be enacted to set out public notice requirements for the committee in accordance with the Municipal Act.  

The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings held by the Ad Hoc Heritage Committee for the Town of Mattawa. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide notice of its meetings in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality’s procedure by-law provide for public notice of meetings. As a best practice, municipalities are encouraged to list all items on the agenda and a description of the items to be discussed in closed session.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special closed meeting held by the Town of Kearney that relied on the “litigation or potential litigation” exception to discuss a rezoning application. The complaint alleged that prior notice of the meeting had not been given. The Ombudsman found that the Town provided advance notice of the August 25, 2010 special meeting, in accordance with the Town's procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The Ombudsman found that notice of the meetings was provided in accordance with the procedure by-law. However, in some cases, council discussed matters in closed session that were not included in the agenda that had been posted in advance. The Ombudsman recommended that in the interest of transparency and accountability, council should avoid discussing matters that were not the subject of prior notice, except in urgent situations. 

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The Ombudsman found that the municipality’s procedure by-law failed to adhere to the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 in a number of ways, including authorizing council to meet in closed session for reasons beyond the exceptions contained in the Act. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its by-law to require notice for all meetings, properly reflect the Act’s closed meeting exceptions, establish agenda procedures, and require complete and accurate records for all council meetings.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Nipissing. Notice of the meeting was not provided. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice in accordance with its procedure by-law, which requires notice of special meetings be posted on a bulletin board and on the municipal website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the Township of Emo. Notice of the meeting was provided in accordance with its procedure by-law. The notice provided for the minimum information required, the date, time and place of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that many municipalities require that an agenda listing the matters to be discussed be publicly posted in advance of the meeting  - a practice that is consistent with the intent of the open meeting rules. Advance public notice of a meeting should include all items to be considered at a meeting, including a general description of subjects to be considered in closed session. Items that have not been the subject of advance notice should only be considered in rare circumstances where urgency does not permit the normal notice requirements to be met, and after additional procedural requirements have been satisfied.