The Ombudsman determined that the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding changes to the public fundraising policy, which included the creation of a new staff position, did not fit within the exception for labour relations and employee negotiations because the discussion was not about the Counties’ relationship with any current or future employees and reference to an existing staff role was made only in passing. The Ombudsman concluded that this portion of the Committee’s closed session discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
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 found that 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 did not fit within the cited exception for plans and instructions for negotiations because the Committee did not discuss a specific course of action to be applied to particular negotiations. The Ombudsman concluded that portions of the Committee’s discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it failed to provide sufficiently meaningful information to the public regarding the topic of its in camera discussion in its resolution to proceed into closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham to discuss an external consultant’s report to council regarding municipal financial information. The consultant was retained by the municipality’s lawyers to review and interpret the financial information provided by the town. The Ombudsman found that the consultant acted as a translator, interpreting the financial information and explaining it to the lawyers to allow them to formulate legal advice. While in closed session, the town’s treasurer also presented information about the municipality’s financial status. In most cases, information provided to council by staff about a municipality’s finances would not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules and should be discussed in open session. However, the Ombudsman found this part of the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception because the information provided by the treasurer was provided to allow the lawyers to understand the financial information, in order to provide legal advice to the town. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. During the meeting, council received a presentation on township rebranding. The resolution to proceed in camera only provided the title of a confidential staff report and no additional information regarding the subject matter of the report. The Ombudsman found that the resolution provided limited information about the matter to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to enter closed session contain a general description of the issue to be discussed, including when referencing confidential reports or materials.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the General Government Committee for the Town of Ajax that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a report on a property encroachment issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception because the report contained no legal advice or privileged information.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury to discuss an ongoing appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the meeting, council received information from staff related to the appeal that might affect the municipality’s response to the appeal. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because council was discussing an ongoing appeal before a tribunal.