third-party information | Ombudsman Ontario

City of Kitchener - June 20, 2025

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the City of Kitchener to discuss the implementation of a centralized model for operations related to certain arts and entertainment facilities. The Ombudsman found that parts of the closed session discussion fit within the exceptions for:

Information supplied in confidence by a third party at section 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act, 2001;
Labour relations and employee negotiations at section 239(2)(d) of the Act; and
Plans and instructions for negotiations at section 239(2)(k) of the Act.

As the discussion could not have realistically been parsed, the entire discussion fit within those exceptions.

Read the Report

City of Greater Sudbury - March 3, 2023

239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party |background information|business information|financial information|third-party information

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Greater Sudbury’s closed session discussion of third-party commercial and financial information on July 12, 2022 fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party. The Ombudsman found that the third-party information, which related to bids for a proposed municipal project, was supplied in confidence and that the public disclosure of the information could prejudice significantly the bidders' competitive positions in the bidding process or interfere with their contractual or other negotiations.

Read the Letter

City of Cornwall - February 8, 2023

239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party |financial information|third-party information

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 concluded that the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party did not apply to the Committee’s in camera discussions at either meeting since there was no evidence that information disclosed during the meetings could have been expected to cause significant harm to a third party.

Read the Report

Town of South Bruce Peninsula - October 14, 2021

239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party |business information|financial information|third-party information|third party present

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula improperly met in closed session to receive a delegation on March 16, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that council received and discussed detailed information from a third party company regarding that company’s development plans, expected profits, and intended use of proprietary technology. We were told that the third party specifically wished to discuss this commercial information in private because it did not want to prejudice a pending land transaction or alert competitors to the proprietary technology it intended to rely on to create a profitable business in a specific area. The Ombudsman found this closed session discussion was permissible under section 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act as council discussed information supplied in confidence by a third party that, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to significantly prejudice the competitive position of the business and significantly interfere with an ongoing land transaction.

Read the Letter

Municipality of St.-Charles - October 3, 2019

239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party |financial information|consultant|third-party information

The Ombudsman reviewed the in camera session of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles, in which documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances were discussed. The council discussed a document containing a watermark indicating that it was “supplied in confidence” to the municipality by a consultant. The Ombudsman found the document summarized and analyzed information about the municipality, and was marked “in confidence” because it was created by a third party and given to the municipality. Section 239(2)(i) is intended to protect confidential information about a third party. Therefore, the discussion of this report marked “in confidence” did not fit within the information supplied in confidence exception.

Read the Report

City of Elliot Lake - April 24, 2015

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake, which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the recruitment of a new chief administrative officer (CAO). During the closed meeting, council discussed an identifiable individual who had submitted an application for the CAO position. The discussion involved the contents of the application, and included expressing opinions about the individual’s qualifications. The discussion also involved third-party information that was included in the application. The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved personal information about the applicant and third-party information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.

Read the Report