Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, July 7, 2023
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman found that discussions during a closed session of council with Township of Adjala-Tosorontio solicitors about a development project and a specific agreement fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman found that, in several cases in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, resolutions to close meetings to the public did not include a general description of the topic to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera.
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio’s minutes lacked details, thus falling short of the requirements outlined in its procedural by-law.
The Ombudsman found issues with the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio’s procedural by-law, which did not adequately address public notice for special meetings of council.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera.
The Ombudsman found that discussion about the performance of an identifiable employee in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio did not meet the stringent standard set by the procedural by-law to constitute an emergency. As such, the Ombudsman found that a meeting was not an “emergency meeting” under the procedural by-law.
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, February 1, 2023
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when members of the newly elected council attended educational workshops on November 15, 24, and 29, 2022. At the time of these gatherings, four of the seven council members had not yet taken office. As such, a quorum of council was not present, and the gatherings therefore did not meet the definition of a meeting in the Act. As the gatherings were not meetings as defined in the Act, the Act’s open meeting rules did not apply.