The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual at paragraph 239(2)(b), as a discussion about an employee’s performance and opinions about that employee’s conduct fit the exception.
City of Brockville, August 15, 2022
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was not permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(e), litigation or potential litigation. There was no ongoing litigation at the time of the October 13, 2021 meeting and any concern about litigation was speculative.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(b), personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). Generally, stating only the exception does not satisfy the requirements of the open meeting rules.
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.
City of Brockville, July 19, 2016
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville with representatives from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to receive information about the OPP’s costing process to provide municipal policing services. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The information received by the committee was general in nature. The committee did not receive specific information about the OPP’s forthcoming costing proposal or discuss if the municipality should contract with the OPP for municipal policing services. The Ombudsman found that this portion of council’s discussion fit within the education or training exception. However, in addition to receiving general education during the closed session, the committee discussed engaging a local audit firm and directed staff to determine if the firm could assess the OPP costing proposal. The Ombudsman found that when a meeting is closed under the education or training exception, no votes can be taken that advance business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. Following its closed session discussion, the committee did not report back in open session about the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman found that committee members were unfamiliar with the practice of reporting back. The Ombudsman recommended that as a best practice, the committee should report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public, and did not provide the public with additional information about what the committee intended to discuss once in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee pass resolutions that clearly set out that it is moving into closed session, and the general nature of the matters to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the meeting, the committee voted to direct staff to contact an audit firm. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. Therefore, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Ontario Provincial Police Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The Ombudsman found that the municipality had failed to amend its procedure by-law since 1994 and did not require notice for all of the municipality’s meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality engage in a comprehensive review of its procedure by-law and update it to reflect the current state of the Municipal Act, 2001.