The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the London Transit Commission on February 28, 2024 and found the Commission contravened subsection 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state by resolution the general subject matter to be discussed in closed session. In this case, the Commission’s open meeting minutes described the closed session item as “Commission meeting protocols.” The Ombudsman found the Commission could have included this description in its resolution to move in camera without undermining the reason for closing the meeting to the public.
City of London - November 11, 2025
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the London Transit Commission on February 28, 2024. At the time of the closed meeting, the Commission did not have a procedure by-law in place. Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires all local boards to pass a procedure by-law governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings and providing for public notice of meetings. The Ombudsman was advised that the Commission adopted a procedure by-law in November 2024.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the London Transit Commission on February 28, 2024 and found that the meeting minutes lacked details about the substantive discussions that took place. The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Commission keep comprehensive minutes and consider making audio or video recordings of its closed sessions to instil confidence in the public that matters dealt with in closed session are appropriate for in camera discussion. In addition, the lack of information in the minutes was detrimental to the Ombudsman’s review of this complaint. Had the Commission made an audio or video recording of the closed meeting, it would have greatly assisted in the review process.
The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the London Transit Commission on February 28, 2024. The Commission relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to discuss the merits of receiving training from the City of London’s integrity commissioner, and to explore options for recording its meetings. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed related specifically to scrutiny and opinions of named individuals and therefore qualified as personal information. The personal information was central to discussions about whether training was necessary, and about the merits of recording Commission meetings. The Ombudsman found that parsing the discussion between an open and closed session would have detracted from a free and uninterrupted discussion.
City of London - October 10, 2025
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman found that an email sent by the Mayor for the City of London to all of council, including members of the Community and Protective Services Committee, on January 23, 2025 did not violate the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was a procedural request and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council or of the committee. The Ombudsman also found that an informal gathering of several members of the City of London’s Planning and Environment Committee and a Member of Parliament on March 11, 2025 did not violate the open meeting rules because the discussion did not relate to the committee’s mandate and did not materially advance its business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman reviewed an email sent by the Mayor for the City of London to all of council on January 23, 2025 requesting that members of the Community and Protective Services Committee wait to receive an update from staff at an upcoming meeting before bringing any motions related to extreme cold weather alerts. The email was sent to all of council, and accordingly, a quorum of council and of the committee received it. However, the Ombudsman found that the Mayor’s email was not a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was a procedural request and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council or of the committee.
The Ombudsman reviewed an informal gathering of several members of the City of London’s Planning and Environment Committee and a Member of Parliament on March 11, 2025. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was focused on the impact of new trade tariffs and potential counter-tariffs at the local level. It involved the sharing of information on a topic that was not within the committee’s mandate. Accordingly, the discussion did not materially advance the committee’s business or decision-making and the informal gathering was not a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.
City of London, October 24, 2024
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman found that council for the City of London did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on April 2, 2024 with respect to the general description of an item in its resolution to proceed into closed session. The item was described as “Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice.” The Ombudsman was satisfied with the City’s explanation of the circumstances for why council could not have provided further information in its resolution.
City of London, January 16, 2024
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering.
City of London, May 12, 2023
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman found that the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee contravened the open meeting rules when the doors to London City Hall were inadvertently locked for a short period of time during the January 23, 2023 meeting.
City of London, February 24, 2023
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman received a complaint suggesting members of council for the City of London met outside of a formal council or committee meeting to discuss filling a vacant council seat with a specific individual since members of the public knew to provide letters of support to council on that subject ahead of the City’s Corporate Services Committee meeting on October 12, 2021. The vacancy had been announced publicly in September 2021 and had also been reported in the media around the same time. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Committee or council met privately to discuss the vacancy in advance of the Committee meeting on October 12, 2021.
City of London, March 1, 2017
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Corporate Services Committee for the City of London to discuss the hiring policy for senior staff, relying on the solicitor-client privilege exception. The municipality informed the Ombudsman that municipal solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice, and that nothing else was addressed. The Ombudsman noted that some municipalities choose to waive solicitor-client privilege and provide privileged information during an investigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
City of London, February 17, 2017
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner. Council relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council discussed the education, employment history and qualifications of a potential appointee for the integrity commissioner position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London which relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner and a recent integrity commissioner report. Legal counsel was present during both meetings to answer questions and provide legal advice. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
City of London, February 24, 2016
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of London that was disrupted by protesters. Members of the public were removed from the meeting and security staff locked the building doors. However, the doors were not unlocked once the council meeting resumed. The Ombudsman found that the doors were locked during parts of an open meeting and therefore, the meeting was improperly closed to the public.
City of London, June 12, 2015
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss development proposals for a decommissioned hospital site owned by the municipality. The committee considered legal advice and heard from staff about expressions of interest from members of the public interested in purchasing the land. The Ombudsman found that, if made public, the committee’s discussion about the expressions of interest might have affected the municipality’s bargaining position in negotiations related to the land sale. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the decommissioning of the old Victoria Hospital lands. The committee discussed legal advice conveyed by staff that was received from the municipality’s solicitor with respect to the process to decommission the site. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
City of London, April 24, 2014
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the municipality’s land development. The committee received a report from staff that referenced lands the municipality was interested in purchasing or for which it had initiated negotiations to purchase. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London to discuss the municipality’s fire services budget. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. The Committee’s discussion focused on confidential labour relations and other employment-related matters with respect to the fire services department. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the municipality’s budget. During the meeting, the committee discussed an industrial land strategy and particular land areas the municipality was interested in purchasing. The municipality’s solicitor was present and provided legal advice on the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
City of London, March 19, 2012
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the City of London to discuss the Occupy London protest. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the committee discussed potential litigation relating to the protest. Therefore, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the City of London that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the Occupy London protest. The Ombudsman found that the committee received legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor during the meeting including advice pertaining to potential litigation relating to the protest. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.