Greetings, and thank you, Councillor Hwang, for the introduction. This is my tenth time at AMO, and I always value the chance to meet with you, to demystify my role, and explain the Ombudsman’s value proposition for the municipal world.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference
Ottawa, August 2025
Paul Dubé
Greetings, and thank you, Councillor Hwang, for the introduction.
This is my tenth time at AMO, and I always value the chance to meet with you, to demystify my role, and explain the Ombudsman’s value proposition for the municipal world.
I have been especially encouraged over the past few years by the growing collaboration between municipalities and First Nations. That is something we strive to contribute to.
Our office is co-developing an Indigenous Services Plan with Indigenous partners to contribute to reconciliation and amplify Indigenous voices in municipal and provincial matters.
And why I commend and congratulate AMO on the release of its Indigenous Reconciliation Plan. AMO's leadership on this important initiative provides a model for all municipalities to be inspired by.
Put simply, our value proposition is this: We help you do your important and challenging jobs.
We do this in two ways:
That’s good for the public – and for you.
For residents, we’re a safe, accessible place to raise concerns.
For councils and staff, we’re:
When I first came to AMO 10 years ago, our jurisdiction had just expanded to municipalities. Since then, we’ve handled nearly 30,000 municipal cases – helping thousands of residents and improving services for hundreds of thousands more.
From the start, our approach has never been to “name, blame, and shame,” but to find solutions together. Municipal leaders now often say it themselves:
We are actually looking for win-win-wins – cases where residents’ concerns are addressed, your work is validated or improved, and we’ve demonstrated our value. And we strive to do that by resolving complaints without conducting an investigation, which is always a last resort.
In fact, out of those 30,000 municipal cases we have handled over the past 10 years, do you know how many have resulted in a formal investigation?
Six. That’s right. Six out of 30,000.
This speaks to the success we have had in resolving complaints and misunderstandings between residents and municipalities efficiently and effectively and reflects the overwhelming co-operation we receive from you and your staff.
Again, we get resolutions by either validating the work done by the municipality or suggesting corrective action that benefits all concerned.
This year marks our 50th anniversary – and a decade of building stronger municipal relationships.
Our work began in 2008 with investigations into closed meetings. Today, we serve as the closed meeting investigator for the majority of Ontario municipalities, ensuring transparency between councils and communities – which builds trust.
We add additional value with resources like informative guides, tip cards, and our Open Meeting Digest, the only searchable database of its kind in Ontario. We are also happy to provide online training resources, targeted outreach, and answer questions or provide guidance on open meetings or municipal issues whenever asked.
In 2016, our jurisdiction was broadened to all municipal matters. Our first major investigation – at the City of Brampton – was actually in response to a request from the City. We ended up validating much of their work and procurement practices as well as sharing best practices that they welcomed.
Since then, we’ve helped Ontario municipalities:
During the pandemic, we worked with municipalities to keep meetings open and accessible while adapting to virtual formats.
We’ve also helped in some of the most sensitive situations:
In each case, we worked with the municipality to find a fair, compassionate solution. These cases prove that oversight need not be adversarial – it’s a partnership to protect rights and strengthen trust in a way that promotes the health of democracy.
And speaking of health, I realize that many people misunderstand the Ombudsman’s role and mandate, and think that it is a type of enforcer. I like to point out that an Ombudsman is actually more like a doctor than a police officer.
When reviewing a complaint or investigating an issue, my team probes the issues, shines a light, assesses the situation, then reports back on the organization’s overall health with recommendations for improvements, if necessary.
I cannot impose anything on anyone and it’s up to the “patient” to decide whether to adopt and implement the recommendations.
And yet our evidence-based recommendations are almost always accepted and implemented. Because they make sense and usually make things better for all concerned. Most patients are very reasonable!
You know, oversight isn’t adversarial – it’s a partnership to protect rights and strengthen trust.
Here’s what we offer you:
This past year we received a record 3,809 municipal complaints and inquiries – 3,908 including closed meeting cases. So demand is steady.
Our mandate lets us fully protect Ontarians’ rights at the municipal level: Safeguarding the right to complain, to observe government in action, and to expect accountable administration – regardless of where you live.
Another benefit we bring is that we can help avert future complaints and even litigation. The only thing better than resolving complaints is preventing them.
So please remember that if you ever receive an initial request for information or documentation from us, it likely won’t come with a Notice of Investigation.
The vast majority of your municipalities are eager to co-operate with my team to resolve complaints quickly and efficiently, without an investigation and a public report, so information and documents are shared and we work to find solutions to the problem being dealt with. This co-operation is the key to the impact we have and the benefits we have provided to Ontarians for 50 years now.
Whenever we can, we identify systemic issues and make constructive suggestions to prevent the same complaints from recurring. We offer an opportunity to fix problems without time-consuming investigations.
We also promote best practices and continuous improvement. Even if you’ve never had a complaint against your municipality, you can learn from others. That’s why we publish case summaries in our Annual Reports, in our newsletter, and on our website, as well as sharing case examples and best practices in our guides about open meetings and integrity commissioners.
I can tell you that we regularly get calls from council members and staff asking for our assistance with difficult situations. They see us as a valuable resource, ready to help with best practices and examples of how other municipalities have handled similar situations.
And finally, we recognize good governance. As you saw this morning, it was my pleasure to present the Ombudsman’s Award for Good Governance to Mayor Horwath and the City of Hamilton, for the city’s exemplary practice of eliminating the fee for filing a complaint to its Integrity Commissioner.
I launched the Good Governance Awards this year as part of our 50th anniversary activities, and this is the first one for a municipality. I think it’s a particularly appropriate one to start with, because it demonstrates how a relatively simple decision can have a profound impact on fairness.
Hamilton was not alone in imposing a fee to make a complaint to their integrity commissioner. Although the fee of $100 was not the highest in the province, and there was a provision to refund it if the complaint was found NOT to be vexatious, it was still a barrier to complainants, especially those who could not afford to risk $100. This is a concern we have heard from people all across the province.
The whole principle behind oversight bodies like integrity commissioners – and ombudsmen, for that matter – is that EVERYONE has a right to raise concerns. No one should have to overcome obstacles like fees or onerous procedures in order to exercise their democratic rights.
There are other ways to ensure that frivolous and vexatious complaints don’t overwhelm these processes. The best practice is to empower the commissioner to consider cases on their merits and dismiss those that they find to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.
Hamilton already had a provision to this effect in its by-law. Therefore, I strongly urged the city to remove its fee, and it did so. That was exemplary governance and it merits recognition.
In closing, I want to thank all of you who’ve worked with us to strengthen accountability and public trust.
The Ombudsman model may be over 200 years old, but nothing could be more right for this moment: An independent, impartial voice – outside politics – committed to fairness and better public services.
Let’s keep working together to find more win-win-wins. The winners are the people we all serve.
Thank you – and enjoy the rest of the conference.
