City of Elliot Lake - March 18, 2026

Investigation into meetings held by the City of Elliot Lake on May 1 and May 15, 2023, and December 2, 2024

Paul Dubé
Ombudsman of Ontario

March 2026

Overview

1    My Office received a complaint about closed meetings held by council for the City of Elliot Lake (the “City) on May 1 and May 15, 2023, and December 2, 2024. Council cited the exception for education or training for all three meetings in its resolutions to enter into closed session.

2    The complaint raised concerns that council’s discussions did not fit into any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 (the “Act”).[1]

3    For the reasons set out below, my investigation determined that council’s discussions during the May 1 and May 15, 2023 closed meetings did not fit within the cited open meeting exception for education or training. I also determined that council failed to include the general nature of the closed meeting discussion in the resolutions to enter each closed session and also failed to take comprehensive minutes of both meetings.

4    My investigation determined that council for the City of Elliot Lake did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session on December 2, 2024.

Ombudsman jurisdiction

5    Under the Act, all meetings of council, local boards, and committees of either must be open to the public, unless they fall within prescribed exceptions.

6    As of January 1, 2008, the Act gives anyone the right to request an investigation into whether a municipality or local board has complied with the Act in closing a meeting to the public. The Act designates the Ombudsman as the default investigator for municipalities that have not appointed their own.

7    The Ombudsman is the closed meeting investigator for the City of Elliot Lake.

8    When investigating closed meeting complaints, we consider whether the open meeting requirements in the Act and the municipality’s procedure by-law have been observed.
 
9    My Office has investigated hundreds of closed meetings since 2008. To assist municipal councils, staff, and the public, we have developed an online digest of open meeting cases. This searchable repository was created to provide easy access to the Ombudsman’s decisions on, and interpretations of, the open meeting rules. Council members and staff can consult the digest to inform their discussions and decisions on whether certain matters can or should be discussed in closed session, as well as issues related to open meeting procedures. Summaries of the Ombudsman’s previous decisions can be found in the digest: www.ombudsman.on.ca/en/info-public-bodies-and-officials/municipal-government/municipal-meeting-digest.

10    The Ontario Ombudsman also has the authority to conduct impartial reviews and investigations of hundreds of public sector bodies. This includes municipalities, local boards, and municipally-controlled corporations, as well as provincial government organizations, publicly funded universities, and school boards. In addition, the Ombudsman’s mandate includes reviewing complaints about the services provided by children’s aid societies and residential licensees, and the provision of French language services under the French Language Services Act. Read more about the bodies within our jurisdiction here: www.ombudsman.on.ca/en/make-complaint/what-we-can-help-you/organizations-you-can-complain-about.

Investigative process

11    On January 30, 2025, my Office advised the City of our intent to investigate this complaint.

12    We reviewed relevant meeting materials including the agenda and minutes. Although the City video records its closed meetings, we were advised that there were no video recordings available for our review of the May 2023 meetings. We reviewed a video recording of the December 2, 2024 meeting.

13    We interviewed the Clerk and six members of council who attended the May 2023 meetings.

14    My Office received full co-operation during this investigation.

May 1, 2023 council meeting

15    The minutes from the open meeting on May 1, 2023 indicate that the meeting began at 4:00 p.m. and all participants attended in person in council chambers except for one staff member who attended via Zoom. Five out of six members of council attended, along with the Clerk and other staff members. We were advised that the City’s external consultant and his assistant also attended in person.  

16    After discussion of an item on the open meeting agenda, council passed a resolution to discuss an item titled “Strategic Plan Training Session.” The resolution stated, “As this matter is a training session for members of Council it may be dealt with in closed session as per Section 239(2)(l) of the Municipal Act.” We note that the correct citation for the exception for education or training is subsection 239 (3.1). My Office was told that the resolution likely contained a typo, and council had intended to cite subsection 239 (3.1).  

17    Members of council whom we interviewed told my Office that they were advised by the same consultant who attended to cite the exception for education or training for both the May 1 and May 15, 2023, closed meetings. All members of council we spoke to explained that they relied on the external consultant’s advice.

18    We were told that the consultant was hired to train council on how to create a strategic plan, as five out of six members of council were new to their roles and had only served on council for approximately six months. The closed meeting minutes are sparse, but they state that the consultant provided council with an agenda for the meeting.

19    The majority of those we interviewed recalled that the consultant first provided training on the basics of what a strategic plan was and the process for developing one, including the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. The consultant then reviewed the strategic plans of other municipalities and provided examples from his previous experience.

20    The majority of those we interviewed recalled that the discussions evolved into a brainstorming session on specific goals for the strategic plan. For example, one councillor recalled that council developed approximately 20 goals, and that council spent time comparing these goals with the City’s previous strategic plan. Three members of council similarly described discussing specific ideas or potential goals for the strategic plan. One member of council described the process as “topically brainstorming” as they discussed the City’s strengths and weaknesses. 
 
21    We were advised that the consultant’s assistant took notes on the draft strategic plan goals developed by council during these discussions.

22    Two councillors shared that council may have discussed specific City departments or staff roles, with a view to considering how changes to staff positions or roles may be required to meet certain strategic priorities. One councillor stated that while they could not recall for certain, it is possible that council may have referred to staff members by name. They confirmed that these discussions would have been about allocating resources to achieve strategic planning goals. The other councillor stated that while they did not have a specific memory of discussing staff members by name, they said they believed it would have been unavoidable. The consultant stated in later public comments that staff attended these meetings to provide council with operational details.  

23    Lastly, we were advised that council recessed for dinner at some point in the evening, but the exact time was not recorded. The closed meeting minutes indicate that a 10-minute recess was taken at 4:42 p.m.

24    According to the open meeting minutes, council returned to open session at 7:42 p.m. and adjourned the meeting.

May 15, 2023 council meeting

25    The minutes from the open meeting on May 15, 2023 indicate that the meeting began at 4:00 p.m. Like the meeting on May 1, 2023, the meeting was hybrid with some staff attending via Zoom and members of council attending in person. All six members of council attended, along with the Clerk, other staff, the external consultant and his assistant. There were no open meeting agenda items, and council moved into closed session at 4:05 p.m. with a resolution identical to the one from the May 1 meeting, including the same typo regarding the exception for education or training. Again, my Office confirmed that council’s intent was to cite subsection 239 (3.1) of the Act.

26    Most council members we interviewed told my Office that this meeting was a continuation of their previous meeting, but with a focus on refining and finalizing the draft strategic plan goals. One member of council explained that council was getting into the “nitty gritty” of the ideas it had previously discussed. Another councillor explained that the consultant offered insights or suggestions based on his previous experiences, and explained how his suggestions could be applied to the City.
 
27    When comparing the discussions at these two meetings, one council member explained that council brainstormed different ideas for the strategic plan during the first meeting, and the focus of the second meeting was to turn the ideas into tangible goals or action items.

28    The council members we interviewed also shared that they finalized the wording of the draft strategic plan goals that would later be presented to the public. One council member explained that the consultant made suggestions on how to specifically word them.

29    Lastly, we were told, council discussed the next steps required to finalize the strategic plan. This included the process for soliciting input from the community at public input sessions. Again, we were advised that council took a recess for dinner, but the time was not recorded in the closed meeting minutes.

30    The open meeting minutes indicate that council returned to open session at 8:10 pm and adjourned the meeting shortly after at 8:11 p.m.

Subsequent open meetings on strategic plan training

31    Council held two additional meetings about strategic plan training on May 29 and June 19, 2023 before a final draft strategic plan was presented to council on October 23, 2023. Unlike the May 1 and May 15, 2023 meetings, the strategic plan training meetings on May 29 and June 19, 2023 took place in open session.

32    The first open meeting about the strategic plan training occurred on May 29, 2023. The City’s consultant shared opening remarks and summarized council’s discussions from the two closed sessions held on May 1 and May 15, 2023. He explained that these two closed meetings gave council an opportunity to discuss the strategic plan more privately. He stated several times that council was “well on its way to developing a strategic plan” at this stage. He further explained that during the May 1, 2023 meeting, council discussed the City’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. He described the focus of the May 15, 2023 meeting as creating action items in response to those strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. 

Analysis

33    The Municipal Act, 2001 provides that all meetings shall be open to the public unless the subject matter of the discussion falls under one of the exceptions in section 239. There is no closed meeting exception that specifically applies to a strategic planning exercise or that is intended to allow for the free flow of ideas among council members.

Applicability of the exception for education or training

34    Council intended to cite the exception for education or training found in subsection 239(3.1) of the Act to discuss strategic plan training in closed session. Under this exception, a meeting may be closed to the public if it is both (1) held for the purpose of educating or training members of council, and (2) members do not discuss a matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of council. This exception has been narrowly interpreted by my Office to apply to gatherings where the sole purpose is to provide education or training, and no transactional business or decision-making occurs.[2]

35    The first part of the exception refers to council members acquiring skills or information that may assist them in better understanding municipal business generally. In past reports, my Office has found that discussions fit within the exception when the purpose was to provide general information about how to undertake a process or to understand a concept or document, rather than to consider the specific contents of a particular proposal. My Office has stated the purpose of the discussion must be educational in nature regardless of the topic:

While there are an infinite number of topics that could potentially form the subject of an education session, it must be clear that the purpose of such a meeting relates to education only. Any attempt to rely on this exception must be carefully scrutinized. A municipality cannot simply circumvent the open meeting law by characterizing a subject normally considered in open session as “educational.” If the committee doors are closed on the basis that an education session is taking place, other topics that are not strictly educational in nature cannot be discussed.[3]

36    In a report to the Township of Russell, my Office determined that the exception for education or training applied to a meeting where councillors sat in a classroom-like arrangement and were given training on vocabulary and principles related to the strategic planning process.[4] In that case, the only references to the Township’s strategic plan were made to illustrate abstract concepts. Notably, councillors did not engage in a free flow of ideas regarding the Township’s strategic priorities, but were taught concepts to help them understand the process of strategic planning. Specific discussion on the new strategic plan occurred in a subsequent open session.[5]

37    Unlike the Township of Russell, in this instance, council for the City of Elliot Lake spoke about its draft strategic plan substantively and spent time brainstorming one for public presentation. While some of the initial discussions on May 1, 2023 could be considered training or education, such as when the consultant reviewed what a strategic plan is and how to develop it, the discussion evolved into a brainstorming session which continued through to the May 15, 2023 meeting as council continued to refine its ideas for the draft plan.

38    The brainstorming discussions went beyond education or training in this case, and materially advanced council business.

39    Under the second part of the exception, no member may materially advance the business or decision-making of council. In a report to the Village of Casselman, my Office found that “materially advances” means considering the extent to which the discussions at issue move forward the business of the municipality, based on factual indicators.[6] Discussions, debates or decisions that are intended to lead to specific outcomes or to persuade decision-makers are likely to materially advance the business or decision-making of a council, committee, or local board. Similarly, council is likely to materially advance business or decision-making when it votes, reaches an agreement, provides direction or input to staff, or discusses or debates a proposal, course of action, or strategy.

40    For example, in a 2024 report to the City of Elliot Lake, my Office determined that the exception for education or training did not apply when the Finance and Administration Committee received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law.[7] My Office found that the presentation went beyond simply providing members of council with information to help them understand the municipality’s business, as the presentation involved an exchange of information with respect to the municipality’s draft procurement by-law, a version of which was to be presented for approval in the future.

41    Similarly, in December 2024, my Office reviewed a complaint about a strategic planning session held by council for the City of Cornwall.[8] Council cited multiple open meeting exceptions. Although not cited by the City, my Office considered whether the exception for education or training would apply. My Office found that council for the City of Cornwall was working on the substance of its strategic plan, rather than learning how to carry out strategic planning. Accordingly, the exception for education or training did not apply.

42    In this case, council’s discussions over the two meetings evolved into a brainstorming session that developed specific ideas for inclusion in the draft strategic plan. Council identified specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats at the May 1, 2023 meeting and created draft goals. Council then refined the ideas it generated at the May 15, 2023 meeting and began to identify action items that would be required to achieve its potential strategic objectives.

43    Council for the City of Elliot Lake was working on the substance of its draft strategic plan, rather than learning how to create or implement a plan in theory. After both meetings concluded, the consultant stated that council was “well on their way towards developing a strategic plan”, and the minutes and agenda of the May 15, 2023 meeting include a list of ideas and action statements produced by council. Ultimately council’s discussions during both those meetings materially advanced its business and decision-making and contributed to the strategic plan that was presented in open session on May 29, June 19 and October 23, 2023.

Applicability of the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual

44    Although not cited in the resolution to proceed in camera on May 13, 2023, two members of council told my Office that council discussed personal information about identifiable staff members. One council member could not recall who was specifically named, but told us that council’s discussion may have been about reallocating resources to certain departments to meet strategic plan goals. The other council member could not recall which staff members were specifically named but said they believed that council must have named specific individuals.

45    Under section 239(2)(b) of the Act, a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the discussion reveals personal information about an identifiable individual. The exception for personal matters applies to discussions involving information about an individual in their personal capacity, rather than their professional, official or business capacity.[9] However, professional information may qualify if it reveals something of a personal nature about an identifiable individual.[10]

46    My review did not identify any instances where council discussed personal information about individual employees by name or role. While two council members said they believe council referred to staff by name, I find it likely that their discussions related to their professional capacities and roles rather than personal information.

47    There is no evidence to suggest the discussions fit within the exception for personal matters.

Resolution to move into closed session

48    Section 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires council to pass a resolution prior to entering a closed session that includes the fact of holding a closed meeting and the general nature of each matter to be considered. When citing subsection 239(4)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, council must specifically cite the exception for education or training in the resolution as well as the general nature of the subject matter of the training.

49    In this case, neither resolution included the general nature of the subject matter of the training. Council did include the general subject matter of training or education within the agenda item, titled “Strategic Plan Training Session” for its meeting on May 1, 2023.

50    My Office has previously found that only citing the exception does not satisfy a municipality’s obligation to provide the general nature of the subject to be discussed in the closed meeting.[11] Council was required to include this description within its resolutions to move in camera.

Closed meeting minutes

51    The closed meeting minutes for both meetings were generally sparse and of limited assistance during my investigation. The minutes for May 15, 2023 did not include a list of who attended the meeting. Both sets of minutes more closely resembled an agenda rather than a record of council’s discussions. For example, the minutes for May 1, 2023 did not indicate that council brainstormed or discussed specific ideas for the strategic plan.

52    Subsection 239(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that all resolutions, decisions and other proceedings that take place during a meeting must be recorded. This requirement also applies to closed meetings. In a report to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, my Office indicated that the minutes should include a detailed description of the substantive and procedural matters discussed in closed session.[12]

53    Municipalities should provide clear and accessible records for closed meeting investigators to review. Such records assist my Office in ensuring that officials do not stray from the legal requirements during closed meetings. The minutes for the May 1 and May 15, 2023 council meetings lack details about the substantive discussions that took place.

December 2, 2024 special meeting

Presentation by the City solicitor

54    The minutes from the open meeting on December 2, 2024 indicate that the special meeting began at 5:30 p.m. All seven members of council and the Clerk attended in person in council chambers while the CAO and the City’s solicitor attended via Zoom.

55    There were no open meeting agenda items and council moved into closed session at 5:31 p.m. after passing a resolution stating that the closed session would focus on “reviewing the roles and responsibilities of councillors, as well as providing training on relevant municipal governance matters, under the advice of the solicitor.” The resolution cited the exception for education or training under subsection 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

56    The City solicitor presented to council in a lecture style. Following the presentation, a question-and-answer period occurred for approximately an hour where councillors posed various questions. The solicitor also explained which kinds of questions could be asked and explained that he could respond to general questions rather than granular or detailed ones, as it could constitute legal advice. 
 
57    The solicitor responded to each of the questions posed by council and the CAO. In the video recording of the meeting, we observed more in-depth discussions surrounding two specific questions.

Discussions about a named individual

58    Near the end of the question-and-answer period, a member of council posed a general question, which evolved into a question about a specific situation. In describing the situation, and in the discussions that followed, an individual was specifically named several times.  

59    The discussions about the named individual included personal information about them. The City solicitor responded to the question by offering an opinion on the hypothetical scenario. Another councillor shared additional details about the scenario, explaining that council had held a closed meeting to discuss it and had provided directions to staff. Members of council continued to discuss the situation with staff and staff responded to council’s questions about the directions it had received.

Discussion about legal advice

60    During the discussion, council members asked the City solicitor for legal advice regarding a specific issue, which the solicitor provided along with suggested solutions to move forward. Council then discussed how they might implement the legal advice and suggested solutions.

61    Council resolved to return to open session at 7:46 p.m. and adjourned the meeting shortly after at 7:48 p.m.

Analysis

Presentation by the City solicitor

62    The resolution to proceed in camera cited the exception to the open meeting rules for education or training found in subsection 239(3.1) of the Act. As discussed above, this exception allows a meeting to be closed to the public if it is held for the purpose of educating or training members of council, and if no member discusses or otherwise deals with a matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the municipality, local board, or committee.

63    During the first portion of the closed session, council received a lecture-style presentation from the City solicitor that provided an overview of council’s roles and responsibilities. The purpose of the presentation was to educate council members to help them understand their roles and responsibilities.

64    This exchange of information did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council, and fit within the exception for education or training.

Question-and-answer session

65    A question-and-answer session followed the presentation by the City solicitor. Most of the questions posed by the councillors were intended to seek clarifying information about their roles and responsibilities. However, the discussions regarding a named individual, and the questions about the specific issue and the legal advice sought, did not fit within the exception for education or training, as council business was advanced.

66    As described above, my Office has found that “materially advances” means considering the extent to which the discussions at issue move forward the business of the municipality.[13] Discussions, debates or decisions that are intended to lead to specific outcomes or to persuade decision-makers are likely to materially advance the business or decision-making of a council. In this case, the discussions focused on persuading council on a decision regarding a named individual, and the legal advice sought on a specific issue.

67    Accordingly, these discussions went beyond education or training, and materially advanced council business.

68    While council did not cite the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, we considered whether the exception could apply to the discussions about the named individual.

69    This exception applies to discussions that reveal personal information about an identifiable individual. To qualify as personal information, it must be reasonable to expect that an individual could be identified if the information were disclosed publicly.[14] Generally, the information must also qualify as personal; that is, not as professional information or information in a business capacity.[15] However, information may qualify as personal if it involves scrutiny or opinions of an individual’s conduct.[16]

70    In this case, an individual was identified by name and their personal circumstances were discussed when reference was made to previous closed meeting discussions about them. Accordingly, this information fits under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

Provision of legal advice

71    While also not cited by council, we considered whether the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege applied to portions of the closed session. This exception applies to discussions between a municipality and its solicitor in seeking or receiving legal advice intended to be confidential and includes communications for that purpose. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that municipal officials can speak freely about legal advice without fear of disclosure.[17] My Office has previously noted that communication will only be found to be subject to solicitor-client privilege if it is: (1) between a client and their solicitor, where the solicitor is acting in a professional capacity; (2) made in relation to the seeking or receiving of legal advice; and (3) intended to be confidential.[18]

72    In this case, council met in closed session, in a confidential setting and sought advice from the City solicitor. During these discussions, the solicitor was present, communicating with council in their professional capacity, and providing legal advice that was intended to be confidential. As a result, I find that these portions of the closed session fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Opinion

73    My investigation found that council for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during its meetings on May 1 and May 15, 2023 by discussing issues in camera that did not fit within the open meeting exceptions. Council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general subject matter to be discussed in closed session for both meetings. Council also contravened subsection 239(7) of the Act by failing to record complete and accurate meeting minutes at both meetings.  

74    The City of Elliot Lake did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 2, 2024. Council’s discussion fit within the cited open meeting exception for education or training. Certain portions of council’s discussion also fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Recommendations

75    I make the following recommendations to assist the City of Elliot Lake in fulfilling its obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001 and enhancing the transparency of its meetings:

Report

76    Council for the City of Elliot Lake was given the opportunity to review a preliminary version of this report and provide comments to my Office. Council elected to provide no comments, but indicated they were agreeable to the recommendations.

77    This report will be published on my Office’s website and should be made public by the City. In accordance with section 239.2(12) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the City is required to pass a resolution stating how it intends to address this report.

__________________________
Paul Dubé
Ombudsman of Ontario

[1] SO 2001, c 25.
[2] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into complaints about a closed meeting held by the Municipality of West Nipissing on March 19, 2019, (October 2019), at para 47, online.
[3] Ontario Ombudsman, The ABCs of Education and Training (March 2009) at para 29, online.
[4] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into closed meetings held by the Township of Russell on August 10, 2015, (January 2016), online.
[5] Ibid at para 33.
[6] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into whether Council for the Village of Casselman held an illegal closed meeting on January 8, 2015, (April 2015), online ["Casselman"].
[7] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a meeting held by the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake on December 18, 2023, (September 2024), online.
[8] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a meeting held by council for the City of Cornwall on November 4, 2023, (December 2024), online.
[9] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a complaint about closed meetings held by the City of Elliot Lake on January 12 and January 30, 2023, (February 2024), at para 29, online.
[10] Ibid. 
[11] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into the closed meeting held by the City of Brockville’s OPP Contact Adhoc Committee on March 7, 2016, (July 2016), at para 53, online; and Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into a complaint about a gathering held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman on May 27, 2021, (August 2022), at para 22, online.
[12] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into whether the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Council improperly held closed meetings, (July 2010), online.
[13] Casselman, supra note 6.
[14] Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) v Goodis [2008], OJ No 289 at para 69.
[15] IPC Order MO-2204 and Letter from the Ontario Ombudsman to the Township of Russell (8 August 2014), online. 
[16] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into closed meetings held by Council for the Municipality of South Huron between November 2008 and December 2013, (March 2015), online.
[17] Ombudsman of Ontario, Investigation into meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on June 8 and July 6, 2021, (March 2022), at para 20, online.
[18] Ibid at para 21.