Town of Deep River, October 19, 2023
Read the LetterCouncil for the Town of Deep River relied on the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual to hold a closed session discussion about the Town’s organizational structure. The discussion included information about a change in position for two identifiable employees. Council discussed changes in the employees’ salaries and general responsibilities, as well as the impact of the changes on the Town’s organizational structure. The Ombudsman found that this information qualified as personal information. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.
Town of Deep River, August 15, 2018
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River. During the meeting, council voted to direct staff. The Ombudsman found that the vote was permissible as it was a direction to staff related to council’s in camera discussion.
Town of Deep River, May 9, 2018
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River relying on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a development proposal that involved disposition of municipal property. During the meeting, council was provided with the developer’s detailed business plan that identified the financial strategy the developer intended to pursue to ensure the project’s success. At the time of council’s discussion, negotiations with the developer were ongoing. The Ombudsman found that council was entitled to discuss this matter in closed session under the acquisition or disposition of land closed meeting exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a development proposal and various fire service issues. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not specify which closed meeting exception was intended to apply to each item. Instead, this information was provided in the agenda. The Ombudsman suggested that the municipality adopt the best practice of having its resolution specify which closed meeting exception is being relied on for each closed session discussion topic.
Town of Deep River, October 3, 2017
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The municipality believed that the discussion about police services implicated safety and security throughout the town. The Ombudsman found that the security of the property exception applies to protecting municipal property from physical loss or damage, and the protection of public safety in relation to that property. In this case, the in camera discussion did not deal with potential threats, loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The municipality relied on this exception because a section of a former police chief’s employment contract was discussed and police service employees would be identifiable in the community even if they were not named. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not involve any named individuals, and employees were not discussed in a personal capacity. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. During the meeting, council formed a police services consultation working group composed of three members of council. The Ombudsman found that the working group was not a committee under the municipality’s procedure by-law. In determining whether the working group was a committee under the Municipal Act, 2001, the Ombudsman considered the role and function of the group. When groups primarily exchange information or advance positions that a municipality has already decided upon without laying the groundwork for decision-making by council, the body will not constitute a committee. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the working group exercised an administrative function. Therefore, the working group was not a committee under the Municipal Act.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. The Ombudsman found that the majority of the discussion focused on service levels and other administrative issues, as well as strategies for sharing information with local residents. Council did not discuss individual employees, their compensation, or their roles. Although it was not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the labour relations exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police service consultation plan. During the closed session, council voted to pass five resolutions. The Ombudsman found that three resolutions involved substantive decisions being taken by council. While some of the resolutions could perhaps have been worded as a direction to the staff, they were not phrased as such. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the votes were impermissible.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a police services consultation plan. Council had previously received written advice from its solicitors related to a former police chief’s contract, however that advice was not discussed during the in camera meeting. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was limited to whether and how information about the contract should be disclosed to the public. There was no solicitor or related communication. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.