The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss the sale of municipal land to the Bruce County Housing Corporation (BCHC). While the presence of the purchaser during a closed session could mean that the exception for acquisition or disposition of land does not apply, in this case, the Ombudsman found that a representative from BCHC was not present during the closed session. The closed session discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
Municipality of Brockton - March 30, 2026
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss the sale of municipal land located in a local business park. The complaint alleged that the sale was already complete by the time the meeting took place. Generally, discussions involving completed land transactions would not fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land, as a municipality would no longer have a bargaining position to protect. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the land transaction discussed by council was ongoing and the closed meeting discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
Municipality of Brockton - November 8, 2023
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman found that discussions about a partnership proposal did not fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence because the information discussed was not supplied confidentially and the reasonable expectation of harm was not clearly established. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that, before relying on the exception for information supplied in confidence, the Municipality should confirm with the third party whether or not the information was supplied in confidence, and, where appropriate, inquire into what concrete harms could be expected if the information were to be disclosed publicly.
Municipality of Brockton (Walkerton BIA), February 13, 2017
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of a quorum of council for the Municipality of Brockton at an information session held under the Drainage Act. The purpose of the meeting was to provide affected residents information about matters related to an ongoing drainage petition. The Ombudsman found that the Drainage Act does not contain any provisions allowing council to hold a closed meeting while attending an information session. The municipality’s compliance with the procedural requirements for the Drainage Act does not relieve it from also complying with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss a matter related to the legality of the Walkerton Business Improvement Area’s (BIA) practices and structure. During the meeting, council considered a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner raising concerns about the BIA and formally requesting that the BIA take corrective action. The Ombudsman found that litigation was a realistic possibility. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by members of the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Municipality of Brockton to discuss one board member’s plans to circulate a petition. The Ombudsman found that the Walkerton BIA is subject to the open meeting rules as a local board. The Ombudsman found that a meeting did not occur for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 because an insufficient number of members met to constitute a quorum.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion which responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. The Ombudsman found that the Walkerton BIA is subject to the open meeting rules as a local board. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.
Municipality of Brockton (Walkerton BIA), August 5, 2016
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion that responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The BIA had adopted the municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that the BIA’s procedure by-law was deficient as it did not account for the BIA’s specific procedures and did not include recent changes to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the BIA update its procedure by-law to ensure that it reflects the specific practices of the board and the closed meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Association (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. The Ombudsman encouraged the BIA to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss changes to its by-laws, relying on the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the BIA report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera. The Ombudsman noted that in some instances public reporting may consist of the information provided in the resolution authorizing the closed session along with any decisions or directions given to staff in camera, while at other times the report back may provide considerable information regarding the in camera discussion.