The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the November 25, 2019 closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exceptions. During the meeting, council discussed written legal advice from its solicitor regarding a by-law enforcement matter where litigation had been specifically threatened. Staff also provided a report to council summarizing the matter and providing additional information about several identified individuals. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula, April 21, 2020
Read the LetterMunicipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula, May 28, 2018
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula to discuss an application made under the Land Titles Act for a property located within the municipality. During the Ombudsman’s review, the municipality raised the solicitor-client advice exception as applicable to the closed meeting. During the meeting, staff briefly referenced legal advice that the municipality had previously received. The Ombudsman found that the legal advice was only briefly mentioned and not discussed further by council. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss an application made under the Land Titles Act for a property located within the municipality. During the meeting, council reviewed a cover letter for the application which included the property identification number, and a draft plan of reference showing the property’s location, dimensions and boundaries. The information did not include the property owner’s name. The Ombudsman found that this type of information is not inherently personal and does not constitute personal information about the property owner. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.