Search

Our office found that discussions of a consultant's report on July 3 and July 14, 2015 fit within the personal matters exception to the open meeting requirements.

We received a complaint that council for the Municipality of St.-Charles discussed items in closed meetings on May 15, 2012, June 19, 2013, and May 29, 2014 that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council for St.-Charles contravened the Municipal Act when it discussed audit reports, management letters, and other auditor findings and recommendations in closed session during each of the three meetings. Discussions of individual staff performance and conduct, which ensued as a result of the review of the audit report and management letter, fell within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

We received complaints about two closed meetings held by council for the Township of Russell during the afternoon and evening of August 10, 2015. Our review found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001​ on the afternoon of August 10 when it went in camera to receive training on strategic planning because the discussion fell within the exception for education or training sessions. We also found that one matter discussed on the evening of August 10 fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, our review found that three of the closed session matters discussed the evening of August 10 did not fall within any of the Act's exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman did not find that there had been secret meetings involving members of Council prior to the passage of a by-law regarding wind turbines at the January 14, 2013 Council meeting. 

The Ombudsman found that Council's consideration of a matter involving disposition of city-owned lands in a May 21, 2013 closed session was permitted under the Act, and that the city did not violate the open meeting requirements during a meeting on March 20.

A driver who suffered what he believed to be a seizure in April 2013 was diagnosed by a neurologist and, as required by the Ministry of Transportation, had his licence suspended pending a medical review. On October 28, 2013, his doctor faxed documentation to the Ministry to prove that he had been seizure-free for six months, and thus eligible to have his licence reinstated.

A 65-year-old man had his driver’s licence suspended in May 2014 after hospital staff reported to the Ministry of Transportation that he had suffered a fall that knocked him unconscious. After this incident, the man provided the Ministry with letters from three different doctors confirming he was in good health, but two months later, his licence was still suspended.

After signing up for “Back on Track,” a remedial program for people convicted of impaired driving, a man phoned the program to book a one-hour assessment interview. He was given the choice of several time slots. He arrived at 3:30 on the appointed day, believing he was half an hour early for the 4 p.m. slot. Instead, he was told the interview had actually been booked for 3 p.m.

A new driver complained to our Office after waiting six months for his permanent driver’s licence. He had passed the written test and turned over his Ontario-issued government photo ID to ServiceOntario, expecting a replacement card in the mail, but he never received it.  

A woman turned to the Ombudsman for help when she had trouble renewing her Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage. She had been living with friends and was struggling to provide proof that she was an Ontario resident so she could renew her OHIP card before it expired on September 30.

A man complained to us that he received a water bill and a late payment penalty even though he had a $600 credit with the utility. Our staff contacted the municipality and discovered that the man’s original account had been closed and a new account had been set up without the credit being transferred over.

A transgender man complained to our Office because he was having difficulty obtaining an updated birth certificate from the Registrar General.

A man told our Office he had tried for 10 years to find out why the municipality removed the snow from the sidewalk in front of his neighbours’ homes, but not his.

A woman applied for Ontario Works benefits and was told she qualified for $1,850 to cover the first and last month's rent payments for an apartment she was moving into in August.

A ​woman who was working temporarily in Ontario and renting a house with no private parking complained to us when the municipality denied her a street parking permit because her vehicle had out-of-province plates.

After living on the streets for many years, a man sought our help in obtaining valid identification so he could apply for full-time work.

We received complaints of alleged violations of the councillor code of conduct in a township.

A man who needed to renew his Ontario Security Guard licence for work contacted our Office for help in speeding up the process with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

A homeowner complained that a $1,950 fee he paid to make a severance application was not refunded when his application was denied.

A homeless teenager who could not live with either parent was denied assistance through Ontario Works and was not provided with anything in writing about how to appeal the decision.