Search

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding meetings held by the Township of Stone Mills between August 10, 2020 and October 27, 2020.

The Ombudsman received several complaints related to the meeting practices of the Board of Management for the Greater Napanee Business Improvement Area (the Greater Napanee BIA), which is a local board in the Town of Greater Napanee. The complainants alleged that the Board of Management made a decision about charging a levy without holding a properly constituted board meeting. They also alleged that on June 24, 2020, board members met in private at a local business, contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the board did not violate the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements with regard to the levy decision or the social gathering. The Ombudsman also did not support the complainants’ contention that the then-Chair acted unilaterally regarding the levy.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee held a meeting on October 22, 2019 that was not illegally closed to the public. However, the Ombudsman found that by proceeding to discuss fire services more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time of the meeting, the township contravened its procedure by-law.

A small business owner reached out to us after he was unable to update the information attached to his business licence through ServiceOntario, despite several attempts.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton on August 10, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Emo contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on June 23, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion relating to a “Council Code of Conduct” matter did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in s. 239(2)(b). However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers discussed matters in a closed meeting on September 25, 2019 that did not fit into the exceptions in the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about a bidder on a request for proposals, and about candidates for an internship, fit within the exception for personal matters. The complaint also alleged that, prior to entering closed session, the mayor announced that the meeting was over – but council reconvened after the closed session to conduct additional business. The Ombudsman found that council violated the open meeting rules by failing to ensure that the public could observe the portion of the meeting that followed the closed session. The Ombudsman made several recommendations to the township to improve its meeting practices, including ensuring that minutes are complete and accurate, and that votes are limited to directions to staff or procedural matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on August 10, 2020.

A father whose wife died in childbirth sought our help in obtaining a birth certificate and Social Insurance Number for the new baby, which he needed in order to claim survivor benefits.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 8, 2019, related to an in camera vote. The complaint also raised concerns about the amount of information that council shared in its report back following the closed session. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in s. 239(2)(f). However, the Ombudsman found that due to confusion and inadvertence, council’s in camera vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff contrary to the Act’s voting requirements.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing on April 20th and May 26th were not audio or video recorded, contrary to requirements in the municipality’s procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the April 15, 2020, closed meeting of council for the Township of The North Shore.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Saugeen Shores contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 22, November 11 and November 25, 2019. He also received a complaint that council held an informal private gathering that amounted to an illegal closed meeting on February 24, 2020. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no contraventions of the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.

A woman sought our help in getting the Registrar General to help her correct an error she made on her mother’s death certificate.

A man complained to us after trying for years to resolve a name discrepancy with ServiceOntario.

We received three complaints about a chaotic meeting of council for the Municipality of West Nipissing in March 2019.

As noted in last year’s Annual Report, we received 77 complaints in February 2019 about a City of Hamilton committee’s decision to meet outside of the city – the highest number of complaints we have ever received in a single closed meeting case.

A dog owner who went to renew the licences for her pets complained to us when the municipality also charged her to renew the licence of a dog that had died six months earlier.

A man who moved a trailer onto a property while he waited for a permit to build a house on it complained that the municipality had removed the trailer without notice.

A man complained to us that he was charged $123.79 for the installation of a new water meter at his cottage, even though the municipality’s fees by-law listed the fee for water meter replacement as $34.38.