Search

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about several meetings held by council for the Township of Russell in 2023 and 2024. The Ombudsman found that in camera discussions about a costing update for a new recreation complex fit the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations, since the discussions revealed how much the Township was willing to spend on the project.

Investigation into matters relating to the Regional Municipality of Niagara’s hiring of its Chief Administrative Officer, and its administration of his contract

Investigation into the reasonableness and transparency of by-law enforcement and billing practices in the Township of St. Clair and the County of Lambton.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Wollaston’s Communication Team is a committee of council, and that any meetings it may have held since its inception should have been subject to the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging council for the Township of The North Shore contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by holding an informal meeting immediately following a council meeting on March 20, 2024. The complaint also alleged council held informal meetings in the days following. The Ombudsman found that a quorum of council engaged in an informal discussion after a council meeting on March 20, 2024, and also participated in discussions over group text message between March 24 and March 25, 2024. However, although these discussions involved a quorum of council, they were not “meetings” subject to the open meeting rules because members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Town of Cochrane on October 10 and October 16, 2023, where council discussed a proposed plan to encourage local development and growth by selling municipally owned land lots at a nominal fee and with a property tax rebate. The Ombudsman determined that the discussion at both meetings did not fit within the cited open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land because the transactions were too speculative, but that they did fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024 about the resignation of its integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the integrity commissioner’s role with the municipality fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the process it would follow to replace the integrity commissioner did not fit within any open meeting exceptions in the Act, could have been parsed from the first part of the discussion, and should have been discussed in open session.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a closed special meeting of council for Norfolk County on January 9, 2024, as well as closed meetings held by council-in-committee on February 14, 2023, November 15, 2023, and January 16, 2024. The Ombudsman found that at its January 9, 2024 meeting, council did not provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera and discussed a matter in camera that did not fit within the open meeting exception cited in its resolution. The Ombudsman also found that council-in-committee did not contravene the Act during its February 14, 2023 closed meeting, but did contravene the Act during its meetings on November 15, 2023 and January 16, 2024 by discussing some issues in camera that did not come within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of West Elgin held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to livestream to the public all or part of its council meetings on September 14, September 22, September 28, October 12, and October 16, 2023. The Ombudsman found no evidence to substantiate the allegation that part of the council meeting on September 14, 2023 was not livestreamed to the public. In addition, the Ombudsman found the notice for the meeting on October 12, 2023 provided accurate information regarding public access. However, the Municipality of West Elgin did not provide meaningful notice of its council meeting on September 22, September 28, and October 16, 2023, resulting in the meetings being effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on the selection of a new City Manager.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that alleged council for the Township of McGarry contravened the open meeting rules during an emergency meeting of council on September 1, 2023. The Ombudsman found that portions of council’s closed session discussion concerning the former Mayor’s resignation and potential appointees to fill the resulting vacancies fit within the open meeting exceptions. Although the remaining portions of the discussion about what method council would use to fill the vacancies did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, requiring council to have parsed those parts of the discussion would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion. The Ombudsman further determined that the Township provided notice for the emergency meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law and did not hold votes contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a strategic planning session that was held as a closed special meeting by council for the City of Cornwall on November 4, 2023. The complaint raised concerns that some discussions during this meeting did not fit into any of the open meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because the discussions did not come within any of the open meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023. At its meeting on November 20, 2023, council discussed a recent banquet for volunteer firefighters. At its meeting on December 11, 2023, council discussed a proposal to sell two fire trucks, a proposal to consolidate the Municipality’s fire and public works departments, and a recently completed integrity commissioner report. The Ombudsman determined that the discussions fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman also determined that council failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session at both meetings, contrary to section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville on July 5, 2023, to discuss an update on the Counties’ fundraising campaign for a municipally owned long-term care facility under the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman determined that the procedural discussion to determine whether or not to consider the update in closed session, and the closed session discussion about changes to the public fundraising policy, contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because both discussions did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. However, a portion of the Committee’s discussion regarding internal communications processes related to donations and naming rights, including mention of particular donors and their wishes, fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. Because this portion of the closed session discussion could not have been further parsed, this portion of the Committee of the Whole’s closed session discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a special meeting held by council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024 and about alleged gatherings of a quorum of councillors held prior to that meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by council for the City of London on April 2, 2024.

The Ombudsman received a complaint suggesting that five council members for the City of Greater Sudbury contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they attended a meeting held by the Flour Mill Community Action Network on April 8, 2024. The Ombudsman found that an illegal meeting under the Act did not occur. The five council members represented a quorum of the City’s Operations Committee; however, the council members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Operations Committee when they attended the meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake on December 18, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion about procurement practices did not fall within any of the prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion did not fit within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting of the City of Oshawa’s Corporate and Finance Services Committee which raised concerns about the public notice – which was temporarily unavailable on the City’s website due to a technical issue – and about the failure of the audio during the meeting webcast.