Search

A man who wanted to dispute a $40 parking ticket told municipal staff he would call back to schedule a hearing, but when he did so, he was told it had already taken place.

We received a complaint about a meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton. The complainant alleged that committee’s two in camera discussions about the city’s contribution to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats’ bid for the 2020 or 2021 Canadian Football League Grey Cup Championship game did not fit within the open meeting exceptions for “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege”, “information belonging to the municipality”, or “negotiations”. The Ombudsman found that the first in camera discussion fit within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception and the second in camera discussion fit wtihin the “negotiations” exception.

A pregnant youth called us for help when she went for an ultrasound and was told her health card was cancelled.

A young person in a treatment group home called us, saying she felt like she had no one to talk to.

A 15-year-old who had been in a group home for three years sought our help in moving into a foster home where he could become more independent.

We received a complaint that council for Wollaston Township did not provide enough information to the public before closing meetings on December 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019, and that council should have used the exception for labour relations instead of the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the January 10 and March 28, 2019 closed meetings of council for the Municipality of Temagami.

We received a complaint that members of council for the City of Hamilton contravened the open meeting provisions by exchanging emails relating to a vacant council seat in June 2018. The complaint also alleged that the city’s General Issues Committee contravened the rules by discussing and voting on matters related to the vacant seat in camera on July 9, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the city did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they exchanged emails regarding a vacant council seat in June 2018. The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting. The city’s General Issues Committee also did not contravene the open meeting rules when it discussed advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in camera on July 9, 2018. The committee did not vote regarding the vacant seat in camera on July 9; it did not contravene the voting provisions in the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding four meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the June 12, 2018 closed meeting of the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place. The complaint alleged that the committee’s discussion about the sale of two municipally-owned properties and a related discussion regarding water and sewer services did not fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the closed session fit within the exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that one regular meeting of council, four special meetings of council and two committee of the whole meetings were held without posting notice online, as required by the procedure bylaw.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the August 8, 2018 closed meeting of the board of directors for the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about two information sessions on March 7, 2018 attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. During these sessions, the council members in attendance received information and updates with respect to the business of the municipality. However, his investigation did not uncover evidence that the council members in attendance at the sessions “materially advanced” the business or decision-making of council. These sessions were therefore not “meetings” under the definition in the Municipal Act, 2001 that came into force on January 1, 2018. In the interests of openness and transparency, the Ombudsman suggested that council members receive information and updates about the business of the municipality during public meetings of council.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Deep River held a vote in closed session on May 16, 2018 that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that an informal meeting of council occurred after the April 16, 2018 meeting of council.

Investigation into a meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara on December 7, 2017. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting of council for the Village of Casselman on January 9, 2018 and about discussions that took place among council members at town hall on January 11, 2018. The Ombudsman found that council for the Village did not violate the open meeting rules when it went into closed session to discuss human resources matters on January 9, 2018 and when a quorum of councillors had informal discussions at town hall on January 11, 2018. However, the Ombudsman made best practice suggestions relating to the Town’s closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman received complaints about three meetings of council for The North Shore, alleging that subjects discussed in the December 13, 2017 and February 7, 2018 closed sessions did not fit within the “personal matters” exception, and that the resolution on December 13, 2017, to proceed into closed session did not include all matters discussed. The complaint also alleged the township did not give notice of a special meeting held on February 14, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the subject matters discussed by council on December 13, 2017, fit within the exceptions in the Municipal Act, but that the township  failed to include all subject matters discussed during the closed session in the resolution to proceed into closed session. He also found that council violated the Municipal Act during the closed session on February 7, 2018, when it discussed how to fill a council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the township did provide public notice of its February 14, 2018 meeting, but recommended that the township amend its procedure bylaw to formalize its general practices for giving notice.

The Ombudsman received three complaints that several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg and the Joint Police Advisory Committee did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act. The Joint Police Advisory Committee does not fall under the definition of “committee” under the Municipal Act, so the Ombudsman used his general jurisdiction over municipalities to consider whether the committee violated its terms of reference. The Ombudsman found the committee failed to comply with its terms of reference in closing several meetings using the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found council violated the Municipal Act in closing a meeting under the security of the property exception but did not violate the Act by closing another meeting under the personal matters exception.