Search

Three residents told us that construction near their homes had caused their wells to dry up.

A woman reached out to us because her family’s subsidized housing unit was uninhabitable after a fire.

A woman complained to us about how her municipality handled her request to convert a shipping container into a garden shed.

A woman whose common-law spouse had died while they were living in a homeless shelter complained to us that the Chief Coroner’s Office had buried him even though she had requested to claim the body.

An inmate told us a correctional officer threw him to the ground and started punching and kneeing him – leaving the inmate with swollen arms and a broken hand.

An inmate sought our help because he was housed on the same range with another inmate who was facing charges for stabbing him – and, he told us, was now extorting him for access to the canteen, food and phone calls.

The Ombudsman received complaints about meetings held by the Committee of Adjustment; the Culture, Heritage and Tourism Committee; the Events Committee; and the Implementation and Beautification Advisory Committee in the Municipality of Callander.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about a closed meeting held on February 6, 2019 by the General Issues Committee of the City of Hamilton. The discussion in closed session related to a consultant’s report from November 20, 2013 that found that there were low levels of friction on the Red Hill Valley Parkway. The complaint alleged that the Committee breached the open meeting rules when it misrepresented a four-part PowerPoint presentation as a single item, and that some of the content did not fit within the exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman concluded that the Committee did not contravene the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the in camera discussion was permissible under the Act. However, to improve the accountability and transparency of its meetings, the Ombudsman made best practice suggestions relating to the Committee’s closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman received complaints that two closed meetings of council for the City of Elliot Lake did not fit into the closed meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the meetings fit within the closed meeting exceptions except for a portion of one of the closed session discussions, which did not fit within the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the April 19, 2023 meeting of Council for the Town of Deep River.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the April 19, 2022 electronic presentation of the Huronia Airport Task Force was not broadcast in the manner specified on the public notice.   The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman determined that as the Huronia Airport Task Force materially advanced its business on April 19, 2022, the presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location of the Huronia Airport Task Force’s meeting on April 19, 2022, or record minutes of that meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of the public could not access the live broadcast of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Elgin after council returned to open session from a closed session.

Our Office received a complaint from a person who was removed from the Township of Alberton’s May 11, 2022 hybrid council meeting because they refused to identify themselves on Zoom. The Township has a requirement that all attendees of council meetings, whether in person or virtual, must identify themselves. The purpose of this requirement in the context of virtual council meetings is to prevent “Zoom bombings”, in which uninvited individuals join a meeting and act in a disruptive manner. The Ombudsman concluded that by removing the complainant from the meeting on May 11, 2022, the Township contravened the open meeting rules. Municipalities have an obligation to ensure that members of the public can freely access and observe open meetings and must be careful about placing conditions on their ability to do so. While not all such conditions will necessarily be a violation of the open meeting rules, in this case, requiring the public identification of all attendees was an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective of preventing “Zoom bombings”.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that the Board of Trustees for the Hamilton Waterfront Trust contravened the open meeting rules on February 21, 2023 when it discussed a letter outlining the Ombudsman’s findings about previous closed meeting complaints in closed session.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Douro-Dummer did not fit within the open meeting exceptions.  

The Ministry of the Solicitor General has requested public and stakeholder input on proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 926/90 concerning equipment and the use of force by police services.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s proposed amendments to Regulation 778 related to segregation, inmate discipline and misconduct, and mandatory training for correctional officers.

My team and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s three proposed changes to Ontario Regulation 778.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the January 23, 2023 meeting of the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio contravened the open meeting rules on June 29, 2021, and March 1 and 7, 2022. The Ombudsman found that discussions with Township solicitors about a development project and a specific agreement fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege. However, he found that several resolutions to close the meeting to the public did not include a general description of the topic to be discussed in camera. He also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera. Finally, the Ombudsman found issues with the Township’s procedural by-law, which did not adequately address public notice for special meetings of council, and with the Township’s minutes, which fell short of the requirements outlined in its procedural by-law.