Search

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the City of Hamilton’s Working Group of the Physician Recruitment and Retention Steering Committee violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held meetings on January 12, September 14, October 14, October 29, November 23, and December 14, 2021.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a training session held by council for the Township of Emo on May 28, 2022. The complaint alleged that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law when it held a budget training in a closed session without providing notice to the public. The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Emo did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 or its own procedure by-law when it held a training session in camera on May 28, 2022. The session fit into the “education and training” exception since council received training on the new budget format and did not materially advance its business or decision-making.  Additionally, the Township was not required to post notice of the training session, as it did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and was therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about meetings held by the Cultural Vitality Committee and the Tourism Board of the City of Sault Ste. Marie. The Ombudsman determined that the Cultural Vitality Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 17, 2021, by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not open to the public, as the Committee did not provide the public with information about how to attend the virtual meeting. However, the Ombudsman found that the Cultural Vitality Committee’s resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public. The Ombudsman also found that the Tourism Board contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 25, 2021 by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The meeting was not open to the public, as the Board did not provide the public with information on how to attend the virtual meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by council for the Township of Minden Hills in 2021 and 2022.

The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed the purchase of an identified property during a closed session.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a meeting held by the Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee on March 15, 2022, and a meeting held by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee on March 29, 2022, for the City if Hamilton.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Town of Kearney improperly held a closed special meeting of council on August 25, 2010 and that prior notice of the meeting had not been given.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received two complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted in closed session on April 28, 2022, contrary to the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by Dufferin County’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services Standing Committee on April 28, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Pickering violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on January 10, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera. The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special council meeting held by the Township of Russell on January 10, 2022.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The complaint also raised concerns relating to public notice for the meeting on October 13, 2021, and also for a meeting on October 18, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(b) of the Act, personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). The Ombudsman also found that council did not comply with subsection 238(2.1) of the Act on October 13 and October 18, 2021 because its procedure by-law fails to provide for public notice about the calling, place and proceedings of special meetings.

After water rates were increased in a small municipality, we received 48 complaints from local residents who disagreed with the increase.

A woman complained to us that she had no idea why her water bill had tripled in a few months with no change to her consumption, and the municipal billing department would not help.

A man seeking a property tax deferment complained to us that council had unfairly rejected his request because there wasn’t time to consider it.

A homeowner complained to us that her municipality was demanding she pay more than $5,000 in fees for a permit for a culvert that had been built under her driveway years ago.

A man who was in jail awaiting sentencing complained to us that correctional officials had told him he could not vote in the September 2021 federal election, even though he was eligible.