Search

More than 30 people from the same municipality sought our help with concerns about leaking water pipes.

A man who received a ticket for stopping in a “no stopping” zone complained that only a “no parking” sign was visible from the spot.

Residents who live close to an open-pit mine contacted us in frustration after complaining to their municipality about noise, dust, and emissions for years.

We received numerous complaints in 2020-2021 about delays in approvals by Ontario’s Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for transfers of restricted firearms.

An inmate sought our help after he was involved in an altercation with another inmate and then pepper sprayed and assaulted by correctional officers.

Several inmates in the same facility complained to us that they were strip searched in a main hallway, in view of security cameras.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Bonfield violated the open meeting rules when it held meetings in May and June 2020 over Zoom, without broadcasting or otherwise making the meetings accessible to the public. The Ombudsman recognized that these were the first meetings held by the Township during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that the pandemic did not alter the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that the Township failed to include information about topics discussed in the meeting minutes, including resolutions that were voted on but failed to pass. He recommended that, as a best practice, the Township improve its minute-taking practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on October 6, 2020. The complaint alleged that council discussed the designation of the Niagara River as a protected wetland in closed session. The Ombudsman found that this topic fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege as council received legal advice from the City solicitor about the potential designation. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Kirkland Lake contravened the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001, when it met in closed session on August 25, 2020. The Ombudsman found that council’s closed session discussion involved scrutinizing individuals’ conduct and job performance and that the employee-employer relationship was central to the discussion. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the ‘personal matters’ and ‘labour relations’ exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Kirkland Lake contravened the requirements of s.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.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury on January 12, 2021 via electronic participation. The complaint alleged that council discussed an entertainment district in closed session. The Ombudsman found that council did not discuss the entertainment district. The Ombudsman found that the topics discussed in closed session fit within the exception for personal matters and information supplied in confidence by a third party. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Grey Highlands held a closed session on October 7, 2020, that did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. Council discussed plans to proceed with negotiations to enter into a joint venture with a third party and provided staff with directions on a series of matters related to the negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about an electronic meeting held by the LGBTQ Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton. The Ombudsman found that the public livestream of the meeting was not available for approximately 23 minutes. As a result, the Ombudsman found that the public was excluded from the meeting contrary to the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about two closed meetings held by council for the Township of the North Shore on October 8 and October 29, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby on February 16, 2021.

The Ombudsman received complaints about in-person closed meetings held by council for the City of Richmond Hill on April 16 and May 14, 2019, and about electronic council meetings held on April 1, April 22, and May 14, 2020. The Ombudsman found that at each meeting where it was discussed, council’s discussion in camera about a land use planning matter that had been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation. However, the Ombudsman found that on April 22 and May 14, 2020, council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings, including the resolution to go in camera and any business conducted after rising from closed session, even when the only item on the agenda is an in camera matter. The Ombudsman also recommended that the City ensure that information on how to access the live broadcast of an electronic meeting is provided in all meeting notices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that on June 15, 2020, a quorum of councillors for the Town of Hawkesbury discussed council business that they intended to introduce and vote on at a council meeting scheduled for the next day. The complaint alleged that this discussion amounted to a “meeting” and was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Town did not violate the Act’s open meeting requirement because the Mayor’s sequential discussions did not constitute meetings under the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two meetings held by council for the Village of Westport on September 15, 2020. The complaint alleged that due to a technical issue, council did not livestream the virtual committee of the whole or special council meeting for the public. The complaint alleged that, as a result, these meetings were closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman confirmed that the public was excluded from these meetings due to technical issues and that as a result, they were improperly closed to the public.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held on August 19, 2020, by council for the Township of Lake of Bays.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the County of Norfolk met in closed session to discuss the budget under the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations and acquisition or disposition of land. The closed session discussion focused on reducing service levels in the municipality by eliminating staff positions. Ombudsman found that council discussed items that fit under the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations. The Ombudsman also found that council’s discussion about selling municipal land to raise capital fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Sault Ste. Marie on July 13, 2020.