Search

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.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the December 11, 2023 meeting of council for the Township of Wollaston.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Callander on December 12, 2023 and January 9, 2024.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the Town of Iroquois Falls on November 28, 2022.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the meeting practices of the Township of Tiny Administrative Centre Committee.

A woman called us for help on the morning that she, her partner and three children were being evicted.

A landlord who claimed her tenant was threatening to kill her and her children asked for an urgent hearing with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

A woman complained to us that her friend, who was a client of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT), was struggling to pay for her day-to-day expenses with the weekly $50 the OPGT provided.

A woman contacted us in frustration over delays and a lack of communication from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) regarding a deceased relative who had been an OPGT client.

A woman who could not pay her property taxes due to financial hardship sought our help after her municipality refused her request to cancel her debt.

A homeowner reached out to us when the land around her home was rezoned from agricultural to industrial.

We were contacted by the leaseholder of Crown land that included ski trails and a drainage system that had previously been installed by his municipality.

A business owner complained to us after his municipality informed him that a set of stairs on the back of his building encroached on municipal property.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Board of Directors for Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) does not hold meetings that are open to the public. The Ombudsman found that SMART is a shared local board of 10 member municipalities that is subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received complaints that a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln did not adhere to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for education or training. However, small-group discussions that occurred during the second part of the closed session did not fit within any of the exceptions.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a meeting of council for the Town of Halton Hills held on August 28, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion of recent provincial policy announcements about municipalities did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complaint also alleged that council did not pass a resolution stating that this matter would be discussed in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, and that council failed to include a general description of this topic in its resolution to proceed into closed session. Council accordingly contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 28, 2023. The Ombudsman also noted that council’s minutes incorrectly suggested that council had included this topic of discussion in its resolution when it had not.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of Jocelyn on January 10 and 13, February 7, April 4, and October 10, 2023 and found that the discussions at each of these meetings fit within various closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that the Township contravened the Act at its October 10 meeting by failing to pass a resolution to enter into closed session, failing to take closed meeting minutes, and by improperly closing the beginning of the meeting to the public. Although no illegal votes occurred at the meetings, the Ombudsman nevertheless recommended as a best practice that council clearly identify any specific directions given in closed session, formally vote on them, and record that vote in the closed meeting minutes.  

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Lanark Highlands contravened the open meeting rules on June 27, 2023 when it discussed a management letter regarding draft financial statements with an auditor during a closed session. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the management letter fit within the exception for security of the property of the municipality because the information discussed related to an ongoing threat to the security of the municipality’s property. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 239(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 by failing to keep an adequate record of what was discussed in camera. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Township make audio or video recordings of its closed sessions.