Search

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Niagara Falls discussed and voted on the sale of property in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet had held illegal closed meetings in 2016 to discuss an organizational study of the municipality. The complaint also alleged that council improperly voted by email to approve funding related to a grant application. The Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and it procedure by-law when it voted during a closed session on April 4, 2016 and when it held three meetings without following any of the procedural requirements for meetings of council. The Ombudsman also found that the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it approved funding related to a grant application by email and by telephone.

On December 12, 2016 council for the Township of Russell went in closed session to discuss naming rights for a new sports facility, citing the “personal matters” and “litigation or potential litigation” exceptions.  The Ombudsman received a complaint that this discussion did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that the general discussion pertained to fundraising, naming rights and advertising for the sports facility, not to personal matters. There also was no discussion of potential litigation. Accordingly, the meeting was not permitted to be closed to the public.

Council for the City of Timmins contravened the Municipal Act on December 19, 2016 when it met in camera with a representative of Northern College to discuss a proposed development agreement with the college. The discussion between council and college’s representative did not fall within the acquisition or disposition of land exception to the Act’s open meeting requirement.

We received a complaint that the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie discussed a matter in camera on November 2, 2016 contrary to the open meeting rules. BIA boards are local boards subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the matter discussed by the board in camera fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, and labour relations or employee negotiations. However, the board committed procedural violations by failing to pass a resolution before going in camera, failing to record meeting minutes, and voting in a closed meeting. The Ombudsman recognized that most of the board members were volunteers who had not received training on the open meeting rules, and recommended that the Town of Fort Erie ensure all members of its local boards receive such training.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the November 1, 2016 meeting of London’s Corporate Services Committee was illegally closed to the public to discuss a general policy matter. The Ombudsman found that, while there is no exception to the open meeting requirements that authorizes general policy discussions to take place behind closed doors, the in camera discussion at this meeting was permitted under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

The Ombudsman received complaints that the City of London held illegal closed meetings on May 17 and June 23, 2016, to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner, and a recent report of the integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that the May 17 Committee of the Whole meeting was permitted to be closed to the public under the solicitor-client privilege and personal matters exceptions, and the June 23 council meeting was permitted to be closed to the public under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

We received complaints alleging that the Walkerton Business Improvement Area and the Municipality of Brockton held three improperly closed meetings on June 13, June 20, and September 27, 2016. The Ombudsman determined that the Walkerton Business Improvement Area did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 13 because the discussion between three board members was not a “meeting” under the Act and was not subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also determined that council for the Municipality of Brockton did not contravene the Act on June 20, 2016, when it met in camera to discuss matters that were subject to “litigation or potential litigation”. However, on September 27, 2016, the municipality contravened the Act when a quorum of councillors attended an information session related to a Drainage Act petition.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the municipality of Temagami held illegal closed sessions on April 28 and August 11, 2016.

We received a complaint that the Laird Fairgrounds Management Board held a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules on August 10, 2016.  The board is a committee of the Township of Laird. The committee did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 or the Township of Laird’s procedure by-law when it discussed a matter in camera on August 10, 2016. The discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

Council for the City of Timmins contravened the Municipal Act on June 27, 2016 when it went in camera to discuss the recruitment process to replace the retiring CAO. The discussion did not fall within the personal matters exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that council should not have voted in closed session to form a hiring committee and voted by way of secret ballot on the membership of council members to that committee. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Timmins held two illegal closed session discussions on August 8, 2016 and August 29, 2016, about the City’s Canada Day 150 Celebrations. The Ombudsman determined that council contravened the Municipal Act when it went in camera on August 8, 2016 under the solicitor-client advice exception and that council should not have voted during that closed session. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the  Municipal Act when it went in camera on August 29, 2016 under the solicitor-client advice exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council went in camera to discuss a report regarding contracts between the city and a transit ticket kiosk. The complaint also alleged that council voted while in camera to write off an uncollectible account, prior to voting on the matter in open session on May 31, 2016. The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera to discuss the report on March 2 and March 23, 2016 under the personal matters and solicitor-client privilege exceptions, or on April 26, 2016 under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman also found that council did not improperly vote on the uncollectible account during a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Georgian Bay held illegal closed session discussions on October 13, 2015 and January 11, 2016, about a shoreline structure that did not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera at these meetings under the litigation or potential litigation exception. However, council contravened the Act when it voted during its in camera meeting on October 13, 2015.

The Niagara District Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act on July 14, 2016, when it went in camera to discuss ongoing airport fee negotiations and related airport upgrades. This meeting did not fall within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception, or any exception, to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also made recommendations to improve the commission’s procedure by-law and its process for providing information to the public about closed session discussions.

The City of Elliot Lake's Ad Hoc Multi-Use Committee is a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act's open meeting requirements. The committee violated the open meeting requirements and the city's procedural by-law on March 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 when it held meetings without providing notice to the public. 

The Township of Hornepayne’s Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee is a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The committee contravened the Act and the township’s procedure by-law on January 12, 2016, when it held a meeting without providing any notice to the public.

Council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the Municipal Act and the municipality’s procedure by-law when it discussed a municipally-controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc., in camera on May 2, 2016. The discussion did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. There is no exception in the Act for discussions about sensitive business information.

The Ombudsman received complaints that council for the County of Norfolk met illegally in a closed meeting on May 24, 2016 to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law for an area in the county known as Hastings Drive. The complaints also alleged that council improperly voted during the closed meeting to remove an option for the zoning by-law from consideration. The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera on May 24, 2016 under the litigation or potential litigation exception and the solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman also found that council did not improperly vote during the closed meeting. One of the complaints alleged that the resolution to proceed in camera was vague. Given the nature of the discussions (solicitor-client privileged advice), the Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera was sufficient.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Niagara Falls violated the Municipal Act when it voted in closed session to commit $10 million towards a proposed partnership with a post-secondary institution. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions and that as a result, council was not entitled to vote in closed session on a resolution directing staff to proceed with the partnership.