Search

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.

A man who had continued to make regular family support payments to his former mother-in-law, who had cared for his now-adult daughter, complained to us after he learned the older woman had been dead for more than a year.

An Ontario Works (OW) recipient urgently needed help when her benefits were suspended because she submitted some paperwork late.

A woman who was owed more than $10,000 in support payments from her ex-husband complained to us that she had provided documents to the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) proving that he had the money in a bank account, but the FRO would not take action.

A mother had been waiting for months to access support funding to assist with her nine-year-old son’s developmental mental health conditions.

A woman who was behind on her hydro bills asked Ontario Works (OW) for help to avoid getting disconnected.

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.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022.