Search

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

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Temagami discussed matters during two closed meetings that did not fit into the exceptions in the Municipal Act. Council met in closed session on June 13, 2019 to discuss a harassment complaint under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion only focused on the fact that a complaint had been made and did not include any personal information about identifiable individuals. Council met in closed session on November 7, 2019 to receive the findings of an Integrity Commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. During the meeting, council received legal advice from a lawyer. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the audio quality of a teleconference meeting held on August 11, 2020, by the committee of the whole for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming held a meeting on June 24, 2020 that did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Act when it discussed how to fill the council vacancy in closed session. The Ombudsman found that this portion of the discussion did not fit within the exception cited under the Act for “personal matters”. Further, because the discussion was not permitted to be closed to the public, council contravened the Act when it decided, in camera, to fill the vacancy by appointment rather than by holding a by-election. The Ombudsman found that council’s closed session discussion regarding two individuals interested in filling the council vacancy fit within the “personal matters” exception under the Act. The Ombudsman also found that council’s vote to consider a motion in open session was a direction to staff and permitted under the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the committee of the whole for the Township of Johnson discussed matters during a closed session of a special council meeting on October 29, 2019, that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act. Further, the complainant alleged that the Township did not provide notice for the special council meeting. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s discussion about the employment history and qualifications of identifiable individuals fit within the personal matters exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting rules. Further, the Ombudsman found that the Township of Johnson provided sufficient notice for the special council meeting. However, the Ombudsman found that the committee of the whole violated the open meeting rules when it had a vote in closed session to recommend a candidate to fill the council vacancy.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding meetings held by the Township of Stone Mills between August 10, 2020 and October 27, 2020.

The Ombudsman received several complaints related to the meeting practices of the Board of Management for the Greater Napanee Business Improvement Area (the Greater Napanee BIA), which is a local board in the Town of Greater Napanee. The complainants alleged that the Board of Management made a decision about charging a levy without holding a properly constituted board meeting. They also alleged that on June 24, 2020, board members met in private at a local business, contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the board did not violate the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements with regard to the levy decision or the social gathering. The Ombudsman also did not support the complainants’ contention that the then-Chair acted unilaterally regarding the levy.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee held a meeting on October 22, 2019 that was not illegally closed to the public. However, the Ombudsman found that by proceeding to discuss fire services more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time of the meeting, the township contravened its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton on August 10, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Emo contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on June 23, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion relating to a “Council Code of Conduct” matter did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in s. 239(2)(b). However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 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.

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers discussed matters in a closed meeting on September 25, 2019 that did not fit into the exceptions in the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about a bidder on a request for proposals, and about candidates for an internship, fit within the exception for personal matters. The complaint also alleged that, prior to entering closed session, the mayor announced that the meeting was over – but council reconvened after the closed session to conduct additional business. The Ombudsman found that council violated the open meeting rules by failing to ensure that the public could observe the portion of the meeting that followed the closed session. The Ombudsman made several recommendations to the township to improve its meeting practices, including ensuring that minutes are complete and accurate, and that votes are limited to directions to staff or procedural matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on August 10, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 8, 2019, related to an in camera vote. The complaint also raised concerns about the amount of information that council shared in its report back following the closed session. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in s. 239(2)(f). However, the Ombudsman found that due to confusion and inadvertence, council’s in camera vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff contrary to the Act’s voting requirements.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing on April 20th and May 26th were not audio or video recorded, contrary to requirements in the municipality’s procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the April 15, 2020, closed meeting of council for the Township of The North Shore.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Saugeen Shores contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 22, November 11 and November 25, 2019. He also received a complaint that council held an informal private gathering that amounted to an illegal closed meeting on February 24, 2020. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no contraventions of the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.

A recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program benefits contacted us when he discovered his monthly natural gas and water tank rental fees had not been paid since 2016 and he owed $2,000 in outstanding fees.

A man with significant medical issues contacted us with the help of his social worker because he was experiencing financial hardship due to the Family Responsibility Office garnishing his Canada Pension Plan benefits for past child support arrears – although his children were now in their 30s.

A woman complained to us that she had not received any family support payments in over a year, despite submitting paperwork to the Family Responsibility Office asking that she receive them via direct deposit rather than by mailed cheque.