Search

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the doors to Hamilton city hall were locked during part of a meeting of council on February 14, 2019, and that the doors to city hall were barricaded during part of a meeting of the city’s Audit, Finance and Administration Committee on April 18, 2019.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a vote by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee during a March 1, 2019 closed meeting was not permitted by the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the attendance of three councillors at an April 30, 2019 public proceeding of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

After we made inquiries about a man’s complaint that the required notice of a proposed zoning by-law amendment was not posted on the relevant property, the municipality changed its practices.

A man who received a water bill for more than $700 – around seven times more than his usual charge – called us in frustration when the local water company told him his previous bills were only estimates, but this one was based on actual use, and they could not alter his bill.

When a snowplow hit a pothole, digging up asphalt and other debris, it dumped the pile in a woman’s front yard and left a larger hole in the road. She complained to us after the municipal crew she called only filled the potholes, leaving the debris in her yard.

A man who wanted to dispute a $40 parking ticket told municipal staff he would call back to schedule a hearing, but when he did so, he was told it had already taken place.

We received a complaint about a meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton. The complainant alleged that committee’s two in camera discussions about the city’s contribution to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats’ bid for the 2020 or 2021 Canadian Football League Grey Cup Championship game did not fit within the open meeting exceptions for “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege”, “information belonging to the municipality”, or “negotiations”. The Ombudsman found that the first in camera discussion fit within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception and the second in camera discussion fit wtihin the “negotiations” exception.

We received a complaint that council for Wollaston Township did not provide enough information to the public before closing meetings on December 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019, and that council should have used the exception for labour relations instead of the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the January 10 and March 28, 2019 closed meetings of council for the Municipality of Temagami.

We received a complaint that members of council for the City of Hamilton contravened the open meeting provisions by exchanging emails relating to a vacant council seat in June 2018. The complaint also alleged that the city’s General Issues Committee contravened the rules by discussing and voting on matters related to the vacant seat in camera on July 9, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the city did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they exchanged emails regarding a vacant council seat in June 2018. The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting. The city’s General Issues Committee also did not contravene the open meeting rules when it discussed advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in camera on July 9, 2018. The committee did not vote regarding the vacant seat in camera on July 9; it did not contravene the voting provisions in the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding four meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the June 12, 2018 closed meeting of the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place. The complaint alleged that the committee’s discussion about the sale of two municipally-owned properties and a related discussion regarding water and sewer services did not fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the closed session fit within the exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that one regular meeting of council, four special meetings of council and two committee of the whole meetings were held without posting notice online, as required by the procedure bylaw.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the August 8, 2018 closed meeting of the board of directors for the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about two information sessions on March 7, 2018 attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. During these sessions, the council members in attendance received information and updates with respect to the business of the municipality. However, his investigation did not uncover evidence that the council members in attendance at the sessions “materially advanced” the business or decision-making of council. These sessions were therefore not “meetings” under the definition in the Municipal Act, 2001 that came into force on January 1, 2018. In the interests of openness and transparency, the Ombudsman suggested that council members receive information and updates about the business of the municipality during public meetings of council.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Deep River held a vote in closed session on May 16, 2018 that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that an informal meeting of council occurred after the April 16, 2018 meeting of council.

Investigation into a meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara on December 7, 2017.