Search

We received a complaint that council for the Municipality of St.-Charles discussed items in closed meetings on May 15, 2012, June 19, 2013, and May 29, 2014 that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council for St.-Charles contravened the Municipal Act when it discussed audit reports, management letters, and other auditor findings and recommendations in closed session during each of the three meetings. Discussions of individual staff performance and conduct, which ensued as a result of the review of the audit report and management letter, fell within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

We received complaints about two closed meetings held by council for the Township of Russell during the afternoon and evening of August 10, 2015. Our review found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001​ on the afternoon of August 10 when it went in camera to receive training on strategic planning because the discussion fell within the exception for education or training sessions. We also found that one matter discussed on the evening of August 10 fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, our review found that three of the closed session matters discussed the evening of August 10 did not fall within any of the Act's exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council's April 16 closed meeting discussion regarding comments made by a councillor about staff performance did fit within the "personal matters" exception.

The Ombudsman did not find that there had been secret meetings involving members of Council prior to the passage of a by-law regarding wind turbines at the January 14, 2013 Council meeting. 

The Ombudsman found that Council's consideration of a matter involving disposition of city-owned lands in a May 21, 2013 closed session was permitted under the Act, and that the city did not violate the open meeting requirements during a meeting on March 20.

A man complained to us that he received a water bill and a late payment penalty even though he had a $600 credit with the utility. Our staff contacted the municipality and discovered that the man’s original account had been closed and a new account had been set up without the credit being transferred over.

A man told our Office he had tried for 10 years to find out why the municipality removed the snow from the sidewalk in front of his neighbours’ homes, but not his.

A woman applied for Ontario Works benefits and was told she qualified for $1,850 to cover the first and last month's rent payments for an apartment she was moving into in August.

A ​woman who was working temporarily in Ontario and renting a house with no private parking complained to us when the municipality denied her a street parking permit because her vehicle had out-of-province plates.

We received complaints of alleged violations of the councillor code of conduct in a township.

A homeowner complained that a $1,950 fee he paid to make a severance application was not refunded when his application was denied.

A homeless teenager who could not live with either parent was denied assistance through Ontario Works and was not provided with anything in writing about how to appeal the decision.

A town clerk contacted our office after the local council, which was considering establishing a code of conduct, expressed the view that it did not need to appoint an Integrity Commissioner, because any complaints related to the code of conduct could be forwarded to the Ombudsman for review.

A man complained after he received a municipal hydro bill of $1,300, when his normal monthly bill was around $29.

A man contacted our Office after his municipality closed and sold a road allowance adjacent to his property. His family had used the land to access the river, but they were not notified by the municipality or given the chance to purchase a portion of the land, contrary to municipal policy.

A man complained to his municipality after a member of council called him names in an email. He was not satisfied when the mayor offered to bring him and the councillor together for a private meeting.

A man who had a complaint about his municipality’s chief building official contacted our Office because his municipality did not have a code of conduct in place, even though this is required by the Building Code Act.

After a man complained to us that his municipality had not responded to his letter about flood damage to his basement, municipal staff initially told us they didn’t answer because they deemed the complaint to be without merit.

Investigation into the City of Oshawa, Development Services Committee special meeting of May 22, 2008.

Investigation into the City of Oshawa's apparent failure to co-operate.