Search

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the April 19, 2023 meeting of Council for the Town of Deep River.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the April 19, 2022 electronic presentation of the Huronia Airport Task Force was not broadcast in the manner specified on the public notice.   The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman determined that as the Huronia Airport Task Force materially advanced its business on April 19, 2022, the presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location of the Huronia Airport Task Force’s meeting on April 19, 2022, or record minutes of that meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of the public could not access the live broadcast of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Elgin after council returned to open session from a closed session.

Our Office received a complaint from a person who was removed from the Township of Alberton’s May 11, 2022 hybrid council meeting because they refused to identify themselves on Zoom. The Township has a requirement that all attendees of council meetings, whether in person or virtual, must identify themselves. The purpose of this requirement in the context of virtual council meetings is to prevent “Zoom bombings”, in which uninvited individuals join a meeting and act in a disruptive manner. The Ombudsman concluded that by removing the complainant from the meeting on May 11, 2022, the Township contravened the open meeting rules. Municipalities have an obligation to ensure that members of the public can freely access and observe open meetings and must be careful about placing conditions on their ability to do so. While not all such conditions will necessarily be a violation of the open meeting rules, in this case, requiring the public identification of all attendees was an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective of preventing “Zoom bombings”.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that the Board of Trustees for the Hamilton Waterfront Trust contravened the open meeting rules on February 21, 2023 when it discussed a letter outlining the Ombudsman’s findings about previous closed meeting complaints in closed session.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Douro-Dummer did not fit within the open meeting exceptions.  

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the January 23, 2023 meeting of the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio contravened the open meeting rules on June 29, 2021, and March 1 and 7, 2022. The Ombudsman found that discussions with Township solicitors about a development project and a specific agreement fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege. However, he found that several resolutions to close the meeting to the public did not include a general description of the topic to be discussed in camera. He also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera. Finally, the Ombudsman found issues with the Township’s procedural by-law, which did not adequately address public notice for special meetings of council, and with the Township’s minutes, which fell short of the requirements outlined in its procedural by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg held an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022 in between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the September 28, 2022 meeting of the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of council for the City of London met improperly behind closed doors ahead of a meeting of the city’s Corporate Services Committee (“the Committee”) on October 12, 2021.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury on July 12, 2022, during which council received detailed information and legal advice about two third-party bids for a proposed municipal project.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie held meetings that did not comply with the Municipal Act 2001’s open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a special closed meeting held by the Grey Bruce Health Unit’s Board of Health on May 12, 2021 and a closed meeting held by the Board’s Executive Committee on May 10, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Board of Health fits within the definition of a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001, while the Executive Committee fits within the definition of a “committee”, and accordingly, both are subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the discussions of the Executive Committee and the Board of Health on May 10 and 12, 2021 fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and litigation or potential litigation. He also found that the Board’s discussion on May 12, 2021 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman found that both the Board of Health and the Executive Committee contravened the open meeting rules by passing resolutions to move into closed session without providing a general description of the matters to be discussed and by failing to keep a record of all matters discussed in the meeting minutes.

Since January 1, 2016, my Office has had the authority to review complaints about municipalities, including municipal boards and corporations. Between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2021, we received more than 14,000 complaints about municipalities. Through our review and investigation of complaints, we often identify best practices and suggestions to improve municipal processes and strengthen local governance and accountability. Most municipalities appreciate the information that we provide, and are happy to implement improvements locally.

The Ombudsman received complaints that the Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Commission lacked a procedure by-law and held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received two complaints about electronic meetings held by council for the Municipality of Calvin on May 10 and June 14, 2022. The complaints alleged that the Municipality did not provide the public with proper public notice or the means to observe these two electronic council meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Calvin contravened the open meeting rules by failing to ensure proper notice was provided for the May 10 and June 14, 2022 meetings. Additionally, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the Act on June 14, 2022, by failing to ensure that the public could observe the meeting in real time.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the December 7, 2017 meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, including a complaint that the meeting failed to comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the Hamilton Waterfront Trust’s meeting practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about gatherings held by the newly elected council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio on November 15, 24, and 29, 2022.