Search

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Woolwich contravened the Municipal Act during in-camera discussions on January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2015, as well as when it voted to direct staff while in camera on January 20 and February 3, while discussing matters that were not permitted in camera. Council did not contravene the Act during an in camera discussion related to litigation or potential litigation at an August 11, 2014 committee meeting.

The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act or its procedure by-law by laying the groundwork for future decision-making. However, he did find that the information provided by email and in person prior to this meeting came very close to the line. The only reason the councillor's attempts to lay the groundwork for an upcoming decision of council did not rise to the level of a closed meeting for the purposes of the Act is that he was unsuccessful in his attempt to discuss the matter with a quorum of council.

The Ombudsman was unable to confirm that closed meetings held in November and December 2013 were justified under the Municipal Act, due to the lack of meeting records and available witness information. However, the Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Chamberlain did not violate the Act when it closed part of its June 3, 2014, February 3, 2015, and February 6, 2015 meetings to the public. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to assist council to improve its practices with respect to open meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions held by council for McMurrich-Monteith fit within the exceptions in the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that the township violated section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the topics to be considered in closed session on January 12 and February 9. The Ombudsman also found that the township violated its procedural by-law by extending a closed meeting past its 11 p.m. curfew. Further, the township is not following best practices by failing to provide enough information in its agendas about matters to be discussed in closed session, and by failing to ensure that its agendas and resolutions correctly cite the Act.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Magnetawan contravened the Act and its own procedure by-law by failing to provide advance notice of the February 28 meeting. Due to the lack of notice, the public was unable to attend the meeting, such that the meeting was effectively closed. The discussions that took place did not fit within any exceptions in the Act. The Ombudsman found that the discussions held in closed session on March 4 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

We received a complaint that London's Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee illegally closed a meeting to discuss proposals from developers hoping to purchase and redevelop land owned by the City. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and solicitor-client privilege. Following the publication of this report, the City of London informed our Office that Councillor Tanya Park was not present during the closed session on March 2, 2015. The report states that all members of council were present. The City did not correct this information when our Office reviewed the draft report with them by phone prior to publication. For the benefit of the record, the City has provided the This link opens in a new tabattached letter, which states: "...the Ombudsman Report entitled "Investigation into whether the City of London's Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee held an illegal meeting on March 2, 2015", dated June 2015, states that "All members of the committee were present during the closed session", which is not correct. As noted on the 13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, Councillor Park declared a pecuniary interest on the above­ noted matter and was not in attendance in the meeting room when this matter was discussed and therefore, did not participate in any discussion regarding this matter. As requested, I can confirm that City of London representatives did not raise the error during our teleconference with you, held on June 8, 2015 in which you provided a verbal overview of the findings, noting that a written copy of the preliminary report was not made available to the City of London representatives at that time."

The Ombudsman found that discussions held in person and over email by councillors-elect for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands prior to their swearing in did not constitute illegal meetings under the Act because there was technically no quorum of council involved.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Cochrane did not violate the Municipal Act when it closed part of its January 27, 2015 meeting under the "advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege" exception.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Elliot Lake did not contravene the Municipal Act when it proceeded in camera at meetings held on December 1 and December 15, 2014, and January 5 and February 9, 2015. However, council did contravene the Act when it considered a matter in camera at its December 22, 2014 meeting that did not fit within the "personal matters" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Hamilton did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed a meeting to the public on December 10, 2014, under the "acquisition or disposition of land" and "a matter under another act" exceptions.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Village of Casselman violated the open meeting requirements at a lunchtime gathering with developers on January 8, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the Municipal Act when it discussed bank signing authorities in closed session under the "personal matters" exception on December 10, 2014.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Fort Erie did not contravene the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting on December 10 for the purpose of "education or training". However, the "acquisition or disposition of land" exception, which also was cited, did not apply to the discussions held on December 10.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Central Huron did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed a portion of its January 12, 2015, meeting under the "personal matters" exception. However, the Ombudsman found that council violated its procedure by-law when it failed to audio or video record the closed session.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Bracebridge did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed portions of the December 9 and December 17 meetings under the "personal matters" exception.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the City of Niagara Falls held an illegal meeting on October 8, 2013. The matter discussed did not fit within any permissible exceptions to the open meeting requirements, and no public notice of the closed session was provided.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on May 29, 2012 with respect to Marineland fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception to the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that informal "operational" meetings in 2011, 2012 and 2013 did not constitute meetings for the purposes of the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the City of Niagara Falls’ procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman found that a dinner on November 11, 2014, attended by the newly elected council did not violate the open meeting requirements. However, the Ombudsman found that the signing of a letter on November 6, 2014, by a quorum of council in office at the time was an exercise of council authority in a sequential or serial manner, in violation of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of South Huron did not contravene the Municipal Act during seven meetings held between November 2008 and December 2013.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Village of Westport contravened its procedure by-law by failing to provide adequate notice of the October 28, 2014 council meeting.