Search

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special meeting held by the Township of Russell on April 2 by electronic participation due to COVID-19. The complaint alleged that the meeting agenda did not provide a link to the website where the meeting would be broadcast. The Ombudsman found that council for the Township did not violate the open meeting rules. The Township provided notice to the public that the meeting would be held via electronic participation and posted a link to the broadcast on its website and on social media prior to holding the meeting. The Ombudsman commended the Township of Russell for taking additional steps to ensure that information about how to observe and participate in electronic meetings was widely available to the public. The Ombudsman urged all municipalities to do as much as possible to facilitate access by the public to any meetings held electronically during a declaration of emergency. This was the first time the Ombudsman conducted an investigation into a municipal meeting following the passage of the Municipal Emergency Act, 2020, which allows for additional flexibility in holding electronic meetings during an emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding a closed session discussion held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on July 29, 2019.

A Black youth living in a rural group home with little access to public transit complained to us that staff would not drive him to get a haircut.

A man visited a London DriveTest centre with his son, who wanted to take the theory component of the road test, and requested services in French.

The mother of a teenager with developmental disability complained to us about an incident involving her daughter at a group home.

A francophone man complained to our French Language Services Unit that he waited an hour on the phone for service in French when he called the disability eligibility decision unit of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

A mother called our Children and Youth Unit after her local children’s aid society told her it would not review her complaint due to a lack of information.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the City of Welland held on September 17, 2019.

A woman complained to our French Language Services Unit that the Superior Court in Toronto could not serve her in person in French, resulting in a wasted trip and frustration.

A 16-year-old youth in care of a children’s aid society felt that her needs were not being met since she had a change in caseworkers.

The Ombudsman determined that council for Norfolk County did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001, when it went in camera on March 26 and April 2, to discuss the hiring of an interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

A French-speaking woman sought our help after she encountered difficulties with the website of the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office.

When a woman complained to us about how she and her family were treated by a children’s aid society, we first advised her to contact her caseworker and raise the issue through the society’s internal process.

Unhappy with his placement at a foster home, a 17-year-old asked his children’s aid society caseworker for a placement change, only to be told the home he was staying in was best for him.

A man who was following the complaints process regarding a bilingual community legal clinic reached out to us after receiving an English-only version of the clinic’s complaints policy.

The Ombudsman received 77 complaints that closed meetings held by the City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee for the City of Hamilton were held in violation of the Municipal Act and the city’s procedure by-law. The complainants alleged that the public was denied access to these meetings, which were held outside city limits at a private venue. They also alleged that meeting times had been changed without notice and that the committee had denied public delegations. The Ombudsman determined that the public had been improperly prevented from attending the open portions of one meeting, contrary to the Municipal Act, and that the city failed to update the meeting time on its website. However, he determined that the location of the meetings was permissible. Exercising his general jurisdiction under the Ombudsman Act to review administrative concerns about municipalities, the Ombudsman determined that the city did not violate its delegation policy by refusing to permit members of the public to delegate during one of the meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about three meetings of council for the Township of Carling, held on July 27, October 10, and November 13, 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in closed session on April 3, 2019, to discuss documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman determined that the committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, when it went in camera to discuss the steps necessary to rectify errors and discrepancies in its accounting software. This discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters, or any exception, to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman determined that the council for the Municipality of West Nipissing inappropriately met in closed session on March 19, 2019, under the exception for personal matters in the Municipal Act, 2001 to discuss “Municipal Act/Roles & Responsibilities”. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s in camera discussion was unrestricted and covered a wide range of topics, but did not involve any personal information that would have brought the discussion within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman also found that the tone of the discussion – which was described as toxic, chaotic and disrespectful – was not a basis for closing the discussion under the personal matters exception. In addition, the Ombudsman determined the discussion, although intended to educate and train council members on their roles, did not actually involve any education or training. The discussion therefore did not fit within the narrowly construed exception for education and training.

We received a complaint from a man who had recently moved to Canada. Although his motorcycle licence was valid in his home country, he was required to re-take the test in Ontario. The man had been assigned an English-speaking examiner for his motorcycle road test, even though he requested a French-speaking examiner in advance at a designated DriveTest centre.