Search

The Ombudsman found that Sault Ste. Marie’s Agenda Setting Review Committee, comprised of three council members and two municipal employees, was obligated to comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Town of Kearney’s newly elected council improperly held closed meetings on November 5 and November 26, 2010.

The Ombudsman determined that the Town of Mattawa’s Ad Hoc Heritage Committee held a series of improperly closed meetings.

The Ombudsman determined that the council of the Town of South Bruce discussed a topic in closed session in September 2009 that was not properly identified in the resolution authorizing the meeting. The investigation also determined that unhealthy tensions existed at that time on council that contributed to its failure to comply with the open meetings law.

The Ombudsman found Baldwin Township council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act in July 2008 and recommended several changes to its practices and procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman found an Oshawa council committee improperly met behind closed doors in May 2008 in an “education and training” session with representatives of a recycling company that had been the subject of odour complaints. 

L’Ombudsman a découvert que le conseil du canton de Nipissing s’est indûment réuni à huis clos contrairement aux dispositions de la Loi sur les municipalités le 25 avril 2008.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Enniskillen council considered a land acquisition in closed session, which is permitted, but the resolution authorizing the closed meeting was vague and other topics were discussed that could not legally be dealt with in a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman found that Fort Erie council did nothing wrong when it met behind closed doors on January 7, 2008 for an “education and training session.” However, in the interest of furthering transparency in local government, the Ombudsman recommended that council give more detail about such meetings in advance.

A driver who suffered what he believed to be a seizure in April 2013 was diagnosed by a neurologist and, as required by the Ministry of Transportation, had his licence suspended pending a medical review. On October 28, 2013, his doctor faxed documentation to the Ministry to prove that he had been seizure-free for six months, and thus eligible to have his licence reinstated.

A 65-year-old man had his driver’s licence suspended in May 2014 after hospital staff reported to the Ministry of Transportation that he had suffered a fall that knocked him unconscious. After this incident, the man provided the Ministry with letters from three different doctors confirming he was in good health, but two months later, his licence was still suspended.

The owner of a home for adults with mental health issues contacted the Ombudsman, frustrated that he couldn’t get ODSP or Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) to provide funding to take one of his residents to her cancer treatments.

A woman whose teeth had been damaged as a result of physical abuse by her partner years earlier contacted the Ombudsman for help in obtaining funds to have them fixed.

The mother of a young man with significant mental health problems came to the Ombudsman because her son, who was receiving ODSP benefits, had been threatened with eviction from his group home because his rent had not been paid via ODSP.

The aunt and uncle of a 16-year-old boy with Down Syndrome needed help finding the boy a place to live after his mother died of cancer. They were concerned that they would not be able to care for him because they lived 270 kilometres away, both worked odd hours, and, due to their age, wouldn’t be able to look after him on a long-term basis.

A woman came to us after she could not reach her ODSP case worker for two months. The woman was receiving Employment Insurance benefits of $295 per week, which were deducted from her monthly ODSP cheque of $1,842, but they had ended two months earlier. Despite this, the ODSP continued to take deductions from her cheque.

A woman complained to the Ombudsman in May 2013 that her ex-husband owed $46,000 in spousal support and the FRO was not enforcing a court order that he pay it.

A man contacted our Office because he suspected the Family Responsibility Office had miscalculated the amount he owed for child and spousal support by almost $3,800. He had written the FRO three times in the past 18 months, but it did not acknowledge his letters or adjust his account.

A single mother complained to the Ombudsman that she hadn’t received child support payments in six months, despite her daughter, a post-secondary student, still living at home. The father lived in B.C., and as long as the daughter attended school and lived with her mother, he was required to pay monthly support payments.

After signing up for “Back on Track,” a remedial program for people convicted of impaired driving, a man phoned the program to book a one-hour assessment interview. He was given the choice of several time slots. He arrived at 3:30 on the appointed day, believing he was half an hour early for the 4 p.m. slot. Instead, he was told the interview had actually been booked for 3 p.m.