Search

In reviewing a number of closed meetings held between November 2011 and September 2012, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the open meeting requirements at the November 1, 2011 meeting.

The Ombudsman did not find that council for the City of Greater Sudbury violated the open meeting requirements when it closed two meetings in June 2012 to the public in order to discuss the contract of an identified member of staff.

The Ombudsman did not find that council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores violated the open meeting requirements when it closed a November 13, 2012 meeting to the public in order to discuss an identified member of staff.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Hearst's review of five applications/letters of interest for the Council seat vacancy was permitted under the Act.

The Ombudsman found that a series of e-mails sent by Municipality of Leamington council members in response to a resident's inquiry and copied to all Council members did not constitute an (electronic) meeting that was subject to the open meeting requirements. 

The Ombudsman found that council in the Town of Blind River did not violate the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting on September 17, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that Council in the Township of Ryerson's discussion of matters pertaining to a quarry zoning application was not permitted within a closed meeting, with one exception - Council's review of written legal advice at the end of hour and forty-five minute meeting did qualify for closed meeting consideration under the "solicitor-client privilege" exception of the Act. 

The Ombudsman found that the Centennial Celebration Committee, comprised of the Mayor of Sarnia, City Manager, and no less than seven citizens, did not meet the definition of "committee" under the Municipal Act and, therefore, was not subject to the open meeting requirements. 

The Ombudsman found that Council's agenda and resolution to proceed in camera did not accurately reflect the substance of the closed meeting on May 9, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Kearney's Ad Hoc Personnel Committee violated the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting in April 2011.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Midland discussed issues in closed session on multiple occasions between December 2011 and March 2012 in circumstances that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that the Regional Municipality of Niagara's notice practice for advisory committee meetings did not comply with its Procedure By-Law in that agendas were not posted on the website prior to meetings.

In reviewing complaints that Council in Morris-Turnberry improperly discussed in closed meetings the development of a local fire department, the Ombudsman found that Council did not always accurately or clearly identify the subject matter to be discussed or the exceptions authorizing the closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria did not contravene the Municipal Act at meetings held in October and November 2011. The Ombudsman provided some best practice recommendations to help improve the transparency of closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the City of Elliot Lake violated the Municipal Act when a quorum of council attended a meeting of the Elliot Lake Residential Development Commission on April 16, 2012, and a meeting of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization on April 26, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the City of London did not contravene the open meeting requirements when six members of council met for lunch at a local restaurant on February 21, 2012, prior to a budget meeting and several committee meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Amherstburg did not contravene the open meeting requirements when it received advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in a closed session on January 9, 2012, or when it went in camera on February 13, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that Fort Erie Council complied with the open meeting requirements in regard to closed meetings held on July 9 and 16, 2012, however, they violated the open meeting requirements at two closed meetings in April and May, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Tiny's Committee of the Whole's March 26, 2012 closed meeting discussion about the public's reaction to a court decision was not permitted in a closed meeting under the exception "litigation or potential litigation."

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe did not contravene the Municipal Act during two closed meetings in March 2012.