The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held closed meetings on May 1 and May 15, 2023 to discuss the City’s strategic plan. The Ombudsman determined that these two sessions materially advanced council business, and therefore did not fit into the cited open meeting exception for education or training, nor any other exception to the open meeting rules. However, the Ombudsman found that a subsequent closed session on December 2, 2024 fit under the exception for education or training.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Hawkesbury contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held a closed meeting to receive a presentation from consultants related to the development of the Town’s new strategic plan, relying on the open meeting exception for education or training under the Act. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within that exception because the presentation and council’s discussion were not about the strategic planning process in general, but rather about particular issues affecting the business of the municipality, such as growth opportunities, and council discussed them in a way that materially advanced its business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Cornwall contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 4, 2023, when it held an all-day strategic planning session in camera, citing several open meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman found the discussion did not come within any of the open meeting exceptions – although a specific property was suggested for acquisition, the City would not be acquiring that property, so there was no bargaining position to protect.
The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Cornwall contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 4, 2023, when it held an all-day strategic planning session in camera, citing several open meeting exceptions, including the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations. The Ombudsman found that since only brief comments were made related to working conditions and recruitment within the municipality, the exception for labour relations did not apply to this portion of the closed session discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to receive training on strategic planning. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the session, councillors were taught the basic principles and vocabulary related to the strategic planning process. The presentation used the current strategic plan for the municipality as a reference point for abstract principles and vocabulary that was being taught. The discussion was not a workshop or free flow of ideas but rather a specific training course. There was no decision-making or discussion of specific municipal priorities or planning. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the education or training exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to discuss a marketing plan prepared by an economic development consultant. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. Council cited the exception because it wanted to protect its competitive advantage over neighbouring municipalities in attracting new business. The Ombudsman found that while the municipality has a property interest in its marketing plan, the subject matter of the closed session discussion was not protecting the marketing plan from loss or damage. Rather, the discussion involved sharing the marketing plan itself with council. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss financial interests, municipal growth, future planning, and negotiation strategy. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions did not come within section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as the discussion did not relate to preventing the loss or damage of municipal property or to the protection of public safety relating to municipal property.