The Ombudsman found that an email sent by the Mayor for the City of London to all of council, including members of the Community and Protective Services Committee, on January 23, 2025 did not violate the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was a procedural request and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council or of the committee. The Ombudsman also found that an informal gathering of several members of the City of London’s Planning and Environment Committee and a Member of Parliament on March 11, 2025 did not violate the open meeting rules because the discussion did not relate to the committee’s mandate and did not materially advance its business or decision-making.
The Ombudsman found that an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 did not occur when five council members for the City of Greater Sudbury attended a meeting held by the Flour Mill Community Action Network on April 8, 2024. Although the five council members represented a quorum of the City’s Operations Committee, they did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Operations Committee when they attended the meeting.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of Wollaston’s Communication Team is a committee of council, and that any meetings it may have held since its inception should have been subject to the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Communication Team is a committee of council, as more than 50% of its members are members of council, and it is therefore subject to the open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding a fundraising update did not fit within the cited exception for plans and instructions for negotiations because the Committee did not discuss a specific course of action to be applied to particular negotiations. The Ombudsman concluded that portions of the Committee’s discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that only a portion of the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding a fundraising update fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. The Ombudsman determined that information about individual (but not corporate) donors and their wishes constituted personal matters about identifiable individuals, and that the portion of the discussion regarding internal communications that included individual donor information could not have been parsed further. Accordingly, this portion of the closed session discussion fit within the exception for personal matters. However, other portions of the Committee’s closed session discussion, in particular whether or not to discuss the fundraising update in closed session and changes to the public fundraising policy, only contained passing references to identifiable individuals and could have been held in open session. Accordingly, those portions did not fit within this exception or any other exception, and the Ombudsman concluded that the Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman determined that the closed session discussion held on July 5, 2023 by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville regarding changes to the public fundraising policy, which included the creation of a new staff position, did not fit within the exception for labour relations and employee negotiations because the discussion was not about the Counties’ relationship with any current or future employees and reference to an existing staff role was made only in passing. The Ombudsman concluded that this portion of the Committee’s closed session discussion contravened the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Selection Committee’s discussion did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because its discussion about changing the terms of reference for a particular committee could not have been parsed from the general discussion about the applicants for that committee.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a committee of council whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that in camera sessions held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on February 14, 2023 and November 15, 2023 to discuss cyber security insurance fit within the open meeting exception for security of the property.
The Ombudsman found that an in camera session held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on November 15, 2023 to discuss a staff report on local development charges did not fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation, as the possibility of litigation was speculative. Similarly, the Ombudsman also found that council’s in camera discussion on January 9, 2024 about a sign purchase did not fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation, as the risk of litigation was speculative.
The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion held by council-in-committee for Norfolk County on January 16, 2024 did not fall under the cited open meeting exception for personal matters, as the salary grids reviewed during the session were not personal information that identified any individuals. However, the discussion was permitted under the exception for labour relations, as it related to a staff reorganization plan.
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Whitestone’s Wah Wash Kesh Landings Task Force is not a committee under the Municipal Act, 2001 or the municipality’s procedure by-law in effect at the time the task force was created. The task force’s membership does not meet the Act’s 50% membership threshold. In addition, the procedure by-law was not sufficiently explicit to find that the task force was intended to be subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Township of Tiny Administrative Centre Committee was not a committee subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because less than 50% of its members were also members of council, and the Township's procedure by-law did not apply the open meeting rules to the committee.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of members of the Town of Amherstburg’s Accessibility Advisory Committee on September 8, 2022 did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when the members visited a public transit facility and observed a demonstration of the features of an accessible bus. Since the gathering did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group of the Municipality of Calvin were established through council resolution and were committees of council.
The Ombudsman found that that the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 14, 2022, by failing to treat a gathering of a quorum of members of council (and a quorum of a committee) as a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. The members of council discussed snowplowing operations with a member of staff in a way that materially advanced the Township’s business and decision-making, such that the gathering was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location for a meeting of the Huronia Airport Task Force on April 19, 2022, and also failed to record minutes of that meeting.
The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law, and that the Task Force’s April 19, 2022 presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Municipality of Callander acknowledged that, due to an oversight, notice of a training session held by the Committee of Adjustment was not provided in accordance with the procedure by-law and terms of reference. The Municipality has since posted a calendar at the municipal office that provides notice of this Committee’s meetings. The Municipality also amended its website to remove outdated information and correctly reflect when several committees (the Culture, Heritage and Tourism Committee; the Events Committee; and the Implementation and Beautification Advisory Committee) meet. The Municipality also began consistently posting notice of meetings on its online portal and at the municipal office. The Ombudsman determined that it was unnecessary to proceed with an investigation, given the steps that the Municipality took to address the concerns raised.
The Ombudsman found that the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee contravened the open meeting rules when the doors to London City Hall were inadvertently locked for a short period of time during the January 23, 2023 meeting.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. Although Committee members told the Ombudsman they believed the Committee to be a working group, the Ombudsman found that the Committee is in fact a committee of council and must comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that a working group in the City of Hamilton is not a committee, and is therefore not subject to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The working group was not designated as a committee by municipal by-law, nor did it function as a committee because it did not have any delegated authority from council to make decisions. The working group’s primary role was administrative.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area lacked quorum when it met on January 12, 2022. The Ombudsman determined that there was a quorum of the Committee present during the meeting.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that meetings of the Board of Directors of the Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation are improperly closed to the public in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman determined that the corporation is not subject to the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 because 1) the corporation is not a local board as it was incorporated under a section of the Electricity Act, 1998 which deems it not to be a local board and 2) the corporation is not a committee of council as it does not function as a committee. That is, it does not exercise delegated authority from council and it does not play an advisory role to council.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about working group meetings held by the Off Road Vehicle Task Force of the City of Kawartha Lakes on February 19 and March 4, 2021. The complainant alleged that the meetings were closed to the public in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that because the Task Force was designated as a committee of council under the municipality’s procedure by-law and was mandated to provide advice and recommendations to council, the Task Force was obligated to comply with the open meeting rules. In closing these meetings to the public, it violated the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman. The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the open meeting rules when it did not provide public notice of Investigation Committee meetings and when council did not state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure it provides public notice for all committee meetings, and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by two working groups for the Township of Lucan Biddulph. Both working groups were informal and lacked operating polices or procedures. The Ombudsman acknowledged and applauded the Township’s choice, made prior to our investigation, to dissolve these groups and replace them with a formal committee. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township formally establish all committees by by-law, and ensure that all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Baconfest Committee for the Township of Lucan Biddulph. The Ombudsman found that the Baconfest Committee is a committee of council subject to the open meeting rules, since it was formally established as one in the Township’s appointments by-law. The municipality failed to post notice of, or record meeting minutes for, its Baconfest Committee meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township formally establish all committees by by-law, and ensure that all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that the Joint Planning Committee (JPC) for the ConnectWell Community Health Centre is not a committee of council. The JPC has neither been deemed to be a committee of council by by-law, nor are at least 50% of its members a member of one or more councils or local boards. The committee also does not function as a committee of council, as it does not exercise any authority delegated by council and does not serve in an advisory function to council.
The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting held by the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee. The township’s procedure by-law provided for the adjournment of any meeting where quorum was not achieved within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time. The committee achieved quorum more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time, and proceeded to discuss fire services in a manner that materially advanced the business of the municipality. The Ombudsman found that while the township contravened its procedure by-law, the meeting was not illegally closed to the public. The Ombudsman recommended that the township ensure all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules and its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Waste Management Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton. The committee is a committee of council subject to the open meeting rules, as at least 50% of its members are members of council. The municipality failed to post notice of two meetings of the committee in contravention of the Act. While the municipality posted a regular meeting time for the committee on its website, it did not indicate a location. The two meetings in question also took place at a time different from that posted. The Ombudsman recommended the municipality ensure it always provide notice before meetings of the committee, and that the municipality amend its procedure by-law to provide for notice of advisory committee meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings of the Recreation Committee for the Town of Kirkland Lake which occurred without public notice. The Ombudsman determined that the committee was a committee of council, and therefore subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide public notice of its meetings, and therefore, the meetings were not open to the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police services consultation plan. During the meeting, council formed a police services consultation working group composed of three members of council. The Ombudsman found that the working group was not a committee under the municipality’s procedure by-law. In determining whether the working group was a committee under the Municipal Act, 2001, the Ombudsman considered the role and function of the group. When groups primarily exchange information or advance positions that a municipality has already decided upon without laying the groundwork for decision-making by council, the body will not constitute a committee. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the working group exercised an administrative function. Therefore, the working group was not a committee under the Municipal Act.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Corporate Services Committee for the City of London to discuss the hiring policy for senior staff, relying on the solicitor-client privilege exception. The municipality informed the Ombudsman that municipal solicitors were present during the closed session and provided legal advice, and that nothing else was addressed. The Ombudsman noted that some municipalities choose to waive solicitor-client privilege and provide privileged information during an investigation. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exception relied upon to close the meeting to the public, and did not provide the public with additional information about what the committee intended to discuss once in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee pass resolutions that clearly set out that it is moving into closed session, and the general nature of the matters to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. Following its closed session discussion, the committee did not report back in open session about the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman found that committee members were unfamiliar with the practice of reporting back. The Ombudsman recommended that as a best practice, the committee should report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council-in-committee for Norfolk County to discuss the extension of a legal services contract. The resolution to proceed in camera referred to a “contractual matter” along with a list of other items to be discussed and the exceptions relied upon. The Ombudsman found that while the description of the discussion did provide the public with some idea about the committee’s intended discussion, the resolution could have included additional information without undermining the confidentiality of the matter. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to proceed in camera clearly specify which exception is being relied upon to discuss each matter.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee of the Township of Bonfield. The committee did not report back following its closed sessions and told our Office that it generally did not observe the practice of reporting back. The Ombudsman noted that the committee’s current practice of not reporting back failed to provide the public with a general idea of the in camera discussion or any information about directions to staff made in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee for the Township of West Lincoln. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera only referenced the exceptions relied upon to close the meeting to the public but did not provide further information about the subject of the discussions. The Ombudsman also found that there was an opportunity to add more information about the in camera discussion to the resolution based on a resolution passed in open session that was related to the in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee of the Township of Bonfield. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to enter closed session only included the exceptions that the committee relied upon to go in camera -- a practice which did not comply with the Act or the town’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the committee’s resolutions to move in camera provide greater information to the public on the general nature of the matter to be discussed.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield. The Ombudsman noted that the committee’s open session minutes only recorded the resolutions passed by the committee. The Ombudsman also found that the committee excluded the clerk during the closed session minutes and did not take any formal minutes for that portion of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the municipality’s practices led to little substantive content of the committee’s discussion being recorded. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that both open and closed session minutes are kept of all meetings of council, local boards, and committees. The Ombudsman also recommended that meeting records be complete and accurately reflect all of the substantive and procedural items that were discussed, and that meetings be audio and/or video recorded. Finally, the Ombudsman recommended that if the committee’s clerk delegates minute-taking responsibilities, and if the clerk is not attending the meeting, the delegation should be made formally in writing.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Planning Committee for the Town of Larder Lake. The Ombudsman recommended that the town amend its procedure by-law to address the open meeting practices of committees and to require public notice of all meetings.