The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022. The Ombudsman found that the Committee received detailed information about an identifiable individual’s job performance and behaviour while in closed session. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion fit within the exception to the open meeting rules for discussions about personal matters about an identifiable individual.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022. The Ombudsman found that the Committee passed a resolution to proceed in camera that included a general description of the matter to be considered in closed session, in accordance with s.239(4) of the Act.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022. The Committee did not report back to the public following its closed session about the nature of the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman recommended reporting back as a best practice to increase transparency of the closed meeting process.
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 investigated the meeting practices of the Greater Napanee BIA. The Ombudsman struggled to obtain copies of meeting agendas and minutes for BIA board meetings held between March and June 2020. The Ombudsman noted that, as a best practice, the BIA board should ensure that all its meeting minutes are accessible by BIA staff and board members, as well as being available to the public for review.
The Ombudsman investigated a complaint that a quorum of board members for the Greater Napanee BIA met in a private local business on June 24, 2020, contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the board members’ discussions related to social matters and how each business owner was coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, this gathering did not materially advance the BIA’s business or decision-making and was not a “meeting” contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman investigated the meeting practices of the Greater Napanee BIA, who had been holding electronic meetings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no evidence that the BIA had amended its procedure by-law to allow electronic participants to count for quorum. The Ombudsman urged the Greater Napanee BIA to ensure that its meetings are in compliance with the Municipal Act’s quorum requirements.
The Ombudsman investigated the meeting practices of the Greater Napanee BIA and found that the Greater Napanee BIA provides notice of its board meetings via an email distribution list. The Greater Napanee BIA does not post notice of its board meetings on the BIA’s or the municipality’s website, or in any other public fashion. Going forward, the Ombudsman recommended that the Greater Napanee BIA should ensure that it provides notice to the general public for each of its board meetings, as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area to discuss its proposed response to an open letter regarding the board’s meeting practices, relying on the personal matters exception. While in closed session, the members of the board did discuss some personal opinions about the author of the open letter, however the Ombudsman found that this wasn’t the focus of the discussion. Rather, the board primarily discussed how it should respond to the issues raised in the open letter. The Ombudsman found that this discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed four meetings of the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area. The Ombudsman noted that notice of the meetings was provided 72 hours before each meeting, although the meetings were not held on their originally scheduled dates as noted on the website. The Ombudsman determined that the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area complied with the notice requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law, although its website had provided inaccurate information about the board's meeting schedule.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area in the Town of Fort Erie. The board met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the board. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the personal matters exception, the discussion fit within that exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie. During the investigation, the Ombudsman became aware that the members of the board had never been provided with training on the open meeting rules or the board’s obligations under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality provide all members of its local boards and committees with training on the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie, which met in camera to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. The board did not cite a closed meeting exception. The discussion was about an individual employee in the context of their employment relationship to the BIA and included the employee’s job performance. The Ombudsman found that while the board did not rely on the labour relations exception, the discussion fit within that exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. During the meeting, the board agreed by consensus to take certain steps with respect to the employee. The Ombudsman found that the decision was improper as it was neither procedural nor a direction to staff.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. No minutes were recorded for the meeting until weeks later by a member of the board. The Ombudsman recommended that to ensure an accurate record of proceedings, minutes should be recorded during the closed meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brockton to discuss a matter related to the legality of the Walkerton Business Improvement Area’s (BIA) practices and structure. During the meeting, council considered a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner raising concerns about the BIA and formally requesting that the BIA take corrective action. The Ombudsman found that litigation was a realistic possibility. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by members of the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Municipality of Brockton to discuss one board member’s plans to circulate a petition. The Ombudsman found that the Walkerton BIA is subject to the open meeting rules as a local board. The Ombudsman found that a meeting did not occur for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 because an insufficient number of members met to constitute a quorum.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion which responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. The Ombudsman found that the Walkerton BIA is subject to the open meeting rules as a local board. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area to discuss a staff report and accompanying legal opinion that responded to issues raised in a letter written by the solicitor of a local business owner. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The board had reason to believe that the local business owner would initiate legal proceedings if he were unsatisfied with the board’s actions. The Ombudsman found that the board’s discussion fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The BIA had adopted the municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that the BIA’s procedure by-law was deficient as it did not account for the BIA’s specific procedures and did not include recent changes to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the BIA update its procedure by-law to ensure that it reflects the specific practices of the board and the closed meeting rules.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Association (BIA) for the Municipality of Brockton. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. The Ombudsman encouraged the BIA to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Walkerton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss changes to its by-laws, relying on the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the BIA report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera. The Ombudsman noted that in some instances public reporting may consist of the information provided in the resolution authorizing the closed session along with any decisions or directions given to staff in camera, while at other times the report back may provide considerable information regarding the in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the board for the Acton Business Improvement Area (BIA) to discuss leasing new office space. Although not relied on by the BIA, the Ombudsman found that since the discussion was about a pending lease and the terms of the lease that were open for negotiation, the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land.