The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging council for the Town of Midland gathered in advance ahead of its meeting on August 7, 2024 to discuss filling a council vacancy. His investigation found that there was no reasonable basis to conclude that council’s decision to fill a council vacancy was predetermined or that a quorum of council came together to advance council business or decision-making ahead of the meeting. The Ombudsman noted that there was no evidence that a quorum of council gathered in advance of the August 7, 2024 meeting to discuss filling a council vacancy.
The Ombudsman reviewed an email sent by the Mayor for the City of London to all of council on January 23, 2025 requesting that members of the Community and Protective Services Committee wait to receive an update from staff at an upcoming meeting before bringing any motions related to extreme cold weather alerts. The email was sent to all of council, and accordingly, a quorum of council and of the committee received it. However, the Ombudsman found that the Mayor’s email was not a meeting under 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 received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Ramara contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by holding two meetings over email on October 23 and October 24, 2024. In both cases, a member of the Committee sent an email to all other members. The Ombudsman found that when council members exchange written electronic communications, such as an email, they are present in an electronic place, satisfying the presence requirement of the definition of “meeting” under the Act. As both the October 23 and 24, 2024 emails were sent to all members of the Committee, a quorum was present in both cases.
The Ombudsman reviewed a discussion held by members of council for the Township of Frontenac Islands over email about a delegation letter to the Minister of Health. The Ombudsman found the discussion contravened the open meeting rules because a quorum of council participated in the discussions over email, and the discussions materially advanced council business or decision-making. The Ombudsman noted that when members of council exchange emails, they are present in an electronic place.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that four members of council for the Township of Russell held one-on-one phone conversations about the mayoral vacancy ahead of a regular council meeting, but that these individual discussions were not a meeting because a quorum of council was not present and council business and decision-making was not materially advanced.
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. In the course of the investigation, our Office learned of a phone call between two of the three members of the Communication Team. The Ombudsman determined that:
- The Communication Team is a committee of council;
- Although quorum was reached on this phone call, the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of the Communication Team;
- The Communication Team did not otherwise conduct any meetings as of the date of the investigation.
The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that the Communication Team take care to avoid discussions that may advance its business or decision-making during informal gatherings, including by electronic means (such as a phone call), since quorum is easily reached because of its small committee size.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging a quorum of councillors for the Township of Black River-Matheson held informal meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, in the days prior to a special meeting on February 20, 2024. The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate the allegation that a quorum of councillors held informal meetings ahead of the special council meeting on February 20, 2024.
The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. As the purpose of the discussion was not to educate or train council members, the discussion did not fit within the exception for education or training.
The Ombudsman found that a gathering of committee members at a local non-profit facility constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering.
Given the legislative amendments made to the open meeting rules as a result of the pandemic, members may be “present” when they come together electronically to discuss and advance business. Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during a secret audio-visual call on January 26, 2021. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when members of the newly elected council attended educational workshops on November 15, 24, and 29, 2022. At the time of these gatherings, four of the seven council members had not yet taken office. As such, a quorum of council was not present, and the gatherings therefore did not meet the definition of a meeting in the Act. As the gatherings were not meetings as defined in the Act, the Act’s open meeting rules did not apply.
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 that a quorum of council for the Town of Espanola held an illegal closed meeting on January 31, 2019 after the regular council meeting had concluded, contrary to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that although a quorum of council was present, the gathering was not a “meeting” under the Act because the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that on June 15, 2020, a quorum of councillors for the Town of Hawkesbury discussed council business that they intended to introduce and vote on at a council meeting scheduled for the next day. The complaint alleged that this discussion amounted to a “meeting” and was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Mayor individually spoke with three councillors regarding employee terminations in separate discussions. The Ombudsman found that these serial discussions were not a meeting because a quorum of councillors was never present, as required by the definition of “meeting” in the Act.
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 reviewed a series of emails exchanged by members of council that refers to an informal interaction between members of council on a prior date. Based on the information gathered during interviews, the Ombudsman was satisfied that no informal meeting took place.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a quorum of councillors for the Town of Pelham informally met to discuss a possible donation from a cannabis producer on January 9, 2020, contrary to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the informal discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements as the discussion did not materially advance council business as required by the Municipal Act. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal discussion. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a gathering that two council members attended on April 14, 2019. Council for Lambton Shores is composed of nine council members. The new definition of "meeting" in the Municipal Act, 2001 requires that a quorum of members be physically present in order for a gathering to be subject to open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that councillors had informally discussed a matter in private prior to the council meeting on January 10, 2019, contrary to the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman did not find any evidence that council contravened the Municipal Act’s meeting provisions when the Mayor spoke with a small number of councillors-elect at two gatherings before new councillors were sworn in. However, the Ombudsman cautioned that municipalities should be careful about having councillors-elect meet privately in this manner due to concerns about openness and transparency.
Members of council for the City of Hamilton did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they exchanged emails regarding a vacant council seat in June 2018. The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed two information sessions relating to the business of the municipality attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that the council members did not materially advance the business of the municipality during these information sessions. The council members only received information about ongoing projects in the municipality. There was no discussion among the council members present and no decisions were made. Even though the Ombudsman found that these information sessions did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001, in the interests of openness and transparency he encouraged council to receive information and updates of this nature during public meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of a quorum of council for the Municipality of Brockton at an information session held under the Drainage Act. The purpose of the meeting was to provide affected residents information about matters related to an ongoing drainage petition. The Ombudsman found that the Drainage Act does not contain any provisions allowing council to hold a closed meeting while attending an information session. The municipality’s compliance with the procedural requirements for the Drainage Act does not relieve it from also complying with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
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 found that two informal gatherings of newly elected councillors for the Town of Kearney did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001, as the councillors had not yet been sworn in and there was therefore no quorum of the current council present. However, these gatherings involved discussions of future council business and were therefore inconsistent with the principles of transparency and openness underlying the open meeting requirements.