The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss comments a councillor made about employee performance. The discussion included concerns expressed by identified staff members about the effect of the councillor’s comments. The Ombudsman found that general discussion about tensions between council and staff would not be appropriate for closed session discussions, however, since council discussed personal information about identifiable individuals who were members of the public and specific staff members, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, June 27, 2014
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the council for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe. Public notice of the meeting was not provided. The procedure by-law states that in the case of an emergency meeting, the clerk shall determine how notice is provided. The Ombudsman found that the subject matter of the meeting should not have constituted an emergency and that notice should have been provided.
Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe, May 23, 2012
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss a site plan agreement and cost-sharing proposal from a local developer. The developer’s representatives were present during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that solicitor-client privilege applies to communications between a lawyer and client that entails the seeking or giving of legal advice and is intended to be confidential by the parties. In order to qualify for the exception, the privilege must not be waived by the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the presence of third parties at the closed session constituted a waiver of the solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.