The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Bonfield did not violate the open meeting rules under the Municipal Act, 2001 when a council member sent an email to all of council and council members held sequential, one-on-one phone conversations about a delegation that was on the agenda at an upcoming council meeting. While the email was sent to all of council, it expressed a question about procedure and did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council. The sequential, one-on-one phone calls did not involve a quorum of council and accordingly, did not constitute a meeting within the meaning of the Municipal Act, 2001.
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 reviewed 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. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was focused on the impact of new trade tariffs and potential counter-tariffs at the local level. It involved the sharing of information on a topic that was not within the committee’s mandate. Accordingly, the discussion did not materially advance the committee’s business or decision-making and the informal gathering was not a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.
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, such that a quorum was present on the emails. In the case of the October 23 email, the Ombudsman found that it constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001 because it materially advanced the business or decision-making of the Committee. Specifically, the email contained a proposed course of action – the removal of a proposed food waste management program from the Township budget – which the Committee later adopted. In the case of the October 24 email, the Ombudsman found that, although a quorum of the Committee was present, the email did not materially advance Township business or decision-making and therefore was not a meeting under the Act.
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 was a meeting in contravention of 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’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 found that council for the Township of The North Shore did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when a quorum of its members engaged in an informal discussion immediately following a council meeting on March 20, 2024, and also over group text message between March 24 and March 25, 2024. Although these discussions involved a quorum of council, they were not “meetings” subject to the open meeting rules because members did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
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 received a complaint that the City of Kawartha Lakes’ Short Term Rental Licensing Program Task Force may have held illegal meetings between April and June 2023, during the development of a by-law to licence, regulate, and govern short-term rental accommodation. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence of any illegal meetings, that the relevant sections of the by-law were discussed during open session, and consequently that there was no violation of the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
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. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by the members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making during a vote to approve conditional funding for the non-profit later that day. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.
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 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 reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg held an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022 in between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting. The Ombudsman’s review found that the dinner in question was informal and drop-in style, and that there was no evidence that council business was discussed over dinner or outside of any of the scheduled meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg held an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022 in between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting. The Ombudsman’s review did not find any evidence that a quorum of Amherstburg’s council advanced council business or decision-making outside of any of the scheduled meetings. Accordingly, there was no “meeting” over dinner within the meaning of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman received a complaint suggesting members of council for the City of London met outside of a formal council or committee meeting to discuss filling a vacant council seat with a specific individual since members of the public knew to provide letters of support to council on that subject ahead of the City’s Corporate Services Committee meeting on October 12, 2021. The vacancy had been announced publicly in September 2021 and had also been reported in the media around the same time. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Committee or council met privately to discuss the vacancy in advance of the Committee meeting on October 12, 2021.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.
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 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 reviewed a complaint that that during an open meeting on February 24, 2020, council for the Town of Saugeen Shores held an illegal meeting by discussing council business during a recess. The Ombudsman found that while a quorum of council was present at the recess, no members of council had any discussions that materially advanced council business and council did not make any decisions. Rather, the Clerk relayed potential next steps to the Mayor, who then relayed this information to council. Council returned to open session to exercise its decision-making authority. As council business was not materially advanced and no decisions were made by council during the recess, these discussions were not a meeting and therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.
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 councillors for the Town of Pelham voted via email on whether they would be in favour of accepting a possible donation. The Ombudsman found that the email exchange did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements, which typically apply to “meetings” were a quorum of councillors is physically present. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal email exchange. 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 an informal gathering of three council members after a regular council meeting for the Township of Front of Yonge. The Ombudsman found that the three council members may have remained in council chambers after the regular meeting had finished, however, they did not discuss council business. Accordingly, an improper meeting did not occur.
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.