The Ombudsman found that the Board of Management for the Elora Business Improvement Area (a local board of the Township of Centre Wellington) did not provide public notice for its December 17, 2024 meeting and, as a result, the meeting was effectively closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also found that an informal gathering of four Board members on April 2, 2025 constituted a meeting under the Act that was improperly closed to the public, as no notice of the meeting was given.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about three meetings of the City of Belleville’s Cultural Exchange Committee and concluded that the Committee contravened the open meeting rules by failing to provide public notice of its meetings on February 15, 2022 and February 24, 2023. As a result, those meetings were effectively closed to the public, contrary to section 239(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Whitestone failed to provide adequate notice of several electronic meetings. The Municipality did not provide any information about how the public could observe some of these meetings. The Municipality also did not take adequate steps to inform the public about how it could observe some of these meetings when the Municipality’s website was down for maintenance and the information was not visible.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg did not contravene the open meeting rules by not providing notice of a training session on municipal infrastructure asset management on February 14, 2023 that council held in closed session. Since the training session did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. However, the Ombudsman commended the Town for taking steps to go beyond the Act’s requirements to improve transparency with respect to the training session, and suggested that the Town formalize the practice of treating training sessions as meetings.
The Ombudsman found that the Municipality of Calvin contravened both the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law in not providing notice of meetings held by the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group.
An airport commission indicated on its website that meetings were to take place on the second Thursday of each month, September through June, which the Ombudsman found is sufficient to provide the public with notice of meetings that occur on a regular schedule. However, a meeting in April 2021 took place on a Friday, and the Ombudsman found that the commission could not provide evidence to show its website had been updated to advise the public of this change.
The Ombudsman found that the Hamilton Waterfront Trust is a local board of the City, and is therefore subject to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. For the period of April 2020 to February 2021, members of the public were not permitted to attend the meetings of Waterfront Trust’s Board of Trustees held electronically. Beginning in April 2021, after this concern was raised with the City and the Board, the Board began to comply with the open meeting rules, including providing adequate public notice and ensuring that the public could observe meetings in progress.
The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince. The Ombudsman determined that the Township contravened its procedural by-law and the Act’s open meeting requirements when it failed to make a reasonable effort to provide public notice of the meeting.
The Ombudsman found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie’s Cultural Vitality Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 17, 2021, by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not open to the public, as the Committee did not provide the public with information about how to attend the virtual meeting. The Ombudsman also found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie’s Tourism Board contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 25, 2021 by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The meeting was not open to the public, as the Board did not provide the public with information on how to attend the virtual meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging the Board of Directors of the City of Hamilton Farmers’ Market failed to provide notice to the public of meetings on September 28, 2020 and March 23, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. Under its operating agreement with the City of Hamilton and procedure by-law, the Hamilton Farmers’ Market Board of Directors’ meetings are to be open to the public, except where otherwise permitted under the Act. However, these rules are silent on providing notice of meetings to the public. As a best practice, the Ombudsman suggested the Board amend its rules to require that adequate notice of meetings be provided to the public.
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 electronic meetings held by the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission. The Ombudsman found that the Commission is a local board subject to the open meeting rules. The Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to pass a procedure by-law governing its meetings and failing to provide adequate notice of its meetings. The Ombudsman further found that the Commission did not adequately notify members of the public about how to request readmission to the portion of an open meeting following a closed session. The Ombudsman commended the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency through changes to its public notice process and adoption of a formal procedure to ensure that observers are adequately informed about how to observe portions of a meeting occurring after a closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law providing for public notice of all meetings and that the Commission ensure the public is able to observe all open portions of meetings.
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 change in the start time of the City of Hamilton’s City Manager recruitment Steering Committee on February 9, 2019, did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 or the city’s procedure by-law, as it was within the notice requirement set out in the by-law. However, the Ombudsman noted that the city failed to ensure that the new meeting start time was updated in all areas on its website.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special meeting held by the Municipality of Lambton Shores on April 15, 2019. The complaint alleged the public did not receive notice for the special meeting held by council at 12:00 p.m. The municipality posted the public notice for the special meeting on April 14 at 6:40 p.m. on the municipality’s website, in accordance with its procedure by-law. The municipality’s procedure by-law allowed for public notice of special meetings to be provided “as soon as practical.” The Ombudsman provided best practice suggestions related to the procedure by-law and requiring a public notice period for special meetings.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Temagami did not provide notice of its January 10 and March 28, 2019 meetings. The complaint alleged that no notice was provided for the January 10 meeting and that conflicting and inaccurate notice was provided for the March 28 meeting. The Ombudsman’s review identified administrative issues with the meeting notice provided for the closed meetings on January 10 and March 28, 2019. The municipality acknowledged these errors and said that it had already taken steps to improve its processes.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting of the committee of the whole for the Municipality of Callander. The municipality was unable to provide evidence that the notice of the meeting was provided to the public in accordance with the municipality’s procedure by-law which required that notice be posted at least 48 hours before the meeting online and in the municipal offices. The Ombudsman found that notice was posted less than 36 hours before the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Tehkummah. Through inadvertence, the municipality failed to post notice of a special meeting in accordance with the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman wrote to remind the municipality of its obligations under the open meeting rules.
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 meetings held by council for the Town of Grimsby in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. that occurred without notice to the public. The municipality suggested council was entitled to meet in its capacity as shareholder of the corporation under the Business Corporations Act, and that the meetings were not subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the municipality is the majority shareholder of Niagara Power Inc., but that individual members of council are not shareholders. When the company holds a shareholders’ meeting, council is invited to attend in its capacity as the representative of the town. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the municipality must provide public notice of the meetings in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also provided best practice examples for conducting shareholder meetings for municipally controlled corporations from other municipalities.
The Ombudsman reviewed two meetings of the Ad Hoc Multi-Use Complex Committee for the City of Elliot Lake. The committee’s procedure by-law requires public notice be posted on a bulletin board. As a general practice, the municipality also posts notice of its meetings on the municipal website, however, this was not done for the two committee meetings under review. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice of the two meetings on either the bulletin board or the website.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by the Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee for the Township of Hornepayne. The committee’s terms of reference require that notice of special meetings be posted on the committee’s website prior to the meeting. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide notice on the website prior to the special meeting in accordance with the terms of reference. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to provide notice of committee meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the council for the City of Niagara Falls. Council went into closed session before a regularly scheduled meeting. While notice of the regular meeting was provided to the public, there was no notice of the closed session that would be held before the regular meeting. The Ombudsman found that some media outlets had received information about the closed meeting, although the public had not. As a result, the public was denied notice of the closed meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Long Term Case Task Force for the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Notice of the meeting was not provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that the Long Term Case Task Force had to comply with the open meeting requirements when meeting, including providing notice as required by the Municipal Act, 2001 and by the municipality’s procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound that took place in a basement boardroom before an open session in council chambers. The municipality’s procedure by-law stipulates that matters on the closed meeting agenda will be discussed at a time and place set out in the public meeting agenda. For the meeting in question, notice of the open session was provided in accordance with the procedure by-law. However, the public agenda failed to include the location of the closed meeting that took place prior to the open session. The Ombudsman found that while the public were properly informed of the date and time of the closed meeting, the municipality failed to provide notice of the correct location for it.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that each municipality was responsible for providing its own notice of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that Armour Township provided notice of the meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law, which required notice be posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the Village of Burk’s Falls did not provide notice of the meeting. The procedure by-law for the Village of Burk’s Falls requires notice be posted at the municipal office, recorded on the municipal telephone answering machine, and posted on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not an emergency meeting and therefore, the Village of Burk’s Falls was required to provided notice in accordance with its procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed a number of closed meetings held by council for the Township of Woolwich. There was no notice about the location of these meetings provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that even when a meeting is closed, the public has the right to attend the open session when the resolution is passed to go in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting that was held before a regular open meeting by council for the City of Niagara Falls. Public notice was provided for the open meeting in accordance with the municipality’s procedure by-law, but there was no formal notice of the closed meeting because council relied on the media to publicize it. The Ombudsman found that the municipality did not meet the notice requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 because it relied on the media to publicize the closed session and no direct notice was provided to the public.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Black River-Matheson. The meeting agenda did not include the fact that the meeting included a closed session or the location of the meeting. The meeting was not held in council chambers, but rather in an arena to accommodate a higher public turnout. The municipality’s general practice was to post notice on a bulletin board and on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide sufficient notice of the meeting because it failed to include the location of the meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality’s procedure by-law should explicitly provide for notice to the public of regular or special meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Town of Moosonee. Notice was provided on a bulletin board. The procedure by-law requires that notice of all meetings be provided on the bulletin board as well as a local community TV channel. The Ombudsman found that notice of the special meeting was not provided on the community TV channel because of a lack of time. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice in accordance with the procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended that the procedure by-law address notice requirements for special meetings specifically. The Ombudsman also recommended that short-notice meetings be called only in the case of a genuine emergency in order to maximize public knowledge of and attendance at the meeting.
The 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.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Personnel Committee of Council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands. Public notice of the meeting was not provided. The municipality’s procedure by-law did not apply to committees, however the Ombudsman found that committees must also comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed the practice of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, which did not post the agendas for the meetings of its committees on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that although the municipal website provided an annual calendar of committee meetings, the procedure by-law requires public notice of all committee meetings by posting the agenda, time and date of each meeting as well. The Ombudsman found that the municipality did not provide notice of committee meetings as required and defined by its by-law, because it did not include meeting agendas alongside the meeting dates on the municipal website’s annual calendar of committee meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed an emergency meeting held by council for the Town of Larder Lake. Notice of the meeting was provided to council and to an individual involved in the emergency matter but it was not provided to the public. The Ombudsman found that the procedure by-law did not require notice of emergency meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that even for urgent matters, notice of the public should be provided as soon as possible.
The Ombudsman reviewed several meetings held by the Ad Hoc Heritage Committee for the Town of Mattawa. The Ombudsman found that the committee failed to provide notice of its meetings in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality’s procedure by-law provide for public notice of meetings. As a best practice, municipalities are encouraged to list all items on the agenda and a description of the items to be discussed in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special closed meeting held by the Town of Kearney that relied on the “litigation or potential litigation” exception to discuss a rezoning application. The complaint alleged that prior notice of the meeting had not been given. The Ombudsman found that the Town provided advance notice of the August 25, 2010 special meeting, in accordance with the Town's procedure by-law.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The Ombudsman found that notice of the meetings was provided in accordance with the procedure by-law. However, in some cases, council discussed matters in closed session that were not included in the agenda that had been posted in advance. The Ombudsman recommended that in the interest of transparency and accountability, council should avoid discussing matters that were not the subject of prior notice, except in urgent situations.
The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Nipissing. Notice of the meeting was not provided. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide notice in accordance with its procedure by-law, which requires notice of special meetings be posted on a bulletin board and on the municipal website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.