The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about eight meetings of council for the Town of Saugeen Shores which alleged that, for seven of the eight meetings, not enough information was provided to the public about the topic discussed during the closed sessions. The Ombudsman considered the Town’s general practice of reporting back after closed sessions, which was to use the same wording as that on the meeting agenda. The Ombudsman encouraged the Town, where possible, to report back meaningful information about what was discussed during its closed sessions.
Although there is no requirement under the Municipal Act, 2001 for municipal councils to report back in public after the conclusion of a closed meeting, the Ombudsman recommends this practice to increase transparency of the closed meeting process.
A report back in open session may contain similar information as a resolution authorizing the session, together with information about any decisions, resolutions, and directions given to staff in closed session. In other cases, the nature of the discussion might allow for considerable information about the closed session to be provided publicly.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Calvin contravened section 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 at its meetings on August 12, November 25, and December 16, 2025 because it failed to include in its resolutions to proceed into closed session the general nature of the matters to be considered. Additionally, the Ombudsman found that council contravened its procedure by-law by failing to report back to the public following all three closed sessions the general nature of the matters discussed.
In reviewing complaints about closed meetings held by council for the Township of Russell in 2023 and 2024, the Ombudsman indicated that the reports back provided by council following its closed sessions on February 12 and March 11, 2024 were adequate. The reports back related to the proposed or planned sale of land in the Township’s industrial park. The Ombudsman explained that the purpose of a report back is to provide general information about what was discussed in camera to enhance transparency.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. At the time of the review, the Committee did not have a practice of returning to open session and reporting back. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s practice of not returning to open session to adjourn the meeting was not in accordance with the City’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman recommended reporting back as a best practice to increase transparency of the closed meeting process.
The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, September 13, and November 16, 2021. At the beginning of the September 13 council meeting, council provided report backs for the in camera meetings held on August 8 and September 13, 2021 which merely explained the exceptions relied upon to close these meetings. Following the November 16 closed meeting, no information was provided to the public about the topics discussed in camera. The Ombudsman encouraged council to adopt the best practice of reporting back meaningful information, where possible, about what was discussed in camera.
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 about four meetings of Bruce County’s Executive Committee held on September 21, 2017, August 2 and September 6, 2018, and January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman noted that the reports back in open session for the four dates in question do not provide sufficient detail to give the public any understanding of what was discussed in closed session. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the County has changed a number of its closed meeting practices since the meetings in question, and recommended that the Committee report back following its closed meetings in a meaningful way.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about the amount of information that council for the Loyalist Township shared in its report back following the closed session discussion on July 8, 2019. The Ombudsman found the council’s report back provided the public with information about the outcome of council’s discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed three meetings held by council for the Township of Carling on July 27, October 10, and November 13, 2018. Council did not report back after closed sessions. The Ombudsman noted that in some cases, public reporting consists of a general discussion in open session of subjects considered in closed session along with directions, decisions and resolutions made in camera. In other cases, however, the nature of the discussion might allow for considerable information about the closed session to be provided publicly.
The Ombudsman found that after its closed session discussions on December 17, 2018, January 7, 2019, and January 14, 2019, council for the Municipality of The Nation did not report back in open session about its discussions in camera. The Ombudsman made a best practice recommendation that the municipality report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council failed to immediately report back regarding its closed session discussion on January 10, 2019. Instead, council reported back about its closed session discussion during the next regular council meeting. The Ombudsman did not identify any concerns with this practice and said that it accomplishes the goal of ensuring greater accountability and transparency regarding closed session discussions.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman noted that council failed to report back after the closed session, as required by the municipality’s procedure by-law. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found the municipality to be in violation of its own procedure by-law and recommended that council report back in open session following its in camera meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to discuss various matters, including a proposed organizational study. The township’s procedure by-law states that the presiding officer of a closed meeting may, after its adjournment, report to council the decisions made at the meeting. During the closed portion of the meeting in question, council for the township passed a resolution to retain a consultant to conduct an organizational study of the municipality. The open meeting minutes did not record any reporting back of the in camera proceedings, other than a resolution that the “meeting be reopened to the public.” The Ombudsman found that the township’s practice of not reporting back failed to provide even a general idea of what was discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the township report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for Norfolk County to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law for an area in the county. The Ombudsman noted that there was some confusion about council’s direction to staff during its closed session. The Ombudsman found that this confusion may have been avoided had council reported back in open session its direction to staff during closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that despite not being required by the Municipal Act, 2001, it is a best practice for council to report back in camera discussions in open session.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss whether the municipality should partner with a post-secondary institution to apply for development funding. The Ombudsman noted although reporting back is not a requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001, council passed a resolution in open session that provided the public with information about the discussion held in camera.
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 OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. Following its closed session discussion, the committee did not report back in open session about the in camera discussion. The Ombudsman found that committee members were unfamiliar with the practice of reporting back. The Ombudsman recommended that as a best practice, the committee should report back after closed sessions and provide general information about what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa to discuss a proposed merger between a municipally controlled corporation and another corporation. The council did not report back in open session following the closed meeting. The Ombudsman found that by not reporting back after the closed session, the municipality failed to provide members of the public who may have been present with a general idea of the closed session discussion. The Ombudsman recommended that council adopt the best practice of reporting back in open session.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that in one instance council did not report back on a closed session until the next council meeting. However, for the majority of the meetings investigated, the Ombudsman found that council passed a resolution in open session following each closed session that reflected its in camera discussions and functioned as a report back.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Public Works Committee of the Township of Bonfield. The committee did not report back following its closed sessions and told our Office that it generally did not observe the practice of reporting back. The Ombudsman noted that the committee’s current practice of not reporting back failed to provide the public with a general idea of the in camera discussion or any information about directions to staff made in closed session.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of Woolwich. The Ombudsman found that despite council passing resolutions in open session resulting from in camera discussions, council did not report back on other matters discussed during the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that council report back publicly in a general manner on what occurred in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Township of Chamberlain. The Ombudsman encouraged council to report back on what occurs in camera in a general manner. The Ombudsman noted that in some cases, public reporting consists of a general discussion in open session of subjects considered in closed session along with directions, decisions and resolutions made in camera. In other cases, however, the nature of the discussion might allow for considerable information about the closed session to be provided publicly.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the Municipality of Magnetawan. The Ombudsman found that council did not report back in open session after meeting in closed session because the public rarely attended council meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that council follow a practice of reporting back publicly after closed sessions even where the public does not attend the open portion of the meeting.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin to discuss the qualifications of candidates for the municipal works foreman position. The Ombudsman found that as a general practice council did not report back in open session, as council stated that members of the public were not present after an in camera session. The Ombudsman recommended that council publicly report back on in camera discussions despite the fact that members of the public are not usually present.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Mattawa. As part of the Ombudsman’s findings, it was noted that the municipality did not have a general practice of reporting back publicly after the closed session. The Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that council provide a general description of matters discussed in camera.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The Ombudsman found that council did not report back in open session about the in camera discussion. He recommended that the municipality report back publicly to the extent that is appropriate.