The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the City of Niagara Falls held on October 22, 2024. The Ombudsman found that council conducted a vote by ballot while in closed session that was neither for a procedural matter nor a direction to staff, contravening sections 239(6) and 244 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Committee of the Whole of the Municipality of Markstay-Warren discussed and voted on making changes to the Municipality’s noise by-law during a closed meeting held on June 24, 2025, in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting discussion was about a situation involving a resident, not about making changes to the noise by-law, and concluded there was no illegal vote during the closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Georgina contravened section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001 at its meeting on September 11, 2024 when it voted during the closed session to approve funding for a project. The Ombudsman determined that the vote was neither a direction to identifiable staff nor a procedural matter and was therefore a substantive vote held in closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of McGarry formally passed resolutions in open session on September 1, 2023 relating to filling council vacancies, and the Township therefore did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that during a special meeting of council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024, council held a vote in camera that was contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff, even though the subject matter of the vote fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.
The Ombudsman reviewed four closed meetings held by council for the Township of Jocelyn in 2023 and found that no illegal voting occurred, as council either did not conduct any voting in closed session, or was permitted to do so under the open meeting exception set out in section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman recommended as a best practice that council should clearly identify any specific direction given, formally vote on it, and record that vote in its closed meeting minutes.
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 call on January 26, 2021. During the call, straw votes were taken to approve specific courses of action. The call constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that an airport commission voted improperly during a closed meeting. During the closed session, the commission reached a consensus to accept and approve a financial agreement. Reaching a consensus is considered to be a vote for the purposes of the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was properly closed under the exceptions to the open meeting rules, however, the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff. Accordingly, the vote was not permitted.
The Ombudsman found that the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 28, 2022 when it voted to direct staff in closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Casselman was not authorized to vote to approve an offer to purchase a property in closed session because the resolution’s wording did not reflect a direction to staff.
The Ombudsman found that Bruce County’s Executive Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 21, 2017, when it voted to approve the County’s 2018 business plan in closed session, as the matter did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s closed meeting voting rules on July 8, 2019. The Ombudsman found that due to confusion and inadvertence, council’s in camera vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff contrary to the Act’s voting requirements.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman. During the closed session, council agreed to proceed with an offer of a contract of employment. The minutes did not record this as an in camera direction to staff or as an open session resolution. The Ombudsman recommended that closed session votes comply with the Municipal Act, 2001 and that council clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the meeting minutes.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the personal matters exception to discuss a vacant council seat. During the closed session, council decided by consensus to fill the vacancy by way of appointment and to direct the mayor to approach a specific individual to determine their interest in the position. Council did not formally vote on these matters. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about whether to proceed by way of appointment should not have been held in closed session, and consequently, this vote should have been in open session. The Ombudsman found that council’s decision to direct the mayor to approach a specific individual, was permissible under s.239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to appoint a new member of council. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the closed session, council voted by way of secret ballot to select a candidate to fill the council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the vote was improper as it was not taken during a properly closed meeting and was not for a procedural matter or to provide direction to staff. The Ombudsman also found that ballot voting is prohibited by the Municipal Act, 2001, with limited exceptions, and such votes are of no effect.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Deep River to discuss a police service consultation plan. During the closed session, council voted to pass five resolutions. The Ombudsman found that three resolutions involved substantive decisions being taken by council. While some of the resolutions could perhaps have been worded as a direction to the staff, they were not phrased as such. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the votes were impermissible.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet. Council closed a meeting to discuss matters under two exceptions: acquisition or disposition of land, and personal matters about an identifiable individual. During the meeting, a vote was taken that was neither procedural nor a direction to staff. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exceptions. Therefore, the vote was not permissible.
The Ombudsman reviewed a series of emails sent by council members for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to each other. Individual members of council provided their approval over email to proceed with a contribution in support of a grant application. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted a meeting of council and the indications of support from council constituted a vote. Since this email chain constituted an illegal closed meeting of council, and the vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie to discuss the conduct of an employee of the BIA. During the meeting, the board agreed by consensus to take certain steps with respect to the employee. The Ombudsman found that the decision was improper as it was neither procedural nor a direction to staff.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to provide a direction to the mayor. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not permissible since the surrounding discussion did not fall within the cited exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a subsequent closed meeting held by council to discuss the same matter under the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exception. During the meeting, council voted to direct the mayor. The Ombudsman found that this vote was permissible. The Ombudsman recommended that when voting in closed session, council should clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the closed session meeting minutes.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Timmins to discuss the recruitment process for replacing a staff member. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council used a secret ballot process to elect committee members to a hiring committee. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the cited exception. Accordingly, the voting was not permissible. Further, the Municipal Act, 2001 prohibits voting by way of secret ballot.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Georgian Bay to discuss a shoreline structure that did not meet the requirements of the township’s zoning by-law. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the meeting, council voted to pass a resolution regarding the shoreline structure. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff, and was therefore improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land and solicitor-client privilege exceptions. During the meeting a vote took place directing staff to take action regarding a funding application. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting did not fall under the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the vote, although it was a direction to staff, was improper because the closed meeting was not authorized.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the meeting, the committee voted to direct staff to contact an audit firm. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exception. Therefore, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Midland. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. During the meeting, council voted to provide direction to staff to bring a resolution into the open session. The Ombudsman found that the subject matter did not fit within the cited exception. Accordingly, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed emails sent by the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar about a matter that needed to be determined before the committee’s next meeting. The Ombudsman found that the emails constituted an illegal closed meeting and the vote that took place over email was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Brighton. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council voted by a show of hands to terminate an employee and alter the compensation of several other employees. The Ombudsman found that the resolutions were intended to provide direction to staff but were not properly worded to reflect that intention. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the votes were improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township together to discuss amalgamation. During the closed meeting, both councils made several decisions through consensus and provided direction to staff. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions. Therefore, the voting that took place during the closed meeting was not permissible. The Ombudsman further found that some of the votes were not for procedural matters or directions to staff.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township together to discuss amalgamation. During the closed meeting, both councils made several decisions through consensus and provided direction to staff. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions. Therefore, the voting that took place during the closed meeting was not permissible. The Ombudsman further found that some of the votes were not for procedural matters or directions to staff.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. During the meeting, council voted to select a candidate for the position of municipal works foreman using a secret ballot. Council then directed staff to offer the position to the candidate who received the most votes through the secret ballot process. The Ombudsman found that while voting on a direction to staff is permitted in a closed meeting, this direction came from a secret ballot vote which is a violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Owen Sound. The meeting was closed under the personal matters and litigation or potential litigation exceptions. During the meeting, council voted on funding for an MRI machine. The Ombudsman found that the meeting did not fit within the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the vote was not for a procedural matter or to provide direction to staff. Therefore, the vote was not permissible.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg. During these meetings, a number of votes took place. The Ombudsman found that on one occasion council voted to hire a consultant to carry out work for the municipality. The Ombudsman found that this vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff and was therefore improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by the Niagara District Airport Commission. The commission conducted informal voting during both meetings. The Ombudsman found that even straw polls, or “shows of hands” constitute voting and must comply with the procedural requirements.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. While in camera, council conducted six votes. The Ombudsman found that the meeting fit within the cited exception. However, the Ombudsman also found that the votes were not for procedural matters or for directions to staff and were therefore improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands to discuss council member remuneration. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. During the meeting, council members voted on their own remuneration. The Ombudsman found that this vote was neither procedural in nature nor a direction to staff and was therefore improper. The Ombudsman also found that the meeting itself was improperly closed.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg. The meeting was closed under the litigation or potential litigation exception. The Ombudsman found that a vote taken during the closed session was neither procedural in nature nor a direction staff. Therefore, the vote was improper.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Baldwin. During the meeting, council voted on an open tender using a show of hands. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting did not fit within any of the open meeting exceptions. Further, the vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff. Therefore, the vote was improper.