The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 8, 2022, February 13, 2023, and March 27, 2023, by failing to provide sufficient information about some general topics of discussion in its resolutions to proceed into closed session.
Town of Amherstburg, April 29, 2024
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman found that a gathering of members of the Town of Amherstburg’s Accessibility Advisory Committee on September 8, 2022 did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when the members visited a public transit facility and observed a demonstration of the features of an accessible bus. Since the gathering did not materially advance the Committee’s business or decision-making, it was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
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 determined that council for the Town of Amherstburg did not hold meetings closed to the public on November 29 and 30, 2022 contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, although he received conflicting information about whether the meetings were livestreamed. The Ombudsman shared best practices about providing information in notices regarding livestreamed meetings.
Town of Amherstburg, May 17, 2023
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg did not hold an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022, between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting. The Ombudsman 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. Rather, it was an informal, drop-in style gathering. Accordingly, there was no “meeting” over dinner within the meaning of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Town of Amherstburg, July 29, 2022
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg’s discussion of the job performance and workplace conduct of three named individuals on August 8, 2021, fit within the personal matters exception at section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg’s discussion with a solicitor regarding a report and legal correspondence related to the Town’s options under a contractual agreement with a specific entity on September 13, 2021, fit within the advice subject to solicitor-client privilege exception at section 239(2)(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg’s discussion about the identity of an individual who had hired a consultant, and the authority of the individual to do so on August 8, 2021, fit within the personal matters exception at section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg’s discussion about the Town’s vaccination policy, specific Town employees who had not provided proof of vaccination, and a solicitor’s advice about possible courses of action on November 16, 2021, fit within the labour relations exception at section 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg’s discussion about litigation with a former staff member that involved a solicitor providing updates on the litigation and advice on November 16, 2021, fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception at section 239(2)(e) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg failed to keep minutes of the closed session meetings on November 8 and 16, 2021, and therefore contravened section 239(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman shared the best practice that municipalities should create video or audio recordings of meetings.
The Ombudsman did not find a contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001 when council for the Town of Amherstburg did not report back publicly after a closed session. The Ombudsman encouraged council to adopt the best practice of reporting back meaningful information, where possible, about what was discussed in a closed session.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 13 and November 16, 2021 by failing to provide a sufficient general description of the topics for discussion, as council only cited the exceptions relied upon for closing the meetings. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene section 239(4)(a) of the Act on November 8, 2021, as council provided a sufficient description of the topic to be discussed in closed session. The Ombudsman also found there was no contravention on August 8, 2021. Although council only cited the exception relied upon, no further information could have been provided without undermining the reason for the closed session.
Town of Amherstburg, June 29, 2018
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the security of the property exception to discuss policing levels in the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include potential threats, or loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the Joint Police Advisory Committee for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the security of the property exception to discuss draft request for proposals for police services and the viability of a proposal. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include potential threats, or loss or damage to municipal property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg relying on the personal matters exception to discuss the conduct of various identifiable individuals. The discussion included allegations that these individuals acted improperly. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed closed meetings held by the Joint Police Advisory Committee and council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss draft request for proposals for police services. Although not cited at the time, the Clerk told the Ombudsman that the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act would have applied because the meetings could have been closed under the Police Services Act. The Police Services Act lists two exceptions allowing closed meetings of the police services board. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the committee considered whether the Police Services Act would apply to its discussions, and no evidence provided that the local police services board discussed the request for proposals in closed session under the Police Services Act. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that this exception did not apply to the committee and council meetings.
Town of Amherstburg, July 6, 2016
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss a request for legal fee reimbursement by an identified individual. Council was provided with a confidential staff report on the matter including a copy of written legal advice obtained from external counsel. While council did not rely on the solicitor-client privilege exception, the Ombudsman considered whether it applied to the discussion. The Ombudsman found that council was provided with written legal advice from external counsel as well as legal advice conveyed by staff from the external counsel. Therefore, the discussion fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception.
Town of Amherstburg, November 20, 2015
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss an external investigator’s report into health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council discussed the conduct of a staff member and how to address the issues raised in the report. During the discussion, the external investigator provided general information about health and safety requirements, interspersed with comments about specific individual employees. The Ombudsman found that it was unrealistic to expect council to parse this portion of the discussion to exclude references to related or background information. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss details of complaints by named municipal staff against other staff members. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. The complaints included allegations of harassment and health and safety concerns. The Ombudsman found that the information discussed went beyond the staff members’ professional duties and included personal concerns about their work environment. Therefore, the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The municipality retained a labour consultant to provide advice on the complaints. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception because council discussed the conditions of work for specific employees, as well as the general work environment for all employees in a specific department, and directed staff to terminate the employment of two employees.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss health and safety concerns raised by municipal employees. The municipality’s solicitor was present throughout the closed session and provided legal advice to council on the matters discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
Town of Amherstburg, April 13, 2015
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss the appointment of an individual as treasurer. The discussion involved a review of a résumé, employment history, and qualifications of an identifiable individual who was a candidate for the position. Councillors also expressed opinions about the individual’s suitability for the position. The Ombudsman found that the discussions were personal in nature and fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss bank-signing authorities for the municipality. The municipality suggested that the general tone of the meeting was one of distrust of municipal staff and, accordingly, it rendered the discussion personal in nature. The Ombudsman found that the general tone or concern that a discussion might be sensitive in nature is not sufficient to bring the discussion within the personal matters exception. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss municipal bank signing authorities. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not contain any information about the subject matter to be discussed. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that all resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the subject matter to be discussed in closed session.
Town of Amherstburg, December 15, 2014
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg, which relied on the closed meeting exception for personal matters to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Council discussed the qualifications of an identifiable candidate and expressed opinions about the individual. Council also discussed the conduct of a member of the public who had emailed council expressing opinions about a candidate for the CAO position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).Council discussed the résumé and qualifications of an identifiable individual who applied for the position, expressed opinions about the individual, and considered sending the candidate an offer of employment. The Ombudsman found that the labour relations or employee negotiations exception could apply to council’s discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the selection process for a new Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Council discussed the qualifications of an identifiable individual who applied for the position and expressed opinions about the individual. Throughout the discussion, the municipality’s solicitor provided advice. The Ombudsman found that the parts of the discussion related to the solicitor’s advice fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
Town of Amherstburg, December 9, 2013
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held in an emergency session by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss staff retention and reorganization. The meeting was closed under the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. Council’s discussion included the effect of staff retention and reorganization on individual staff members and their roles. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.
Town of Amherstburg, September 12, 2013
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss an organizational review of the municipality’s staff. The meeting was closed under the labour relations and employee negotiations exception. During the closed session meeting, a consultant presented a report to council on the roles and responsibilities of staff members and information on how the findings would affect both unionized and non-unionized staff. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the cited exception. General discussions regarding a municipal organization chart and various staff positions would not fit within the labour relations and employee negotiations exception. However, the Ombudsman found in this case that the information was for background and context for the labour relations discussions.
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.
Town of Amherstburg, July 20, 2012
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg to discuss a report issued by the Ombudsman, relying on the exception for solicitor-client privilege. Council considered written legal advice from the municipality’s solicitor who was also present during the closed session. The written legal advice had been publicly posted on the municipality’s website in error. The Ombudsman found that in many cases, public disclosure of confidential information is a factor weighing in favour of discussing the information in the open. In this case, the Ombudsman found that the information posted to the municipality’s website was done so in error and was intended to remain confidential. Council did not waive its solicitor-client privilege. Therefore, the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
Town of Amherstburg, January 6, 2012
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council to discuss appointments to the local library board and police services board. The meeting was closed under the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act. Council believed that the Public Libraries Act and the Police Services Act permit appointments to be made in closed session. The Ombudsman found that neither act contains provisions which permit appointments in closed session. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the exception for matters permissible to be closed under another act.
Town of Amherstburg, March 17, 2011
Read the LetterThe Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Amherstburg that relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the naming of a recreation complex located in the municipality. The municipality believed that the naming rights for the complex was a matter that could result in future legal action. However, at the time of the meeting, there was no actual evidence of any current or future legal proceedings related to the matter. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception because there was no reasonable prospect of litigation and any discussion relating to potential litigation was mere speculation.
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.