The Ombudsman found that Council for the Township of Armour did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed ongoing litigation and agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed with the recommended next steps during a closed session. The Ombudsman found that Council’s decision to direct staff was permissible under section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Township of Armour - August 11, 2026
Read the LetterVillage of Burk's Falls and Armour Township, October 28, 2015
Read the ReportThe Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk's Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township's assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
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 closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township which relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a number of items including possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. The names of business owners considering developments in the area were discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about individual business owners was strictly in a professional context, which did not reveal anything of a personal nature. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s falls to discuss an appointment to a shared social services board. Council decided to appoint a councillor from Armour Township to the position. The municipality discussed the appointment under the personal matters exception and considered the candidate’s résumé. In many instances, where a council is considering appointments, personal information about individual applicants is discussed. The discussion did not include personal information about the councillor since his qualifications were public knowledge. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. Armour Township relied on the security of the property exception to go into closed session because it believed that the amalgamation might affect the township’s assets. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the security of the property exception because the discussion did not relate to any specific property owned by the municipalities, either corporeal or incorporeal, and the protection of that property.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. At the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress nor was either municipality contemplating purchasing or selling any land. Any discussions about land transactions were speculative. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint closed meeting held by council for the Village of Burk’s Falls and council for Armour Township to discuss possible amalgamation of the two municipalities. While not cited by either municipality, the Ombudsman found that a portion of the discussion fit within the labour relations or employee negotiation exception because the councils were discussing position changes for identified employees.
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 to discuss amalgamation. The Ombudsman found that while both municipalities kept minutes of the closed session, neither recorded open session minutes. The Ombudsman recommended that both municipalities ensure they keep a complete record of all meetings, especially any decisions made during a meeting, regardless of form. The Ombudsman recommended that both municipalities make audio and/or video recordings of closed sessions.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township. The Ombudsman found that both municipalities were obligated to pass a resolution to close the meeting in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and their respective procedure by-laws. Armour Township passed a resolution to proceed into closed session during the closed session. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to close a meeting must be passed in open session while members of the public still have the opportunity to attend. Even if council plans to hold a meeting where a closed session is the only agenda item, the meeting must begin in open session and the public must be invited to attend that portion of the meeting. The Village of Burk’s Falls did not pass a resolution to close the meeting.
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. The Ombudsman determined that although the councils for the Village of Burk’s Falls and Armour Township met in the same room and discussed the issues as a group, they technically held two separate meetings, and each municipality was obligated to comply with its procedure by-law and the Municipal Act, 2001.