The Ombudsman found that no quorum of council for the County of Simcoe was present to discuss or advance council business during a recess from its meeting on March 25, 2025, and that there was no evidence of a collective decision not to return to council chambers following the recess. However, the Ombudsman urged members to be mindful of how their conduct reflects perceived adherence to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a committee of council whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on selecting a new City Manager using her strong mayor powers was not a local board whose gatherings were meetings subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The City therefore did not contravene the Act. The Ombudsman also encouraged the City to provide public information to clarify the nature and role of any similar advisory bodies in the future to further increase the accountability and transparency of mayoral decisions.
The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. As the purpose of the discussion was not to educate or train council members, the discussion did not fit within the exception for education or training.
The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Halton Hills’ discussion of provincial policy announcements about municipalities on August 28, 2023 did not fit within any of the open meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman found that that the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 14, 2022, by failing to treat a gathering of a quorum of members of council (and a quorum of a committee) as a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. The members of council discussed snowplowing operations with a member of staff in a way that materially advanced the Township’s business and decision-making, such that the gathering was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complainant alleged that the City turned off the camera that was broadcasting the council meeting after staff requested a brief break in order to prepare a response to a question asked by the Mayor. The complainant expressed concern that council may have held a closed meeting during this break while the camera was turned off. The Ombudsman found that the City did not contravene the open meeting requirements on April 12, 2022 when council took a break during the meeting in order for staff to caucus. The Ombudsman’s review indicated that nothing during the 25-minute break moved council business forward or materially advanced the City’s business or decision-making. Accordingly, the gathering of council during the break did not constitute a closed meeting in contravention of the Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint that a quorum of council for the Town of Espanola held an illegal closed meeting on January 31, 2019 after the regular council meeting had concluded, contrary to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review determined that although a quorum of council was present, the gathering was not a “meeting” under the Act because the discussion did not materially advance the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman reviewed a series of emails exchanged by members of council that refers to an informal interaction between members of council on a prior date. Based on the information gathered during interviews, the Ombudsman was satisfied that no informal meeting took place.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a quorum of councillors for the Town of Pelham informally met to discuss a possible donation from a cannabis producer on January 9, 2020, contrary to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the informal discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements as the discussion did not materially advance council business as required by the Municipal Act. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal discussion. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that councillors for the Town of Pelham voted via email on whether they would be in favour of accepting a possible donation. The Ombudsman found that the email exchange did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements, which typically apply to “meetings” were a quorum of councillors is physically present. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it took action following this informal email exchange. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the attendance of three councillors at an April 30, 2019 public proceeding of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The complaint alleged that the councillors’ attendance amounted to a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001 and was therefore subject to the Act’s open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the three council members did not discuss the subject matter of the proceeding with any of the councillors, municipal staff, or other parties in attendance. Accordingly, the Ombudsman determined that the councillors did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements because they did not do anything that materially advanced the business or decision-making of council.
The Ombudsman reviewed two information sessions relating to the business of the municipality attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. The Ombudsman found that the council members did not materially advance the business of the municipality during these information sessions. The council members only received information about ongoing projects in the municipality. There was no discussion among the council members present and no decisions were made. Even though the Ombudsman found that these information sessions did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act, 2001, in the interests of openness and transparency he encouraged council to receive information and updates of this nature during public meetings.
The Ombudsman reviewed an informal gathering of three council members after a regular council meeting for the Township of Front of Yonge. The Ombudsman found that the three council members may have remained in council chambers after the regular meeting had finished, however, they did not discuss council business. Accordingly, an improper meeting did not occur.
The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa with representatives from the Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation (OPUC) to receive information related to a potential merger of OPUC with Veridian Corporation, a shared services provider. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The majority of the presentation was intended to inform council about a particular course of action that would likely come before council for a future vote. The municipality believed that the non-disclosure agreement between OPUC and Veridian meant the discussion should be held in closed session. The Ombudsman found that the purpose of the education or training exception is not to protect disclosure of sensitive business information. The Ombudsman found that the information presented and the questions asked materially advanced council’s business and decision-making. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by Council for the Township of Russell to receive a rebranding presentation for the municipality. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. After returning to open session, council debated the rebranding proposal and voted to approve the new logo. The Ombudsman found that the information presented was directly about council business and was intended to form the basis of council decision-making. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Village of Casselman with local developers at a roundtable to discuss development within the municipality. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The discussion was not general in nature and related to council business. The scope of the education or training exception extends to meetings that are closed to allow council members to receive information that may assist them in better understanding the business of the municipality and/or to acquire skills, rather than exchange information on an issue. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to receive a presentation from the local Economic Development and Tourism Corporation (EDTC). The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the presentation, EDTC staff provided general information to council about the EDTC. This information was intended to inform council decision-making. In previous open meetings, council had met with the EDTC to discuss aligning councillor priorities with the municipality’s strategic plan. The Ombudsman found that there was no indication that discussions of that nature took place during the closed session. Therefore, the general discussion of the EDTC’s role fit within the education or training exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland to receive a presentation from staff regarding the local development corporation’s strategic plan. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. The strategic plan had been approved by council at an earlier open meeting. During the closed session, council discussed information relating to the municipality that it considered sensitive. The purpose of the education or training exception is not to shield sensitive information from the public. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception because the discussion did not relate solely to educating council, rather it was intended to inform their decision-making and advance the formulation of the municipality’s economic strategy.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Moosonee to receive information from a municipal advisor from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the closed session, the municipal advisor reviewed a letter from the minister and discussed the terms of a funding arrangement offered by the ministry to the municipality. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the education or training exception because the information relayed to council was not general in nature, and related to matters that directly affected the business of the municipality.
The Ombudsman found that two informal gatherings of newly elected councillors for the Town of Kearney did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001, as the councillors had not yet been sworn in and there was therefore no quorum of the current council present. However, these gatherings involved discussions of future council business and were therefore inconsistent with the principles of transparency and openness underlying the open meeting requirements.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie at an off-site location to participate in a program aimed at improving communication and team-building skills. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. Any council business was only discussed in a minor way to illustrate points being discussed. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the education or training exception.