The Ombudsman found that closed session discussions held by council for the Township of Russell on January 29, February 12, and March 11, 2024 relating to the sale or potential sale of municipally owned land in the Township’s industrial park fit the open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land.
The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special council meeting held by the Township of Russell on January 10, 2022. The complainant expressed concern that council discussed zoning changes while in camera, and that the subject matter did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion related to a proposed land disposition. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the open meeting rules as the closed meeting discussion fit within the cited exception for the acquisition or disposition of land under section 239(2)(c) of the Act.
The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Fort Erie contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 26, 2021 when it met in closed session to discuss the disposition of a fire station. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for acquisition or disposition of land. This exception covers discussions relating to an actual land transaction that is either pending or proposed. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that the municipality’s bargaining position is protected with respect to a specific property. Our review revealed that, had the discussion on July 26, 2021 been made public, it would have adversely affected the municipality’s bargaining position in negotiations related to the land sale.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell relying on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the disposition of a municipal road allowance. The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the closure and sale of a road allowance fit within the exceptions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to discuss a potential partnership with a post-secondary institution. The meetings were closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the discussions, staff presented information on the basic concept of the partnership, and council discussed the need for the town to rent, lease, or purchase property to house the project, including properties that may be of interest if the partnership moved forward. The Ombudsman found that at the time of the meetings, council was in the early stages of decision-making, had not turned its mind to protecting its bargaining position in property negotiations, and had not taken any practical steps to acquiring land. Therefore, council’s discussions did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss a proposal to develop a university campus in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the discussion, staff provided information on the potential effect of the development on municipally-owned properties, and the possibility of expropriation. The Ombudsman found that at the time of the meeting, there were no land transactions in progress and council was not taking practical steps to dispose of its properties. Rather, council was primarily concerned about the sensitive nature of the business information discussed. Therefore, council’s discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Port Colborne to discuss various ongoing land sales and an ongoing lease negotiation for municipally-owned property. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception as the land involved was municipally owned and a lease constitutes a property interest in land.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the decision of a committee with respect to the disposition of property. The purpose of the meeting was to update a committee member. The disposition had already been made public. The Ombudsman found that subsequent discussions at council about property-related deliberations could continue to fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Fort Erie to hear a presentation of the Fort Erie Economic Development and Tourism Corporation. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the meeting, council may have briefly discussed a purely speculative disposition of land. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because the discussion was purely speculative and did not involve an imminent purchase or sale of land. Accordingly, there was no bargaining position to protect.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Welland that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss a marketing plan prepared by an economic development consultant. The municipality believed that the marketing plan contained sensitive business information and should be confidential. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because council did not discuss a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the closure of White Mountain Academy. The municipality had an agreement with the school to pay for maintenance of the building. The Ombudsman found that the municipality’s financial interests might have been harmed if the discussion were held in open session. Therefore, the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for the City of London that relied on the acquisition or disposition of land exception to discuss the municipality’s land development. The committee received a report from staff that referenced lands the municipality was interested in purchasing or for which it had initiated negotiations to purchase. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Elliot Lake to discuss the municipality’s negotiations with the Serpent River First Nation with respect to acquisition of crown land for a local development project. The meeting was closed using the acquisition or disposition of land exception. During the meeting, council received information about the status of confidential negotiations with the Serpent River First Nation. Council discussed the municipality’s negotiation strategy and next steps. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. However, as the meeting notice incorrectly stated the meeting start time, the Ombudsman reminded Council of the importance to ensure accuracy in all future meeting notices.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa that relied on the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to discuss the acquisition of property for a consolidated operations centre. Council received information from the president of a local union about the conditions in the existing public works building. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception. The Ombudsman noted that the delegation about the condition of the public works building would not on its own fit within the exception, however, the purpose of the delegation was directly related to the potential acquisition of the property and if the delegation was made in open session the municipality’s bargaining position could have been affected.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa to discuss a matter involving the disposition of municipally owned lands. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. Council discussed a staff report that provided information on the property and correspondence from the lawyer of an interested buyer. Council also discussed how to proceed with respect to the disposition of the lands. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception.