The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln, and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, a written statement by the local member of provincial parliament was read out loud. The Ombudsman found that the statement was not explicitly marked as confidential when it was provided to the municipalities before the meeting and did not represent an official position of the provincial government. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government.
This exception includes discussion about information:
- Provided to the municipality by another level of government (Canada, a province or territory, or a crown agency); and
- Explicitly supplied to the municipality or local board in confidence, i.e., marked confidential by the other level of government.
This does not include discussions:
- Where the municipality determines the matter should be confidential, rather than the other level of government.
This exception was introduced on January 1, 2018, through changes to the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln, and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, a written statement by the local member of provincial parliament was read out loud. The Ombudsman found that the statement was not explicitly marked as confidential when it was provided to the municipalities before the meeting and did not represent an official position of the provincial government. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government.
The Ombudsman reviewed a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln, and the Township of West Lincoln. During the closed session, a written statement by the local member of provincial parliament was read out loud. The Ombudsman found that the statement was not explicitly marked as confidential when it was provided to the municipalities before the meeting and did not represent an official position of the provincial government. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government.
239(2)(c) Acquisition or disposition of land|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman found that the resolutions to proceed into closed session passed by council for Norfolk County at meetings held on March 8, April 12, and May 10, 2022 provided general descriptions of the topics to be discussed in closed session, and therefore met the requirements of s. 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Ombudsman considered the applicability of the exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government to the Bruce County Executive Committee’s in camera discussion on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within this exception to the open meeting rules because the information discussed was not supplied by Canada, a province or territory, or a Crown agency of any of them.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government. The Ombudsman found that during the closed session, council discussed information that had been provided to the Township by another level of government with an explicit written request that the information remain confidential. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion was permissible under the closed meeting exception for information supplied in confidence by another level of government.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss information supplied in confidence by another level of government. The Ombudsman found that the federal government explicitly, in writing, supplied information to the City in confidence regarding a specific development and funding proposal. Accordingly, the discussions related to this information were permissible for closed session consideration.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls to discuss information supplied in confidence by another level of government. The Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera did not provide any information about the subject matter of the discussion other than the exception authorizing the closed session. Instead, this information was provided in the notice of special meeting. The Ombudsman encouraged the City to ensure that resolutions to enter closed session provide the public with a general description of the subject matter to be considered in camera, while balancing the need to protect confidential and sensitive information from disclosure.
239(2)(b) Personal matters|239(2)(d) Labour relations or employee negotiations|239(2)(f) Solicitor-client privilege|239(2)(h) Information supplied in confidence by another level of government|239(2)(i) Information supplied in confidence by a third party|239(2)(j) Information belonging to the municipality|239(2)(k) Plans and instructions for negotiations|airport|airport commission|local board|minutes (best practices)|Resolution|resolution (general description)
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by the Niagara District Airport Commission to discuss airport fees. The Ombudsman found that the commission failed in its resolution to proceed in camera to cite the exception it was relying upon. The resolution was also not read out loud and members of the commission did not have a draft resolution prior to voting to proceed in camera. Additionally, although the general nature of the matter to be discussed was provided orally at the meeting, the formal written resolution failed to include that information. The Ombudsman recommended reading out the formal resolution prior to proceeding into closed session and that the formal resolution include information about the intended in camera discussion.