Due to the ongoing postal strike, we are currently not sending or receiving mail. We appreciate your patience. Call us at 1-800-263-1830 if you need help or are unable to complete our online complaint forms.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting council discussed the professional services provided to the municipality by the integrity commissioner. The discussion included scrutiny of the integrity commissioner’s performance and council offered their opinions on the integrity commissioner in a way that went beyond his professional capacity. The Ombudsman found that the discussion qualified as personal information and fit within the “personal matters” exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting of council for the Town of Grimsby. During the meeting, council discussed personal information about the municipality’s integrity commissioner. Council also discussed the contract between the integrity commissioner and the municipality as part of its broader discussion. The Ombudsman found that the information about the contract could not have been parsed from the in camera discussion.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The Ombudsman found that the personal matters exception applied to part of the discussion because it included information related to the conduct of members of the public and municipal employees who were the subject of the investigation. This information was personal information. The part of the discussion that related to the conduct of council members in their professional capacity did not reveal anything inherently personal about them and did not fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami to discuss the findings of an integrity commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. The meeting was closed under the solicitor-client advice exception. During the meeting the integrity commissioner and an investigator presented their findings to council. The Ombudsman found that this information was not provided by a lawyer and does not qualify as legal advice. However, the information supplied by the investigator and integrity commissioner was received in relation to council seeking legal guidance on how to respond to the investigations’ findings and was necessary to discuss the issues meaningfully. It would not be reasonable for council to parse its discussion. Therefore, the discussion fit within the solicitor-client advice exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege to discuss a draft by-law prepared by the township’s external solicitor. A third-party consultant, who also served as the township’s Integrity Commissioner, attended the meeting and provided comments on the draft by-law. The Ombudsman found that the presence of the consultant did not constitute a waiver of privilege and that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.
The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of the North Shore relying on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. A third-party consultant, who also served as the township’s Integrity Commissioner, attended the meeting. The Ombudsman found that council was entitled to rely on the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege despite the presence of the consultant, but noted that a lack of consensus as to the consultant’s role at the meeting contributed to the impression that the meeting was improperly closed. The Ombudsman suggested, as a best practice, that meeting documents more clearly identify the capacity in which attendees participate in meetings if those attendees hold multiple positions within the township.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner. Council relied on the personal matters exception. During the discussion, council discussed the education, employment history and qualifications of a potential appointee for the integrity commissioner position. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.
The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the City of London which relied on the exception for solicitor-client privilege to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner and a recent integrity commissioner report. Legal counsel was present during both meetings to answer questions and provide legal advice. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege.