Bruce County

The Ombudsman received a complaint about four meetings of Bruce County’s Executive Committee held on September 21, 2017, August 2 and September 6, 2018, and January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman noted that the reports back in open session for the four dates in question do not provide sufficient detail to give the public any understanding of what was discussed in closed session. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the County has changed a number of its closed meeting practices since the meetings in question, and recommended that the Committee report back following its closed meetings in a meaningful way.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about four meetings of Bruce County’s Executive Committee held on September 21, 2017, August 2 and September 6, 2018, and January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s meeting minutes did not include a full description of the subjects discussed in closed session. For several meetings in question, the Ombudsman observed that most of the content of the minutes had been copied verbatim from related staff reports, and it was unclear to what extent this reflected the content of the Committee’s actual in camera discussion. When interviewed, attendees could not recall the discussions. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the County has changed a number of its closed meeting practices since the meetings in question and recommended that the Committee remain diligent in ensuring it keeps a complete and accurate record of the substantive and procedural matters discussed during closed meetings. In addition, the Ombudsman recommended that the Committee make audio or video recordings of all proceedings, including closed meetings, to ensure an accurate record.

The Ombudsman considered the applicability of the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations to Bruce County Executive Committee’s in camera discussion on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that staff presented a report to the Committee providing details about possible locations, potential next steps in the decision-making process, and recommendations from Bruce Power relating to the Nuclear Innovation Institute. However, based on the documentary evidence and interviews conducted, the Ombudsman found on a balance of probabilities that the Committee did not discuss plans and instructions for negotiations during the closed session.

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 considered the applicability of the exception for information supplied in confidence by a third party to 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 none of the information discussed fell into the categories listed in s. 239(2)(i) of the Municipal Act, 2001 such as financial or commercial information.

The Bruce County Executive Committee cited the exception for security of the property when it proceeded into closed session during a meeting on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that there was no indication that the Committee discussed any potential threats, loss, or damage to municipal property during this meeting. Accordingly, the Committee’s discussion did not fit this exception to the open meeting rules.

Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for acquisition or disposition of land when it proceeded in camera on September 6, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion regarding the development of a County hub did not fit within the exception, as the County owned the land in question and was not seeking to sell it. Even if the Committee had discussed this option, the discussion would have been purely speculative and the County did not have a bargaining position to protect. The Executive Committee’s discussion about acquiring land for another project was also speculative and the County did not have a bargaining position to protect at the time. Accordingly, the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply. 

The Ombudsman also considered the applicability of the exception for acquisition or disposition of land to the Committee’s in camera discussion at a meeting on January 10, 2019. While the closed meeting minutes identify various possible locations for the Nuclear Innovation Institute, the Ombudsman found that no land transaction was pending or had been proposed, and no practical steps had been taken to acquire a property or begin negotiations. Accordingly, the County did not yet have a bargaining position to protect and the exception for acquisition or disposition of land did not apply.

Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for litigation or potential litigation when it proceeded in camera on August 2, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the Committee discussed the County’s ongoing litigation related to a land claim. Accordingly, the discussion fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman found that Bruce County’s Executive Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 21, 2017, when it voted to approve the County’s 2018 business plan in closed session, as the matter did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.

Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for education or training when it proceeded in camera on September 21, 2017, and on January 10, 2019. The Ombudsman found that the exception did not apply to these in camera discussions. In both cases, the discussions did not provide general information for the purposes of educating or training the Committee.

Bruce County’s Executive Committee cited the exception for personal matters when it proceeded in camera on September 21, 2017, however, the Ombudsman found no indication that personal matters of an identifiable individual were discussed during this meeting. The Ombudsman also considered the applicability of the exception for personal matters with respect to a January 10, 2019 meeting. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s in camera discussion relating to a new position for a specified individual fit within the exception. However, this matter could have been parsed from the rest of the Committee’s discussion, which did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.