Russell, Township of

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 that council for the Township of Russell contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it proceeded in camera on November 16, 2020 to discuss an infrastructure project. The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Mayor’s presence at the in camera meeting did not compromise the bargaining position of the Township, despite the fact that the Mayor was also an elected official on the upper-tier council that was carrying out negotiations with the Township for this project.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Russell contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it proceeded in camera on November 16, 2020 to discuss an infrastructure project. The Ombudsman concluded that the discussions fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception because the discussion involved a potential transaction related to specific parcels of land.

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 received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020. The complainant alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review found that Township staff verbally conveyed legal advice related to the zoning issue and potential litigation during the closed session. Accordingly, council’s discussion also fit within the “advice subject to solicitor client privilege” exception, although council did not rely on this exception in its resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020. The complainant alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review found that council discussed the potential for litigation given the Township’s receipt of verbal threats of litigation relating to a zoning dispute. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the open meeting exception for litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020. The complainant alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s review found that council was briefed about a zoning dispute and discussed detailed information related to the history of staff’s interaction with identified property owners, including their opinion regarding the owners’ conduct. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters of identifiable individuals.

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Russell via electronic participation. Members were permitted to participate electronically and be counted toward quorum as a state of emergency had been declared pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The Ombudsman commended the Township for taking steps to ensure members of the public were advised of how to observe the live broadcast of the meeting and urged all municipalities to ensure electronic meetings are accessible to the public. 

The Ombudsman reviewed a special meeting held by council for the Township of Russell via electronic participation. Members were permitted to participate electronically and be counted toward quorum as a state of emergency had been declared pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The Ombudsman commended the Township for taking steps to ensure members of the public were advised of how to observe the live broadcast of the meeting and urged all municipalities to ensure electronic meetings are accessible to the public. 

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. The Ombudsman noted that the resolution to proceed into closed session referenced the general subject matter to be discussed, but that greater detail could be provided where appropriate and where further information will not undermine the reason for closing the meeting.

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 a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. The resolution to proceed into closed session did not provide sufficient information about council’s intended discussion. The Ombudsman noted that resolutions to proceed in camera should provide a general description of the issue to be discussed.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. A member of the public made a motion for council to move into closed session. The Ombudsman noted that the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by council. The Ombudsman also noted that there is nothing in the Township’s procedure by-law that permits a non-council member to move or second a motion during a meeting of council.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by council for the Township of Russell where it was alleged that the public entrance to the municipality’s town hall was locked during a portion of the meeting. The Ombudsman found that although the meeting was intended to be open to the public, a locked exterior door prevented members of the public from accessing council chambers for the first half of the meeting. As a result, the meeting was closed to the public and the public’s right to observe municipal government in process was frustrated, contrary to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell which relied on the litigation or potential litigation exception to discuss the naming rights for a new sports facility. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence to indicate that council was considering ongoing litigation or had realistically contemplated a legal proceeding. It was mere speculation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the litigation or potential litigation exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss the naming rights for a new sports facility. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. While the municipality believed that the information discussed related to personality conflicts involving members of the community, the discussion mainly pertained to fundraising, naming rights and advertising for the sports facility. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not include personal information and noted that a municipal council cannot automatically shield itself from open discussion on a full report merely because the report contains relatively minor references to bona fide personal matters. Accordingly, the discussion did not fit within the closed meeting exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss councillor compensation and employee compensation. Council’s discussion about staff compensation involved a discussion about systematic changes to the municipality’s salary grid. While the municipality did not rely on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception, the Ombudsman found that compensation matters relating to staff members fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. The Ombudsman found that councillor remuneration matters do not fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception since council members are not municipal employees.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the closed matters exception to discuss councillor remuneration and staff remuneration. Council’s discussion about employee compensation involved a discussion about systematic changes to the municipality’s salary grid and changes to the salary of identified employees. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about employee compensation involved personal information about identifiable individuals and therefore, this portion of council’s discussion fit within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that discussion of councillor remuneration did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed business plan for installing services in a local commercial and industrial area in the municipality. The municipality believed that the discussion involved sensitive business information and therefore closed the meeting. Council reviewed a staff report that included information about the plan and the properties included in the plan’s area. Although not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because the discussion was focused on whether to proceed with the business plan and not on the purchase or sale of land.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to receive training on strategic planning. The meeting was closed under the education or training exception. During the session, councillors were taught the basic principles and vocabulary related to the strategic planning process. The presentation used the current strategic plan for the municipality as a reference point for abstract principles and vocabulary that was being taught. The discussion was not a workshop or free flow of ideas but rather a specific training course. There was no decision-making or discussion of specific municipal priorities or planning. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed list of heritage designation properties in closed session, which relied on the personal matters exception. The report contained details about each property including the name of the building, its street address, the year the building was built, a description of the building’s heritage attributes, and a picture. For a subset of the properties, the report also contained details regarding former owners. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion was general in nature and did not include personal information like the identity of current property owners.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a proposed business plan for installing services in a local commercial and industrial area in the municipality. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. Council reviewed a staff report that included information about local businesses in the area including company name and legal identity, the proprietor, address, the size of the lot, and the cost of the services improvement for the property. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion and the report did not reveal personal information about individual property owners and any individuals identified by name used the land for a business purpose. Therefore, the discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss a property tax reimbursement for a resident. Council reviewed a staff report that included the name of the property owner, the property tax roll number, and the amount of property tax refund. The report also included information about the circumstances that led to the property tax refund. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell. During the meeting, council received a presentation on township rebranding. The resolution to proceed in camera only provided the title of a confidential staff report and no additional information regarding the subject matter of the report. The Ombudsman found that the resolution provided limited information about the matter to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality ensure that resolutions to enter closed session contain a general description of the issue to be discussed, including when referencing confidential reports or materials.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss a staff member who was a candidate for the position of deputy clerk. The meeting relied on the personal matters exception. When council resumed the open session, it appointed the individual to the position of deputy clerk. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the personal matters exception since it identified the candidate by name and covered the individual’s employment history, job performance, and salary information.

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 Township of Russell to discuss a lease proposal related to the municipality’s fire hall. Although not relied upon by the municipality, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception since a lease is a form of property right.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss municipal infrastructure projects. The meeting was closed under the acquisition or disposition of land exception. As part of the projects, council discussed the need to obtain an easement over a property and the potential cost. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception because an easement is a form of property right.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell that relied on the personal matters exception to discuss municipal infrastructure projects. Council referred to contractors in their professional capacity during its discussion. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion did not fit within the personal matters exception because the discussion did not address anything of an inherently personal nature.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss financial interests, municipal growth, future planning, and negotiation strategy. The meeting was closed under the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions did not come within section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 as the discussion did not relate to preventing the loss or damage of municipal property or to the protection of public safety relating to municipal property.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Minor Variance Committee for the Township of Russell. The Ombudsman found that the Minor Variance Committee is a local board for the purposes of the open meeting provisions. Therefore, the Minor Variance Committee must comply with the open meeting rules, including having a procedure by-law that provides for public notice of meetings. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality adhere to the Municipal Act, 2001 by implementing a procedure by-law for the Minor Variance Committee.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Minor Variance Committee for the Township of Russell. Notice was provided in accordance with the Planning Act. The Ombudsman found that the committee is a local board for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001 and must comply with the open meeting requirements, including notice.  Although, public notice was provided under the Planning Act, the Ombudsman recommended that a procedure by-law be enacted to set out public notice requirements for the committee in accordance with the Municipal Act.