Black River-Matheson, Township of

The Ombudsman found that during a special meeting of council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024, council held a vote in camera that was contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 because it was not for a procedural matter or a direction to staff, even though the subject matter of the vote fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.

The Ombudsman found that during a special meeting of council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024, council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to describe the general nature of all items to be discussed in the resolution to go into closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that in future, should council wish to add items to a closed meeting agenda at the time of the meeting itself, it should pass a public resolution before holding the closed session discussion, in accordance with the Act.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging a quorum of councillors for the Township of Black River-Matheson held informal meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001, in the days prior to a special meeting on February 20, 2024. The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate the allegation that a quorum of councillors held informal meetings ahead of the special council meeting on February 20, 2024.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Black River-Matheson to discuss an ongoing labour dispute with its unionized employees, relying on the labour relations or employee negotiations exception. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions fit within the labour relations or employee negotiations exception.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Black River-Matheson. The meeting agenda did not include the fact that the meeting included a closed session or the location of the meeting. The meeting was not held in council chambers, but rather in an arena to accommodate a higher public turnout. The municipality’s general practice was to post notice on a bulletin board and on the municipal website. The Ombudsman found that the municipality failed to provide sufficient notice of the meeting because it failed to include the location of the meeting. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality’s procedure by-law should explicitly provide for notice to the public of regular or special meetings.