The office of the Ontario Ombudsman has concluded that a small portion of the closed session discussions held by council on September 10, 2024, contravened the Municipal Act.
Following up on a complaint filed with the ombudsman that council held a closed meeting that did not fall within the exceptions related to personal matters, acquisition or disposition of land, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, the ombudsman agreed.
“My investigation determined that council for the Township of Lake of Bays contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 10, 2024, when a small portion of its closed session discussion did not fit within the cited exceptions or any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. However, the majority of the discussions were permitted to be held in closed session,” noted Paul Dubé, Ombudsman of Ontario, in his report.
“My Office notified the Township of our intent to investigate these complaints on October 28, 2024. We spoke with the Mayor and the Clerk, and reviewed the meeting agenda, open and closed session minutes, and the closed session recording for the September 10, 2024 meeting,” states Dubé.
Closed sessions discussions occurred with respect to a controversial Road License Agreement bylaw passed by the municipality in June 2024. The bylaw required residents who access their property through an unassumed road allowance to enter into an agreement with the municipality, which included a fee and insurance requirements.
The move was loudly criticized by property owners affected, who formed a Facebook group and threatened legal action. In August 2024, the Township paused the program for 180 days for public consultation.
Council held its regular meeting on September 10, 2024, at 9 a.m. According to the ombudsman’s report, at 10:25 a.m., the council passed a resolution to go into a closed meeting to discuss the Roads License Agreement Program and purchase of private roads, and “cited the exceptions for personal matters, acquisition or disposition of land, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege to move into closed session.”
The premise of the ombudsman’s findings is that council went into a closed session meeting because the discussions would involve an identifiable individual(s). According to the recording of the closed session, at the beginning of the closed session, “council briefly discussed a potential complaint related to the RLA program from an unidentified resident to the Township’s Integrity Commissioner. A councillor speculated about the resident’s identity, but the individual was not identified during the discussion. Council also discussed the Facebook group without identifying the group or its members by name,” notes the report, adding that the contravention lasted about a minute.
The ombudsman ruled that the first part of the closed session meeting was in contravention and advised council to polish up on the rules.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Yep sounds about right. This is just what was reported and investigated