Ombudsman says closed-door Forestry Farm Road discussions were appropriate

Luke Edwards

Grant Haven Media

Resolutions moving council to closed session should have had more information, Finlay finds

Ontario’s ombudsman has ruled that an item discussed behind closed doors at a March meeting was in order, but the resolution taking them in-camera could have included more information.

Norfolk County published the report as part of its Sept. 22 council package. Acting ombudsman Barbara Finlay received a complaint about the closed-door meeting, which alleged both the resolution going into closed session and the topic itself did not meet provincial requirements.

Finlay’s office determined that since negotiations were still ongoing for the topic being discussed - the Forestry Farm Road gas well project - having the discussions in-camera was appropriate. However, she also ruled that it failed “to provide a description of the general nature of the matters to be considered in closed session in its resolution on March 24, 2026.”

Overall, the ombudsman offered two recommendations to the County. The first encouraged all members of council to remain “vigilant in adhering to their individual and collective obligation” to follow the Municipal Act and procedural bylaws. 

The second recommendation said Norfolk County council “should ensure that all resolutions to proceed into closed session provide a general description of all issues to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public.”

Finlay’s report acknowledged that some of what was discussed in-camera in relation to the Forestry Farm Road issue did not strictly meet in-camera requirements, but it wasn’t severe enough to meet a “parsing the discussion” threshold. 

Previous legal decisions determined it “unrealistic to expect municipal councils to split up discussions between open and closed sessions where it would ‘detract from free, open and uninterrupted discussion,’” Finlay’s report said.

In the Norfolk case, the report said discussions that did not concern the negotiations were “brief and were intertwined with the discussions about the negotiations” and that it was unrealistic to expect council to move back to open session for those portions.

“Accordingly, council’s entire discussion fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations,” the report said.