Belleville Police Service Board presented and approved 2026 Capital Budget in closed meeting

According to the meeting highlights of the September 18, 2025 Police Service Board (PSB) meeting, the 2026 Capital Budget was presented and approved during the in-camera session:

Belleville Police Service Board approved the 2026 Capital Budget in the public meeting that was first presented and approved in the in-camera session totaling $1,194,887.

September 18, 2025

The September 18, 2025 meeting minutes cited identifiable individuals, labour relations and litigation as the reasons for the in-camera session from 9:01AM to 10AM during which the 2026 Capital Budget was presented:

It is noted that there was a Belleville Police Service Board In-Camera (closed session) Meeting from 9:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. In view of this the Board met very briefly in open session at 9:01 a.m. to consider the following.

THAT the Belleville Police Service Board enter into the In Camera session to consider the following items, pursuant to Section 44(2,3) of the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA), 2019

• Discussion regarding personal matters about identifiable individuals (Pursuant to Subsection 44(2)(b) of the CSPA 2019)
• Discussion regarding labour relations or employee negotiations (Pursuant to Subsection 44(2)(d) of the CSPA 2019)
• Discussion regarding litigation or potential litigation affecting the Board (Pursuant to Subsection 44(2)(e) of the CSPA 2019)
• Review of Minutes for the In Camera Meeting dated May 22, 2025

Did BPSB properly rely on the exceptions in the CSPA to discuss and initially approve the 2026 Capital Budget in-camera?

A Capital Budget typically involves the purchase of assets: vehicles, IT infrastructure, tactical equipment, renovations, or facilities. It is distinct from an Operating Budget, which covers salaries and benefits.

The Board cited three specific exceptions under CSPA Section 44(2), none of which naturally apply to a general Capital Budget:

Personal matters about identifiable individuals (s. 44(2)(b))

Covers: Privacy of specific people (e.g., a specific officer’s conduct, a victim’s name).

Buying new police cruisers or upgrading satellite phones does not typically reveal information about specific individuals. This exception cannot be used broadly to cover discussions because an individual might eventually be involved in utilizing the asset.

Labour relations or employee negotiations (s. 44(2)(d))

Covers: Collective bargaining, union grievances, contract disputes.

While capital purchases might affect working conditions (e.g., new safety equipment), general budget discussions are not “labour relations” unless they directly impact active negotiations. General financial information that might be of interest to a union does not automatically qualify as “labour relations.”

Litigation or potential litigation (s. 44(2)(e))

Covers: Legal strategy regarding lawsuits involving the Board.

Would likely only be applicable if a specific capital item is directly tied to an ongoing or impending lawsuit (e.g., court-ordered facility upgrades).

Substantive decisions must be debated publicly (no rubber-stamping)

Briefly coming into open session to ratify a decision made in secret (without public debate or presentation) is often viewed by Ombudsmen and Inspectors as “rubber-stamping,” which violates the spirit of the open meeting rules. The public has a right to hear the deliberation regarding how their money is spent.

Most modern Police Service Board’s Procedural Bylaws (drafted to comply with the CSPA) now explicitly prohibit voting in closed sessions unless the vote is strictly procedural (e.g., “motion to adjourn”) or to give a “direction” to staff.

Since Belleville Police Service Board has not published its policies and procedures online, it is unclear if the Board is subject to this rule.

Agenda items must be separated into open and closed when realistic (duty to parse)

Boards cannot close an entire meeting (or an entire agenda item) because one small part of it is confidential. They are expected to separate the exempt information from the non-exempt information, unless doing so would “detract from free, open and uninterrupted discussion.”

If the in-camera discussion could have been parsed between an open and closed meeting, the exception does not apply.