Belleville Council broke provincial law with secret vote on green space transfer, Clerk calls it historic practice

Disclosure: the author of this article filed the closed-meeting complaint described below.

Belleville’s Integrity Commissioner (IC) released a report (below) on June 18, 2026, finding that Belleville Council violated open meeting rules (Section 239(6)(b) the Municipal Act) when it meeting closed to the public on March 23rd to declare the City-owned Jane Forrester Green Space property (31 South John Street) “surplus” (the City no longer required it to meet its current or future needs) – the first step in transferring the park to a private property owner.

Background

A timeline of the Jane Forrester Green Space decision:

• 2023 – Abutting property owner and local developer inquires about acquiring Jane Forrester Green Space from the City.
• 2025-2026 – Lobbying takes place according to Councillor Carr.
• March 23, 2026 – Belleville Council met in an In-Camera (closed) meeting to discuss Staff Report MRPS-2026-02 regarding the deal and votes to approve declaring the property surplus. A summary of the closed meeting’s activities was not provided in the open meeting as recommended by Ombudsman Ontario.
• Friday, April 10 – Regular Council meeting agenda is posted on Friday with the following Bylaw at the bottom which would redundantly declare the property surplus and transfer ownership​:
  “9.10 2026-046: A By-law to Declare Surplus and Convey to the Abutting Owner lands legally described as PIN 40477-0092 (LT) Lot 1 & 3, Part Lots 2, 4 & 5, Registered Plan 17, City of Belleville, County of Hastings (South John Street) 2026-046 Declare Surplus & Convey to abutting owner – South John St Lot DRAFT”
• April 11-12 – Residents had the weekend (~1 business day) to be notified of, and respond to, the upcoming decision
• Monday, April 13 – 11 bylaws, including Bylaw 2026-046, were read as a group and were to be passed as a group before Councillor Kathryn Brown highlighted 046 and requested deferring the decision and a staff report to provide alternative options to giving a 1 acre park to a private property owner for $0. It passed in a narrow 5-4 vote.
• May 11 – Belleville Council passed a motion to reverse the surplus designation in an 8-0 vote. The requested staff report MRPS-2026-03 indicated that Council had already declared the property surplus, stating: “The City has already declared this property surplus to its needs by Report No. MRPS-2026-02 on March 23, 2026.” There was no mention of this decision in the minutes of the March 23 meeting, so I came to the conclusion that the important decision had taken place during the closed session, against open meeting rules in the Municipal Act.
• May 12 – Concerns submitted to the Clerk’s office.
• May 14 – Clerk advised that as of June 1, 2026, the City of Belleville would have a dedicated Closed Meeting Investigator and that if the complaint was submitted prior to June 1st, that it would be handled by Ombudsman Ontario.
• June 1 – Formal complaint submitted to the Clerk as requested.
• June 12 – Clerk provided the complaint to the IC.
• June 18 – IC releases their report.

IC finds Council breached Section 239(6)(b) of the Municipal Act

The IC addressed the following question:

Did City Council violate Section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001 in declaring certain lands to be surplus during the In Camera session of the March 23rd council meeting?

by answering two questions relating to the exception listed in Section 239 (6):

Open meeting

(5) Subject to subsection (6), a meeting shall not be closed to the public during the taking of a vote.  2001, c. 25, s. 239 (5).

Exception

(6) Despite section 244, a meeting may be closed to the public during a vote if,

(a) subsection (2) or (3) permits or requires the meeting to be closed to the public; and

(b) the vote is for a procedural matter or for giving directions or instructions to officers, employees or agents of the municipality, local board or committee of either of them or persons retained by or under a contract with the municipality or local board.  2001, c. 25, s. 239 (6).

Section 239 (5) and (6) of the Municipal Act

1. Did the matter considered In Camera at the March 23, 2026 council meeting fall within an exception to the Open Meeting Principle in s. 239(2), (3) or (4) of the Municipal Act, 2001?

The IC found that yes, the matter considered in camera at the March 23 Council meeting was properly considered in camera as the matter related to “a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.”, so the exception S. 239(2)(c) to the open meeting principle applied.

2. Was the vote to declare certain lands surplus a vote that involved only a procedural matter or the giving of directions or instructions to staff?

Section 239(6)(b) provides that an in-camera vote may only involve a procedural matter or the giving of direction or instructions to staff.

The IC found that a declaration that municipal lands are surplus is a substantive, rather than a procedural, matter, and cannot be characterized as merely a direction or instructions to staff, although a direction to staff to prepare an agreement of purchase and sale of the Property was also included in the resolution passed in camera at the March 23 meeting.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing findings, I have determined that the resolution concerning the Property passed in camera at the March 23rd meeting should not have been voted on in camera and should have been conducted in open session. I therefore find that Council breached s. 239(6) of
the Municipal Act, 2001 in respect of this matter.

Integrity Commissioner David G. Boghosian

The breach was fully rectified at the May 11, 2026 Council meeting where Council voted unanimously to rescind the resolution passed in camera at the March 23 Council meeting declaring the Property to be surplus so no further action is required on the part of Council.

Belleville Council is required to pass a resolution at a future meeting stating how it intends to address the report under Section 239.2 (12).

Belleville Council voting on closed meeting matters in closed meetings in potential violation of open meeting rules described as a historic practice by Clerk

The IC reported that the Clerk described Council’s holding of closed votes on closed-meeting matters as historic practice and was aware that this arguably violated Section 239(6):

On June 12th, after being apprised of the Complaint, I spoke with Doug Irwin, City Clerk, who is charged with ensuring procedural compliance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City’s Procedural By-law. During the conversation, Mr. Irwin did not offer any defence as to why the vote to declare the Property surplus lands took place during the closed session, other than it was historic practice at the City for votes on in camera matters to be held in camera. He was aware that this arguably violated s. 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Integrity Commissioner recommends the City add to Section 239(6) of Municipal Act to its Procedural By-law and provide as much detail as possible about closed meeting activities in the open meeting that follows

I make the following recommendations in light of the foregoing findings:

A) In order to reinforce Council’s commitment to abide by Section 239(6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Procedural By-law be amended to mirror the wording of that subsection ie. to provide that any vote on a matter considered in a closed session, other than a procedural matter or the giving of directions or instructions to staff, shall not be voted on in closed session and must be voted on in open session;

B) Following the conclusion of a closed session, report back in open session on what transpired in the closed session, providing as much detail as the subject matter permits without disclosing confidential information.

Report