Municipal councils are not allowed to vote on substantive decisions during closed meetings

Voting during a closed council, committee or local board meeting is not permitted by Section 239(5) of the Municipal Act. However, Section 239(6) provides two exceptions to the general rule.

A vote is permitted in a closed meeting if both of the following conditions are met:

• At least one of the closed meeting exceptions in s. 239 (2) applies, and
• it is on a procedural matter or for giving directions or instructions to staff

Therefore, voting in a closed meeting is permitted if it being closed is authorized by an exception to open meeting rules and the vote is for a procedural matter or for giving direction or instructions to officers, employees, agents of the municipality or persons under contract:

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

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

The form of the vote is irrelevant to whether or not it counts:

The Ombudsman has found that informal voting through a straw poll or show of hands is not permissible.[1] A poll of council for their preferences on a matter via a series of emails or phone calls can constitute an illegal closed meeting vote if quorum is reached and the subject matter is council business.[2]

When voting in closed session, council should clearly identify the item being voted on, formally vote on it, and record the outcome in the closed session meeting minutes.

What are ‘substantive’ decisions?

Substantive decisions in this case are all decisions made that are not procedural or giving instructions to staff. Ombudsman Ontario maintains a directory of their decisions on on past complaints regarding voting during closed meetings. Examples include:

• Declaring land surplus
• Acquisition or disposition of land
• Funding
• Spending
• Business plan
• Hiring a consultant
• Deciding whether to fill a vacancy by appointment versus by-election
• Electing hiring-committee members
• Voting to terminate an employee and alter compensation
• Agreeing to proceed with an offer of an employment contract
• Agreeing to take steps regarding an employee
• Council voting on their own remuneration

Declaring municipal lands surplus

On June 18, 2026, Belleville’s Integrity Commissioner (IC), who was appointed as Closed Meeting Investigator, found that Belleville Council broke provincial law with a secret vote to declare City-owned land.

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.

The IC recommended the City update its Procedural By-law to mirror the wording in Section 239 and to provide summaries of closed meetings’ activities in the open meetings that follow. Council accepted the recommendations.

How to identify decisions made during closed meetings

A telltale sign of a substantive decision having been made and voted on in a closed (in-camera) meeting is when a by-law or resolution on a meeting agenda (eg. land purchase/sale agreement, development agreement, financial settlement), doesn’t have any preceding associated staff reports, discussions or motions during an open meeting.

• Orphaned by-laws – Every by-law and every executed action (a registered land transfer, an awarded contract, a settled lawsuit, a signed lease, a senior-staff severance) should trace to an open-session enabling resolution.
• Gaps in report numbers – If sequential numbering is used, an audit of staff-report numbering will reveal “missing” numbers in the public sequence that correspond to closed reports. For example, if there is a public report MRPS-2026-01 and a MRPS-2026-03 in a later meeting with MRPS-2026-02 nowhere to be found, it was likely considered in a closed meeting.
• Closed meeting summary deficiencies – Ombudsman Ontario recommends that meetings report back in open session on what transpired during closed sessions. If the section says a report was “received” or is silent, but a downstream document shows a decision flowed from that meeting, the substantive vote was buried in camera.

Phrases to watch for in summaries and reports include:

• “already declared”
• “previously approved”
• “as authorized by Council”
• “pursuant to Council’s direction”
• “Council resolved”
• “the City has entered into”
• “Council approved on [date].”

If you are unable to locate the open-session resolution that authorized the decision, you’ve likely found an in-camera substantive vote.

For example:

March 23, 2026: Council met in a closed session under In-Camera Report No. MRPS-2026-02. The stated reason for the closed session was the “potential acquisition or disposition of land” (Section 239(2)(c)).

Subsequent Evidence: Public Staff Report No. MRPS-2026-03 explicitly states: “The City has already declared this property surplus to its needs by Report No. MRPS-2026-02 on March 23, 2026.”