Ombudsman finds no Simcoe County council collusion
Posted March 24, 2026
Ontario’s ombudsman has found no evidence members of Simcoe County council held an illegal closed-door meeting during a contentious debate over restructuring the size of council last year, despite the appearance a quorum may have coordinated action outside public view.
In a report dated March 16, Ombudsman J. Paul Dubé concluded that the county did not violate open meeting rules under Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001 following a March 25, 2025 council session that abruptly lost quorum after a recess.
The complaint alleged that 17 of council’s 32 members failed to return to council chambers after a short break, effectively halting proceedings, and speculated the group may have privately agreed to do so in order to influence the outcome of debate.
Dubé’s investigation found no evidence that a quorum of councillors met during the recess or that any coordinated decision-making took place.
“Accordingly, I am satisfied that a quorum of council did not meet to coordinate their decision not to return,” the report states.
The incident occurred during debate over a proposed bylaw that would have significantly restructured county council — reducing its size from 32 members to 16 mayors from lower-tier municipalities, along with a full-time warden, while maintaining a weighted voting system.
The proposal required approval through a “triple majority” process, meaning it would need backing from both county council and a majority of lower-tier municipalities representing most electors.
Council began discussing the bylaw shortly after 9 a.m., with debate continuing for more than an hour. A motion to refer the matter back to staff, including a proposal to eliminate weighted voting, was defeated. Shortly afterward, council recessed for 10 minutes.
When the meeting resumed, only 15 members (including New Tecumseth Mayor RIchard Norcross and Deputy Mayor Stephanie MacLellan) - were present, below the 17 needed for quorum. After waiting the required period under procedural rules, the warden adjourned the meeting. A committee-of-the-whole session began minutes later, at which point the absent members returned.
The ombudsman’s office reviewed video recordings, meeting materials, staff reports and interviewed the clerk, the warden and several councillors.
Witnesses said councillors dispersed during the recess into nearby areas that included a foyer, lounge and meeting rooms, often in small groups or alone. Those interviewed denied holding discussions as a full group or reaching any collective agreement not to return.
While the report acknowledges it is possible some discussions occurred in smaller or sequential settings, it found no evidence that all 17 members acted together in a way that would meet the legal definition of a “meeting” under the Act.
Under provincial law, a meeting requires both the presence of quorum and discussions that materially advance municipal business or decision-making.
The ombudsman emphasized that neither threshold was met.
Still, Dubé cautioned council members to remain mindful of public perception, noting the events could reasonably give rise to concerns about transparency.
“It is understandable that the events … left members of the public with the reasonable apprehension that a strategic bloc may have been formed behind closed doors,” the report says.
He urged councillors to be vigilant in adhering not only to the rules themselves, but also to the appearance of openness in their conduct.
Story aided with AI.
