City Ombuds receives 8 complaints, one under investigation

To Committee of the Whole April 3, 1pm

Eight complaints were filed against the city in 2016, according to the annual report of ADR Chambers, appointed by the city as our Ombuds.
Two complainants were referred elsewhere. One of these was referred to Burlington, as complainants are first required to bring their complaint to the City before escalating them to the Ombuds Office. The other complainant’s matter concerned a driver’s license and was referred to Service Ontario. Four complaints are pending receipt of completed complaint forms.

One of the complainants refused to sign the complaint submission form, which includes a confidentiality agreement, and elected to abandon her complaint instead. There was one active investigation at the time the Annual Report was published.

The complaints primarily dealt with tax issues or planning and building matters, including bylaw enforcement.
The Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act came into force January 1, 2016, and gave the provincial Ombudsman powers to investigate decisions or recommendations regarding the administrative acts of a municipality. The municipality can appoint its own Ombuds. Burlington appointed ADR Chambers, which is required to submit an annual report to Council.
The report will be on the Consent agenda to Receive and File at the April 3 Committee of the Whole at City Hall, 1pm, Council Chambers. Recommendations from COW will go to City Council April 18 for a final decision. Register as a delegation to speak to committee about this item.
Read the report:
Read the full agenda for COW:

Written by Marianne Meed Ward

I was inspired to seek public office because I believe, like so many of you, “I can do something about that” on the issues we face. As councilor, my role is to take a stand on what’s best for residents and go to bat for it. Pushback is inevitable from those who don’t have the community’s interests at heart. I will stand with you and for you, to achieve the best interests of our city, without caving to unacceptable compromise in the name of consensus.

What's your take?