Document 3

An Update on Ottawa’s Agencies, Boards, Committees and Commissions

Background

A number of amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001 came into effect on either January 1, 2007 or January 1, 2008, which provided Ontario’s 444 municipalities with eleven areas of broad authority including:

1. Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.

2. Accountability and transparency of the municipality and its operations and of its local boards and their operations.

3. Financial management of the municipality and its local boards.

The amendments to the Act also required that local boards have a procedure by-law, including public notice of meetings, as well as “adopt and maintain” policies with respect to the sale and other disposition of land, the hiring of employees and the procurement of goods and services. Most local boards are also subject to the open meeting requirements in Section 239 of the Act and the City’s Meeting Investigator who investigates complaints as to whether or not a local board has met its own procedure by-law regarding meetings that are closed to the public.

On November 5, 2007, the City Solicitor submitted a report to Council that provided a review of Ottawa’s local boards (ACS2007-CMR-LEG-0007) in order to determine what entities fall within the category of a local board as well their obligations under the revised Municipal Act, 2001.

The purpose of this review is to provide Council with an update on any changes to the governance structure of the local boards identified in the 2007 report as well as to identify any new local boards created since the last report. Changes are identified in bold.

(1) Entities that Qualify as “Local Boards” of the City of Ottawa

(i) Ottawa Police Services Board

No update is required.

(ii) Ottawa Public Library Board

No update is required.

(iii) Ottawa Municipal Campsite Authority

The Ottawa Municipal Campsite Authority (“OMCA”) is a local authority and does satisfy the criteria required to constitute a local board under the Act. The Authority is composed of one elected Member of City Council and four volunteers. While Subsection 1(1) of the Act does not specifically refer to this entity, it does stipulate that a local board consists of: “any local authority established or exercising power under any Act with respect to the affairs or purposes” of a municipality.

The OMCA also has a municipal/local character.  This entity was formerly known as the Nepean Campsite Authority, which was reconstituted upon amalgamation of the City of Ottawa on January 1, 2001 as the OMCA.  The OMCA’s purpose is of a local/municipal character in that it rents out campsites on a short-term basis in the summer months to allow residents of the City of Ottawa as well as tourists to camp.

In July 2009, the City Clerk and Solicitor met with the OMCA to discuss governance issues. It was suggested that the OMCA should create terms of reference and enter into an operating agreement that would cover the OMCA’s mandate, roles and responsibilities.  In August 2010, the OMCA entered into an interim operating agreement with the City of Ottawa, pending the finalization of a long-term lease with the National Capital Commission and any City formalization of its relationship with its local boards.

(iv) Pineview Municipal Golf Club Board of Management

No update is required.

(v) Cumberland Heritage Village Museum Board

The Cumberland Heritage Village Museum Board (the “Board”) satisfies the criteria required in order to qualify as a local board. The Board was established under Township of Cumberland By-law 7-84, and therefore has a direct link with that former municipality. Section 5(6) of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 provides that every by-law of an old municipality that is in force on December 31, 2000 shall remain in force until it expires, is repealed or is amended. Therefore By-law 7-84 remains in effect and the Board’s mandate and structure continues to be defined as set out in that by-law.

By-Law 7-84 stipulates that the Council of the former Township of Cumberland was authorized to establish a board of management to operate a museum on behalf of the municipality, thus satisfying the requirement for the municipality to have a certain degree of control over the entity. However the by-law also states that: “subject to such limitations and restrictions as Council may from time to time impose, the restoration, maintenance, control, operation and management of the Museum is entrusted to a board of management”. Case law suggests that, in order to qualify as a local board, an entity must have decision-making capabilities in its day-to-day operations, and that it enjoy a certain degree of autonomy despite the municipality’s overall control of the entity. In this regard, the Board meets those criteria.

The by-law states that the Board shall adopt policies for the admission of the public to the Museum, thereby satisfying the criteria for having been constituted for public and not for private purposes, having as a primary purpose the provision of services to the inhabitants of the municipality. The by-law further states that the Township of Cumberland shall have no financial obligations towards the Board other than what Council decides from time to time.

The appointment policy of the Board also satisfies the case law criteria for “local board”. The by-law stipulates that the Board shall consist of persons appointed by Council of the former Township of Cumberland. Board Members appointed by Council who are not Members of City Council hold office for the term of the Council that appointed them, while Board Members who are Members of City Council are appointed annually.

Since the Board’s mandate and structure continues to be defined as set out in a by-law from a municipality that no longer exists, it is recommended that the Board adopt its own terms of reference in order to clarify its role and responsibilities in the administration of the Museum.

(vi) Nepean Museum Board

No update is required. 

(vii) Carp Airport Authority

On October 6, 2010, Ottawa City Council passed a motion authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute a settlement agreement with West Capital Developments (“WCD”) for the purchase and development of the Carp Airport. Upon execution of the settlement agreement, the City Manager has authorization from Council to negotiate and execute a final Agreement of Purchase and Sale with WCD for the Carp Airport (ACS2010-CMR-REP-0050).

As such, the Carp Airport Authority no longer manages and operates the Carp Airport on behalf of the City and therefore the not-for-profit corporation will be dissolved by the end of 2010. In effect, the Carp Airport Authority will longer qualify as a local board as of January 2011.

(viii) City of Ottawa Superannuation Fund

No update is required.

(ix) Crime Prevention Ottawa

The entity known as Crime Prevention Ottawa (“CPO”) likely falls within the definition of “local board’ in Subsection 1 (1) of the Act.  CPO was established in 2005 by City Council (February 1, 2005 motion 27/66) as a responsibility centre for crime prevention based on the September 2004 report entitled “Community Crime Prevention: Investing in a Safer Ottawa”.  In March 2007 Community and Protective Services received report ACS2007-CCS-CPS-0006 that sought to have CPO adopt a hybrid model of corporate governance. The Terms of Reference reflect the concept that Crime Prevention Ottawa is a “hybrid body half way between an independent Non-Government Organization (NGO) and a City body”. CPO was incorporated on August 8, 2008, as a corporation without share capital.

CPO has a distinctly local character as it is an initiative that contributes to crime reduction and enhanced community safety in Ottawa through collaborative evidence-based crime prevention.  It also provides funding to community organizations to address issues related to crime prevention.  The purpose of the funding is to support community initiatives that address gaps in service that help prevent crime and victimization within the community and respond to identified crime priorities within the City. 

CPO may exist as a local board while being incorporated, as long as it ensures that both its obligations under the Municipal Act and the Corporations Act are being met. Over time, CPO has moved more towards a greater interdependence with the City of Ottawa as a result of administrative efficiencies. CPO’s governance structure is currently under review.

(x) Business Improvement Areas

As previously noted, business improvement areas (“BIAs”) are expressly characterized as “local boards” under the Act. Section 204(2.1) states that “a board of management [of a BIA] is a local board of the municipality for all purposes.” The following is a list of the 16 BIAs currently existing in Ottawa:

Bank Street Promenade BIA

Barrhaven BIA

Bells Corners BIA

Byward Market BIA

Carp BIA

Downtown Rideau BIA

Glebe BIA

Heart of Orleans BIA

Manotick BIA

Preston Street BIA

Somerset Street Chinatown BIA

Somerset Village BIA

Sparks Street BIA

Vanier BIA (Quartier Vanier)

Wellington West BIA

Westboro Village BIA

On September 8, 2010, City Council approved the intention to create the Carp Road Corridor Business Improvement Area. A formal notice to all affected property owners was sent on September 27, 2010 informing them of Council’s decision and providing them with 60 days to object to the designation of the BIA. If a minimal number of objections are received, it is likely that the new Council will be asked to pass by-laws to create the BIA and its Board of Management in December 2010.

(xi) Property Standards Committee

Changes to this Committee are being proposed in this Governance Review. A re-evaluation will take place upon Council approval.

(xii) Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (“OCHC”)

Subsection 23(3) of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 states that a local housing corporation shall be deemed not to be a local board of a municipality. However, Section 269 of the Municipal Act, 2001 which sets out which local boards are required to adopt and maintain certain policies explicitly includes “a local housing corporation described in Section 23 of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000”. Since Section 269 of the Municipal Act, 2001 was enacted subsequent to Section 23 of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, the Municipal Act, 2001 prevails.

Therefore, the OCHC is only considered a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001 for the purposes of Sections 269 and 270. This means that the OCHC is required to adopt and maintain policies with respect to the sale and disposition of land, its hiring of employees and its procurement of goods and services.

In 2002, City Council, as sole shareholder of OCHC, passed a Shareholder Direction to define the relationship between the OCHC and the City and to give the board of directors instructions on governance, accountability and the City’s expectations for the OCHC in the form of stated objectives and principles to be followed in doing business (ACS2002-PEO-HOU-0004). Among some of the issues addressed in the Direction were that the OCHC should maintain an arm’s length relationship with the City however it shall remain accountable to the City.

In May 2007, a change in the governance structure of the OCHC was approved by Council whereby a tenant representative was added to the board of directors, and the number of community representatives serving on the board was increased from three to five (ACS2007-OCH-0002).

In October 2010, the OCHC board of directors considered and approved a motion recommending City Council add another community representative to the board, bringing the total of board members to twelve. The recommendation has been included as part of this Governance Report.

(xiii) Committee of Adjustment

No update is required.

(xiv) Municipal Service Boards

Municipalities in Ontario are permitted under Section 196 of the Act to establish municipal service boards to control and manage a broad range of municipal services such as public utilities, waste management, transportation systems, parking, culture, parks and recreation and heritage facilities. Pursuant to Section 197(3) of the Act, municipal service boards are deemed to be “local boards of the municipality for all purposes.” At the present time, the City of Ottawa has no municipal service boards.

(xv) Ottawa Community Lands Development Corporation

The establishment of the Ottawa Community Lands Development Corporation (“OCLDC”) was approved by City Council on October 10, 2007 (ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0008). However, as a result of the Auditor General’s report on the Carp River Watershed Study (ACS2008-OAG-BVG-0002), the creation of the corporation was delayed as Council first required City staff to investigate best practice studies regarding the disposal and development of municipal properties.

The OCLDC was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation on August 6, 2009 and the City of Ottawa is the sole shareholder. Some of the objects of the corporation are to “promote and undertake community improvement in the City by planning, subdividing and developing sites owned or held by the City for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public, recreational, religious, charitable and other uses.” Additional objects of the OCLDC are to “improve, beautify and maintain municipally-owned land, buildings and structures in the City as designated and approved by the City for the benefit of the community.”

The board of directors of the OCLDC consists of the City Manager who is an ex officio non-voting director as well as a minimum of five City Council directors and a maximum of three non-City Council directors.

Subsection 21(1) of the Municipal Services Corporations Regulation 599/06 under the Municipal Act, 2001 states that corporations created by a municipality pursuant to the powers conferred upon municipalities under section 203(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the power to establish corporations) are not local boards for the purposes of any Act. However, subsection 21(2) of Regulation 599/06 states that such corporations are deemed to be local boards for the purposes of subsection 270(2) of the Municipal Act. This means that the OCLDC is required to adopt and maintain policies with respect to the sale and disposition of land, the hiring of its employees and its procurement of goods and services. The establishment of these policies is currently under review by the board of directors.

(xvi) Manotick Mill Quarter Community Development Corporation

The establishment of the Manotick Mill Quarter Community Development Corporation (“Manotick Mill Corporation”) was approved by City Council on November 28, 2007 (ACS2007-BTS-RPM-0045). However, as a result of the Auditor General’s report on the Carp River Watershed Study (ACS2008-OAG-BVG-0002), the creation of the corporation was delayed as Council first required City staff to investigate best practice studies regarding the disposal and development of municipal properties.

The Manotick Mill Corporation was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation on August 24, 2009 and the City of Ottawa is the sole shareholder. The main object of the corporation is to implement the vision for a “Mill Quarter” centered on Manotick’s historic Dickinson Square. As part of this implementation, the corporation will “plan, subdivide and develop properties within the Mill Quarter to accommodate commercial tourist and heritage uses including commercial accommodation, boutiques, galleries, craft and other specialty outlets, museums, restaurants and studios.”

The Manotick Mill Corporation board of directors consists of the City Manager, one representative of Dickinson Square Heritage Management Inc., one representative of Watson’s Mill Manotick Inc, a minimum of five City Council directors as well as a maximum of two “directors at large”.

Subsection 21(1) of the Municipal Services Corporations Regulation 599/06 under the Municipal Act, 2001 states that corporations created by a municipality pursuant to the powers conferred upon municipalities under section 203(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the power to establish corporations) are not local boards for the purposes of any Act. However, subsection 21(2) of Regulation 599/06 states that such corporations are deemed to be local boards for the purposes of subsection 270(2) of the Municipal Ac, 2001. This means that the Manotick Mill Corporation is required to adopt and maintain policies with respect to the sale and disposition of land, the hiring of it employees and its procurement of goods and services. The establishment of these policies is currently under review by the board of directors.

(2) Entities that Do Not Qualify as “Local Boards” Under the Act

In contrast to the above-noted “local boards”, the following are those entities that do not constitute “local boards” under the Municipal Act, 2001.

(i) Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc.

Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. is not a local board under the Act. It is a privately held corporation incorporated under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, whose sole shareholder is the City of Ottawa. Moreover, its subsidiaries Hydro Ottawa Limited and Energy Ottawa Inc. are also not subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Briefly, the Electricity Act, 1998, allowed municipalities to incorporate a corporation under the Business Corporations Act for the purpose of generating, transmitting, distributing or retailing electricity. However, Subsection 142 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1998 provides that such a corporation “…shall be deemed not to be a local board, public utilities commission or hydro-electric commission for the purposes of any Act”.

(ii) Osgoode Care Centre

The Osgoode Care Centre (“OCC”) is a non-profit, charitable corporation, which essentially provides a local facility to accommodate elderly people requiring nursing home care. The OCC addresses community concerns to meet the needs of the aging population in the City of Ottawa. The entity therefore, meets the test of “having a local or municipal character” required to be considered a local board under the Act.

Article 3 of the OCC By-Law states that the OCC board of directors shall be composed of: “one director who shall be an elected member of City of Ottawa Council”. Members are appointed to the board at the OCC’s annual meetings.

Given the other criteria required in order to fall under the category of “local board” under the Act, it would appear that the OCC does not qualify. The dissolution process for instance does not meet the requirement as set out in the Act. The OCC is not an entity that requires a City By-Law in order to dissolve. Furthermore, the OCC By-Law stipulates that the OCC board of directors may exercise all powers and may make any rules necessary for the management and operation of the OCC as required by the Corporations Act and consistent with the OCC By-Law. There is no link to, or control by, the City of Ottawa. Further, the OCC was not created under provincial legislation or By-Law, and is completely independent of the municipality in terms of operations and control of the OCC. In light of the above, the Osgoode Care Centre does not qualify as a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001.

(iii) Mohr’s Landing/Quyon Port Authority

The by-law for the Mohr’s Landing/Quyon Port Authority (“Port Authority”) calls for the appointment of two directors to be elected by the City of Ottawa. The Appointment Policy passed by City Council applies to this entity as with the above-mentioned ones. Therefore, the selection process meets one of the criteria for a local board under the Act.

Furthermore, the Port Authority is a valuable local transportation link used extensively by residents of the area. Therefore, this entity does appear to have been established in order to “exercise the affairs of the municipality”, thus satisfying another factor with respect to this entity being a local board under the general language in Subsection 1 (1) of the Act. At first glance, it would appear that the Port Authority is a local board.

However, upon further analysis, it is suggested that the Mohr’s Landing/ Quyon Port Authority does not fall under the category of “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001. To begin with, the Port Authority is a federally incorporated entity comprised of board members elected by both the City of Ottawa and the Municipality of Pontiac, Quebec. The ferry service itself operates over a navigable waterway, between two different provinces. The property and business of the Port Authority is managed by the board of directors, which has a high degree of autonomy and decision making authority. As such, it is an inter-provincial entity, which lacks a distinctly local/municipal character.

Furthermore, the operator of the ferry service receives all the user charges, as none are given to the municipalities. Further, as of September 16, 1999, the Port Authority began to receive funding from the Government of Canada for a period of 20 years. The federal funding was obtained as a result of the divestiture of various ferry landings by the federal government, including Mohr’s Landing and Quyon Port.

Finally, there is no mention of whether a municipal by-law is required to dissolve the Port Authority. However, in the event of dissolution, all of the Port Authority’s remaining assets shall be distributed to the two municipalities in equal portions, and the Mohr’s Landing port facilities shall become the property of the City of Ottawa, while the Quyon port facilities shall become the property of the Municipality of Pontiac. For all of the above reasons, it is determined that this entity does not qualify as a local board under the Act.

(iv) Children’s Aid Society Board of Directors

The Children’s Aid Society Board of Directors (“CAS Board”) is regulated by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (the “Ministry”). Across Ontario, approximately 60 societies were established and governed by the Child and Family Services Act (the “CFSA”). While Section 7(1)(b) of the Act empowers the Minister to enter into agreements with municipalities for the provision of services, the Ottawa CAS is funded and controlled by the Government of Ontario and not the City. With respect to the provision of services, Section 7(1) of the Act states that the minister may: “provide services and establish, operate and maintain facilities for the provision of services and may make payments for those services and facilities out of legislative appropriations”. Funding under Section 7(2) of the CFSA states that: “The Minister may make grants and contributions, out of legislative appropriations, to any person, organization or municipality for consultation, research and evaluation with respect to services and for the provision of services”. Therefore, as the various CAS Boards are governed, controlled and funded by the Province and not the municipalities in which they are located, they do not qualify as a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Further, Section 20(2) of the CFBA defines a CAS as follows:

20 (2) Children’s Aid Society deemed to be a local board - Children’s Aid society shall be deemed to be a local board of each municipality in which it has jurisdiction for the purposes of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The above provision states that the CAS is only a “local board” for the purposes of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Since it is only these two statutes that are expressly named, it is unlikely that the Legislature intended the CAS Boards to be considered a “local board” for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001. This conclusion is further borne out by a more detailed examination of the respective definitions for a “local board” in the revised Municipal Act, 2001 as previously referenced in this report. For example, while the definition of local board in Subsection 1 (1) does not mention the Children’s Aid Society, the definitions of local board in Subsection 10 (6), Section 216, and Section 223.1 all expressly exclude a CAS.

(v) Advisory Committees

Given all of the above criteria, it would appear at first glance that the City’s various Advisory Committees may also fall under the general definition of “local board” as defined in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, there is one fundamental difference between Advisory Committees and the above-mentioned entities that do qualify as local boards under the Act. Advisory Committees act as consultative groups whose primary role is to provide advice on specific issues. As such, they do not have decision-making abilities. The definition of “local board” set out in Subsection 1(1) of the Act states that, in order to be considered a local board, an entity must be “established or exercising any power under the Act with respect to the affairs or purposes of one or more municipality”. Therefore, it is determined that the City’s Advisory Committees do not fall under the category of “local board” pursuant to the Act.

While Advisory Committees do not qualify as “local boards”, they are nonetheless subject to the Meetings Investigtor’s jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. As such, the Meetings Investigator has the power to investigate complaints as to whether an Advisory Committee has adhered to its own procedure by-law regarding meetings that are closed to the public.

Given the breadth of advice provided by Advisory Committees, as well as the importance of their contribution to setting departmental, Committee and Council priorities, it is recommended that a review of each Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference be conducted to ensure there are clear mandates for their roles and responsibilities. These Terms of Reference could include guidance on training, work plans and annual reports.

(vi) The Ottawa Partnership

The Ottawa Partnership (“TOP”) does not qualify as a “local board” under the Act. TOP was established in order to prepare a Strategic Economic Development Plan (the “Plan”) for the City. Essentially, TOP receives and reviews proposals for economic development initiatives and then submits a report to City Council recommending the proposals that offer the best opportunity to achieve the objectives of the Plan. TOP essentially acts as a consultative group whose primary role is to provide advice on specific issues, much like the above-mentioned Advisory Committees. Consequently, this entity does not possess the characteristics of autonomy and decision-making abilities that are required in order to be considered a local board under the Act.

(vii) Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority

The Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority (“OTCA”) is a non-profit agency that assists the City in the delivery of the Economic Development Program as it relates to local tourism development in Ottawa. Essentially, the OTCA undertakes various initiatives in building the tourism industry in Ottawa as it develops promotional programs and services to attract tourism business to the City. Therefore, while the OTCA does have a local/municipal character, it remains an independent entity that is not under the control of the City. As such, the OTCA does not qualify as a “local board” under the Act.

(viii) Conservation Authorities

Conservation authorities are expressly identified as not being “local boards” under the definition found in Subsection 1 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. Therefore, the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority and the South Nation Conservation Authority are not considered “local boards”.

This conclusion is further borne out by the respective definitions of “local board” in the Municipal Act, 2001. For example, Subsection 1 (1) and Section 269 both expressly exclude a conservation authority from the definition of local board.

(ix) Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation

The Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (“OCRI”) is unlikely to be a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001. The OCRI is a non-profit partnership organization that is incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act as a federal corporation without share capital. It is described on its website as a “member-based economic development corporation for fostering the advancement of the region’s globally competitive knowledge-based institutions and industries.” OCRI currently has approximately 625 member companies.

Despite the fact that OCRI has a municipal character, City of Ottawa Councillors sit on OCRI’s board of directors and OCRI receives an annual operating grant from the City of Ottawa, there are other factors which lead to the conclusion that OCRI would not be considered a “local board”. Approximately 80% of OCRI’s annual operating budget is generated from a variety of other sources such as federal and provincial governments, membership fees, professional development programs and private sector contributions. Furthermore, although OCRI provides the City with quarterly reports regarding its operations pursuant to the partnership funding agreement entered into with the City, OCRI acts independently of the City and Council.

(x) Almonte Hospital Board

The Almonte Hospital Board is not a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001. The definition of “local board” found in Subsection 1 of the Act explicitly includes a “board of health” but does not include a “hospital board”. Further evidence that a hospital board is not a local board can be found in Section 269 of the Act. That provision, which deals with policies that must be adopted by local boards, includes a definition of “local board” that explicitly excludes “hospital boards”. In a similar fashion, Section 390, which defines “local board” for the purposes of dealing with fees and charges, also expressly excludes “hospital boards”. Finally, in 1998, the Ontario Court, General Division reviewed the issue of whether or not a hospital board was a local board for the purposes of the Municipal Affairs Act (i.e. the general phrase used in the statute was largely the same as in the Municipal Act, 2001). In Nicholls v. Merrickville-Wolford (Village) the court determined that the hospital board was not a local board under that Act.

(xi) Ottawa-Gatineau Film and Television Development Corporation

The Ottawa-Gatineau Film and Television Development Corporation (“Film and Television Development Corporation”) does not qualify as a “local board” under the Act. The Film and Television Development Corporation is a non-profit corporation without share capital that was incorporated in 2003 under the Canada Corporations Act. As a federal corporation, it was formally established as a 3-year pilot project to promote the growth of film and television production in Ottawa and Gatineau. The Film and Television Development Corporation issues permits to film productions in the Ottawa-Gatineau region and also offers members of the industry technical and logistical film expertise.

Although a Member of City Council sits on the board of directors, the Film and Television Development Corporation acts independently of both Ottawa and Gatineau. The fact that it is essentially an inter-provincial entity also diminishes its local/municipal character.

(xii) Central Canada Exhibition Association

The Central Canada Exhibition Association (“CCEA”) does not satisfy the criteria required in order to qualify as a “local board” under Subsection 1 (1) of the Act. The CCEA works to encourage awareness of agriculture and related industries within the community. It does not, however, “exercise any power under any Act with respect to the affairs of the municipality” as stipulated in the definition of “local board” under the Act. Although there are Members of Council who are appointed to the CCEA board of directors, the CCEA lacks the connection to the City that is necessary to meet the “local board” common law test.