Sparks flew Tuesday night as the Ontario Ombudsman made his long-awaited visit to Sudbury city council.

Councillors appeared to still be sore after being slammed by Andre Marin earlier this year.

"It's not the office I'm concerned with, it's you,” said Coun. Terry Kett, who said he was troubled by what he called Marin's sarcastic attitude — both in his reports and on social media website Twitter.

Other councillors zeroed in on the Ombudsman’s accusation that they refused to co-operate with his investigation into closed door meetings earlier this year.

Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin speaks to reporters in Sudbury. He was in the city Tuesday to speak with City of Greater Sudbury council about closed door meetings. (Erik White/CBC)

Marin fired back, at times pointing aggressively at councillors and speaking over them.

"So you would have preferred if I just walked away and zipped it? I think I owe it to the community,” he said.

‘At a loss’

City councillors argued they tried to co-operate, but didn't want to be interviewed without a city lawyer in the room.

Marin said that's against the law and told council it had been given "bad legal advice."

"Why suddenly is it an issue in Sudbury,” he asked. “What law do you have here that's different from the law in all of Ontario?"

But Greater Sudbury city solicitor Jamie Canapini said the Ombudsman's office has yet to tell him which law gives it that power.

"So, I'm still at a loss,” he said. “To this day."

The Ombudsman was to give an educational session at Tom Davies Square on the rules of closed door meetings.

But instead, the fight over the Ombudsman’s report from earlier this year was rekindled, and Marin’s observation about Sudbury’s city council being the least co-operative group he had ever dealt with was revisited.

Coun. Frances Caldarelli questioned that accusation.

"Mr. Marin, you had every single person show up”, she posited.

To which Marin countered: “So what? Show up and not talk. What good is that?"

After the verbal fireworks cleared, the differences of opinion — and the legal argument at the heart of it — appeared to be very much unresolved.