U of O's socially responsible lawyer, Amir Attaran: Patients killed by goverment negligence

Durham Region, 29 April 2016:
Cancer Care Ontario ‘covering up’ casualties by hiding stem cell data, critics charge


U of O's socially responsible lawyer, Amir Attaran, uncovers another distasteful institutional misbehaviour. This time, refusing to disclose how many patients are killed by bad decisions and failing to take corrective action.

" "They're covering up," said Amir Attaran, a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at University of Ottawa. "It is a cynical abuse of privacy law, to shield a callous and incompetent agency from disclosing how many Ontarians its inattention and bad management have killed. Simple as that." "

Rock administration loses another access-to-information decision - Seven more Allan Rock emails ordered disclosed - IPC Order PO-3540-F

The University of Ottawa's poor record of systematically opposing access to information has been documented many times on this blog.

On October 15, 2015, the University of Ottawa lost another Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision (LINK to Student's-Eye View report). Seven (7) more Allan Rock emails were ordered disclosed: IPC Order PO-3540-F.

Here are excerpts from the decision:

[5] In this order, I do not uphold the university's decision to withhold the records pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act, and I order it to release the records to the appellant.

[8] The university argues that the records contain commercial information supplied to it by third parties and are exempt pursuant to the mandatory third party information exemption at section 17(1) ...

[12] The university goes on to submit that disclosure would result in such information not being provided to the university again. It submits that, at the commencement of or during the relationship between the university and a third party, high level exchanges of communications will often take place between the third party and senior executives of the university, Including the President. The university submits that it is important to these discussions that third parties be able to share information freely, and that if they learn that information which they provide may be disclosed, they may not be willing to engage in similar high-level strategic discussions. As a result, the university will be prejudiced in its ability to negotiate new projects and undertakings with third parties.

[14] The appellant submits that these records do not relate to "informational assets". He points out that the subject of record 164 is "visit to country", and the subject of record 209 is "country". ...

[25] I conclude that the university has not discharged its onus and that there is no reasonable expectation of the harm identified by the university occurring if the records are disclosed. Therefore, section 17(1) does not apply to them. ...

I order the university to disclose records 143, 164, 209, 219, 270, 271 and 272 to the appellant ... This disclosure is to take place by November 20, 2015...

OCLA Director authors blistering report about U of O's deplorable access-to-information practices

The Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, Joseph Hickey, has authored and published a report about the documented deplorable practices of the University of Ottawa in responding to access-to-information requests:

"Access Denied in Ontario: A Critical Examination of the Roles of the University, the Commissioner, the Legislature, and the Courts (LINK)"

"First, I present the U of O’s behaviour in response to FOI requests using data obtained from statistics reports published annually by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and from publicly available adjudication decisions (“orders”) made by the IPC about the university. This is followed by a description of specific examples of tactics used by the university to deny access to information, and the impact this can have on researchers, activists, and others who seeks information from the university. The third section discusses why the U of O maintains bad FOI practices that contravene the purposes of the FIPPA. The final section considers what can be done to improve access at the U of O and in other public institutions across the province."

The report is well documented, with many records in appendix. (LINK) (PDF)

Another dubious distinction for U of O: No easy access to information

University of Ottawa again topped list of formal requests for information last year (LINK)
By Neco Cockburn, OTTAWA CITIZEN June 7, 2013


The University's spin is poor:

No mention of how the U of O routinely claims that access to information requests are made in bad faith, only to be ordered or otherwise convinced to comply: PO-3121, PO-2974.

Or of how often the U of O simply disregards the access to information law and must be ordered to produce a response:  PO-3043, PO-2671, PO-2698.

The only case where the University's claim that a request is made in bad faith was upheld is the case mentioned by the spin doctor: PO-3188.

Rock administration ordered to follow the law: Must give access to President's emails

From A Student's-Eye View: HERE.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario has ruled on January 25, 2012 (IPC Order PO-3043) that the University of Ottawa has shown unacceptable disregard for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in refusing to respond to a University Senator's request for internal communications between President Allan Rock and his (former) Chief of Staff Stephane Emard-Chabot.

The University had flippantly and incorrectly rejected the access-to-information request by claiming that the request was not sufficiently clear. The IPC rebuffed the University and ordered it to perform the search for the emails and provide an access decision.

This illustrates the University's bold disrespect for Ontario's transparency law. The University of Ottawa receives among the highest numbers of IPC orders against it of all universities in Ontario.

Transparency and academic freedom co-degraded at U of O -- IPC Order sets bad precedent

A recent (November 7, 2011) Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) rulings on an access request at the University of Ottawa fails on transparency and misuses academic freedom.

The ruling is critiqued HERE.

.

U of O disregards access to information law, refuses to provide undisclosed records to Ontario adjudicator

On April 21, 2008, then physics professor Denis Rancourt made an access to information (ATI) request to the University of Ottawa for "all records about me in the university president's office since November 30, 2006."

The university's first reaction was to refuse to respond as required by law -- the Freedom of Information and protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) of Ontario. The university had to be ordered by an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator to follow the law. See IPC Order PO-2698 dated July 22, 2008. The IPC is the judiciary body that administers and enforces the FIPPA.

The university's ordered response was then appealed to the IPC by Rancourt as being incomplete.

Mostly due to IPC-imposed administrative delays, the required-by-law mediation step of the 2008 appeal (IPC Appeal No. PA08-159-2) was only completed on May 26, 2011.

The factual IPC Mediator's Report (HERE) states that the university has now refused to provide 56 undisclosed records (documents about Rancourt in the president's office) to the IPC Adjudicator for the appeal hearings.

This is a violation of the FIPPA. The rules of procedure for IPC adjudications of appeals require the institution (university) at mediation to provide all records not disclosed to the appellant (Rancourt) to the IPC for mediation and adjudication. The university has simply refused to do so (LINK):

"The mediator advised the University that only some of the records listed in the undisclosed index of records were provided to the IPC. Specifically, records 217 to 272 were not provided to the IPC."

Furthermore, the university states that it has lost its indexed records (undisclosed records) that it refuses to provide to the IPC:

"The University confirmed that it does not have a copy of records 217 to 272."

How can the University of Ottawa justify such disregard for legal procedures, disregard for fair access to personal information, and disregard for accountability and transparency?

The University's less-than-exemplary institutional behaviour regarding ATI and the FIPPA was also recently reported HERE.

UofOgate::: Identity of student spy disclosed by court order

The University of Ottawa's UofOgate spy cover up scandal is not going away.

After Indy Media broke the story (HERE, HERE), in January to March 2010 there were nine articles in student newspapers across Ontario about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and see here), with numerous letters (HERE). It was covered in Macleans OnCampus (M1). It appeared in Academica's Top Ten media stories (HERE). And it was featured in an in-depth report by Canadians for Accountability (HERE).

The university response has been an extensive cover up (HERE) involving top corporate executives, a former VP-Governance (now director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association), a former Legal Counsel (now a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario), the present VP-Governance (HERE), and many more. The university and president Allan Rock are illegally stonewalling a labour law grievance on the matter (G25-HERE). The student newspaper The Fulcrum (where the student spy was a journalist/editor) fired its ombudsman in mid-investigation over the matter (HERE, HERE).

On the legal front, former physics professor Denis Rancourt - who had been spied on along with several other university employees and students - filed a formal labour law grievance (HERE) and appealed his access to information (ATI) request to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario; whereas members of the teacher assistant union (CUPE 2626) filed a collective grievance and settled with the university before arbitration (HERE).

Rancourt's grievance was illegally stonewalled by the University of Ottawa and president Allan Rock. This matter therefore was taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) by Rancourt and is now awaiting a tribunal hearing: HERE. The first item to be heard by the OLRB tribunal will be a motion by Allan Rock to be removed as a responding party (HERE).

The appeal to the IPC on the other hand has now concluded (IPC Order PO-2951 dated February 9, 2011) and the University of Ottawa was ordered to disclose a key record by March 16, 2011.

Although Rancourt's original ATI request was for all communications involving student journalist Maureen Robinson and resulted in an index of many communications with the university's Legal Counsel, Robinson has always denied (to the media) that she was involved in the covert information gathering campaign (2006-2008) described in the university's representations to the IPC tribunal (made public by Rancourt, HERE).

In IPC parlance, Rancourt was the Appellant, the university was the Institution (which has the burden of proof when not disclosing personal information of the Appellant), and Robinson was the (only) Affected Party.

The newly obtained document ordered disclosed by the IPC is posted HERE. It is an email from the Affected Party to the dean of the Faculty of Science (Andre E. Lalonde) and to the Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty, now a judge with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario). It is signed "Maureen".

In this case, Maureen is forwarding an email that she has obtained under false pretense at a time when she was a student journalist.

Maureen's identity is also disclosed in a second document recently obtained in a separate ATI request for documents in the dean's office: HERE.

The latter document is disturbing in many regards.

Note how the dean Andre E. Lalonde (who is not known for his strict adherence to ATI law) makes special efforts to circumvent ATI law: (1) Rancourt is referred to as "Professor R" to avoid keyword searches, (2) the dean suggests that since Legal Counsel would have received a copy of a sensitive CD (which he also has) that the CD would be excluded from ATI access (by virtue of solicitor-client privilege), and (3) the dean specifies that a previous communication was "privileged and confidential", again abusing the cover of solicitor-client privilege.

The document (HERE) also establishes that the university was in possession of a voice recording (two CD copies in fact) that it did not disclose to the IPC as required by law (as the dean acknowledges in this message to former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod, HERE).

Possibly most disturbingly, IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries participated in this illegal information practice by not requesting the sound recording that was surmised to exist, despite the Appellant's explicit request under Representations that the Adjudicator do so, following presented evidence that the search had been "incomplete" regarding the existence of a voice recording.

Finally, another document also now conclusively identifies Maureen Robinson by her full name as the Affected Party: HERE. The latter document is a letter from the IPC Adjudicator to the Affected Party addressed to "Maureen Robinson" at her address in Australia at the time.

It is now impossible for Maureen Robinson to credibly deny being the student at the heart of the covert information gathering 2006-2008 campaign described in some detail by the university in its representations to the IPC Adjudicator (see the full documents and reports HERE). The lie is up.

RELATED LINKS AND POSTS:
AF.ca reports on the 2006-2008 covert surveillance campaign
University stonewalling of grievance G25 and OLRB legal action
All UofOWatch articles under label "covert surveillance"
All UofOWatch articles under label "Maureen Robinson"

Did the dean destroy records and lie in affidavit?

In an access to information (ATI) request dating back to 2008 the dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde, was asked to produce all records (emails) about then professor of physics Denis Rancourt’s weekly Cinema Politica film and discussion series.

The series was opposed by the university administration and ran continuously during the academic year under Rancourt’s sponsorship between 2005 and 2009. Rancourt and student Marc Kelly were arrested by Ottawa Police at Cinema Politica on campus on January 23, 2009, as reported by the national media.

A legal appeal of the ATI case is presently under adjudication with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario: IPC appeal No. PA08-97-2.

The ATI request and its adjudication have revealed the following.

First the dean would not respond pursuant to ATI law and the university had to be ordered by the IPC to immediately produce the records: IPC Order PO-2671.

Under order, the University responded with disclosed records on its imposed deadline of May 14, 2008.

Later, under appeal, the University was forced to perform three more searches for all the dean’s records relating to Cinema Politica. These are electronic searches using keywords and should be immediate yet each new search found significant numbers of new records which had not previously been found or released.

More disturbingly, the University and the dean claimed to have lost the records it had first disclosed, between May 14, 2008, and the launch of the IPC appeal, and claimed to be unable to find many of these records again via its three new and extensive searches.

The requester (Denis Rancourt) was able to identify twenty one (21) records that the University never found again. These were most sensitive records and involved the following correspondents (including the President, two VPs, Legal Counsel, the Human Resources boss, etc.):

• Andrée Dumulon, Director, Communications Office, University Relations
• Bela Joos, chairman of Physics
• Gilles Patry, President
• Julie Cafley, Executive Assistant to the President
• Louise Page-Valin, Human Resources boss
• Luciana Ion, Administrative Assistant, VP-Academic's office
• Luciana Vaduva, Project Officer, Office of VP-Academic
• Michelle Flaherty, University Legal Counsel
• Paul Mercier, Computer Systems Manager and member of the Board of Governors
• Raymond St-Jacques, retired professor and consultant
• Richard Hodgson, former chairman of Physics
• Robert Major, VP-Academic
• Victor Simon, VP-Resources

How could the university lose these records while subject to an IPC investigation?

In the meantime the University tried to satisfy the IPC Adjudicator by providing an affidavit from dean Andre E. Lalonde.

The dean’s affidavit (dated August 30, 2010, HERE) states:

• (point-2) that he has the practice of keeping all emails of interest to the University
• (point-3) that he has never destroyed or lost any emails
• (point-5) that in May 2008 (first batch) he searched his electronic emails
• (point-7) that later in May 2008 he sent these to Legal Counsel (first batch)
• (point-9, point-11) that in February and March 2009 he performed a far more extensive search of his same electronic emails
• (point-12) that he was the sender or a recipient of all respondent records

The dean swears that no records were lost or destroyed and that the same electronic data bank was searched again (in 2009) far more extensively. Yet 21 highly sensitive records (list provided to the IPC) were not found.

At best the University and the dean are being disingenuous in advancing that they performed a reasonable search.

At worst the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The requester knows dean Lalonde to be very meticulous and careful with electronic data.

Since the later searches (2009) are reported to have been extensive and involved the additional on-site help of two other individuals specializing in ATI searches and since the 21 records in question are sensitive documents and represent almost one fifth of the records in the first (May 14, 2008) batch, we conclude that it is probable that the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The same dean has lied previously regarding a different ATI request, as publicly reported HERE.

The University was asked to comment or correct any information in the latter report and did not respond, except one respondent (Alain St-Amant, Chairman of Chemistry) who did not deny any of the elements in the report – see St-Amant’s response made public HERE.

It appears that lying to the IPC and disregarding ATI law may be a little too common in the Faculty of Science?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lies and lies and lies
Victor Simon lies
Gilles Patry covers up lies
Dean Andre E. Lalonde lies
Diane Davidson covers up
Michelle Flaherty runs covert campaign
Nathalie Des Rosiers does her job
Robert Major is himself

And even more himself...

U of O's IPC cover up: Will Allan Rock do the right thing?

• The University of Ottawa IPC cover up was explained HERE.

• Chemist Alain St-Amant responded THIS WAY.

• On October 14, 2010, Rancourt sued by filing a labour law grievance: HERE.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) has sided with Rancourt on the moral and legal basis for institution head Allan Rock to release all records: HERE.

IPC: "This approach to information about employees is not in keeping with world-wide trends favouring fair information practices..."

Will Allan Rock do the right thing?

Report on IPC in Rancourt case: Dean lied to cover up

INTRODUCTION - ONGOING RANCOURT CASE

The Denis Rancourt case at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada) is a major ongoing academic freedom case being presently investigated by a Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Independent Committee of Inquiry and expected to go before the courts as a significant labour dispute. [LINK]

The case has been covered by national and local media in both Canada and the US (New York Times -twice, Globe and Mail -twice, National Post, CBC radio The Current, TV Ontario). [LINK]


LATEST DEVELOPMENT - ACCESS TO INFORMATION RULING

On September 29, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario issued a decision in a notable access to information (ATI) case involving Rancourt and Rancourt has written a report about the matter: HERE.

These machinations of the U of O administration are only the latest example of an event in the administrative mobbing of Rancourt described in the independent report by academic workplace expert Professor Kenneth Westhues: LINK.


CONCLUDING HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE REPORT

Rancourt's report is based on several original documents now made public. Concluding highlighs from the report are as follows.

"Beyond demonstrating that the Dean of the Faculty of Science is ethically challenged, this case shows that the Dean, the VP-Academic and Legal Counsel conspired to send a dubious letter questioning a dissident professor’s ‘physical and mental well-being’ based on no record other than communications between themselves and bosses at human resources."

"The IPC Order [2], together with the IPC Mediator’s Report of July 27, 2009 [3], the University’s revised ATI decision letter of August 27, 2008, with index of respondent records [4], and Lalonde’s signed affidavit of September 18, 2009 [5], shows that:

(1) Lalonde lied about the records during the formal IPC mediation step;

(2) Lalonde or his staff meticulously removed at least six records from his office computers and files; and

(3) Lalonde lied in affidavit [5] apparently to cover up his first lies about the records and his removal of records."

CONNECTION WITH ALAIN ST-AMANT

From Rancourt's report:

"The only grievance filed against a professor was a grievance filed by Rancourt against then Chairman of the Department of Chemistry Alain St-Amant for “harassment” and “derogatory and threatening behaviour” [6]. The latter grievance was filed on January 3, 2007 [6].

The only discipline in this matter would have been possible discipline of Alain St-Amant and the resulting order from the dean to St-Amant to stop his unacceptable behaviour [7].

Therefore, it appears that the University was using the problem of St-Amant’s behaviour as its pretext for sending its dubious letter of September 6, 2007, to Rancourt, without providing Rancourt with any indication to this effect."

CRITICISMS FOR THE IPC

Rancourt leveled several criticisms towards the IPC Adjudicator and the IPC herself. One example is a s follows:

"IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries condoned the fact that Pamela Harrod simultaneously acted as: (1) University FIPPA/FOI Coordinator, (2) VP-Governance (then “University Secretary”) and immediate supervisor of University Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty directly involved in the ATI matter, and (3) “Commissioner for Taking Affidavits, etc.” (sic), signing the [fraudulent] affidavit of Lalonde in particular."

RELATED POSTS ABOUT THIS MATTER
Alain St-Amant's response to the present post
Rancourt's October 2010 Report
U of O's discovery of instant psychological evaluations
U of O executives spontaneously develop psychological evaluation capabilities

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa (Lalonde, St-Amant), IPC (Ann Cavoukian) and public domain (Conrad Black).]

Ontario's IPC practicing unwarranted secrecy, procedural machinations, and condoning unethical practice

September 18, 2010

Ann Cavoukian
Information and Privacy Commissioner / Ontario
2 Bloor Street East
Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8

(By email)

(E-mail CC: Work Ethics Watch; Democracy Watch; Canadians for Accountability; Canadian Association of University Professors; Ontario Ombudsman; and made public)

IPC PRACTICING UNWARRANTED SECRECY HARMFUL TO SOCIETY,
TERMS OF REFERENCE MACHINATIONS,
AND POSSIBLE CONDONING OF UNETHICAL PRACTICE

(Reference: IPC files PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245, PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2.)


Dear Dr. Ann Cavoukian,


Unwarranted secrecy

I have recently received two letters dated September 13, 2010, signed by IPC Adjudicator Catherine Corban (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2). These are cover letters inviting my submissions for IPC inquiries.

In the recent past (October 29, 2009) I have received three such notices signed by IPC Adjudicator Colin Bhattacharjee (PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245).

The October 2009 notices stated:

“Please find attached severed copies of the University’s representations… Portions of these representations have been withheld because they fall within this office’s confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.”

Whereas the September 2010 letters state:

“Please find attached the non-confidential representations of the University. Please note that portions of the University’s representations have been withheld due to confidentiality concerns.”

Contrary to the October 2009 stated IPC policy, the September 2010 letters describe an unwarranted application of secrecy consisting in the IPC not disclosing the University of Ottawa’s submissions consistent with the IPC’s own established practice.

This is of concern to me because it appears to function in a way that is contrary to the IPC’s societal mandate regarding transparency and disclosure. It also harms my ability to respond in my submissions to the IPC.

I request an explanation regarding the IPC’s change of position.

I ask to be given the full representations following the IPC’s own confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.

I add to this my continuing concern that the IPC is anomalously not itself subject to the conditions of the Act (FIPPA) and that your office has not lobbied to bring the IPC under the purview of the Act. In this regard, your office has not been a model defender of transparency for societal institutions. Other provincial “IPC” offices are rightly subjected to the conditions of access to information laws.

Terms of reference changed in mid-inquiry

I am also concerned that the terms set out in the original IPC Notices of Inquiry for inquiries PA08-97-2 and PA08-158-2 were changed between the times the University was asked to make its submissions and now when I am being asked to make my submissions. The September 2010 letters sate:

“I am enclosing a Notice of Inquiry which summarizes the facts and issues in the appeal. This Notice has been modified to reflect matters arising from the representations [which I am not being allowed to see] of the University.”

It is difficult for me to understand why the IPC’s terms of reference on the “facts and issues” for the inquiries in question would need to be changed. I ask that you explain this.

Possible ethical breach in University’s use of the BLG law firm

Finally, I wish to inform the IPC of the following.

The recent University submissions (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2) were prepared by the Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG) law firm. The former Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, is the Regional Managing Partner of the Ottawa office of BLG. He stepped down as U of O BOG Chairman in mid June 2010.

Mr. Jolicoeur participated in the administrative process that led to my April 2009 dismissal from the University, as is publicly documented. My dismissal as a tenured professor has not yet gone before a labour law arbitrator. Mr. Jolicoeur’s law firm is now working at profit to bar access to records that relate to my dismissal.

To the extend that this situation is an ethical breach for the University and for BLG, and now that the IPC has been explicitly informed, continuing to allow the involvement of BLG will constitute condoning and collaboration by the IPC.

I ask that the IPC disallow the participation of BLG in all IPC inquiries involving me.

Need for a quick response

Please respond immediately as the inquiry process imposes deadlines for my representations.

Please acknowledge receipt of the present communication.

Yours truly,

Denis Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa

RELATED POSTS:
BLG's previous involvement and link to Jolicoeur
Jolicoeur leaves U of O BOG in silence

U of O's previous attempt to use IPC to deny access: covert surveillance (several posts)