McMaster is refusing to release the full report looking at sexual violence in one of its departments
McMaster says solicitor-client privilege" prevents it from releasing the full report into a months-long climate review" that followed sexual violence allegations within its Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour (PNB).
It says it can't share the cost of the review for the same reason.
In July, the university launched the PNB department-wide climate investigation in the wake of an undisclosed number of allegations of sexual violence against people connected to the PNB department, including faculty, staff and at least one grad student. One of the faculty members under investigation is Scott Watter, a PNB professor who was criminally charged in June with sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm for alleged incidents involving a student in 2017. Watter's lawyer told The Spectator last June they would be defending this matter fully and vigorously." His trial is slated to begin in August.
The university hired Toronto law firm Rubin Thomlinson LLP to conduct the climate review and the investigations into seven individuals. In December, McMaster released an executive summary" of the review. The summary stated the review uncovered systemic and cultural issues" in the department that created a degree of complacency that has let inappropriate behaviours go unchecked." Included were allegations that a blurring of boundaries" between faculty and students allowed certain faculty to engage in sexually inappropriate behaviour with students." Respondents said that when they tried to raise concerns they felt continually dismissed."
The Spectator filed two freedom-of-information (FOI) requests last month asking for more information about the review - specifically, the full and unaltered report as it was presented to the university as well as the total cost of the review and separate investigations into individuals.
Both requests were denied.
McMaster's privacy office, which processed the requests, said it denied the requests on the basis that the information was provided by third parties with the clear expectation of confidentiality, and where disclosure would significantly interfere with the contractual obligations of those parties." They also cite solicitor-client privilege."
Asked for more information about its decision, McMaster spokesperson Wade Hemsworth referred to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act legislation, which includes sections on solicitor-client privilege and third-party information confidentiality exceptions.
There was no predetermined budget for either the review or the investigations," Hemsworth added.
Other bodies, however, have released similar information, without requiring an FOI.
In February, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB), for example, released a 67-page report into allegations of racism involving school board trustees. A third-party law firm hired by the board conducted the investigation and wrote the report.
The board also made the investigation cost public.
$84,000 - $83,545 to be exact," said Shawn McKillop, HWDSB spokesperson, when asked for the cost. He also confirmed it went $20,000 over budget.
So why is similar information released in some cases but kept secret in others?
Their blanket denial sounds very weak and inappropriate and hard to defend," said David Fraser, a privacy and access-to-information lawyer based in Halifax.
Fraser said information is considered solicitor-client privilege" when it is deemed to be legal advice." Neither the review, nor the cost of the review, appears to be legal advice, he said.
He added that solicitor-client privilege didn't prevent McMaster from releasing an executive summary of the review. That suggests the university is not bound by solicitor-client privilege as it relates to releasing similar information.
David McKie, an Ottawa-based journalism professor with expertise in the area of freedom-of-information requests, called McMaster's decision to withhold the information dubious."
This is taxpayers' money and this is a contract," he said, noting taxpayer-funded contract costs are routinely made public. I think that they're hiding behind a smokescreen."
McKie, who is also deputy managing editor of the National Observer, also questioned why McMaster would flat out deny the request, rather than release the report with relevant private information redacted.
While it remains unclear what information the full report contains that the executive summary excludes, what is known is that it's a lot longer.
The full report, as requested by The Spectator, is 74 pages long, according to the university's FOI decision letter. The executive summary is 15 pages.
Katrina Clarke is a Hamilton-based reporter at The Spectator. Reach her via email: katrinaclarke@thespec.com