The City of Trail was entitled not to disclose an investigator’s report into code-of-conduct violations by mayor Colleen Jones, according to BC’s independent privacy body.
A third-party investigator found Jones violated the code three times prior to last fall’s municipal election, although the specific actions were not publicly revealed.
The findings resulted in Jones being censured by her council for behaviour “unbecoming of a member of city council” and actions that “showed a lack of consideration for an employee and … did not promote public confidence.”
At the time of the rebuke, the employee was not identified.
However, it has since emerged that the complainant was former corporate administrator Michelle McIsaac, who is now suing the city for breach of contract and constructive dismissal. The city has denied the allegations.
McIsaac said she was subjected to a “toxic and intolerable” work environment until she finally left in June, shortly after Jones was censured. Her statement of claim didn’t get into specifics but alleged bullying and harassment by Jones and “failure of Mayor Jones to abide by the decision that she was not to contact [McIsaac] directly.”
It also claimed Jones misrepresented whether she had apologized to McIsaac.
Immediately after the city issued its statement about Jones’ censure, Vista Radio filed a freedom of information request for a copy of the investigator’s report and its total cost.
The city revealed the report cost $89,628 and that it spent another $28,040 afterwards on legal fees associated with the censure and sanction process.
However, it declined to release the report itself, citing sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act around legal advice, policy advice, and disclosure harmful to personal privacy.
Vista Radio appealed the decision to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
But last week, investigator James Gartshore issued an opinion that the city is authorized to withhold the entire report under the reasons it gave.
He reviewed previous orders from the office addressing similar workplace investigations and found they were protected by solicitor-client privilege.
“The information provided to me by the city [indicated] a lawyer gathered information during the investigation and used the information to provide legal advice to the city,” he wrote.
