TORONTO (January 23, 1997) - After initially rejecting Freedom Party's June 4/96 request for a listing of financial expenses incurred in pursuing a racism complaint against London landlord Elijah Elieff, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (HRC) has finally produced financial records it previously said did not exist. (See last issue of Freedom Flyer, November 1996.)
The expense listing was provided to Freedom Party despite our having been informed again on October 30/96 that we were not entitled to receive such information:
"Please be advised that the access procedure under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act refers to 'records' and not necessarily the provision of unrecorded information," wrote Roger M. Palacio (Coordinator, Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy, Ontario Human Rights Commission).
Given that the financial listing provided to Freedom Party is apparently based upon "unrecorded information", the HRC's figures are highly suspect, to say the least. To make matters worse, the final figures provided were inconsistent with figures provided intermittently throughout the length of our filed request.
On November 20/96 we were informed that "the total figure for the fee of the Commission's counsel in the hearings of the case is $6272.05. The total disbursement is $11,210.44."
After clarifying that the two figures were exclusive of each other, thus representing a total of $17,482.59, the Commission still remained unclear as to what the figures applied to.
Following a December 23 telephone conversation with Fp president Robert Metz and Fp representative Jim Montag, Palacio indicated "that interviews with witnesses were carried out in four days in May 1990. Conciliation contacts with the parties and other individuals occurred over a period of about fifteen days in the months of February, March, April, May, June and July 1991.
"The salary scale of a Human Rights Officer in 1990 and 1991 was from $807.53 to $966.77 per week (1990) and from $854.37 to $1022.84 per week (1991)," he wrote in his letter of December 30.
These expenses were not included in the previously provided figures.
Unfortunately, the disbursement expenses provided in Palacio's Dec 30 letter were not itemized, despite a previous commitment to do so. Also, there was a discrepancy in information regarding the $6272.05 legal expenses, which we were initially informed included expenses for the Divisional Court appeal, but were now being told was only for the Board of Inquiry hearings.
After requesting further clarification, Palacio finally informed us on January 23 that the legal fees were now adjusted to $5500 and applied only to the Board of Inquiry, and that the correct disbursements figure was $13,885.34.
"It should be noted that these calculations do not include any preparatory time, which was considerable," he added.
In concluding his letter, Montag requested that legal fees for the Divisional Court appeal be provided.
"You have indicated that the amount appears unrealistic given the number of days of hearings before the Board of Inquiry and the Divisional Court appeal," responded Palacio on February 24. "I am advised that this amount, in fact, includes counsel's fee for the Divisional Court appeal. Ms. Geri Sanson was previously employed with the Legal Services Branch of the Commission at the time she handled the Board of Inquiry hearings. She subsequently left the Commission to set up a private practice and was retained as external counsel for the rest of the proceedings."
How the employment status of Commission's counsel possibly bears upon the total amount paid for legal fees is a matter that has been left unexplained by the Commission. But the inclusion of the Divisional Court appeal represents a complete reversal of the Commission's previous correspondence, which itself was a reversal of earlier information provided.
Palacio's explanation now implies two things: (1) that we were never provided with the Commission's legal fees in the first place, and, (2) that the legal expenses provided apply exclusively to the Divisional Court appeal (which would appear to make sense for a two-day hearing).
"Your responses appear evasive, misleading, incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory, inconsistent, and are, to all intents and purposes, worthless as a response to our original Freedom of Information request," wrote Montag in a March 13/97 letter to Palacio. "It may be best if we put aside all previous correspondence, and again ask you to comply with our original Access to Information request, with particular emphasis on accuracy, completeness, and integrity."
Needless to say, at this point we have been left totally confused as to what to believe, and are no further ahead than when our Freedom Of Information request was initially filed. Watch for our follow-up on this situation in the next issue of Freedom Flyer.
Background information on this issue, including copies of original correspondence, are available to Fp members and supporters on request. Contact us!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
