Advertisement 1

U of R loses bid to have freedom of information case heard in closed courtroom

"I'm really interested in trying to comprehend what they think could justify research being done on the public dime in secret at a public institution."

Article content

A Regina judge has ordered a freedom of information case involving the University of Regina and one of its professors will be heard in open court, despite the university’s application for it to take place behind closed doors.

“I’m very pleased with the decision,” said Emily Eaton, a U of R professor in the department of geography and environmental studies, in an interview Tuesday. “Specifically, that the court affirmed the open court principle as … foundational to our democracy.”

Advertisement 2
Story continues below
Article content

The decision comes some five months after Eaton appealed to Court of Queen’s Bench when her freedom of information request was partially denied by the university, despite a recommendation from Saskatchewan’s information and privacy commissioner to release the information.

Article content

As part of a larger research project spanning Western Canada, Eaton is looking into how research done at institutions like the U of R is influenced by fossil-fuel interests.

She filed a freedom of information request to the U of R in November 2017, asking for information related to external research funding (public and private) for fossil fuel research projects. Her request included the dollar amount of the funding, the funding agency/company awarding the money, the title of the research project and the faculty, and department or school that received the funding for each project.

The U of R agreed to give her the title of the project and the funding amount, but not the funding agency or the faculty receiving the funding. The university has maintained it is entitled to refuse access to all details of academic research under a section of Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LAFOIP).

Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
Article content

After Eaton filed her appeal, the university applied to have the arguments from both sides kept confidential, heard in a courtroom closed to the public.

According to the decision, the university argued that in order for them to make the case that LAFOIP exempts them from providing the two additional pieces of information — the funding agency and the faculty receiving the funding — they would need to share that information in court, so felt it should be done in private.

Justice Meghan McCreary disagreed.

“Because the parties know the general categories of information that are in dispute, they can argue effectively in open court about whether the known category of information should be kept private without referencing the specific information at issue,” read the recent decision.

However, McCreary did order that the filed information at issue will be sealed and reviewed by the court in camera —  where public and press are not allowed — if such a review is necessary. Both parties agreed on that point.

“The university was applying to make their arguments confidentially submitted and decided on behind closed doors, so I wouldn’t even get to hear what their arguments were,” said Eaton. “But the court sort of affirmed that the university can’t make a policy argument about a blanket exemption, which it was doing in its denial of my freedom of information request, and then expect not to have to defend that argument in an open court.”

Advertisement 4
Story continues below
Article content

After successfully fighting against the university’s application, Eaton hopes to have a court date for her appeal set for either July or August, but timing will depend on the availability of the judge and the lawyers on both sides.

“I’m really interested in trying to comprehend what they think could justify research being done on the public dime in secret at a public institution,” said Eaton. “The idea … seems to run counter to the values we have regarding public institutions.”

The University of Regina responded to a request for comment with a statement delivered by Paul Dederick, associate director of communications and public relations for the U of R.

“We appreciate the consideration given to our application and we respect the decision made by Justice McCreary,” said Dederick. “We look forward to presenting our position on this matter in open court when the hearing is scheduled.”

jackerman@postmedia.com

Article content
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

Latest National Stories
    This Week in Flyers