Ticket scandal punishment private: city

Greater Sudbury has denied a formal request from Northern Life to reveal details of discipline handed out as a result of the ticket scandal at Sudbury Transit.

The request, made under the terms of Ontario's freedom of information (FOI) legislation, sought access to all internal correspondence related to disciplinary action taken in connection with the scandal. Northern Life is appealing the decision.

First revealed in 2011 by Auditor General Brian Bigger, the city is still owed about $500,000, although the amount exceeded $1 million at one point. After a lengthy investigation, the Ontario Provincial Police decided this spring not to press charges, largely because the city decided to extend credit to the company involved, meaning it was no longer a matter of fraud.

Bigger's investigation revealed that, among other issues, transit management continued to renew contracts with 1211250 Ontario Inc., which operated the transit kiosk, the transit café and the airport café, despite the fact its debt with the city continued to grow.

The city renewed its contract with the company June 1, 2004, when it owed $262,206. That contract ended Jan. 31, 2006, when the company owed the city $340,845.

The city then entered into a year-to-year contract with the company for three years.

The company owed $333,962, $504,252 and $824,025 respectively between 2007 and 2009. The contract was terminated Sept. 4, 2009, with the company still owing the city $866,537.

At its peak, the city was owed more than $1 million.

In its decision not to reveal who and how staff were disciplined, the city cited Section 52, Subsection 3, of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That section exempts certain information from the Act if it's the subject of a legal proceeding, part of labour negotiations or “meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest.”

And if that section didn't apply, the city maintains Section 14 of the Act would.

That section prohibits the release of personal information of employees in most circumstances, although it includes an exception when “a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.”

However, the province's privacy commissioner has said there is nothing in the privacy legislation that prevents the city from saying publicly what disciplinary action has been taken in connection with the scandal.

In an an email message in May, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, said the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply to information about employment related matters, “which would include disciplinary measures that have been taken against individual employees.

“As a result, the privacy provisions in MFIPPA do not prevent the city from disclosing this information,” Cavoukian wrote in the email. “However, there may be privacy or confidentiality provisions, in employment agreements, that would restrict disclosure of this type of information.”

Bigger's investigation also revealed that between 2004 and 2009, 70 per cent of the kiosk management fees were paid personally to the director of the company, Tony Sharma, who was paid $533,506.

Where there was space to indicate the name of the person to whom the cheque should be made payable, the name Zio's Cafe (owned and operated by Sharma) was crossed out and in handwriting it was indicated the cheque should be made payable to Sharma personally.

The cheques were even deposited directly into Sharma's personal bank account, rather than an account for the company. Northern Life has also filed FOI requests for copies of the cheques in which Sharma's name was written in place of Zio's Cafe. To date, the city has not responded to that request.