How Much Did the HOWEA Strike Cost? Council knows the cost. Taxpayers don’t.

Five months after an eight-week labour disruption involving the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA), Hamilton taxpayers still do not know how much the strike cost them.

What is now undisputed is that a detailed cost report exists. City officials confirm it was presented in camera to General Issues Committee on December 3, 2025. What remains unexplained is why even high-level, aggregate cost figures have not been disclosed long after the strike ended.

In correspondence circulated to councillors and media, City Manager Marnie Cluckie stated that the report is confidential under labour-relations provisions of the Municipal Act. She further emphasized that, under Ontario’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), Freedom of Information decisions are handled exclusively by the City Clerk’s Office, not by senior administration.

That explanation is structurally correct. MFIPPA intentionally separates FOI decision-making from political and administrative leadership. But in practice, the result is a familiar problem at City Hall: no one is prepared to explain why the public cannot be told how much an eight-week strike ultimately cost.

For the union, that answer is unacceptable. HOWEA Business Manager Greg Hoath responded sharply, alleging a broken commitment and confirming the matter has been referred to legal counsel. The union has been seeking disclosure of both direct and indirect costs for months.

The dispute raises a broader question that extends beyond Hamilton: what do other Ontario municipalities do once a strike is over?

Across the province, municipalities routinely protect labour-relations strategy through in-camera meetings while negotiations are active. That practice is standard. What happens afterward is where Hamilton increasingly stands apart.

In Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, and Mississauga, municipalities have historically disclosed post-strike financial impacts — including aggregate costs or net savings — through public committee reports, budget documents, or year-end variance reporting. Negotiation strategy remains confidential, but taxpayers are told what the disruption ultimately cost.

Hamilton has chosen a more restrictive path. Because the cost information was discussed in camera under a labour-relations rationale, the City’s position is that no cost information can be disclosed at all — even months after the strike concluded, and even in aggregate form.

That interpretation may ultimately be tested through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Ontario IPC guidance, however, is clear that labour-relations exemptions are not blanket shields. Records must be assessed individually, and severable information should be disclosed where possible. The issue is not whether bargaining strategy can remain confidential, but whether total silence on financial impact is justified once negotiations are over.

The governance optics are further complicated by institutional deflection. Senior administration points to the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk’s Office applies statutory tests. Council discussed the matter in camera. The public is left without an answer to a basic accountability question: how much did this cost?

This is not about reopening negotiations or exposing labour strategy. The strike is over. Employees are back at work. The issue is public accounting.

Elsewhere in Ontario, post-strike transparency is routine. In Hamilton, it remains elusive.

For now, residents know only this: council has seen the numbers, a report exists, and taxpayers have paid the bill. What they are not allowed to know is how large that bill was.

In the past, when taxpayers were left out of the picture or deceived (remember the Red Hill and the Sewage Spillage messes?), there was a price to pay at the polls with some Councillors not being re-elected. 

Elections are not too far off.....