Transparency Denied: Union Appeals City’s Refusal to Disclose Water Strike Costs

For months, questions surrounding the true financial impact of Hamilton’s water workers strike have lingered without meaningful public answers. Now, the matter is escalating further.

The Hamiltonian has learned that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 (IUOE) has formally appealed the City of Hamilton’s refusal to disclose records related to strike costs to Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC).

In an update provided to The Hamiltonian this week, IUOE Business Manager Greg Hoath confirmed:

“The union counsel has sent our formal appeal to the IPC in early May.”

The statement marks the latest development in an ongoing dispute over public transparency and accountability tied to one of Hamilton’s most significant labour disruptions in recent years.

Earlier correspondence reviewed by The Hamiltonian showed the union had received an access decision from the City under FOI #26-052. Following that decision, the union indicated it intended to challenge the refusal through the IPC process.

At issue is a straightforward but important public-interest question: how much did the strike actually cost Hamilton taxpayers?

Despite repeated public discussion about operational pressures, emergency measures, management responses, and broader impacts during the strike, the City has thus far resisted disclosing the underlying financial details being sought through the freedom-of-information process.

That refusal raises legitimate concerns.

Municipal governments frequently speak about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Yet those principles become most important precisely when the information requested may be politically uncomfortable or financially sensitive.

Taxpayers fund municipal operations. Taxpayers absorb the consequences of labour disputes. Taxpayers therefore have a reasonable expectation to understand the financial implications of major municipal events — particularly one involving essential infrastructure and public services. The city's ongoing denial will not play well in an election year where taxpayers want to know how their money is spent. 

The issue extends beyond labour relations.

This is fundamentally about whether the public can meaningfully evaluate decisions made by municipal leadership during a major civic disruption. Without disclosure, residents are left to speculate about:
• overtime expenditures,
• contingency staffing costs,
• external contractor expenses,
• operational impacts,
• legal costs,
• and the broader fiscal consequences associated with the strike response.

When governments withhold this type of information, public confidence can erode quickly. The Red Hill Expressway issue and "Sewagegate" serve as stark reminders of how denying information to Hamilton residents, can have a disastrous impact at the polls.  

Freedom-of-information legislation exists specifically to prevent governments from becoming the sole gatekeepers of politically consequential information. While there are legitimate exemptions under Ontario’s access laws, blanket resistance to disclosure involving taxpayer expenditures inevitably invites scrutiny.

The City may ultimately argue that portions of the requested records fall within statutory exemptions. However, the IPC appeal process will now test whether those exemptions were applied appropriately — or too broadly.

Importantly, this matter is no longer merely a political disagreement or media inquiry. It has now entered a formal oversight process before Ontario’s independent privacy and access watchdog.

That development matters. The outcome could establish an important precedent regarding how far municipalities can go in shielding labour-dispute-related financial information from public view.

For Hamilton residents, the broader principle remains clear: transparency should not depend on whether disclosure is convenient; something you may wish to consider when determining who you will cast your vote for. 

Public trust is strengthened when governments provide information willingly — not only when compelled through appeals and oversight mechanisms.

The Hamiltonian will continue following the IPC appeal process and any future rulings or disclosures connected to FOI #26-052.