It is an approach that is outdated and ineffective. Worse, it tends to backfire. Rather than defusing scrutiny, it raises suspicion and erodes trust. Most troubling of all, it signals a disregard and a sense of disrespect for the audience—particularly when that audience consists of taxpayers.
That context matters here.
After months of repeated requests by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 and The Hamiltonian seeking basic financial transparency around the City of Hamilton’s handling of the water workers’ strike, City Manager Marnie Cluckie chose to respond on December 23, 2025—on the eve of Christmas.
One can, of course, believe this timing was purely coincidental. But doing so requires ignoring the more plausible explanation: that the response was delivered at a moment calculated to minimize public scrutiny.
The Hamiltonian has never suggested that managing a strike is inexpensive. Labour disruptions are complex, contentious, and often costly. That reality, however, strengthens the case for transparency rather than weakening it. When public funds are expended—particularly over a prolonged dispute—Hamiltonians are entitled to know how much was spent and why.
What remains perplexing is not the existence of costs, but the City’s persistent reluctance to disclose them.
In our correspondence with the City, we asked a straightforward and reasonable question: what is the total cost incurred by the City of Hamilton as a result of the water workers’ strike, including both hard and soft costs?
We sought a comprehensive figure encompassing, but not limited to, expenditures related to external contractors, consultants, security, overtime, and any services required to ensure access to water facilities during the disruption. We made clear that this request had been posed previously without response, and we emphasized that Hamiltonians—as the ultimate stakeholders—are entitled to transparency on the use of their tax dollars.
On December 23, the City Manager advised that a report on the matter had been presented and discussed in camera at the General Issues Committee on December 3, 2025, and that the information contained in that report was confidential under the labour relations exemption of Ontario’s Municipal Act. Accordingly, staff would provide no information regarding the costs of the labour disruption.
Mr. Hoath of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 has indicated the matter is now being referred to legal counsel.
The Hamiltonian offers the following observations.
The City’s position appears to be weakly defensible at best and vulnerable to challenge.
The City is relying on the closed-meeting labour relations exemption under section 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act, 2001. It is true that municipalities are permitted to discuss certain labour relations matters in camera. That principle is well established.
Where the response falters is in the leap from “this was discussed in camera” to “no cost information can be released at all.”
Ontario law does not support that absolutist position.
Courts and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario have repeatedly held that aggregate financial information—total expenditures and high-level cost breakdowns related to strikes or labour disruptions—is not automatically protected by labour relations confidentiality. Once a labour disruption has concluded, the justification for secrecy diminishes significantly, provided disclosure does not reveal bargaining strategy, negotiating positions, or identifiable employee information.
Equally important, the mere fact that a report was discussed in camera does not permanently cloak all of its contents in secrecy. Municipalities are expected to sever and disclose non-exempt portions of records. This commonly includes total dollar figures and general categories of spending such as consultants, contractors, overtime, or security costs.
Here, the City has chosen the most extreme option available: a blanket refusal to disclose anything at all.
A more defensible and responsible response would have cited the specific statutory provision relied upon, acknowledged the public interest in transparency, explained which details remain confidential and why, and offered either partial disclosure or a clear commitment to release aggregate figures once finalized.
Instead, the City asserted that Hamiltonians are entitled to nothing.
As framed, that position invites challenge—through access-to-information appeals, possible orders from the IPC compelling partial disclosure, and justified public criticism for treating confidentiality as a shield rather than a limited exception.
At first glance, the response may appear technically defensible. Under scrutiny, it is neither robust nor proportionate, and it is misaligned with Ontario’s transparency standards.
A blanket refusal to disclose strike-related costs is unlikely to withstand serious examination.
The City of Hamilton and its Mayor can form as many task forces as they would like in the name of being more transparent, but until the city actually practices what it preaches, transparency is reduced to a meaningless slogan.
