Ontario’s privacy commissioner has sided with Ontario Tech University “anti-hate” researcher Dr. Barbara Perry in keeping her 300 active Canadian “far-right” hate groups list secret.
Perry’s work, which identifies hundreds of so-called far-right groups, has gained significant attention in mainstream media and has been cited while crafting legislation. This research has benefited from the patronage of the Liberal government, including a $396,385 grant from Public Safety Canada. Perry is also the Director of OTU’s Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism.
However, despite her initial promises to make the list public, Perry has so far failed to disclose even a single group on the list.
In 2022, True North filed a freedom of information request to obtain Perry’s research, including the methodology she used to designate groups as far-right and the names of the groups involved.
OTU denied the request, and after failed mediation efforts through the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, the matter was escalated for adjudication.
On Sept. 26, IPC adjudicator Justine Wai delivered a ruling that effectively shields Perry’s research from public disclosure under Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ruling hinges on Section 65(8.1)(a), which excludes certain academic records related to research from the scope of the Act, with the intent of protecting academic freedom.
“The university has demonstrated that the records respect or are associated with research conducted by an employee of or person associated with an educational institution,” wrote Wai in the decision.
The records, which form the foundation of Perry’s inflammatory findings, are thus excluded from the Act’s access requirements.
During the proceedings, True North argued that Perry’s research findings which have been billed a “national crisis” have generated significant fear and concern among Canadians, without any clarification on which groups are involved or means to verify the accuracy of the claims.
“The appellant submits he and other journalists have been ‘continuously blocked from ascertaining such crucial information and, most importantly, the public is being kept in the dark about an issue [with] serious safety implications.’ The appellant submits the public is entitled to the ‘undistorted names/number-scan’ information regarding the faculty member’s conclusion,” the ruling reads.
The appeal also suggested that the failure to release the research undermines ethical principles OTU is required to abide by, in particular the principles of transparency and accountability.
“The university cannot enjoy widespread media attention, affect the formation of public policy, and instill fear among the public while violating principles of transparency, accountability, and public health and safety,” the appeal said.
Adjudicator Wai also dismissed any claims that the research was politically motivated despite receiving substantial government funding for Perry’s work.
“The appellant submits the faculty member’s work is a ‘political project that is spreading alarmist disinformation within communities across the country,’” said the ruling.
However, Wai maintained that the adjudication was focused on the narrow legal question of whether the research exclusion applied, rather than the validity or accuracy of Perry’s work.
“I cannot review the quality or veracity of the faculty member’s findings, research, or methodology,” Wai explained, concluding that any concerns about Perry’s findings were beyond the scope of the privacy commissioner’s office.
“I acknowledge the appellant’s strong disagreement with the faculty member’s findings and dispute the validity of her research. However, the appellant’s disagreement with the faculty member’s findings and methodology are not relevant to my analysis and finding that the records responsive to his request have some connection to the research conducted or proposed by the faculty member. I cannot review the quality or veracity of the faculty member’s findings, research or methodology.”
PO-4555 Ontario Privacy Commissioner ruling Cosmin Dzsurdzsa v. Ontario Tech University by Cosmin Dzsurdzsa on Scribd
