CITATION: DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

[16] The Integrity Commissioner summarized the breaches of the Code of Conduct alleged in the complaint as follows: (a) The refusal of Ramsay to accept and respect the decisions of the Chair and the WRDSB; (b) Accusations by Ramsay of unlawful conduct by fellow trustees; and (c) Disclosure of confidential information by Ramsay. [...] [22] The Integrity Commissioner noted that Ramsay acknowledged that the basic facts forming the foundation of the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred and are reflected in the recordings of the meetings and in his tweets and emails. [...] [34] With respect to his concern with the use of in camera proceedings, Ramsay submits that a key factor in determining the scope of the content of the duty of fairness is the nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates. [...] When viewed against the backdrop of the sequence of events giving rise to the complaint, the contents of the report of the Integrity Commissioner, and Ramsay’s own acknowledgment of his conduct, the issue before the WRDSB was clear. [...] [62] In the circumstances, and given the result on the main aspect of the application, I see no compelling reason to disturb the decision of the WRDSB to maintain confidentiality of those portions of the report of the Integrity Commissioner or those parts of the record of its in camera proceedings that, in its discretion, have been redacted.