Ombudsman says Niagara Region's seizure of reporter's laptop was 'unjust, and wrong'

Ontario's ombudsman is calling on officials in the Niagara Region to publicly apologize to a reporter and blogger for seizing their equipment, describing staff'sactions as "unreasonable, unjust, and wrong."

Press Pause, a report issued by PaulDubWednesday, says staff's decision to seizethe newspaper reporter's laptop after a meeting on Dec. 7, 2017 was closed to the public violated his Charter rights and was done"unreasonably and without legal justification."

"Freedom of the press is at stake," the ombudsman said during an interview with CBC News."Everybody's rights and interests are affected if freedom of the press and Charter rights are compromised."

• Newspaper reporter kicked out of Niagara Region council meeting, laptop seized

During the meeting, a citizen blogger left his digital recording running and in the council chambers after the meeting went in camera.

Councillorsfound the recorder, confiscated it and ejected him from the meeting.

Bill Sawchuk, a veteran reporter from the St. CatharinesStandard, also left his belongings in the chamber when the meeting was closed to the public.

Staff suspected Sawchuk's laptop was on and recording and took his laptop and notebook and forced the journalist and theblogger to leave regional headquarters with police nearby. It wouldn't return the materialsuntil the Standard's lawyer called.

The ombudsman also says the blogger deserves an apology from council for itsrush to "judgment and failing to follow a fair and reasonable process."

Apology not good enough

The region has already apologized for inconveniencing Sawchuk, and said it would review its policies and protocols to make sure it didn't happen again.

In a statement published Wednesday, the municipality says it plans to "thoroughly review" the report.

"The corporation welcomes the input of the Ombudsman and is pleased to have already implemented many of the proposed recommendations," it adds.

But Dubsays both the region's apology and its policy changes still fall short.

"It hasn't gone far enough and what they've done does not respond to our recommendations. There are still things we think they need to do."

14 recommendations

Dub's reportalso foundthe meeting was "illegal" under the open rules of the Municipal Act because the doors were locked while it was still ongoing and becausethe region didn't pass a resolution explainingto the public why the doors were being closed.

He recommended14 procedural changes aimed at ensuring more fairness, accountability and "proper consideration of the law" for regional staff to consider in the future.

"The region had no policies or procedures in place to address improper conduct during a council meeting, trespass, seizure of personal property, or protecting confidential information during closed meetings," Dubnoted.

Among those recommendations are the following:

• That council clarify its procedural bylaw, trespass policy and other related policies when it comes to "improper conduct" and circumstances that might warrant a seizure of property.
• Council should updateand clarifyits procedural bylaw to reflect changes to the Municipal Act.
• The region should developprocedures to ensure public access doors are not locked while meetings are taking place.
• That theregion makeaudio and video recordings of all closed meetings.
• That council reportsback to the Ombudsman's office every six months on the region's progress in implementing his recommendations.

"The councillors didn'tknow what to do, the staff didn'tknow what to do and the security guard didn't need to do," explainedDub, who said his recommendations are meant to provide the region with a clear playbook for similar situations in the future.

The ombudsman report comes after his office received 11 complaints after the incident and began an investigation on Dec. 14, 2017.

His team conducted 52 interviews with regional staff, council members and other witnesses and reviewed video and the audio recorded by the citizen blogger.

The ombudsman noted that although officials did cooperate with his investigation the "adversarial approach" of its external lawyer made things more difficult and that council did not hold a meeting to discuss his report as it is entitled to do.

"As a result of this omission, I cannot report on whether or not the region intends to implement the improvements I am recommending," saidDub.