Further to a closed thread on this collapse...
From an earlier Toronto Globe and Mail article, "The inquiry, which is expected to begin hearings in March, also ordered the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to produce documents related to complaints about some engineers.
The association balked, saying it had to respect its own confidentiality requirements.
At a hearing in December, it changed its position to say the commission should notify any affected individuals to allow them to make submissions before documents were disclosed.
Mr. Belanger rejected that argument, saying it was impractical and the association had “made no effort” to show a secrecy order was really needed.
He also said two engineers, Greg Saunders and Robert Wood, could object to the introduction of any particular piece of evidence.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Saunders were employed by the engineering firm M.R. Wright and Associates that inspected the mall before it collapsed.
The commissioner gave a strong nod to ruling in favour of openness in cases where “conflict arises between the expectation of privacy or confidentiality and the open-court principle.”
Case law, he said, has now “unquestionably and conclusively established” that transparency prevails except for exceptional cases where someone can show that would be harmful.
“The applicants have failed to discharge that onus,” he said."
Dik
From an earlier Toronto Globe and Mail article, "The inquiry, which is expected to begin hearings in March, also ordered the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario to produce documents related to complaints about some engineers.
The association balked, saying it had to respect its own confidentiality requirements.
At a hearing in December, it changed its position to say the commission should notify any affected individuals to allow them to make submissions before documents were disclosed.
Mr. Belanger rejected that argument, saying it was impractical and the association had “made no effort” to show a secrecy order was really needed.
He also said two engineers, Greg Saunders and Robert Wood, could object to the introduction of any particular piece of evidence.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Saunders were employed by the engineering firm M.R. Wright and Associates that inspected the mall before it collapsed.
The commissioner gave a strong nod to ruling in favour of openness in cases where “conflict arises between the expectation of privacy or confidentiality and the open-court principle.”
Case law, he said, has now “unquestionably and conclusively established” that transparency prevails except for exceptional cases where someone can show that would be harmful.
“The applicants have failed to discharge that onus,” he said."
Dik
