An Alberta judge has quashed a decision by the Public Interest Commissioner that said a former superintendent created a “culture of fear” while she was the head of Sturgeon Public Schools.
Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice John S. Little issued a ruling June 21 that quashed a December 2022 decision by the Alberta Public Interest Commissioner involving a whistleblower complaint against Mary Lynne Campbell, who was superintendent of Sturgeon Public from 2018 to June 2022.
The commissioner is an independent office of the provincial legislature that investigates allegations of wrongdoing in the public service under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
As reported in the Gazette, the commissioner received an allegation on May 17, 2021 that Campbell had “grossly mismanaged” employees at Sturgeon Public.
After investigating, the commissioner found Campbell “engaged in conduct that she knew or ought to have reasonably known was objectionable, unwelcome, and humiliating or would otherwise intimidate employees of the Division,” resulting in “a culture of fear” during her tenure as superintendent. The commissioner ruled she had “committed a wrongdoing by grossly mismanaging employees” of the school district.
Procedurally unfair, says judge
Campbell challenged this ruling on the grounds of procedural unfairness (amongst other grounds), arguing that she could not provide a full response to the allegations against her without knowing the identity of the witnesses. At the time of their decision, the commissioner argued that they should withhold those names as witness anonymity was a core requirement of whistleblowing.
Little found that the Whistleblower Act did not actually prohibit the release of the name of complainants, and that the witnesses here were not at risk of retaliation from Campbell, as she was no longer their employer.
He also ruled that releasing the names could have helped the commissioner evaluate witness credibility. He noted that Campbell learned the names of some of the complainants and witnesses in the investigation earlier this year through another court challenge, and had told the court that two of the complainants had competed against her for the position of Sturgeon Public superintendent.
Little found that the commissioner’s ruling caused “inestimable” reputational harm to Campbell (as it had been sent to the Sturgeon Public board who in turn sent it to all Sturgeon Public staff). He also found that Campbell’s defence may have been hindered because she was in hospital for part of the investigation, which could have kept her from accessing certain documents.
“I find that withholding the names of all of the witnesses was procedurally unfair insofar as Ms. Campbell was thereby denied the ability to fully respond to the numerous incidents alleged,” Little wrote.
As the commissioner’s actions denied Campbell the procedural fairness she deserved, Little ordered the commissioner’s decision quashed.
While the commissioner called for a fresh investigation, arguing that not doing one would discourage future whistleblowers and effectively state that no wrongdoing had happened here, Little saw no merit in doing so, saying that most witnesses would wonder why they were being asked to take part in a second investigation when the first one had achieved their goals.
Campbell’s lawyer, Simon Renouf, said in a letter that Campbell was grateful for the careful review done by the court and the fact that the commissioner’s “deeply flawed” report had been quashed.
“Ms. Campbell repeatedly raised significant concerns about the flawed process used by the Public Interest Commissioner to no avail. Ms. Campbell is heartened that these concerns were vindicated by the court.”
