Ontario Ombudsman

The Ontario Ombudsman is an independent officer of the provincial legislature in Ontario, Canada. In the tradition of the classical parliamentary Ombudsman first established in Sweden in 1809, Ontario's Ombudsman oversees and investigates public complaints about the government of Ontario, including more than 500 provincial government ministries, agencies, corporations, tribunals, boards and commissions. Ontario has had an ombudsman since 1975. All Canadian provinces except Prince Edward Island have an ombudsman (known as Protecteur/protectrice du citoyen in Quebec and Citizens' Representative in Newfoundland and Labrador).

The Ontario Ombudsman's motto is "Ontario's Watchdog."

History

Ontario was the seventh province to establish an Ombudsman's office, which it did in March 1975, preceded by Alberta and New Brunswick (1967), Quebec (1968), Manitoba and Nova Scotia (1970) and Saskatchewan (1972). The first Ombudsman of Ontario was Arthur Maloney, who served from 1975 to 1979. He was succeeded by Donald Morand (1979-1984), Daniel Hill (1984-1989), Roberta Jamieson (1989-1999), Clare Lewis (2000-2005) and André Marin (2005–present).

Role and function

The Ombudsman is independent of government and political parties. His (or her - the term "Ombudsman" originates from Swedish and is considered to be gender-neutral) job is to hold government accountable by reviewing and investigating public complaints about the administration of government services. He may also launch investigations of his own accord or on his own motion. The Ombudsman is appointed for a five-year renewable term by an all-party committee named by the legislature.

The Ombudsman's powers and authorities are set out in the Ombudsman Act. They include the power to enter any government premises to gather evidence, and the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. He may investigate and report his findings publicly if he finds that a "decision, recommendation, act or omission" of a body he oversees was contrary to law. The Act requires individuals as well as government officials and employees to co-operate with the Ombudsman's investigations.

The Ombudsman reports annually to the Legislature and may also issue special reports. His recommendations are not binding.

In 2013-2014 the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman's budget was $11.24 million and it employed approximately 85 staff. In that year, the office handled 26,999 cases, the majority of which were resolved within three weeks.

In addition to annual and special reports, the Ombudsman publishes a regular electronic newsletter.

Current Ombudsman and mandate

André Marin was appointed as Ontario's sixth Ombudsman in April 2005. He reorganized the office in an effort to make it more efficient and reallocated resources to handle broad systemic issues affecting large numbers of people, as well as individual complaints. The "Special Ombudsman Response Team" (SORT) was created to handle these large field investigations, using a dedicated team of experienced investigators. This has resulted in reforms to, among other things, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, compensation of crime victims, support payments for the disabled, the screening of newborn babies for preventable disorders, legal aid and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. These investigations are detailed in the Ombudsman's special reports.

In December 2014, the provincial legislature passed a law giving the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman oversight of municipalities, universities, and school boards (Bill 8, Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014). The law passed royal assent but no date was given for the enforcement of this oversight. Marin noted in a press release that the expansion "will double the agencies his office oversees by adding some 548 bodies (443 municipalities, 22 universities, 83 school boards) to the 500-plus provincial ministries, agencies, boards, corporations, commissions and tribunals already within his mandate."

Prior to that, the Ombudsman's jurisdiction had been expanded, in January 2008 to include the new responsibility for enforcement of the Ontario Municipal Act's requirements that all municipal councils, committees and most local boards keep their meetings open to the public. The Act designates the Ombudsman as the investigator of public complaints about closed meetings in all municipalities that have not appointed their own investigator. To further understanding of these new requirements, Marin published The Sunshine Law Handbook: Open Municipal Meetings in Ontario, a guide to the new legal provisions. (Updated editions were published in 2009 and 2015.)

Marin's five-year term as ombudsman expired March 31, 2010. Marin applied for a second term and was reappointed as the Ombudsman of Ontario on June 1, 2010 for another 5-year term. In February 2015, the provincial government announced it would require that all Officers of the Legislature undergo an open competition to fill the roles. Marin stated publicly that he would reapply for the Ombudsman job. Members of the NDP questioned if the government had an "ulterior motive" for instating the new process; the Toronto Star reported, "[Liberal House Leader Yasir] Naqvi said there is no agenda against Marin this time, which was not the case in 2010 when then-premier Dalton McGuinty had to step in by saying smears were getting “a little out of hand.”

In November 2011, the Ontario Ombudsman launched a mobile version of the office's website, letting users file an online complaint from their mobile device, search the full site and read Ombudsman Ontario news and reports.

Controversies under Marin's mandate

The current Ombudsman, Andre Marin, has been the subject of a number of public controversies during his tenure. These have ranged from his high-profile investigations to his management style, his office expenses and use of Twitter. In 2010, Toronto Star (the Star) reporters David Bruser and Moira Welsh investigated human rights and labour complaints by Ombudsman staff under Marin’s tenure and his awarding of contracts to law professor and now Ontario Court Justice, David Paciocco.

Human rights and labour complaints

In late May 2010, the Toronto Star published a series of articles based on interviews with several unnamed sources identified as past and present Ombudsman employees - as well as three who gave their names - who alleged that Marin instituted a “culture of fear” in the workplace upon taking over as Ontario Ombudsman. It also reported some employees had filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal(OHRT). Employees alleged systematic bullying, harassment and in some cases, racism. Some also alleged there were bizarre rules prohibiting them from using the hallway in front of Marin's office, speaking to Marin unless spoken to first, and displaying personal photos in their workspaces. Other allegations concerned sexism and ageism. All of these allegations were denied by Marin, as well as a current employee interviewed by the Star, and NDP MPP Peter Kormos, who visited the Ombudsman's office the day the story was published and told media he saw diverse employees and many personal photos on display.

By 2010, the Ombudsman’s office, a fairness office that reports directly to the Ontario Legislature, had five simultaneous and active complaints against it filed by employees with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal(OHRT). Marin was named in one complaint, which was dismissed in August 2010. The tribunal has not made any findings against the Ombudsman's office.

The sources quoted by the Star estimated that at least 10 former employees have been “bought out” and “gagged” from speaking about their negative experiences and received payments from Marin’s office. The Star also reported that the employees' union retained a labour investigator, but noted neither she nor the union would comment on whether an investigation was conducted. On June 3, 2010, the Star reported that a report done after Marin left his post as Ombudsman for the Canadian Forces in 2005 found that he left a dysfunctional workplace in his wake, rife with complaints and 150 staff departures.

"Slave Auction" poster

In 2012, another OHRT complaint was filed by the former front desk receptionist, who is black and of Haitian/African-Canadian descent. She alleged racial discrimination and a methodical pattern of harassment and intimidation, culminating in two main events. She claimed that in 2010, a white manager, knowing she had concerns for family in Haiti following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, purposefully made hurtful and untrue comments intended to harass her based on her ethnic origin, by saying he was planning a cruise with a “pit stop in Haiti … but not where all that cholera stuff is going on.” The Tribunal dismissed this claim in November 2013, stating that a "mere statement that one is not going to the parts of Haiti where there is cholera raises no connection to a (Human Rights) Code ground."

The second allegation surrounded a poster that was e-mailed to all Ombudsman employees and also physically placed around the office, including the reception desk where the employee worked, about a "silent auction" charity event. It included a cartoon of a group of white men waiving paper money, accompanied by a poem that included the suggestion that staff could auction themselves as a “slave for a day” to raise money for charity. The poster was created by the employees’ social committee, which was entirely white and included a member of the Ombudsman's senior management team, senior legal counsel Wendy Ray, who has been personally named in a number of human rights and discrimination cases against the office. Following complaints from other black employees, the poster was revised and “slave for a day” was replaced with “gofer for a day.” The employee complained that despite this, a copy of the original offending poster was left on her desk, and that the author of the poem later escalated the situation by sending an email that said, in part: "why anyone would take offense is BEYOND ME and if you can’t see that, then you clearly have ISSUES (…) And if this email makes you even more mad and offended, TOO BAD!!!! At the OHRT, the ex-employee and author of the email claimed that it involved a completely unrelated dispute among social committee members. The complainant alleged these incidents were part of a continuing pattern of systemic discrimination she had been subjected to while employed at the Ontario Ombudsman. She also alleged that as result of her complaint, she was subjected to serious reprisals by management and eventually forced out of her job.

David Paciocco contracts

In June and July 2010, the Toronto Star published two articles reporting that that over his 12 years as the Ontario Ombudsman and Ombudsman for the Canadian Military, Marin awarded consulting contracts worth almost a quarter of a million dollars to Ottawa law professor David Paciocco. At the time, Marin’s salary was at $215,000. The articles cited federal documents showing $84,000 was paid to Paciocco between 2001 and 2005 and $141,000 after 2005. The Star described Paciocco as Marin's "good friend" (although Marin's office said they had no personal relationship) and cited unnamed sources alleging that Paciocco was hired to "spice up" Marin's reports (while Marin's office said he was hired for his legal expertise, for which tendering is not required). The Star quoted comments that Paciocco made about Marin in a speech at a public dinner the previous year:

I have known him since he was a boy’s head sticking out of a man’s suit. I have known and worked with André Marin for more some 20 years - which happens to be his entire professional career... I like to think that Andre fancied me as something of his mentor.

As a result of the Star article series, Marin and Paciocco made the first Ontario Press Council challenge to the “permissible limits of investigative journalism” in its 38-year history. They disputed many of the allegations from the Star's unnamed sources and argued that the articles were unbalanced. In its January 2011 decision, the Press Council upheld Paciocco's complaint and aspects of Marin's, requiring the Star to publish this fact on its website. The council noted that it was not in a position to determine whether or not the facts in the articles were correct, although it found no obvious factual errors in the stories. However, it stated that the articles gave "greater prominence to the allegations against Mr. Marin than to his denials," and that "the vague assertions by an anonymous source, the excerpts from a speech given by Mr. Paciocco and the results of the Star’s subsequent investigation into the fees paid to Mr. Paciocco do not justify the derogatory inferences that the two stories contain." The Council also stated:

...that while the articles, on balance, gave greater prominence to the allegations against Marin than to the denials, there were no obvious factual errors contained in the stories and that “no aspect of the complainant’s defense went unreported.

Ombudsman expenses controversy

In 2010, the Office's expenses came under public scrutiny after the Globe and Mail publicized some of the spending from the Ombudsman’s budget. The Globe revealed that in 2006, Marin billed taxpayers for his personal grooming products, including a $38 toothbrush, as well as martinis while travelling with an employee. Marin noted that he and his staff had just moved to new premises in Toronto and he was stocking up his office washroom.He also purchased a $2,000 flat screen TV for his Ottawa home, saying it was to watch Queen's Park’s Question Period whenever he was at home in Ottawa; he noted that the television belongs to the Ombudsman’s office and will be returned once he is no longer in the job. Marin works at home in Ottawa every other week, a deal that was part of his contract. Marin did not say how much time he spent in Ottawa versus Toronto. Marin argued he in fact saved taxpayers money by moving to Toronto--where the Ombudsman's office is located, presumably, rather than moving the Ombudsman's office to Ottawa, where Marin lived. Meanwhile, the Star reported that Marin’s Director of Corporate Services, who’s salary was $142,000 at the time, was made to pick-up Marin’s dry cleaning and monitor Marin’s maid when she cleaned his Toronto condo; Marin’s office said that the executive’s job included visiting Marin’s condo to watch over the property but did not include dry cleaning pickup.[21].

Twitter controversies

Marin has been widely criticized for his personal use of the official Ontario Ombudsman Twitter account. He has routinely used it to attack members of the public, name subjects of his investigations and comment on matters of which he has no jurisdiction. Western University political science professor Andrew Sancton said of Marin's use of Twitter: “I think that he doesn’t treat that account in a way that is appropriate for someone in his position. He attacks individuals … and he retweets things that are even more abusive of other people. I just don’t think it’s an appropriate way for a public official to behave.” As well as being “Ontario’s Watchdog,” defending Ontarians from potentially unchecked government, Marin is also known for his penchant for publicly and viciously attacking those with differing opinions or whom he sees as adversaries; and he is “willing to destroy other people's reputations so he can build his own.” What many see as bullying, Marin calls use of “moral suasion.

Durham police/"Joe Mayo"

On August 8, 2013, the Ombudsman’s Office announced an investigation into how the provincial government directs police to deal with de-escalating crisis situations, in the wake of the police shooting death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on a Toronto streetcar.

Before the 11 a.m. press conference, Marin was tweeted at multiple times by a Twitter user whose bio said “only goal in life: expose Andre Marin for the leach on society he is”. The user, @JoeyMayo12 (account since deleted), tweeted: “@Ont_Ombudsman is a carded member of Al Qaida” and “@Ont_Ombudsman YOU SIR ARE A COMPLETE DOUCHE BAG! Why don’t you stick your big french nose up your ass instead of business it doesnt belong”. Marin tweeted that the account was linked to the name and badge number of an officer with the Durham Regional Police Service, whom he identified publicly.

Marin responded by wrongly accusing a 12-year respected veteran of the Durham Region police force. First Marin publicly identified “Dennis Scott,” then later changed the name to Det.–Constable Scott Dennis of being "Joe Mayo." Marin used the official Ontario Ombudsman Twitter account to publicly accuse the Scott and to disclose his police force, badge number and his salary. Dennis’s personal information was widely reported in the media based on Marin’s information. Dennis, described as an “outstanding officer” by his superiors, began to receiving insulting and harassing emails from the public as a result of Marin’s mistake. Marin publicly boasted that his (Ontario Ombudsman) staff had identified the (wrong) name and badge number behind the account "within minutes." Marin’s office has no jurisdiction over police forces and Marin refused to explain how he was able to so quickly get the information on Denis that he did. Initially, Marin refused to apologize to the Dennis, publicly stating that he saw no need for an apology "at this time." Marin went on to complain that it was unfair that the Durham police were quick to ask him to apologize to Dennis but not for an apology for Marin: “What about an apology for being the victim of hate mail by one of his finest." Marin apologized after Dennis’ lawyer publicly stated they were considering legal action against Marin and the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. After his apology, Marin then entered into a public spat with Durham Police Chief Mike Ewels. despite Marin's mistaken investigation, he began to criticizing Ewels's leadership and investigative abilities:

I was never impressed by how the investigation was conducted... The investigators got their marching orders on this from their chief. It was all part of the old boys’ club. As a result, they low-balled the investigation right from the beginning. Police stations are not expected to be run like National Lampoon’s Animal House.

Marin’s attempts to discredit Chief Ewels drew heavy criticism from senior police officers in Ontario:

First and foremost, the ombudsman is a public official whose job it is to be objective and conduct objective, independent investigation of whatever matters he’s in charge with, acting on the evidence before him. [Ewles]

His behaviour is unacceptable, particularly coming from someone holding such a high position of public trust and authority. Mr. Marin, of all people, knows there is a process in filing complaints for investigation. If he had a concern, he should have followed that process. Instead, he publicly maligned an innocent person. [Dave McFadden, President of Police Association of Ontario]

On Marin’s claim that he was a victim of being “duped” by Joe Mayo” just like Dennis was, Dennis’ lawyer stated:

Only one person was ‘duped’ in this matter, and that would appear to be, by his own admission... [my] client was not duped. He was publicly exposed, unnecessarily, by the Ombudsman and held up to public contempt and attacks. The last few weeks have been “extremely difficult” for Dennis.

Durham police’s professional standards branch investigated and determined that another officer, Detective Jeff Caplan from the force’s major fraud unit, actually created the account, impersonating his colleague. Caplan pleaded guilty to charges of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and was demoted for nine months after a hearing in December 2013. He was also ordered to undergo training on workplace harassment. Caplan apologized to his colleague and Marin in September 2013. The Ombudsman met with him in person and accepted Caplan's apology. However, Marin expressed outraged that Caplan was not criminally charged and blamed Chief Ewels.

The lawyer for the wrongly accused said “Dennis’s life was turned upside down after he was erroneously identified as the source of a Twitter tirade against Marin.” Legal action had been threatened against Marin, upon which time Marn decided to suddenly apologize.

Sudbury city council

In December 2012, Marin attended a Sudbury city council meeting about whether to keep the Ontario Ombudsman as the city's oversight office or appoint someone of their own. Some councilors complained about “a lot of drama out of the Ombudsman's office" and “his sarcastic attitude”. Councillors reported that Marin acted aggressively, speaking over and pointing at them. Following Council's vote to replace him, Marin tweeted that he feared the decision was motivated by "retaliation."

Ontario Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk

In November 2014, the Ontario Legislature debated Bill 8, which would expand the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction into areas of financial review, currently overseen by various auditor-generals. The Auditor General of Ontario, Bonnie Lysyk, said at the legislature’s committee hearings that the bill would result in a duplication of services. She said the Ombudsman’s office has a complaints-based focus, while the financial operations of organizations and branches of government are more the domain of the auditor-general.

Marin characterized Lysyk and the Auditor-General of Ottawa, Ken Hughes' “attack” on the bill as “astoundingly inept” on Twitter. He then sent her a five-page letter accusing her of “blindsiding” him and warning that she was proposing a “perilous and massive step backward in terms of accountability and transparency for the citizens of Ontario.” He told her that, had she asked beforehand, he “would have been able to educate you about the legislative history of the Ombudsman Act, how ombudsmen balance individual and systemic investigations, and the context behind the Bill 8 amendments as they relate to my Office.”

Toronto Ombudsman, Fiona Crean

After testifying similar concerns about the duplication of services Bill 8 would create, Marin told the City of Toronto’s Ombudsman, Fiona Crean, via Twitter: “Your apocalyptic, doomsday scenarios are big on fantasy & light on reality” and referred to her as "Chicken Little". Marin denied that his words were an attack, rather characterizing them as “advocacy.”

University of Western professors, Andrew Sancton and Erika Simpson

In December, 2014, Marin blocked Western University political science professor Andrew Sancton from the official Ontario Ombudsman Twitter feed for three days after the professor tweeted criticism of Bill 8. The Bill gives the Ombudsman the authority to investigate “closed meetings” of city councillors in interests of transparency. Sancton disliked that the term “meeting” is not defined in legislation, but Marin, who is not an elected legislator, created his own unauthorized definition. He said he was "outraged" at being blocked. Marin also tweeted that Sancton belonged to “the Mad Men generation,” in reference to being from the 1960s.

Fellow Western political science professor and former university ombudsman, Erika Simpson, said Marin’s behaviour was in conflict with the office's duty to be an “independent, impartial and confidential mediator:” “public officials should not be able to block members of the public from reading their tweets. Marin’s electronic media postings, written under his authority as the ombudsman, should be open, transparent and subject to public scrutiny.” Marin noted that Sancton could still read his tweets on the Ombudsman's official website.

Marin said blocking people from Twitter is important “for dealing with the vicious anonymous trolls who spend their days attacking public figures and their followers (including mine) with vile, bigoted and bullying tweets.”

Hamilton City Integrity Commissioner, Earl Basse

In February 2015, Marin publicly criticized a report by Hamilton City Hall Integrity Commissioner Earl Basse, about a journalist pushed by a councillor at Hamilton City Hall. On Twitter, he said the report lacked "evidence analysis" and said he would use it as "a model of how not to write a report".

Reports and publications (since 2005)

The Sunshine Law Handbook: Third Edition, Open Municipal Meetings in Ontario, January 2015 [3]

Careless About Child Care - Investigation into how the Ministry of Education responds to complaints and concerns relating to unlicensed daycare providers, October 2014 [4]

2013-2014 Annual Report about Closed Municipal Meetings, January 2015 [5]

Annual Report 2013-2014, June 2014 [6]

Better Safe Than Sorry - Investigation into how the Ministry of Transportation administers the process for obtaining and assessing information about drivers who may have uncontrolled hypoglycemia, April 2014 [7]

2012-2013 Annual Report about Closed Municipal Meetings, December 2013 [8]

Annual Report 2012-2013, July 2013. [9]

The Code: Investigation into the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ response to allegations of excessive use of force against inmates., June 2013. [10]

2011-2012 Annual Report about Closed Municipal Meetings, October 2012. [11]

In the Line of Duty: Investigation into how the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services have addressed operational stress injuries affecting police officers, October 2012. [12]

Investigation into whether Council for the City of London held an improper closed meeting at Harmony Grand Buffet on February 21, 2012, August 2012 [13]

Investigation into Closed Meetings by the Town of Amherstburg Council on January 9 and February 13, 2012, July 2012 [14]

Annual Report 2011-2012, June 2012 [15]

Investigation into whether the City of London’s Committee of the Whole improperly discussed “Occupy London” in camera on November 7, 2011, March 2012 [16]

Investigation into whether the City of Hamilton’s NHL Proposal Sub-Committee held an improperly closed meeting, February 2012 [17]

Investigation into whether the Town of Amherstburg Council held multiple closed meetings in contravention of the Municipal Act, January 2012 [18]

Oversight Undermined: Investigation into the Ministry of the Attorney General's implementation of recommendations concerning reform of the Special Investigations Unit, December 2011. [19]

Annual Report 2010-2011, June 2011 [20]

Caught in the Act: Investigation into The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ conduct in relation to Ontario Regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act, December 2010 [21]

The LHIN Spin: Investigation into the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network's use of community engagement in its decision-making process", August 2010. [22]

Annual Report 2009-2010, June 2010 [23]

A Vast Injustice: Investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s decision-making concerning the funding of Avastin for colorectal cancer patients, September 2009. [24]

Too Cool For School Too: Investigation into Cambrian College’s administration of its Health Information Management Program and the oversight provided by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, August 2009. [25]

Too Cool For School: Investigation into the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities’ Oversight of Bestech Academy Inc. and Enforcement of the Private Career Colleges Act, July 2009 [26]

Annual Report 2008-2009, June 2009 [27]

Pirating Our Property: Investigation Into the City Oshawa's Failure to Co-operate, April 2009 [28]

The ABCs of Education and Training: Investigation into the City of Oshawa Development Services Committee Special Meeting of May 22, 2008, March 2009 [29]

Investigation into the Council of the Township of Baldwin's Closed Meeting of July 14, 2008, March 2009 [30]

Investigation into the Council of the Township of Nipissing's Special Meeting of April 25, 2008, February 2009 [31]

Municipal Government By Stealth: Investigation into the Council of the Township of Emo's Closed Meeting of April 8, 2008, January 2009 [32]

Oversight Unseen: Investigation into the Special Investigations Unit's operational effectiveness and credibility, September 2008 [33]

The Sunshine Law Handbook: Open Municipal Meetings in Ontario, September 2008 [34]

Annual Report 2007-2008, June 2008 [35]

Building Clarity: Investigation into how the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services represents its relationship with Tarion Warranty Corp. to the public, June 2008 [36]

Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me - Opening the Door on the Elton John Ticket Scandal: Investigation into City of Greater Sudbury Council closed meeting of February 20, 2008, April 2008 [37]

A Test of Wills: Investigation into Legal Aid Ontario's role in the funding of the legal defence of Richard Wills, February 2008 [38]

Enlightening Closed Council Sessions: Investigation into Fort Erie Town Council closed meeting of January 7, 2008, February 2008 [39]

Annual Report 2006-2007, June 2007 [40]

A Game of Trust: Investigation into the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's protection of the public from theft and fraud, March 2007 [41]

Adding Insult to Injury: Investigation into treatment of victims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, February 2007 [42]

It's All in the Name: Investigation into the Family Responsibility Office's ineffective enforcement using a writ of seizure and sale, August 2006 [43]

Annual Report 2005-2006, June 2006 [44]

Losing the Waiting Game: Investigation into unreasonable delay at the Ministry of Community and Social Services' Ontario Disability Support Program's Disability Adjudication Unit, May 2006 [45]

Getting it Right: Investigation into the transparency of the property assessment process at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, March 2006 [46]

The Right to be Impatient: Investigation into whether the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has failed to properly administer newborn screening, September 2005 [47]

From Hope to Despair: Investigation into the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's refusal to fund the drug Cystagon for treatment of Batten's Disease, September 2005 [48]

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Investigation into the parents of special-needs children being forced to relinquish custody in order to obtain necessary residential care, May 2005 [49]

Complaints procedure

Members of the public may complain to the Ombudsman by phone, online, in writing, in person, via email or through the Ombudsman's office. The procedure is explained on the Ombudsman's website. Early Resolutions Officers are trained to handle complaints quickly and resolve them where possible. If an investigation is deemed warranted, the Ombudsman's investigators will review the matter and gather evidence.

The Ombudsman is generally an office of last resort. Complainants are encouraged to first try to resolve their problem through the complaint and appeal procedures offered by the government agency in question. Ombudsman staff can assist people who are not sure whether or not an avenue of appeal exists.

External links

• Ontario Ombudsman
• Ontario Ombudsman on Twitter
• Video on YouTube
• Ontario Coalition for Accountability is a group fighting to expand the Ombudsman's mandate to include Ontario’s Municipalities, Universities, School Boards, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Long-Term Care Facilities, Police, and Children’s Aid Societies knows as the “MUSH” sector.