TORONTO

The head of Canada’s largest public sector union says Premier Kathleen Wynne is using a report from Ontario’s integrity commissioner to deflect questions about a union lawsuit filed earlier this week.

Fred Hahn, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, accused Wynne of misrepresenting the findings of an investigation by Integrity Commissioner David Wake into a Liberal Party fundraiser connected to the Hydro One share sale.

Wynne on Wednesday referred reporters to a spring investigation conducted by Wake when asked about a CUPE lawsuit which calls for a halt of the hydro share sell-off.

“The integrity commissioner has already made a pronouncement on the issue that’s being taken to the court,” Wynne said. “I can’t comment on that court case.”

Hahn countered it’s important to look at what Wake actually found.

“The premier is characterizing it like there was no wrong-doing. I don’t think that’s at all what the integrity commissioner said,” he added.

In its lawsuit, CUPE alleged that Wynne, Finance Minister Charles Sousa and former energy minister Bob Chiarelli engineered the sale of Hydro One to enrich law firms and banks which oversaw the hydro share sale. Those banks and law firms gave “hundreds of thousands” in political contributions to the Liberal Party, according to the lawsuit.

The allegations have not been tested in court.

The lawsuit cites an example of a Liberal fundraiser in late 2015 where the party allegedly raised $165,000. The suit says 24 individuals from financial institutions, unions, government relations firms and the energy sector paid $7,500 each to attend weeks after the first share sale.

Both Chiarelli and Sousa allegedly attended the event, where nine of the 16 banks involved in the share sale were represented, according to the court filings.

The integrity commissioner investigated that 2015 fundraiser after an NDP complaint about Sousa and Chiarelli’s alleged involvement.

Wake ruled that neither minister violated the Member’s Integrity Act and there was no evidence they received a “personal benefit.”

But Wake also found that they may have received a “political benefit” from the fundraiser and the activities raised questions about “apparent conflict of interest.”

“It is conceivable that a reasonably well-informed person could have reasonable concerns about a $7,500 per person fundraising event, held one month after the conclusion of a significant transaction, chaired and attended largely by individuals affiliated with organizations that benefited from that transaction,” Wake noted in his report.

In his findings, he urged the legislature to review the act and clarify whether it should apply to appearance of a conflict of interest.

sjeffords@postmedia.com