A Canadian human rights group is accusing the University of Ottawa of "spying" and attempting to stifle free speech after top university administrators considered preventing a well-known Burmese activist from speaking on campus.

Canadian Friends of Burma says it will ask the Ontario government to grant provincial ombudsman Andre Marin power to investigate the conduct of the University of Ottawa administrators in relation to the event.

More than a dozen internal emails, reaching as high as the university's former president and obtained through freedom of information requests by the Canadian Friends of Burma, show that the school was concerned about a speech by human rights activist Ka Hsa Wa at a December 2007 campus event discussing alleged human rights abuses by a French oil company in Burma.

The emails show that when the student federation-sponsored event went ahead, the university administration sent at least one unidentified person to monitor what was said, take notes and report back.

Kevin McLeod, a spokesman for Canadian Friends of Burma, says the steps taken by the university administration show an "extreme paranoia and a complete disregard for free speech."

"I think it's a general mistrust on the part of the administration. They don't trust the students," Mr. McLeod, 28, said in an interview with the National Post. "It's a violation of the principles that universities stand for."

The revelations contained in the emails come just a month after Francois Houle, the university's vice-president academic and provost, sent a letter to U.S. conservative pundit Ann Coulter urging her to use "restraint, respect and consideration" when speaking at the school during a Canadian tour.

The cascade of email exchanges related to the Burma event began on Nov. 30, 2007, at 7:49 a.m., when Bruce Feldthusen, then vice-president of university relations, sent his colleagues a copy of an advertisement for a speech by Burmese rights activist Ka Hsaw Wa scheduled to take place five days later at the university's Desmarais Building, named for Canadian billionaire Paul G. Desmarais.

The topic of the speech was alleged human rights abuses by French oil conglomerate Total SA during the construction of the Yadana natural gas pipeline through Burma in the 1990s.

Mr. Desmarais was a Total SA board member from 1999 to 2002. In 2006, he donated $15-million to the University of Ottawa, his alma mater.

The advertisement for the event read, "Burma Blood Profits: Was the Desmarais building paid for with cash tainted by the blood of innocent Burmese citizens?"

"I assume you received this? Nice of us to let them use the Desmarais building," Mr. Feldthusen wrote.

Four minutes later, Gilles Patry, the University of Ottawa's then president and vice-chancellor, replied: "Can't believe this. Might be a bit too late to do anything about it. We should monitor to see if they are exposing themselves with libellous comments."

Half an hour after Mr. Feldthusen's initial email, Victor Simon, the university's vice-president resources, responded to his two colleagues by saying the use of the school's facilities should be prohibited on grounds that the "program material includes allegations and accusations that may be libellous."

"Given that the existence of this material is (was) known to uOttawa, isn't there a risk that we could be named in a libellous action? Don't we have a responsibility to mitigate this risk?" Mr. Simon asked. "I know that this kind of thinking flies in the face of many principles we hold dear in the University world, but I think we have other interests at stake here."

Requests for interviews with Messrs. Feldthusen, Patry and Simon were not granted. Mr. Feldthusen, now dean of the University of Ottawa's common law section, said he could "not remember a thing about this" and referred all questions to the school's communications department.

Vincent Lamontagne, a University of Ottawa spokesman, said the administration was concerned about the event because it had heard there "might be a protest."

"The administration did its due diligence, examined and assessed the risks, including security risks. The conference did take place and security was provided to ensure every-one's safety," he said. "The University of Ottawa has always promoted and defended freedom of expression."

The Canadian Friends of Burma alleges that the "due diligence" Mr. Lamontagne speaks of included Mr. Feldthusen asking Claude Giroux, head of the university's protection services, in an email to "find out who booked the event and whether or not our own students are involved."

He went on: "Is this a difficult room to secure? That might be a reason to move the event elsewhere on campus."

Emails between Mr. Giroux and several members of his staff show that protection services took screen captures of a Facebook site set up to promote the event.

"I love this program!!!" wrote one protection services staff member to Mr. Giroux. "We know who is likely to attend."

The security staff member then goes on to identify Mr. McLeod to his superiors in a clip on YouTube as "the male with beard holding a poster." Mr. McLeod says that security personnel would not have been able to ascertain that he had a beard unless they accessed his personal Facebook site.

Such was the apparent concern, a blog posting by Ottawa Citizen columnist Kate Heartfield about the event a few days prior was forwarded by Mr. Feldthusen to his colleagues prefaced with the following: "So this is clearly a set-up."

An email from an attendee at the event -- whose name has been redacted by the university -- to Louis Benoit, the university's associate legal counsel at the time, summarizes what was said about Mr. Desmarais at it. Records show that Mr. Benoit then forwarded the message to Messrs. Giroux, Feldthusen and Simon.

Mr. Lamontagne said that the university "simply wanted to know what linkages would be made between Burma, Paul Desmarais and the University property."

He insisted that the school normally asks that its communications staff attend public events "in case there is media on site." The university refuses to disclose who was sent and if the person was paid, citing "solicitor-client privilege."

The emails, many of which contain redacted portions, were obtained over a 1½-year period that saw the group make two appeals after the university initially said it had disclosed all records. A third appeal over fully and partially redacted emails is currently awaiting adjudication at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Mr. Lamontagne said the university has complied with freedom of information legislation.