The original article was not removed as I originally believed.
Instead, the Star changed the original title which likely led to the URL changing.
Unsure if anything else changed, will update shortly.
This Toronto Star article had everything to do with it.
The reporter added a taxpayer angle that doesn't exist in the game:
"Tax department employee creates online game to vent his frustration with taxpayers"
"The job involves answering calls from taxpayers"
"... [taxpayers] can be annoying and stupid."
"... [taxpayer] comes across as dense and snippy"
The reporter then contacted National Revenue Minister Gail Shea for comment:
"offensive and completely unacceptable"
"investigate urgently to ensure no confidential taxpayer information was compromised"
Unlike everyone involved, I played the game.
No confidential taxpayer information was compromised.
Wondering why the ministry even thought that was the case.
Then again, I'm not a reporter.
If memory serves, the original article omitted "There is no specific mention of government"
and other details that clarified how harmless the game actually was.
One wonders what details were omitted when the reporter spoke with Gail Shea.
The original article appears to be found here.
Which means I did remember incorrectly and there is no bonus scandal. Apologies. Of course, this story doesn't need a bonus scandal.
If David had written a short story, directed a movie, or did some stand-up about his boring job he'd still be employed.
In fact, he'd be celebrated. i.e. Dilbert, The Office, Office Space
In another medium, David would appear in the Star's arts section and be defended from "necessary corrective action."
In fact, the threat from the government would BE the story.
Did I just say censorship? Whoops!
In another medium, the writer would have played the game before doing the interview.
David was fired because he expressed himself using a game.