News & Events

This page contains current information about recent news, events and activities of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Recent news includes items published to "What's New".

Newsroom contains news releases, speeches, and public letters.

International co-operation contains information about how BC collaborates with data protection authorities within and outside of Canada on policy and enforcement.

Media room contains links to popular topics, RSS and social media details, and information for media inquiries.

Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to our RSS feed to keep up to date on the latest news as it happens.

Recent News

University of British Columbia
Jun 30, 2021
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the University of British Columbia (UBC) for access to an investigation report. The report concerns allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that the applicant made against a former UBC employee. UBC decided to disclose some of the information in the report. The former UBC employee argued that the disputed information should be withheld under s. 22(1) of FIPPA because its disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of his personal privacy. The adjudicator found the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy and confirmed UBC’s decision that it is not required under s. 22(1) to refuse to disclose the disputed information to the applicant.
The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1964 (Icon 1 and 2)
Jun 29, 2021
A resident of a strata building complained that the strata corporation was in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by inappropriately collecting and using personal information that it obtained through its video surveillance system and its key fob system. The adjudicator concluded the strata corporation was authorized under PIPA to collect and use personal information through its video surveillance system for only some of its specified purposes and for the purposes of creating and updating a key fob inventory. The adjudicator required the strata corporation to stop collecting and using personal information for its other purposes and through its key fob system because those purposes were inappropriate in the circumstances.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Jun 25, 2021
A physician requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College). The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse to disclose the information under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act.
Thompson Rivers University
Jun 23, 2021
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access requests within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access requests by a specified deadline.
Review of private liquor and cannabis retailers
Jun 22, 2021
Private sector liquor and cannabis retailers are tasked with collecting our personal information. And for good reason. They need to verify age by checking a driver’s license, they capture video using surveillance systems to ensure security, they use our financial information for payment, and they collect employee information for HR and payroll purposes. Retailers’ authority to collect this kind of information is found in BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
Report finds that private liquor and cannabis retailers must do more to comply with BC privacy legislation
Jun 22, 2021
A report released today found that few private liquor and cannabis retailers maintain adequate privacy management programs or document privacy policies, despite obligations under BC’s private sector Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
Commissioner to release findings of compliance review of private sector liquor and cannabis retailers’ privacy practices
Jun 21, 2021
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 9:30am, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy will release the results of a compliance review of private sector liquor and cannabis retailers’ privacy management programs.
Speech to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
Jun 21, 2021
Speech by Michael McEvoy, Information and Privacy Commissioner and Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.
Occumed Consulting Inc.
Jun 21, 2021
The applicant requested a variety of information related to herself from OccuMed Consulting Inc. (OccuMed). OccuMed provided some records and information in response, but withheld other records, claiming the withheld records were not under OccuMed’s custody and control and, even if they were, solicitor-client privilege authorized OccuMed to withhold them. The adjudicator found that the disputed records are under the control of OccuMed, but solicitor-client privilege applies. Accordingly, OccuMed is authorized to withhold the records under s. 23(3)(a) of PIPA.
Getting Ahead of the Curve: Meeting the challenges to privacy and fairness arising from the use of artificial intelligence in the public sector
Jun 17, 2021
With the proliferation of instantaneous and personalized services increasingly being delivered to people in many areas in the private sector, the public is increasingly expecting the same approach when receiving government services. Artificial intelligence (AI) is touted as an effective, efficient and cost-saving solution to these growing expectations. However, ethical and legal concerns are being raised as governments in Canada and abroad are experimenting with AI technologies in decision-making under inadequate regulation and, at times, in a less than transparent manner.
BC and Yukon Privacy Commissioners and Ombudsman call for strengthened regulation and oversight of artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making
Jun 17, 2021
As humans are increasingly replaced by machines to make decisions, BC and Yukon Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioners are calling on governments to protect fairness and privacy when artificial intelligence (AI) is used in public service delivery. A special report released today, Getting Ahead of the Curve, raises a number of fairness and privacy concerns that impact the public.
Getting ahead of the curve: Meeting the challenges to privacy and fairness arising from the use of artificial intelligence in the public sector
Jun 17, 2021
Getting Ahead of the Curve is a special report released by the BC and Yukon Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioners that raises a number of fairness and privacy concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in public service delivery.
City of Powell River
Jun 16, 2021
The applicant requested access to records the City obtained from its lawyer regarding the sale of land. The adjudicator determined the records were legal opinions and confirmed the City’s decision that solicitor client privilege applied and the City was authorized to refuse access under s. 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator also found that the applicant failed to establish that solicitor client privilege had been waived.
Thompson Rivers University
Jun 14, 2021
Thompson Rivers University failed to respond to an applicant’s access request within the timelines required by Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that Thompson Rivers University had not fulfilled its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 of the Act and ordered it to respond to the access request by a specified deadline.
Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board
Jun 10, 2021
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board (Board) for records relating to an investigation into the conduct of a former chief of the Victoria Police Department. The Board provided the applicant with responsive records severed under ss. 3(1)(c) (outside scope of FIPPA), 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of FIPPA, as well as common law settlement privilege. The applicant withdrew his request for review of the records and information withheld under ss. 12(3)(b), 15(1)(l) and 22(1). The adjudicator confirmed the Board’s decision under s. 3(1)(c), determined that the Board was authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information withheld under ss. 13(1) and 14, and found it unnecessary to consider settlement privilege.
City of Vancouver
Jun 7, 2021
An applicant requested a copy of the Vacancy Tax Compliance Policy Manual (manual) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) from the City of Vancouver (City). The City disclosed much of the manual but withheld portions under ss. 15(1)(a) (harm to law enforcement matter), 15(1)(c) (harm to investigative techniques and procedures) and 17(1) (harm to economic interests of a public body) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(c) applied to the information in dispute. It was not necessary to consider ss. 15(1)(a) and 17(1).
Federal, Provincial and Territorial Information and Privacy Commissioners and Ombudsman Issue Joint Resolution About Privacy and Access to Information Rights During and After a Pandemic
Jun 2, 2021
In a joint resolution, Canada’s Information and Privacy regulators called on their respective governments to respect Canadians’ quasi-constitutional rights to privacy and access to information. The regulators took note of the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the right of access to information and privacy rights in Canada and called on governments to use the lessons learned during the pandemic to improve these rights.
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
May 27, 2021
The public body refused the applicant access to information in his claim file under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) did not apply because the records had been in existence for 10 or more years, so s. 13(3) was engaged. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision, in part, to refuse access under ss. 14, 17(1) and 22(1) and ordered the public body to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
Vaccine passports must meet highest level of privacy protection
May 19, 2021
Privacy should be front and centre as governments and businesses consider COVID-19 vaccine passports as a tool to help Canadians return to normal life, say Canada’s privacy guardians.
Letter to Ministers Kahlon and Beare re:Inclusion of InBC to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
May 19, 2021
I write to urge the government to add InBC Investment Corp. (InBC) as a public body under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy calls on government to bring InBC Investment Corp. under access to information legislation
May 19, 2021
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy is urging the provincial government to bring its proposed InBC Investment Corp. (InBC) under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
City of White Rock
May 13, 2021
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act from the City of White Rock (White Rock) to an email he sent, as well as other records associated with that email. White Rock disclosed the records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to a third party’s name and email address because they were contact information. The adjudicator ordered White Rock to disclose this information to the applicant. The adjudicator also found that a reference to a group to which the third party belonged was personal information, both of the third party and another individual, and White Rock must refuse to disclose that information under s. 22(1).
Vancouver Police Department
May 12, 2021
An applicant requested access under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) file on its investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault against him. The VPD disclosed some of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 15 (harm to law enforcement) and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 22 applied to the information in dispute and ordered the VPD to refuse the applicant access to it. It was not necessary to consider s. 15.
Guide for organizations collecting personal information online
May 7, 2021
There are limits to what personal information organizations can collect from the internet. Organizations sometimes believe that it’s “fair game” to search and collect whatever personal information they want to from online sources. However, BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information does set some limits. With some notable exceptions, organizations should first get an individual’s consent before collecting and using their information and this includes from online sources.1 Even with consent, organizations still cannot collect or use personal information for an unreasonable purpose.
BC Housing Management Commission
May 7, 2021
An individual and his company complained about the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess and charge a fee under the category of a “commercial applicant” and to deny a full or partial waiver of that fee. The adjudicator confirmed the BC Housing Management Commission’s decision to assess a fee for the actual costs of its allowable services because the applicants qualified as commercial applicants. However, the adjudicator concluded that it would be fair under s. 75(5)(a) to excuse the applicants from paying the estimated fee given the circumstances.
Michael McEvoy: Data Governance in the Age of AI & Machine Learning - Speech to the Public Sector Network Conference
May 5, 2021
Speech delivered by Michael McEvoy to the Public Sector Network Conference on Data Governance in the Age of AI & Machine Learning.
Information and Privacy Commissioner McEvoy says now is the time to ‘Make privacy a priority’
May 3, 2021
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Michael McEvoy, issued the following statement to mark the start of Privacy Awareness Week (May 3-7).
BC Transit
Apr 30, 2021
An applicant requested access to all records about himself held by BC Transit. BC Transit withheld some information in the responsive records under s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). This order addresses BC Transit’s decision to withhold the name of one of its employees under s. 22(1). The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applies to the name of the employee in the circumstances.
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner announces Commissioner Speaker Series
Apr 28, 2021
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy has announced the launch of a new Commissioner Speaker Series – a series of events to be presented virtually over the coming year. The series will bring together experts to discuss current access and privacy issues.
Ministry of Health: Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) - Authorization for Indirect Collection of Personal Information
Apr 22, 2021
Under section 42(1)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Commissioner authorizes the Deputy Minister of Health to collect personal information from sources other than the individual the information is about, such as witnesses to the written request, medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists, with respect to the Ministry’s role in facilitating medical assistance in dying (MAID) under the exception set out in s. 241.1 of the Criminal Code and associated Regulations.
University of British Columbia
Apr 19, 2021
The applicant requested that the University of British Columbia provide access to records related to a specific news release. The University withheld information in the responsive records under ss. 13(1) (advice and recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator decided that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to most of the information in dispute and ordered the University to disclose the rest to the applicant.
Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese
Apr 15, 2021
The complainant made a request under s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to the Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese (organization) for access to records relating to the education of her two minor children. Under s. 32(2) of PIPA, the organization assessed a fee of $1,049.91 to provide access to approximately 3,000 pages of responsive records. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the fee. The adjudicator determined that the fee is minimal under s. 32(2) and reasonable under s. 36(2)(c).
The Board of Education of School District 52 (Prince Rupert)
Apr 14, 2021
The Board of Education of School District 52 (Prince Rupert) (SD52) requested authorization under s. 43(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a respondent’s outstanding requests, as well as future requests, over and above one open request at a time. The adjudicator found that some outstanding requests were not requests for records under FIPPA and, thus, did not need relief under s. 43(a). The adjudicator also found that one request was not repetitious or systematic for the purposes of s. 43(a) and concluded that SD52 was not authorized to disregard that request. Finally, the adjudicator found that the remaining outstanding requests, which were requests for records under FIPPA, were repetitious and systematic and would unreasonably interfere with SD52’s operations. The adjudicator authorized SD52 to disregard these remaining outstanding requests and to disregard future requests, over and above one open request at a time, for period of two years.
City of Vancouver
Apr 14, 2021
An applicant made a request to the City of Vancouver under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for records related to the Brenhill land swap transaction. Both the applicant and a third party requested a review of the City’s access decision. The adjudicator confirmed, in part, the City’s decision to refuse access under s. 13 (advice or recommendations) but ordered the City to disclose other information that had been severed under that exception. The adjudicator also confirmed the City’s decision to refuse access under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) but found that s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) did not apply. The adjudicator rejected the applicant’s argument that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applies.
BC Pavilion Corporation
Apr 6, 2021
The BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into PavCo’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records comprise video footage recorded at a specific time on CCTV cameras at the Vancouver Convention Centre and the Olympic Cauldron. The adjudicator found that it was not plain and obvious that s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy) applied to the requested records. Therefore, the adjudicator denied PavCo’s request. The OIPC will conduct an inquiry into this matter.
Fraser Health Authority
Mar 23, 2021
The applicant made a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to the entire file regarding an investigation into a named individual’s care at a care centre prior to their death at a hospital. FHA decided it was required to disclose all of the responsive information, except for some information that it determined it was required to withhold under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The business entity responsible for the care centre requested a review of FHA’s decision, arguing that the information FHA decided to disclose should be withheld under s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator confirmed FHA’s decision that it is not required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 21.
City of White Rock
Mar 19, 2021
The applicant requested severance agreements between the City of White Rock (City) and certain former City employees. The City identified five agreements as responsive, but withheld them in their entirety on the basis of common law settlement privilege and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to withhold the records on the basis of settlement privilege. Given this, the adjudicator did not consider whether s. 22 applied.
BC Ferries
Mar 18, 2021
A complainant complained about BC Ferries’ decision to not waive a fee to provide him access to a record about confidential settlement agreements. The adjudicator found the complainant had not proven he could not afford to pay the fee under s. 75(5)(a) or that the record relates to a matter of public interest under s. 75(5)(b). The adjudicator confirmed BC Ferries’ decision to not excuse the complainant from paying the fee.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink)
Mar 4, 2021
An applicant requested reports about an incident that occurred on the tracks of a Sky Train station. The public body relied on several exceptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to refuse access to information in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) (harm to communication system) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) applied to some of the disputed information, and ordered the public body to disclose the rest. The applicant claimed all the information should be disclosed under s. 25(1) (public interest disclosure), but the adjudicator found that provision did not apply.
Common or integrated programs or activities
Mar 3, 2021
This document aims to help readers understand what constitutes a “common or integrated program or activity” (CIPA) under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), and the obligations associated with them.
Ministry of Health
Mar 1, 2021
The applicant asked the Ministry of Health (Ministry) for records related to the workplace investigation that led to the well known 2012 Ministry employee firings. The Ministry provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This order considers ss. 3(1)(c) (out of scope), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 22 (unreasonable invasion of privacy) and 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that ss. 3(1)(c) and 14 applied, and that s. 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under it. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to disclose the information that she found s. 22 did not apply to.
Green Planet Wholesale
Feb 26, 2021
A complainant alleged that the organization failed to comply with its duty under s. 28 of PIPA to assist the complainant and respond to him as accurately and completely as reasonably possible. The adjudicator found that the organization complied, for the most part, with its duty under s. 28. However, it did not comply when it provided some contradictory and erroneous information in response to a part of the access request involving employee personal information. The complainant also complained about two fees the organization assessed. The adjudicator found that one fee was moot because PIPA did not apply to that information. She ordered the other fee be revised and reduced to make it a minimal fee under s. 32(2). The complainant was given a timeline to let the adjudicator know if there is a dispute about whether the revised minimal fee should be further reduced or excused because it is not reasonable under s. 36(2)(c).
The Owners, Strata Plan
Feb 25, 2021
The complainants alleged that the council of their strata plan (organization) improperly disclosed their personal information to other strata owners. The adjudicator found that the Personal Information Protection Act did not authorize the organization’s disclosure of the complainants’ personal information.
Supplemental submission to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Feb 23, 2021
This submission supplements my Office’s September 16, 2020 submission on modernizing British Columbia’s private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).1 It recognizes that the federal government has since introduced legislation that would replace the federal private sector privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), with the new Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA).
Speech to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Feb 23, 2021
Speech to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act by Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Michael McEvoy.
All Ministries of the Government of British Columbia and Office of the Premier
Feb 17, 2021
The complainant made access requests to all ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier. The requests were for lists of certain file and folder names on the electronic devices used by the Premier, Minister or Minister of State for each public body. In response, the public bodies stated that the requested records do not exist and they were not required to create them. The public bodies argued that they had fulfilled their duties to the applicant under s. 6(2) (duty to assist applicants) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The complainant complained to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner about the public bodies’ response. The adjudicator determined that the public bodies were required under s. 6(2) to create the requested records.
BC Coroners Service
Feb 10, 2021
An applicant requested sections of autopsy reports related to four Vancouver addresses, for the period 2002-2018, showing if the BC Coroners Service (BCCS) conducted specified tests. The BCCS withheld the 18 reports in question under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that the reports do not contain the requested information and that they are therefore not responsive to the request. There was no need to conduct the s. 22(1) analysis or issue an order.
Michael McEvoy: Privacy, profit and the pandemic; where we go from here
Feb 5, 2021
In this presentation, BC`s Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy shares his perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital revolution and challenged privacy and access to information concerns. He relates efforts by regulators and data reformers across the country and around the globe to hold powerful Big Tech companies to account, while also sharing recent work of his office.
Doctor J.B.
Feb 4, 2021
A father requested his daughter’s psychological therapy session information from a psychologist pursuant to s. 2(2)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act Regulations and s. 23(1)(a) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The psychologist refused to provide access, determining that the daughter was a mature minor, capable of exercising her own rights under PIPA. The adjudicator confirmed the psychologist’s decision to withhold the information in dispute from the father.
Report of findings: Joint investigation of Clearview AI, Inc.
Feb 3, 2021
Joint investigation of Clearview AI, Inc. by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, and the Information Privacy Commissioner of Alberta
Clearview AI’s unlawful practices represented mass surveillance of Canadians, commissioners say
Feb 3, 2021
Technology company Clearview AI’s scraping of billions of images of people from across the Internet represented mass surveillance and was a clear violation of the privacy rights of Canadians, an investigation has found.
Privacy protection authorities to release their findings following investigation into Clearview AI
Feb 2, 2021
The results of a joint investigation into Clearview AI’s use of facial recognition technology will be released tomorrow, Wednesday, February 3, 2021.
British Columbia Assessment Authority
Feb 1, 2021
The British Columbia Assessment Authority (BC Assessment) applied for an order that the Commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to decline to conduct an inquiry in this matter. BC Assessment argued that an inquiry should not be held because it is plain and obvious that the records requested by the access applicant are available for purchase by the public and are, therefore, outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(j). The adjudicator decided that the matter will not proceed to an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that s. 3(1)(j) applies to the requested record.
Making privacy a priority amid the ‘new normal’: Data Privacy Day Commissioner statement
Jan 28, 2021
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy released the following statement in recognition of Data Privacy Day, January 28, 2021: “Data Privacy Day’s call to action to protect our personal information online resonates more strongly than ever this year than it ever has and that is because we have so much more at stake. Remote work, virtual health visits, and simply chats with our friends and families – much of the substance of our lives now takes place in digital spaces."
Ministry of Health and Medical Services Commission
Jan 28, 2021
The Ministry of Health and the Medical Services Commission jointly applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s outstanding access requests and certain future access requests under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests were repetitious and systematic and responding to them would unreasonably interfere with the public bodies’ operations under s. 43(a). The public bodies were authorized to disregard the outstanding requests and all but one of the respondent’s future access requests at a time for two years from the date of the authorization.
Translink
Jan 26, 2021
A journalist requested access to the emails of TransLink’s interim CEO for a specified five-day period in August 2015. TransLink disclosed most of the information, withholding small amounts of information, such as email addresses and a street address. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) did not apply to most of the information in dispute, as it was “contact information”, and ordered TransLink to disclose this information to the journalist. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to the interim CEO’s home telephone number and a small amount of information about a consultant’s employment history, and ordered TransLink to withhold this information.
Budget and Service Plan 2021/22-2023/24
Jan 25, 2021
City of Nanaimo
Jan 13, 2021
The City of Nanaimo (City) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard several outstanding access requests made by the respondent as well as certain future access requests. The adjudicator found that the City had not established that responding to the requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)) or that the requests were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). Accordingly, the adjudicator concluded that the City was not entitled to relief under s. 43.
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Jan 4, 2021
An applicant requested the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about an ICBC telephone line used to support law enforcement agencies. ICBC withheld information under s. 15(1)(l) claiming the disclosure of the withheld information could reasonably be expected to harm the security of its communications system. The adjudicator determined that ICBC did not prove s. 15(1)(l) applied to the information at issue and required ICBC to disclose that information to the applicant.
Ministry of Health
Dec 17, 2020
Three Indigenous governments had asked the Ministry and several other public bodies to disclose certain information, including personal information, related to COVID-19 and its transmission in their communities. Having had no success, they complained that the Ministry had failed to comply with its duty under section 25(1)(a) of FIPPA to disclose information specified in their complaint. The Commissioner rejected the Ministry’s arguments that, during an emergency, the Public Health Act overrides the Ministry’s duty to comply with the disclosure duty under section 25(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, although the Commissioner held that COVID-19 creates a risk of significant harm to the public and to the complainants’ communities, section 25(1)(a) does not in the circumstances require the Ministry to disclose the information that the complainants argue must be disclosed. He concluded that sufficient information is already available to the complainants and to the public to enable the public, and the complainant governments, to take steps to avoid or mitigate risks connected with COVID-19.
Commissioner rejects argument government's emergency powers override public interest disclosure provision; determines s. 25 of FIPPA does not require Ministry of Health to disclose requested COVID-19 information
Dec 17, 2020
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy has rejected the Ministry of Health’s arguments that Public Health Act emergency powers override its duty of public interest disclosure but determined on the facts of the case before him that section 25 of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not require the Ministry of Health to release requested COVID-19 information to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, Tsilhqot’in National Government, and Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council.
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of BC
Dec 15, 2020
An applicant asked the public body for access to specific meeting records containing his personal information. The public body refused access to information under several FIPPA exceptions. The adjudicator found that ss. 13,14 and 22 applied to some of the information in dispute but s. 17 did not. The adjudicator ordered the public body to disclose a small amount of information to the applicant.
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Dec 8, 2020
The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to part of Manulife Financial Corporation’s response to a request for proposals issued by BCIT on behalf of a consortium of post-secondary institutions. BCIT disclosed the responsive record with some information withheld under s. 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that BCIT was required to refuse to disclose some, but not all, of the information withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator also decided that BCIT was not authorized to withhold a small amount of information on the basis that it was “not responsive” to the applicant’s access request.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Dec 3, 2020
The applicant requested access to the names and job titles of personnel involved with the Site C Clean Energy Project. The public body refused access to approximately 200 names on a list of individuals under ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the public body was authorized to refuse access to all but four names under s. 19(1)(a) but not under s. 22 because s. 22(4)(e) applied. The public body was required to disclose the four names to the applicant.
Commissioner to review BC’s licensed private sector liquor and cannabis retailers
Nov 25, 2020
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy announced that his office will review BC’s licensed private sector liquor and cannabis retailers’ privacy practices under the office’s audit and compliance program.
Law Society of British Columbia
Nov 18, 2020
The applicant requested her own personal information in the custody or under the control of the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC). LSBC refused to disclose some information because it was not her personal information and/or ss. 13, 14, 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) of the Legal Professions Act applied. The adjudicator found that most of the information in dispute was not the applicant’s personal information and LSBC was authorized to refuse to disclose it on that basis because it was not the information she requested. However, the adjudicator also found that the disputed information included a few instances of the applicant’s name, that ss.13, 14, 22 and 88(2) did not apply in those instances and LSBC was required to disclose those instances to the applicant.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink)
Nov 16, 2020
An applicant requested reports about a fatality that occurred on the tracks of a SkyTrain station. The public body refused access to some information in the records under s. 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claimed the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and s. 22 applied to some of the disputed information. The public body was ordered to disclose the balance of the information to the applicant.
City of Vancouver
Nov 16, 2020
An applicant requested access to correspondence between a named employee of the City of Vancouver (City) and three other individuals. The City disclosed 31 pages of emails, withholding some information under ss. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered the City to disclose this information. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(1) applied to some information and ordered the City to disclose the information to which she found s. 22(1) does not apply. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) requires disclosure of the withheld information but the adjudicator found that it does not.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (Translink)
Nov 13, 2020
An applicant requested TransLink provide access, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to records about a security incident aboard one of TransLink’s Seabus ferries. TransLink withheld information under s.22(1) claiming the disclosure of the withheld information would result in an unreasonable invasion of several third parties’ personal privacy. The adjudicator determined that s. 22(1) applied to most of the information at issue and confirmed TransLink’s decision to withhold that information. However, the adjudicator found that TransLink was not required to withhold a small amount of information under s. 22(1) since the adjudicator was satisfied that disclosing this information would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development
Nov 13, 2020
Two applicants made separate requests to the Ministry for access to information relating to human remains discovered in Lheidli T’enneh Memorial Park in Prince George. The Ministry refused to disclose the responsive information in its entirety under ss. 16 (disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations) and 18 (disclosure harmful to the conservation of heritage sites, etc.) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), and s. 3(3) of the Heritage Conservation Act. The adjudicator determined that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 16(1)(a)(iii) of FIPPA and that it was not necessary to consider the other provisions relied upon by the Ministry.
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Environmental Assessment Office, Ministry Of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Office of the Premier
Nov 6, 2020
An applicant made seven requests to five public bodies for access to records relating to an identified mining project. The public bodies withheld information in the records under a number of exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the public bodies applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the public bodies were authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1)(cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a system), 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). However, the adjudicator found that some of the withheld information did not fall within the claimed exceptions, and ordered the public bodies to disclose that information to the applicant.
Securing personal information: A self-assessment for public bodies and organizations
Oct 30, 2020
How well is your organization or public body protecting personal information? The personal information security requirements under British Columbia and Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Acts and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts and Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act require organizations and public bodies to take reasonable steps to safeguard the personal information in their custody or control. Risks that you must guard against include unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification, disposal or destruction.
Report of Findings: Joint investigation of The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
Oct 29, 2020
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“OPC”), Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (“OIPC AB”) and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (“OIPC BC”), collectively referred to as “the Offices” commenced a joint investigation1,2 to examine whether The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (“CFCL”) was collecting and using personal information of visitors to its Canadian malls, without valid consent, via: i. Anonymous Video Analytics (“AVA”) technology installed in “wayfinding” directories; and ii. mobile device geolocation tracking technologies.
Cadillac Fairview collected 5 million shoppers’ images
Oct 29, 2020
Cadillac Fairview – one of North America’s largest commercial real estate companies – imbedded cameras inside their digital information kiosks at 12 shopping malls across Canada (including the CF Richmond Centre and the CF Pacific Centre in BC) and used facial recognition technology without their customers’ knowledge or consent, an investigation by the federal, Alberta and BC Privacy Commissioners has found.
British Columbia Housing Management Commission
Oct 29, 2020
The applicant requested information related to the Brenhill land swap from BC Housing. BC Housing provided responsive records with some information withheld under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party privacy). A third party disputed BC Housing’s decision about s. 21, asserting that BC Housing must withhold more information under it. The applicant disputed BC Housing’s decision regarding all the exceptions applied and argued that BC Housing should release all the information under s. 25 (public interest disclosure). The adjudicator found that ss. 13, 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that ss. 17, 21 or 25 applied to any of the information in dispute. The adjudicator ordered BC Housing to disclose the information that she found no FIPPA exceptions applied to.
Ministry of Attorney General
Oct 20, 2020
The applicant requested copies of contracts between the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) and Sierra Group Inc. (Sierra). The Ministry decided to disclose the records to the applicant. Sierra disputed that decision and asserted that some information must be withheld under ss. 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that that ss. 21 and 22 did not apply to the information in dispute and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
British Columbia Lottery Corporation
Oct 7, 2020
The applicant made three requests to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for access to records relating to named individuals allegedly involved in gaming, organized crime or gaming regulation in BC. BCLC refused to confirm or deny the existence of the requested records, citing s. 8(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator concluded that BCLC is authorized under s. 8(2)(b) of FIPPA to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of some, but not all, of the requested records.
Workers' Compensation Board
Oct 5, 2020
The applicant made a request to the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) for access to records relating to two of his worker’s compensation claims. WorkSafeBC refused to disclose the disputed information under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that some, but not all, of the withheld information was advice or recommendations under s. 13(1). The adjudicator also found that s. 13(2) did not apply to the advice or recommendations and, therefore, WorkSafeBC properly withheld that information under s. 13(1).
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Oct 2, 2020
The applicant made four requests to the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) for access to records relating to group benefit plans provided by BCIT to its employees and administered by a third-party company. BCIT determined that the records were not in its custody or under its control and, therefore, not within the applicant’s access rights under ss. 3(1) and 4(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). BCIT also argued that some of the records were outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(k). The adjudicator found that the records were not in BCIT’s custody or under its control and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 3(1)(k).
Ministry of Attorney General
Oct 1, 2020
An applicant requested access to all records related to the province’s policies and procedures regarding solicitor client privilege. The Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) refused to disclose the information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant claimed that the records should be disclosed under s. 25 (public interest override). The adjudicator found that s. 25 did not apply and confirmed the Ministry’s decision to refuse access under s. 14.
West Coast Realty Ltd. doing business as Sutton Group - West Coast Realty
Sep 30, 2020
The applicant made a request to West Coast Realty Ltd., doing business as Sutton Group West Coast Realty (Sutton), for access to part of an email chain. Sutton refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it is not the applicant’s personal information as required by s. 23(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Sutton also says that the information is exempt from disclosure under ss. 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of PIPA. The adjudicator determined that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under s. 23(4)(d) and that it was not necessary to also consider s. 23(4)(c).
Statement from BC Information and Privacy Commissioner on Right to Know Week
Sep 28, 2020
Statement from BC Information and Privacy Commissioner on Right to Know Week.
Accessing your records in BC: your rights
Sep 23, 2020
Highlighting British Columbians' access to information rights under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), including steps to access records under both acts.
British Columbia Housing Management Commission
Sep 23, 2020
Two applicants made requests to the British Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC) under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) for the contract for the sale of the Little Mountain social housing site to Holborn Properties Limited. BCHMC disclosed the responsive records in severed form, withholding some of the information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) did not apply and ordered BCHMC to disclose the information in dispute to the applicants. One applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) required disclosure of the information in dispute. The adjudicator decided it was not necessary to consider s. 25(1)(b), in light of her decision under s. 21(1).
Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
Sep 22, 2020
The applicant requested information related to a workplace investigation from the Vancouver School Board. The School Board provided some information but withheld the rest under both ss. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) authorized the School Board to withhold all the information in dispute, so she did not need to decide if s. 22 also applied.
Submission to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Sep 16, 2020
This is the third time my office has participated in a statutory review of PIPA since its inception 20 years ago. Although the two previous reviews led to some very sound recommendations, government’s persistent failure to act has left previous Special Committees’ efforts lying dormant.
Speech to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Sep 16, 2020
Good morning, Honourable Chair and members of the Committee. First, I'd like to respectfully acknowledge that we are located on the traditional territories of the L?k????in??? people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. Of course, we acknowledge all First Nations across the province who our office serves.
Statement from Commissioner McEvoy concerning section 25 complaint received from several First Nations
Sep 15, 2020
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy has issued the following statement in response to a section 25 complaint from several First Nations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
Workers' Compensation Board
Sep 8, 2020
The Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC) requested authorization under ss. 43(a) and/or 43(b) to disregard the respondent’s outstanding access and correction requests because of their repetitive, systematic, frivolous and vexatious nature. WorkSafeBC also requested authorization to disregard future requests from the respondent. The adjudicator found the outstanding requests repetitive and systematic under s. 43(a), so she authorized WorkSafeBC to disregard them. The adjudicator also provided WorkSafeBC with some relief respecting future requests from the respondent.
Now is the time: A report card on government's access to information timeliness
Sep 2, 2020
Government’s information is the public’s information. More than a glib phrase, this principle was unanimously enshrined by BC’s legislature in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) more than 25 years ago. FIPPA gives each of us the right of access to a public body’s information within a prescribed time frame, subject to carefully prescribed exceptions.
Special report issues ‘wake-up call’ over government’s routine violation of access to information timelines
Sep 2, 2020
British Columbians’ information rights are being undermined by government routinely extending timelines for responding to access requests without any legal authority, says Michael McEvoy, Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, in a special report released today.
Commissioner to release special report on BC government’s timeliness in response to access to information requests
Sep 1, 2020
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 9:30am, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy will release a special report on government’s performance responding to access to information requests within the time frame mandated in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
2019-2020 Annual Report
Aug 27, 2020
I am pleased to present the 2019-20 annual report for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. Past reports have highlighted the incredible pace of technological change and its impact on privacy and information rights in BC. During this past fiscal reporting year, my office has witnessed an exponential surge in this trajectory.
Vancouver Island University
Aug 26, 2020
The applicant requested records about her former employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 14 decision and confirmed, in part, the University’s ss. 13 and 22 decisions. The University was required to disclose the information the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
Vancouver Island University
Aug 26, 2020
The applicant requested records about her and her employment with Vancouver Island University. The University refused access to some information and records under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests), 21 (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s ss. 14 and 17 decisions. She did not need to consider s. 21 because s. 17 applied to the same information. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s s. 13 decision, in part, but found that s. 22 did not apply. The University was ordered to disclose the information that the University was not authorized or required to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
BC Lottery Corporation
Aug 25, 2020
The applicant made a request to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) for copies of the quarterly reports to the Minister of Finance on implementation of BC’s anti-money laundering strategy. The public body disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that ss. 16 and 17 did not apply to the withheld information, and that s. 22 only applied to a small portion of the withheld information. BCLC was ordered to disclose the remaining information to the applicant.
District of Summerland
Aug 5, 2020
Three applicants made a total of five requests to the District of Summerland (the District) for access to a variety of records. The applicants claimed the District did not respond to their access requests without delay as required under ss. 6 and 7 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They asked the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the District’s alleged failure to respond to their access requests in accordance with the legislated response times. The adjudicator determined the District did not perform its duties under ss. 6(1) and 7 to respond without delay, in accordance with the required statutory deadlines. The District was ordered to provide a response to the applicants’ five access requests by certain set dates.
BC Egg Marketing Board
Aug 5, 2020
The BC Egg Marketing Board (Board) applied for authorization under s. 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard four access requests made by the respondent, as well as any future related request. The Board argued that the four requests would unreasonably interfere with its operations because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests (s. 43(a)). The Board also argued that the requests were frivolous or vexatious (s. 43(b)). The adjudicator determined that the Board was not authorized to disregard the four requests, or any future related request, under s. 43(a) or s. 43(b).
Collecting personal information at food and drink establishments, gatherings, and events during COVID-19
Jul 31, 2020
The Public Health Officer (PHO) has made two orders requiring the collection of personal information at restaurants, bars, gatherings and events.
Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
Jul 31, 2020
The Vancouver School Board requested authorization under s. 43(b) to disregard four access requests made by the respondent because they were frivolous and vexatious. The adjudicator declined to provide the requested authorization for the requests, finding them neither frivolous nor vexatious.
LifeLabs agrees to comply with privacy commissioners’ orders, but challenges release of investigation report
Jul 29, 2020
On June 25, the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Ontario and British Columbia issued a joint investigation report into the company’s 2019 privacy breach involving millions of its customers.
Vancouver Coastal Health
Jul 22, 2020
An applicant requested access to records involving a certain Vancouver Coastal Health employee. Vancouver Coastal Health withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant only challenged Vancouver Coastal Health’s decision to withhold information under s. 13(1). The adjudicator determined Vancouver Coastal Health was authorized to withhold some information under s. 13(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since s. 13(1) did not apply.
Town of Gibsons
Jul 13, 2020
The applicant made a request to the Town of Gibsons (Town) for access to records relating to the Town’s decision to issue development permits to a company. The Town refused to disclose the records and information in dispute under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to most, but not all, of the disputed information. The adjudicator also found that the Town was not authorized to refuse to disclose some of the disputed information because it is information similar to an environmental impact statement under s. 13(2)(f).
ClearView AI ceases offering its facial recognition technology in Canada
Jul 6, 2020
Clearview AI has advised Canadian privacy protection authorities that, in response to their joint investigation, it will cease offering its facial recognition services in Canada.
Commissioners launch joint investigation into Tim Hortons app amid concerns over persistent geolocation tracking
Jun 29, 2020
The privacy protection authorities for British Columbia, Canada, Quebec, and Alberta announced today they will jointly investigate Tim Hortons and its use of persistent geolocation tracking as part of its mobile app.
Backgrounder: Ontario IPC and BC OIPC find LifeLabs failed to protect personal information in 2019 breach
Jun 25, 2020
Canadian laboratory testing company found in violation of privacy
Ontario IPC and BC OIPC find LifeLabs failed to protect personal information in 2019 breach
Jun 25, 2020
A joint investigation by the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Ontario and BC has found that LifeLabs failed to protect the personal health information of millions of Canadians resulting in a significant privacy breach in 2019.
City of Kelowna
Jun 25, 2020
The applicant requested legal invoices paid by the City of Kelowna in respect of a specific file. Kelowna refused to provide the requested information citing s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied and confirmed Kelowna’s decision to withhold the requested information.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC
Jun 22, 2020
An applicant requested access to records about himself from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (College). The College withheld information under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For some of the records, the College applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the College was required to withhold some information under ss. 13 and 14, but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13, 14 and 22 did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 22(5) was not applicable since a third party did not confidentially supply any information about the applicant. However, the adjudicator ordered the College to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because there was insufficient explanation and evidence that the College exercised its discretion on proper grounds and considered all relevant factors.
Legal Services Society
Jun 19, 2020
The applicant made a request to the Legal Services Society (LSS) for information about the legal aid billings made by a particular lawyer during a specified period. The LSS refused to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant argued s. 25(1)(b) (disclosure in public interest) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply and that the LSS was required to refuse to disclose the disputed information under s. 22(1) of FIPPA.
Surrey Creep Catcher
Jun 18, 2020
Organization) posted videos of their encounters on the internet, without their consent, and requested that the Organization take down the videos. The Organization declined to do so or to destroy the videos containing the complainants’ personal information. The adjudicator found that the Organization was not authorized to collect and disclose the Complainants’ personal information and ordered it both to remove the videos from the internet and to destroy the Complainants’ personal information.
City of Vancouver
Jun 17, 2020
The applicant requested records relating to the Brenhill Land Swap from the City of Vancouver (City). The City withheld some of the information from the responsive records, citing ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator found that the City was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 14 and that ss. 13(1) and 22(1) applied to some but not all of the information in dispute.
Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency)
Jun 16, 2020
In Order F20-18, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) to produce 20 pages of records to the OIPC so that she could make a decision respecting the public body’s application of s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) to those 20 pages.The public body complied, producing the records for the adjudicator’s review. The public body also reconsidered its application of s. 22 to 18 pages of the records and decided to disclose those pages to the applicant. The adjudicator confirmed that s. 22 did not require the public body to withhold those 18 pages and found that s. 22 applied to the information withheld under that section in the remaining two pages.
Privacy tips for seniors: Protect your personal information
Jun 15, 2020
Launched in collaboration with the Office of the Seniors Advocate for British Columbia, this brochure offers seniors tips for protecting their privacy.
Ministry of Health
Jun 12, 2020
The Ministry requested that the adjudicator reconsider her decision about one record that was the subject of Order F20-09. The adjudicator found that her original order did not reflect her manifest intention. As a result, she issued a new order regarding the disputed record.
Section 71: Categories of records available without a request
Jun 11, 2020
It is often said that information is the oxygen of democracy. To that end, we desperately need a hyperbaric chamber that will boost our access to information systems in a way that improves the accountability of public bodies.
BC public bodies need to act to categorize and communicate proactively disclosed records
Jun 11, 2020
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy has found that many public bodies must act to categorize and communicate to the public the kinds of records they will proactively disclose.
Commissioner to release findings of investigation into how public bodies categorize records without an access request
Jun 10, 2020
On Thursday, June 11 at 9:30 am, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy will release the results of an investigation into how BC public bodies categorize records available without an access to information request under section 71 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Jun 8, 2020
An applicant requested information related to a specific motor vehicle accident claim from ICBC. ICBC provided some information in response, but withheld other information under several exceptions to access in FIPPA. At inquiry, the adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice and recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(g) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion), 17 (harm to financial or economic interests) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed ICBC’s decision to apply these FIPPA exceptions to most of the information in dispute and ordered ICBC to disclose the rest to the applicant.
General briefing for the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Jun 2, 2020
The time to reform BC’s private sector privacy law is now. BC needs to clarify, strengthen, and enhance privacy protection to meet citizens’ expectations of personal information privacy in a new all-encompassing digital environment.
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy's Speech to the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act
Jun 2, 2020
Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy's speech to the Special Committee Reviewing the Personal Information Protection Act.
Fraser Health Authority
Jun 2, 2020
The applicant made a request to the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) for access to records relating to an investigation the FHA conducted under the Adult Guardianship Act. The FHA withheld the information in dispute under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that the FHA was not authorized to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 14 and that the FHA was required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 22.
British Columbia Pavilion Corporation
Jun 2, 2020
A journalist requested a copy of proposals submitted to the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation (PavCo) in 2015 to replace artificial turf at BC Place. PavCo ultimately disclosed most of the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party financial interests) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) in the proposal of the successful proponent, Centaur Products Inc. (Centaur). The adjudicator found that neither exception applied and ordered PavCo to disclose all of the information in dispute to the journalist.
Collecting personal information at food and drink establishments during COVID-19
May 28, 2020
Collecting personal information at food and drink establishments during COVID-19
City of White Rock
May 25, 2020
The applicant made a request to the City of White Rock for access to records relating to negotiations between the City and EPCOR Utilities Inc. The City withheld the disputed records and information under common law settlement privilege and s. 14 (solicitor-client privilege), s. 21 (harm to third-party business interests), and s. 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator found that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some, but not all, of the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator confirmed in part the City’s decision regarding settlement privilege. Finally, the adjudicator determined that the City was not required to refuse to disclose the information withheld under s. 21.
Teck Coal Limited
May 19, 2020
Three individuals complained to the OIPC that Teck is collecting and using employee personal information from certain video cameras in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The adjudicator found that Teck is authorized to collect and use some but not all of the employee personal information in dispute. The adjudicator also found that Teck’s signage is not in compliance with PIPA.
Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources
May 14, 2020
The applicant made a request to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for records relating to the Site C Clean Energy Project. The Ministry disclosed information in some of the responsive records but withheld other parts under ss. 12(1) (Cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system), 16 (harm to intergovernmental relations), 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests of a public body), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22 (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of third party privacy) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the Ministry was authorized to refuse to disclose all of the information in dispute under s. 15(1)(l), and was required or authorized to refuse to disclose some but not all of the information in dispute under ss. 12(1), 13(1), 16(1) and 17(1). The adjudicator concluded that the Ministry was not required to refuse to disclose the information in dispute under s. 22(1).
Privacy guardians issue joint statement on COVID-19 contact tracing applications
May 7, 2020
Federal, provincial and territorial privacy guardians today issued a joint statement calling on governments to ensure that COVID-19 contact tracing applications respect key privacy principles.
Law Society of British Columbia
May 4, 2020
The applicants made a joint request for access to records relating to a complaint they made to the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society) about a lawyer. The Law Society withheld the disputed information under ss. 14 (solicitor-client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 88(2) (privileged and confidential information) of the Legal Profession Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Law Society’s decision under s. 14 of FIPPA and s. 88(2) of the LPA regarding solicitor-client privilege and concluded that it was unnecessary to consider s. 22.
Mary-Helen Wright Law Corporation carrying on business as Pacific Law Group and Boughton Law Corporation
May 1, 2020
A party in proceedings before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal complained that the opposing party’s lawyer disclosed her personal information contrary to s. 6 of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator found that the Act had not been contravened.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
Apr 29, 2020
A physician requested access to records related to a complaint and two assessments of his medical practice. The adjudicator confirmed the College’s decision to refuse the applicant access to records under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The College also refused to disclose records under s. 26.2(1) (confidential information) of the Health Professions Act. The adjudicator found that s. 26.2(1)(a) only applied to some parts of the records and ordered the College to disclose the rest to the applicant. The adjudicator also determined there was some third party personal information the College was required to refuse to disclose under s. 22(1) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency)
Apr 29, 2020
The applicant asked the BC Public Service Agency (PSA) for records related to a workplace investigation that occurred in the aftermath of the well-known Ministry of Health firings. The PSA withheld all the responsive records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege), 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all but three of the records, two of which the PSA also withheld under s. 22. The adjudicator ordered the PSA to disclose the record not covered by s. 14 to the applicant. The adjudicator also ordered the PSA to produce the remaining two records to the commissioner under s. 44 and will remain seized of the matter until she makes a final decision respecting s. 22.
Speech to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
Apr 28, 2020
Spring update to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
Ministry of Children and Family Development and Ministry of Citizens' Services
Apr 23, 2020
The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services (MCS) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 82 outstanding requests on the grounds that they are repetitive and systematic and would unreasonably interfere with their operations and/or that they are frivolous and vexatious. The adjudicator found that the outstanding requests are vexatious for the purposes of s. 43(b) and authorized MCFD and MCS to disregard them and any future requests for two years, apart from one open request at a time.
Ministry of Attorney General
Apr 23, 2020
The applicant requested access to records held by the Ministry of Attorney General relating to an identified land deal. The Ministry denied access to the responsive emails, email strings and their attachments on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that s. 14 applied to all of the information in dispute, as the emails and their attachments all related to the seeking, formulating, or giving of legal advice.
Statement from BC’s Information and Privacy Commissioner on freedom of information during the COVID-19 pandemic
Apr 22, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted individuals, families and communities across British Columbia. It has also significantly interfered with the operations of our governments and businesses. I recognized the adjustments public bodies were having to make when I decided on March 18, 2020 to allow an additional 30 days to process freedom of information requests. The decision covered requests made between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020.
Decision of the Commissioner: Extension of time for public bodies to respond to access requests
Apr 22, 2020
Due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and continued public health emergency that has been declared in British Columbia, I have concluded that it is fair and reasonable, under s. 10(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), to extend the period in which the head of each public body in British Columbia is permitted to extend the time provided under FIPPA to respond to a freedom of information request, as follows:
Vancouver Coastal Health
Apr 22, 2020
An applicant requested access to records in her human resources file from Vancouver Coastal Health, including records related to her work performance. Vancouver Coastal Health provided some records, but it refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (advice and recommendations) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Vancouver Coastal Health also argued that certain records were outside the scope of FIPPA under s. 3(1)(d) or were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. The adjudicator determined that Vancouver Coastal Health was required to withhold some information under s. 22(1), but ordered it to disclose the rest of the disputed information since ss. 13 and 22(1) did not apply. The adjudicator also found that s. 3(1)(d) did not apply to certain records; however, the adjudicator determined that those records were not responsive to the applicant’s access request. As a result, the adjudicator concluded Vancouver Coastal Health had performed its duty under s. 6(1) to respond to the access request openly, accurately and completely.
City of Chilliwack
Apr 22, 2020
Two applicants requested a review of the City of Chilliwack’s decision to deny them a full or partial fee waiver for the processing of their access request. The applicants argued they were entitled to a fee waiver under s. 75(5)(a) because they could not afford to pay the estimated fee or because it was fair to excuse them from paying the fee under the circumstances. Ultimately, the adjudicator confirmed the City of Chilliwack’s decision not to grant a full or partial fee waiver to the applicants under s. 75(5)(a).
Elections BC
Apr 20, 2020
Elections BC requested that the OIPC decline to conduct an inquiry into Elections BC’s decision to refuse an applicant access to certain requested records. The records relate to an investigation conducted by Elections BC under the Election Act. The adjudicator found it plain and obvious that the requested records fell outside the scope of FIPPA pursuant to s. 3(1)(c) because Elections BC had created or received them as part of its statutorily mandated functions. Therefore, under s. 56, the adjudicator decided that the OIPC will not conduct an inquiry into this matter.
Medical Services Commission
Apr 20, 2020
A physician requested copies of all information the Medical Services Commission (MSC) held about him. The MSC disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under s. 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The physician asked that an inquiry beheld to determine if s. 22(1) applies to the patients’ names and Personal Health Numbers (PHNs) in the records. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to patients’ names and PHNs.
Courtenay-Alberni Riding Association of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Apr 17, 2020
In this companion order to Order P19-02, the Commissioner finds that the organization failed to comply with PIPA when it collected and used the complainants’ personal information without their consent. He found, however, that the organization complied with its duty under s. 23(1) to respond to the complainants’ questions about how the organization had collected, used and disclosed their personal information. In conclusion, the Commissioner determined that it was not necessary to order the organization to stop collecting or using the complainants’ personal information. However, he ordered the organization to destroy any of the complainants’ personal information in its control and to provide an affidavit confirming the destruction was complete.
City of Richmond
Apr 17, 2020
The City of Richmond requested that the commissioner exercise his discretion under s. 56 of the Act and choose not to conduct an inquiry into the City’s decision to refuse a journalist access to a report on policing. The adjudicator dismissed the application after finding that it was not plain and obvious that s. 12(3)(b) (local public body confidences) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to the report.
FIPPA and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
Apr 8, 2020
This document provides recommended guidance for educators to help them choose online learning tools that comply with the requirements of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It includes information about recent, temporary changes to FIPPA in response to the COVID-19 crisis that allow for the use of tools that store information outside of Canada.
Decision of the Commissioner: Extension of time for public bodies to respond to access requests
Mar 18, 2020
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, a public health emergency has been declared in British Columbia under the Public Health Act and it is reasonable to conclude that this emergency will continue for some time. Based on information provided to my Office by a large number of public bodies, it is clear that the situation has affected their operations and it is likely to continue to do so for some time. I take notice of the fact that this interferes with public bodies’ ability to respond to requests for access to records within the time required under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). This extraordinary and unforeseeable situation will be monitored on an ongoing basis in case circumstances warrant this decision bring revisited.
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner's statement on COVID-19
Mar 16, 2020
BC's access and privacy laws are designed to make sure that people, whether they work for a public body or organization, can share information to protect the health and safety of British Columbians. Our Provincial Health Officer, with whom we are in close contact, has broad authority to collect and use personal information in the public interest during times like these and is well versed in these matters.
COVID-19 and the OIPC
Mar 14, 2020
The OIPC continues to provide service to the public, public bodies, and private sector. To protect the health of our employees and to do our part to slow community transmission of the COVID-19 virus, most OIPC staff are now transitioning to working remotely. This will mean that, for the time being, our Office will not receive in person visits from those we serve. We will post updates on our website and social media channels as the situation continues to unfold.
Tips for public bodies and organizations setting up remote workspaces
Mar 14, 2020
Many public bodies and organizations are now setting up employees to work remotely in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. Care must be taken when doing this because it often means personal information leaves the worksite. Below are some tips for how to keep personal information safe when working away from the office.
Ministry of Health
Mar 13, 2020
The applicant pharmacy requested information from the Ministry of Health relating to the investigation of the pharmacy and the termination of its licence, including communications with the College of Pharmacists. The Ministry provided over 3500 pages of records but withheld information in those records under a number of exceptions in FIPPA. The adjudicator found that only ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 13 (advice and recommendations) were at issue in the inquiry. The adjudicator also found that the Ministry could withhold some but not all of the information at issue under s. 14 and that s. 13 did not apply. The adjudicator ordered the Ministry to provide the applicant with access to the information to which ss. 13 and 14 did not apply.
Podcast helps stratas protect personal information and avoid privacy pitfalls
Mar 5, 2020
Strata complexes deal with an enormous amount of people’s personal information, often without a clear understanding of applicable laws or the simple steps they can take to comply with them. A newly released podcast from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC) tackles some of the most pressing issues relating to the personal information rights of the more than 1.5 million people who live in strata housing in the province.
Ministry of Finance (Public Service Agency) and Office of the Premier
Feb 25, 2020
The applicant requested access to records relating to investigations into the applicant’s conduct while employed by the provincial government. The public bodies refused to disclose the responsive records and information in dispute under ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor-client privilege), 15(1)(l) (harm to security of property or system), and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed that ss. 13 and 14 applied to the information withheld under those sections. The adjudicator found that s. 15(1)(l) applied to teleconference participant ID numbers, but not to physical meeting locations. The adjudicator determined that s. 22 applied to most of the personal information withheld under that section, but not to a small amount of third-party personal information related to scheduling.
The Canada Life Assurance Company
Feb 24, 2020
An applicant requested access to his personal information from The Canada Life Assurance Company (Canada Life). Canada Life refused to disclose some information to the applicant under ss. 23(3)(a), 23(4)(c) and 23(4)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act. The adjudicator determined Canada Life was authorized or required to withhold some information under s. 23(3)(a) since solicitor client privilege applied and under s. 23(4)(c) and s. 23(4)(d) since the disclosure would reveal personal information about another individual or the identity of an individual providing personal information about another person. The adjudicator found Canada Life was not authorized or required to withhold the remaining information from the applicant.
Commissioners launch joint investigation into Clearview AI amid growing concerns over use of facial recognition technology
Feb 21, 2020
The privacy protection authorities for Canada, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta announced today they will jointly investigate Clearview AI and its use of facial recognition technology.
BC Assessment Authority
Feb 14, 2020
An applicant requested Property Record Cards for 10 properties, including his own, from BC Assessment Authority (BCA). BCA withheld all of the records except those related to the applicant’s own property. BCA said it was withholding the records related to the nine other properties under ss. 3(1)(j) (records available for purchase), 21(2) (information gathered for the purpose of collecting a tax) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act and because some of the information was publicly available without a charge. The adjudicator found that BCA was authorized to withhold some information under s. 21(2). The adjudicator also found that BCA had no authority to withhold the rest of the information on the grounds that s. 3(1)(j) applied or that it was publicly available without a charge and ordered BCA to disclose this information to the applicant. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1) of FIPPA or s. 16(3) of the Assessment Act.
University of Victoria
Feb 13, 2020
A professor made two requests for records related to an investigation and to certain communications about him. The University of Victoria gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University of Victoria’s decision to refuse the applicant access under ss. 14 and 22.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Feb 3, 2020
In a court ordered reconsideration of Order F18-51, the adjudicator found that s. 19(1)(a) (threat to health or safety) applied to the names of certain British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) employees who worked on the Site C project. Therefore, the adjudicator concluded that BC Hydro was authorized to withhold this information.
City of Vancouver
Feb 3, 2020
The applicant requested four records from the City of Vancouver (City) relating to the Brenhill Land Swap. The City said it had custody and control of one of the records but withheld it under s. 21 (harm to third party business interests) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The City said that it did not have custody or control of the remaining records. The adjudicator found that s. 21 did not apply and that the City had custody and control of one of the remaining records but not the other two.
City of Vancouver
Feb 3, 2020
A society complained to the OIPC that the City of Vancouver (City) did not meet its duty to assist under s. 6(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator found that the City did not respond openly, accurately and completely to the access request and that the City did not adequately search for records. The adjudicator ordered the City to conduct another search. In addition, the adjudicator found that certain records were responsive records in the custody and control of the City under s. 4 of FIPPA.
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Template
Jan 28, 2020
Privacy impact assessments (PIAs) help you understand the implications your planned initiatives will have on people's privacy and personal information. This template guides you through the process of developing a PIA.
Privacy impact assessments for the private sector
Jan 28, 2020
Privacy impact assessments (PIAs) allow organizations to be proactive when it comes to ensuring that the initiatives they have planned comply with PIPA. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia (OIPC)’s Private Sector PIA template aims to assist organizations in making the most of this important tool, both as a tool in the earliest stages of development through to ensuring compliance throughout an initiative’s lifespan. This guidance document provides added depth to the sample language and instruction offered in the template.
OIPC launches privacy impact assessment template and guidance on Data Privacy Day 2020
Jan 28, 2020
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia has released resources to help private sector organizations understand the impact their initiatives may have on people’s privacy before they launch them. The OIPC released its Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) template and related guidance today to give private sector organizations that collect, use and disclose personal information the tools they need to make sure their planned initiatives comply with the law.
Interior Health Authority
Jan 20, 2020
The applicant requested a specific contract between the Interior Health Authority (Interior Health) and a third party for the provision of laundry services. Interior Health responded by providing the contract with some information withheld under ss. 15(1)(l) (disclosure harmful to law enforcement), 21(1) (disclosure harmful to third party business interests) and 22(1) (disclosure an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The applicant asked the OIPC to review Interior Health’s decision respecting s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that Interior Health was not required to withhold the information under s. 21(1).
Research papers from OIPC workshop about data-driven elections published in special issue of international policy journal
Jan 16, 2020
Papers delivered by top international researchers at a workshop held last April at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC (OIPC) have been published in a special issue of Internet Policy Review, an international journal for academics, civil society advocates, entrepreneurs, the media, and policymakers.
Ministry of Attorney General
Jan 7, 2020
The applicant made two access requests related to a private organization. The applicant made the first of these access requests to both the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Justice, and made the second to the Ministry of Justice alone. The Ministry of Justice (now Ministry of Attorney General) responded to both access requests, withholding the vast majority of the information in the records under ss. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party privacy) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the applicant clarified that he did not want any third party personal information in the records. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to much of the information at issue and ordered the Ministry of Attorney General to disclose the rest of the information in dispute to the applicant.
Ministry of Health
Dec 23, 2019
An applicant requested access to records related to meetings between the Ministry of Health and representatives of pharmaceutical companies. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial interests of public body or government) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) and s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) did not apply to other information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it to the applicant.
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development
Dec 19, 2019
The applicant requested access to records related to the Water Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministry). The Ministry disclosed some information to the applicant, but it withheld information relying on several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision to withhold information under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). The adjudicator also determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy), but ordered the Ministry to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. Lastly, the adjudicator ordered the Ministry to reconsider its decision to withhold information under s. 13(1) because it provided no evidence that it had properly exercised its discretion under s. 13(1).
Metro Vancouver Regional District
Dec 19, 2019
The applicant requested that Metro Vancouver provide records and information related to communications between Metro Vancouver and its external lawyers. Metro Vancouver disclosed some information but withheld the majority of the responsive records in their entirety under s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The applicant asserted that s. 25 (public interest disclosure) applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to the withheld information and that s. 25 did not.
Ministry of Attorney General
Dec 18, 2019
The applicant requested access to a record that contains the total legal costs incurred by the Province in ongoing litigation to which the applicant is a party. The Ministry refused to disclose the information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14 of FIPPA. The adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s decision.
Commissioners investigating cyberattack affecting health care information of millions of customers
Dec 17, 2019
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC) are undertaking a coordinated investigation into a cyberattack on the computer systems of Canadian laboratory testing company LifeLabs.
LifeLabs breach backgrounder
Dec 17, 2019
Here is a backgrounder with FAQs about the LifeLabs privacy breach, currently under investigation by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario
LifeLabs privacy breach: what you need to know
Dec 17, 2019
People affected by the breach are not required to file individual complaints with our office. Our investigation is already underway and we will release our findings and recommendations once it is completed. We are working together with the Ontario privacy commissioner to address the interests of everyone affected by this breach. Here are some pointers.
Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Attorney General
Dec 16, 2019
The applicants made joint requests to the Ministries for records relating to indemnity agreements between them and the Province, including records relating to the Province’s decisions to issue the applicants T4A tax slips. The Ministries withheld some of the records on the basis that they were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c), and withheld the other records on the basis of solicitor-client privilege under s. 14. The adjudicator found that some of the records were outside the scope of the Act under s. 3(1)(c) and confirmed the Ministries’ decisions under s. 14.
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Dec 16, 2019
The applicant requested records from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) related to a highway improvement project. The Ministry extended the time for responding to the applicant’s request by 20 days, citing its authority to do so under s. 10 of FIPPA. The applicant made a complaint about this time extension to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The adjudicator decided that s. 10(1)(c) authorized the Ministry to extend the time limit for responding to the applicant’s access request by 20 days in the circumstances. Accordingly, the adjudicator confirmed the Ministry’s time limit extension.
BC Transit
Dec 10, 2019
BC Transit applied for authorization to disregard one outstanding access request and certain future access requests under s. 43(a) and (b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator authorized BC Transit to disregard the outstanding request because it was vexatious under s. 43(b) and to disregard any future request the respondent may make regarding the same topic for a period of two years or the date his law suit concludes, whichever comes first.
Resort Municipality of Whistler
Dec 9, 2019
The applicant requested access to building permits, inspection reports and other associated records related to her strata development in the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW). The RMOW disclosed hundreds of pages of responsive records, withholding a small amount of information under s. 21(2) (information related to a tax) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy). The adjudicator found that s. 21(2) applied to one page. The adjudicator found that s. 22(1) applied to the remaining information and ordered the RMOW to withhold it. The applicant argued that s. 25(1) applied to the information in dispute but the adjudicator found it did not.
AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd.
Nov 26, 2019
Joint Investigation by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd.’s (“AIQ”) compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”) and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) in respect of certain collections, uses, and disclosures of personal information on behalf of other organizations in order to provide targeted advertising, data processing, and database management services in political campaigns. Specifically, this report focuses on whether AIQ met its legal obligations relating to consent and safeguarding of personal information.
Investigation finds BC firm delivered microtargeted political ads without ensuring consent
Nov 26, 2019
Joint investigation finds failings in political consultancy’s consent practices for uses and disclosures of personal information and in its security safeguard practices.
Remarks by the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia regarding the joint AggregateIQ investigation
Nov 26, 2019
The Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia made the following statement during a joint press conference at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.
BC and federal privacy commissioners to release findings of investigation into AggregateIQ’s use of personal information
Nov 25, 2019
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia Michael McEvoy and Privacy Commissioner of Canada Daniel Therrien will hold a joint news conference to release their findings of an investigation into Victoria, BC-based AggregateIQ Data Services, Ltd.’s use of personal information in providing consulting services to political campaigns in Canada, the US, and the UK.
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority
Nov 14, 2019
The applicant requested documents from BC Hydro relating to contractors who bid for a construction project. BC Hydro withheld some information from two pages under s. 22 of FIPPA (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy). The adjudicator confirmed BC Hydro’s decision.
University of Victoria
Nov 13, 2019
A professor requested information about two University investigations into his work conduct. The University gave partial access to the records, but refused to disclose some information under ss. 13 (policy advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The adjudicator confirmed the University’s decision regarding s. 14. The s. 13(1) and s. 22(1) decisions were confirmed in part. The University was ordered to disclose the information it was not authorized to refuse to disclose under ss. 13 and 22.
Canada’s access to information and privacy guardians urge governments to modernize legislation to better protect Canadians
Nov 12, 2019
Canada’s Information and Privacy Ombudspersons and Commissioners are urging their respective governments to modernize access to information and privacy laws. In a joint resolution, Canada’s access to information and privacy guardians note that along with its many benefits, the rapid advancement of technologies has had an impact on fundamental democratic principles and human rights, including access to information and privacy. They further point out that Canadians have growing concerns about the use and exploitation of their personal information by both government and private businesses.
Ministry of Health
Nov 8, 2019
An applicant requested records related to a review by Deloitte LLP (Deloitte) of the Ministry of Health’s (Ministry) data security and handling. The Ministry disclosed the responsive records, withholding some information under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The Ministry ultimately abandoned reliance on all exceptions but s. 15(1)(l) (harm to security of a property or system). Deloitte argued that ss. 21(1) (harm to business interests of a third party) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third-party personal privacy) applied to some information. The applicant argued that s. 25(1)(b) (public interest override) applied to the withheld information. The adjudicator found that s. 25(1)(b) did not apply but that s.15(1)(l) applied to some of the information. The adjudicator also found that s. 21(1) did not apply to some of the information and ordered the Ministry to disclose it. It was not necessary to consider s. 22(1).
Financial Institutions Commission
Nov 1, 2019
The applicant asked the public body for access to certain records regarding Coast Capital Savings Credit Union’s application to become a federal credit union. The public body gave the applicant partial access to the responsive records. The adjudicator confirmed the public body’s decision to refuse the applicant access under s.14 (solicitor client privilege). However, she found that ss. 13(1) (policy advice or recommendations), 17(1) (harm to public body’s financial or economic interests), 21(1) (harm to third party business interests) and 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of personal privacy) only applied to some of the information in dispute and ordered the public body to disclose the remainder of the information to the applicant.
Responding to PIPA privacy complaints
Oct 29, 2019
This document offers suggestions for organizations to refer to when investigating a privacy complaint made to them under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
Ministry of Finance
Oct 29, 2019
An applicant requested access to records related to the Sunshine Coast Tourism Society’s application for the implementation of the municipal and regional district tax in two regional districts. The Ministry of Finance (Ministry) withheld information in the records under several exceptions to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). For some of the records, the Ministry applied one or more exceptions to the same information. The adjudicator determined the Ministry was authorized or required to withhold some information under ss. 12(1) (cabinet confidences), 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and 14 (solicitor client privilege), but ordered it to disclose the remaining information withheld under these sections to the applicant. The adjudicator also found the Ministry was not authorized or required to withhold information under ss. 16(1) (harm to intergovernmental relations) or 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy).
2018-2019 Annual Report
Oct 21, 2019
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Annual Report to the legislative assembly covering the period from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.
Unifor Local 114
Oct 21, 2019
An employee of Unifor National complained that Unifor Local 114 contravened several sections of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) regarding alleged verbal disclosures of his personal information. The adjudicator made the following findings: PIPA applies to unrecorded personal information; the evidence does not establish that one of the verbal statements was made; and the unrecorded personal information in the other two verbal statements is excluded from the scope of PIPA under s. 3(2)(a) (collection, use and disclosure of the personal information was for the personal or domestic purposes of the individual who is collecting, using or disclosing the personal information, and for no other purpose). It was not necessary to consider the remaining issues.
Ministry of Finance
Oct 18, 2019
The Commissioner decided to hold an inquiry regarding the Ministry of Finance’s authority to collect, use and disclose the personal information of property owners who are required to make a declaration under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act. The adjudicator found that the information at issue is personal information and that the Ministry of Finance is authorized to collect, use and disclose it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
An Adjudication under Section 62 of the Act, Requested by M.O. on August 18, 2018
Oct 18, 2019
M.O. (the "Applicant") has applied for a review pursuant to Section 62 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 (the "Act").
Letter to Ministers Eby and Robinson Re: Bill 35––Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019
Oct 9, 2019
Letter to Ministers Eby and Robinson Re: Bill 35––Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019
District of Sechelt
Oct 4, 2019
An applicant requested records from the District of Sechelt related to a residential property development. The District withheld information under several FIPPA exceptions. Mediation at the OIPC narrowed the issue for inquiry to s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA. During the inquiry, the adjudicator identified some information that may be subject to s. 22 (harm to third party privacy) and received submissions from the parties on this issue. The adjudicator determined that ss. 14 and 22 applied to some of the information and ordered the District to disclose the rest to the applicant.
Board of Education of School District No. 39
Oct 2, 2019
The Board of Education of School District No. 39 asked the Commissioner not to hold an inquiry because it is plain and obvious that disclosing the records in dispute would be an unreasonable invasion of third parties’ privacy under s. 22 of FIPPA. The investigator found that it is not plain and obvious that s. 22 applies to all of the information in the records in dispute. As a result, she denied the Board’s request that an inquiry not be held.
Compliance Review of Medical Clinics
Sep 25, 2019
This compliance review, conducted under s. 36 of the Personal Information Protection (PIPA), focused on 22 BC medical clinics with five or more licensed physicians. The review assessed the clinics’ privacy management programs, privacy policies, and the collection and safeguarding of personal information. The OIPC selected medical clinics because they handle a significant amount of sensitive personal information, and this group comprises a large number of OIPC complaint and breach files each year.
OIPC review finds privacy protections lacking at BC medical clinics
Sep 25, 2019
Medical clinics throughout British Columbia need to do more to protect the often highly sensitive personal information in their custody, according to a newly released review from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC). Audit and Compliance Report P19 01: Compliance Review of Medical Clinics looked at how 22 BC medical clinics, each with five or more licensed physicians on staff, were meeting their legal obligations under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). PIPA governs how private organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information.
Commissioner to release report on privacy law compliance by BC medical clinics
Sep 24, 2019
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:30am, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy will release a compliance review on how medical clinics throughout British Columbia are meeting their legal obligations to protect personal information. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) review looked at the privacy management programs, privacy policies, and collection and safeguarding of personal information at 22 BC clinics to gauge compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act.
All ministries of the government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier
Sep 24, 2019
All ministries of the Government of British Columbia and the Office of the Premier (Government) applied for authority under s. 43(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to disregard a number of access requests from the Official Opposition caucus (the Opposition). The BC Government claims it should be given authority to disregard the access requests because they are frivolous or vexatious. The BC Government also argues that it should be allowed to disregard the access requests because it is concerned the Opposition contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in making the requests. The adjudicator determined that the access requests were not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b); therefore, the BC Government was not authorized to disregard the access requests. The adjudicator also declined to consider whether there was a PIPA violation under a s. 43(b) FIPPA application. She concluded that it was not appropriate for a public body to bypass the PIPA complaint process through a s. 43 FIPPA application.
Disclosure of personal information of individuals in crisis
Sep 18, 2019
In emergency situations, privacy laws in BC authorize public bodies or private organizations to responsibly disclose an individual’s personal information, including information about their mental, emotional, or other health conditions, to third parties who may be able to help in a crisis. Privacy legislation in BC accommodates the disclosure of personal information in the event it could prevent a tragedy. BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) sets out how public bodies can collect, use, and disclose personal information. BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) sets out how private sector organizations can collect, use, and disclose personal information. This guidance document informs public bodies and private sector organizations about the circumstances under which they can disclose personal information of an individual to a third party without the individual’s consent in emergency situations.
Ministry of Attorney General
Sep 12, 2019
The applicant requested access to a variety of records about himself in the files of a specific Ministry of Attorney General employee. The Ministry of Attorney General denied access to the records on the basis that s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that s. 14 applied to most of the withheld information, but ordered the Ministry to disclose two particular emails to the applicant.
Private sector landlords and tenants
Sep 4, 2019
These guidelines are meant to assist landlords and the public in understanding what the rules in BC are about what personal information landlords may collect from anyone seeking to enter into a tenancy agreement, including individuals who will be living in the unit, such as family members and roommates.
Thompson Rivers University
Aug 30, 2019
The applicant requested that the Commissioner order the public body to respond to her access request as required by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). The adjudicator determined that the public body had not responded to the request in accordance with FIPPA and ordered it to do so.
Just in time for school: games, activities make learning about privacy fun
Aug 28, 2019
The games are fun, the message serious: in the digital age, children need to understand the value of their privacy and the importance of protecting their personal information online. A new series of activity sheets released by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Canada and privacy authorities throughout the country aims to help teachers and parents start the important conversation about digital privacy with young children.
Courtenay-Alberni Riding Association of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Aug 28, 2019
A complaint has been made under PIPA about the organization, which is an electoral district association registered under the Canada Elections Act. The organization argued on constitutional grounds that PIPA does not apply to its collection, use or disclosure of personal information. It contended that PIPA is outside the province’s legislative authority to the extent that PIPA applies to the organization. It also argued that, under the constitutional paramountcy doctrine, the Canada Elections Act and other federal statutes prevail over PIPA. The Commissioner concludes that neither of these constitutional objections succeeds. A further hearing in this inquiry will be scheduled to consider the merits of the complainants’ allegations.
British Columbia Assessment Authority
Aug 22, 2019
The applicants requested records related to the BC Assessment Authority’s 2015 assessment of a property. The matter resulted in Order F17-48. Order F17-48 was reopened to consider whether information which the adjudicator ordered to be disclosed could be used to calculate figures which were ordered to be withheld under s. 21(2) of FIPPA (information gathered for the purpose of determining tax liability). The adjudicator held that some of the information which was ordered to be disclosed in Order F17-48 was required to be withheld because it would reveal information which had been held to be subject to s. 21(2).
OIPC to join IAPP KnowledgeNet panel about global privacy cooperation
Aug 8, 2019
The OIPC will join an IAPP-led panel discussion on different privacy cultures and approaches to regulation around the world as well as the importance of strengthening ties and sharing knowledge across borders.
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Jul 29, 2019
An applicant requested records about a third party’s proposed Lions Gate bridge climb. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) decided to disclose some of the information and to withhold other information under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The third party requested a review of the Ministry’s decision, arguing that more of the information should be withheld under s. 21(1). The adjudicator found that s. 21(1) applied to all of the information in dispute, as the Ministry and third party had established a reasonable expectation of harm under s. 21(1)(c).
British Columbia Lottery Corporation
Jul 29, 2019
A journalist requested various reports which allegedly relate to a named third party. The British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) refused, under s. 8(2)(b) of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist. The adjudicator found that BCLC was authorized under s. 8(2)(b) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested records exist.
City of Vancouver
Jul 24, 2019
Two applicants requested access to records related to themselves and a particular property. The City withheld information in the records on the basis that s. 13(1) (policy advice and recommendations), s. 14 (solicitor client privilege) and s. 22(1) (unreasonable invasion of third party personal privacy) of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator determined that ss. 13(1) and 14 only applied to some of the withheld information and ordered the City to disclose the remainder to the applicants. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision to withhold information under s. 22(1).
University of British Columbia
Jul 16, 2019
An applicant requested information about himself from his former university. The university withheld information under several Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exceptions. The adjudicator considered ss. 13 (advice or recommendations), 14 (solicitor client privilege) and 22 (harm to personal privacy) and found that they applied to some of the disputed information. The adjudicator ordered the university to disclose the balance of the information in dispute.
City of Vancouver
Jul 11, 2019
An applicant requested invoices and payments to Ernst Young LLP (EY) for the empty home tax survey and report submitted to the City of Vancouver (City) on November 4, 2016. The City decided to disclose the only responsive record, an invoice. EY requested a review of this decision, arguing that s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests) applied to information in the invoice. The adjudicator confirmed the City’s decision and ordered it to disclose the invoice in full to the applicant.
Ministry of Advanced Skills and Training
Jun 21, 2019
The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (Ministry) requested authorization to disregard the respondent’s 10 outstanding requests. The adjudicator found that, while most of the outstanding requests duplicate previous requests, the Ministry need only respond by referring the respondent to the appropriate previous requests. The adjudicator found, therefore, that these requests did not merit relief under s. 43. The adjudicator found that part of one request was new and also did not meet the criteria for relief under s. 43.
Ministry of Attorney General
Jun 4, 2019
The applicant requested access to correspondence between the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General and a number of online gaming companies. One gaming company argued disclosure of the information would harm its business interests within the meaning of s. 21(1) of FIPPA. The adjudicator determined that the requirements of s. 21(1) had not been met and ordered the Ministry to disclose the disputed information.
Ministry of Attorney General
May 21, 2019
An applicant requested access to records related to a contract between the Ministry of Attorney General’s Liquor Distribution Branch (LDB) and Brains II Canada Inc. and/or Brains II Solutions Inc. (Brains II). The Ministry decided to grant partial access to the records. Brains II made a third-party request for review of the Ministry’s decision to disclose information, saying all of it fell under s. 21(1) (harm to third-party business interests). The adjudicator found that some of the information was Brains II’s commercial information and that some of this information was supplied in confidence. The adjudicator found, however, that Brains II had not established that harm under s. 21(1)(c) could reasonably be expected to result from disclosure of the records. The adjudicator confirmed LDB’s decision to disclose the information.
Statement from BC Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding independent oversight over government’s duty to document and use of personal communication tools
May 17, 2019
BC Information and Privacy Commissioner has issued the following statement regarding independent oversight over government’s duty to document and use of personal communication tools.
Ministry of Attorney General
May 13, 2019
This is an order pursuant to s. 44 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, requiring the Ministry of Attorney General to produce records over which it has claimed s. 14 (solicitor client privilege). This order is made in the context of an ongoing inquiry into the Ministry’s application of ss. 14 and 22 (harm to personal privacy) to certain records.
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
May 13, 2019
An employee of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA) requested access to emails which mention his name. VCHA disclosed emails which the employee had received or sent or on which he had been copied. It withheld other emails under s. 13(1) (advice or recommendations) and s. 17(1) (harm to financial or economic interests). The adjudicator found that s. 17(1) did not apply to any of the information and that s. 13(1) also did not apply to some of the information. The adjudicator found that s. 13(1) applied to the rest of the information and confirmed VCHA’s decision to withhold this information.
Protecting privacy is everyone’s responsibility: BC Information and Privacy Commissioner statement on Privacy Awareness Week 2019
May 6, 2019
As Privacy Awareness Week (May 6-11) gets under way today, Michael McEvoy, information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia, is calling on everyone – businesses, the public and government – to take action to better protect personal information. He has released the following statement.
Report of Findings: Joint investigation of Facebook, Inc. by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
Apr 25, 2019
Joint Investigation by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia into Facebook, Inc.’s compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Personal Information Protection Act (British Columbia) (“PIPA”)
Facebook refuses to address serious privacy deficiencies despite public apologies for “breach of trust”
Apr 25, 2019
Joint investigation finds major shortcomings in the social media giant’s privacy practices, highlighting pressing need for legislative reform to adequately protect the rights of Canadians
Commissioner statement regarding the joint Facebook/Cambridge-Analytica investigation
Apr 25, 2019
The Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia made the following statement during a joint press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa.
Federal and BC privacy commissioners to release investigative findings into Facebook
Apr 24, 2019
OTTAWA–The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia will hold a joint news conference to release their Report of Findings following their Facebook investigation involving Cambridge Analytica.
Ministry of Finance
Apr 23, 2019
Three third parties requested the Commissioner reopen Order F16-50. The adjudicator decided that it had been procedurally unfair to not give the third parties notice and an opportunity to make representations at the initial inquiry, so she reopened Order F16-50. The adjudicator then decided that the Ministry was required to refuse to disclose even more information under s. 22(1) (harm to third party personal privacy) of the Freedom of Information and Protect